CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

The Christian Right is neither.  Anon

2 February 2010 (Ground Hog Day)

 

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer (by this son of York...) William Shakespeare, Richard III

   The Republicans Cannot See Their Shadows

The Republican Party has on this day failed to see its shadow or perhaps have just failed to notice its absence. What does this mean for that grand old party? More of the desolation of winter affecting its well being?  No, the GOP seem to be doing well by their own reckoning. After all their own candidates have won the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey last November. Furthermore, more recently a Republican by the name of Scott Brown has captured the Senate once held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts.The health care reform favored by liberals is in critical condition, much to the glee of the conservative GOP. However the midterm elections are months away and much can happen before then. The Republicans may yet prove to be their own worse enemy.

"Now is the winter of discontent". Such is a paraphrase of a   Shakespeare quote. But for whom does the discontent refer to? It would seem to be the Democratic Party, for they are the ones who seem to be down on their luck. What does the future hold for their fortunes?

The conduct of the Republicans of late reeks of arrogance. This may very well bode well for Democratic prospects for if the Shakespearean quote cited before proves to represent Democratic fortunes, the Republicans may very well be in electoral trouble this coming autumn. What follows are the words "made glorious summer". These are the words that the "now" refers to as in "Now is the winter of our discontent" which is "made glorious"  the summer that follow and perhaps the autumn that follows as well.

In Shakespeare's Richard III, the future king, Richard is celebrating an upturn in his family's fortunes, because his brother Edward IV had just become King of England and the House of York had triumphed over the House of Lancastor in their quest to rule England. Could it be that the Democrats likewise have better days ahead this year?

The Democrats have been given a great opportunity by their protagonist- the Republicans. As the party of no, the Republicans can be easily portrayed as opportunistic obstructionists. They are opposed to practically everything Obama is for. If Obama endorses legislation they sponsor, when it comes time for the roll call, they will change their vote from yea to nay. Examples of this includes establishing a deficit commission and passing pay as you go legislation. And to think that John Kerry was portrayed as a flip flopper in his Presidential quest of 2004. Democrats can nail the Republicans for this.

They, the Republicans, seem to care more for the insurance industry than the uninsured. They are dead set against any change in the status of the health care delivery system. They refuse to make any counter proposal. All they do is to stall the legislative process and hope the the prospect of health care reform will wilt away and expire. There have even been Republicans who favor the elimination of Medicare along with Social Security coming out of the closet recently. If more Republicans do so, this is another issue for the Democrats to bring up.

The Scorched Earth Solution for Health Care Reform should be employed by Democrats. (See 29 August 2009.) Force the Congressional Republicans to defend insurance practices, such as the denial of health care to those with preexisting conditions or for just for being too sick and therefore too much of a liability for the health care industry. Just expose the Republicans for being lackeys of that industry.

In regards to the bank bailout, the Republicans seem to be against the banks having to pay back what was given to them to keep them solvent. Perhaps this because Obama and maybe the liberals favors this. Perhaps the Republicans know their sugar daddies. Perhaps this can be used against that not so grand old party.

On the matter of the stimulus legislation known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , all Republican members of the House and all of those of the Senate, except for three, voted against it. The three Republican Senators are the ex- Republican, but now the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Spector and Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, gave the Democrats the needed votes to invoke cloture.

On this policy especially, Republican Politicians have been especially hypercritical, which was enacted in February 2009. A headline in Politico described their attitude towards the stimulus as "Cash and Trash". In other words, they take the money and run bitch. From the two top leaders of the Republicans in the House, throughout the party ranks, down to newly elected freshmen, party members have trashed the stimulus. But many of them seem to like taking advantage of the opportunity to present the funds to his or her constituents. In fact, at least a third of House members have, in one way or another, praised it as if the money that came forth from it were manna from  Heaven. After all, it is good PR having a photo of oneself taken with a fake enormous check earmarked for some public purpose such as roads or waste sewage plants.

Both House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virgina, number one and two in the Republican House leadership respectively, have dismissed the stimulus as being ineffective, but like many of their peers, they seek out funds in which will benefits  their constituents. The latter, who is responsible for rounding up votes among the party's membership, in order to push the party's agenda. Since the agenda was anti-reform, the votes he rounded up were against the reform. In this he succeeded for not a single vote in the House defected to the other side. Ironically, according to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, he attended a job's fair made possible by money provided by the stimulus.

On 9 February 2010, the conservative Washington Times had printed on its front page an expose on the very same Republican members of Congress who have publicly condemned the 2009 stimulus bill by insisting to us that it would neither stimulate the economy nor create jobs while privately believing just the exact opposite. It is kind of like having their cake pork and eating it too.

The Times has discovered more than more than a dozen GOP members who have criticized the stimulus bill, but nevertheless have touted their success in getting a piece of it for their own constituents. FOIA requests by the Times have led to the exposure numerous examples of Republican lawmakers talking out of both sides of their mouths, by portraying in public the stimulus as a measure that will kill jobs, while conceding in private that this was in fact not true, but rather the opposite was true.

These GOP Representatives and Senators were so positive that the funds would have its intended stimulative effect that they could not get seated behind their desks soon enough. Getting on the phones to lobby the executive branch for stimulus funds on behalf of their constituents seemed to be a high priority for these legislators. It was a miracle that no innocent bystanders were harmed in this mad rush for the money.

Such Republican hypocrisy on the matter of whether or not the stimulus bill creates jobs is quite obvious. The question is whether the Democrats have enough chatzpah to arm themselves with this ammunition in the upcoming midterm elections in  November.

The same article has also provided the following quotes;

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," Melanie Sloan has said this. She is the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 

"There is a definite disconnect between the public statements and the private letters  "It does seem inconsistent to say you're against the bill but then you want some little piece of it." So said Thomas A. Schatz, who is the president of the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.

Apologists for these hypocrites have argued that truly no hypocrisy was actually involved. The argument goes like this- These congressmen were really against the stimulus, but seeing it already passed, they merely wanted some of the tax money brought back home.

However, what follows illustrates that these hypocrites were quite excited on the prospect of bringing home the bacon. They are not merely content to reinvest tax revenues back home, they also take credit for doing so. Taking credit for projects passed in legislation they opposed by showing up for ribbon cutting ceremonies and press conferences extolling the virtues of their work getting their constituents a piece of that meat pie. They just love that pork.

The hypocrites includes Representative Joe "You Lie" Wilson, the South Carolina Republican who broke congressional decorum when he interrupted President Obama's address to Congress with those infamous words "You lie". According to the the Times, Wilson voted against the stimulus before he "elbowed his way into the rush for federal stimulus cash".This he had written in a letter he sent to Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack. "We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment." Yet, prior to this, he was on the aside of those who argued that it would not work- his party. By the way Joe, it is you who lies.

On Feb. 13, 2009, Republican Senator Robert F. Bennett of Utah, issued a statement critical of the stimulus after two days earlier sending a list of projects for funding to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy," is what he he wrote. Later he would write that " We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of the Congressional District." This was written to Secretary Vilsack on the Aug. 26, 2009.

According to thinkprogress.org, Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said "Hold onto your wallets folks because with the passage of this trillion-dollar baby the Democrats will be poised to spend as much as $3 trillion in your tax dollars. Unfortunately, this bill stimulates the debt, it stimulates the growth of government." He was obviously against the bill before he was for it. Perhaps it was just a honest change of heart. Or perhaps it was the realization that this money would create 3,000 jobs in the state and build more than 700 affordable housing units and after all, that is good political PR.”

This hypocrisy has even extended to Republican governors as well, especially in the South. Governors such as Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas. Lawmakers, including Republicans in South Carolina and Texas, have moved to accept the money from the stimulus despite of the governors of their state's governors opposition. Their actions have forced these governors to moderate their positions.

According to thinkprogress.org, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who had spent much of 2009 combating the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, thus turning down 700 million dollars, ended up flying up to Washington D.C. for the purpose of lobbying for 300 million from the stimulus fund. This was trip not even included on his official calendar.

His initial refusal to accept the money would, according to Governor Sanford, lead to "a thing called slavery". The rising number of the unemployed did not seem to deter him from this staunch opposition to that "thing called slavery". In March, Governor Sanford said to Fox News host Glenn Beck that accepting the money would be akin to "fiscal child abuse". This is a strange thing to say because the money would go to prevent laying off hundreds of teachers.

As reported in thinkprogress.org, "Sanford’s objection to taking stimulus education funding became especially poignant after eight-year-old South Carolinian Ty’Sheoma Bethea had famously asked President Obama to fix her crumbling school." Later the Governor would want for his South Carolina, some of the "Race to the top" educational funding, from which $23.5 million of stimulus money has been set aside to rebuild Bethea’s school.

To sum up, at first he was turning down stimulus funds then he reverses himself and accepted those funds. Was it because he  liked both the PR he had received for himself and the money he had likewise received for his state and thus changed his mind. Or perhaps, it was what happened between those two events. This is when he was busily hiking on that old Appalachian Trail. But after his affair with that Argentina beauty, in which he had apparently met on that trail, had destroyed any chance of a run for the White House, Governor Sanford seems to have gained a new perspective on what is right for the school children of his state. Or maybe it was the matter of the state supreme court ordering him in June to accept the money, in which he did with gusto. What more can he say except, "Don't cry for me Argentina".

The issue of the stimulus has even got caught up in the Republican Texan primary battle between Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchinson. According to thinkprogress.org, Senator Hutchinson;

“Governor Perry recklessly turned down the federal unemployment insurance money,” Hutchinson said. “He never even looked at cutting the ridiculous federal strings attached to that money like I would have done. He didn’t even attempt to negotiate a way to relieve employers from a tax increase while helping Texans affected by the economic downturn." Senator Hutchinson had previously declared that this stimulus "doesn't actually stimulate". In other words that good old gal  representing Texas in the Senate had attacked
that good old boy posing as the Governor of Texas for turning down the same stimulus money that she believed would do nothing to improve the economy. That truly boggles ones mind.

Texas is expected to request $650 million, roughly $100 million more than Perry initially rejected. At a tea party event in April, Perry bragged about his decision to reject stimulus funds from the Obama administration. “I believe the federal government has become oppressive,” he said. He also said that he might even consider succeeding from the Union. It is believed that he really meant that his home state, Texas, might succeed.

Thinkprogress.com has reported on Governor Bobby Jindal touring his home state promoting jobs as a number one priority while also on the same tour condemning Washington for spending more funds in the midst of a depression, as if money invested into the economy in which creates jobs has no economic benefit.** Indeed, he has even gone so far as to declare that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a "stimulus that has not stimulated" and that this is not the way things are done in Louisiana. Yet his conduct on the tour seems to indicate that he really does not believe that the stimulus does not work.
After all, he was holding press conferences which were sponsored by himself, giving out those humongous fake checks, whose value is only symbolic, to various communities and in the process getting positive headlines in the local press. His conduct has exposed him as the two-faced (expletive deleted) that he is.

As the President had summed up his political adversaries when he said on the airwaves, “Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all of the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in or want.”

On the Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Rachel finished off a segment of the Rachel Maddow by stating;

"At a televised meeting with the House Republican caucus late last month, Mr. Obama chided GOP lawmakers who, he said, took credit for projects funded by the same stimulus bill they voted against — adding that some were even attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies."

"This piece illustrates the futility of the Presidents attempt at bipartisanship. Two sides must be willing to negotiate. If one side as is the GOP refuses their is no point. This is seen by them making one hundred eighty degree pivots to object and vote down policies they actually recommended when the President and Democrats coalesced to their request."

In spite of their professed love for the middle class, the reality is they favor big business over small business and the wealthy over the less wealthy. When they push for tax cuts, it mostly for the well off. The middle class gets peanuts and the poor gets nothing. Simply put, the GOP's interests are inimical to the interests of the common people.* Like Willie Sutton attraction to banks, Republicans are similarly attracted to the wealthy. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, "Because that's where the money is." Ditto for the GOP.

What the Democrats need to do is to expose their Republican opponents for what they are- loathsome liars. Should the Republicans succeed in their obstruction, the Democrats should also expose them as the obnoxious obstructionists that they are, not to mention being highfalutin hypocrites as well. If they play their cards right, the Democrats might be able to say that "now is the winter of our discontent made glorious" by success in November.

*To be fair, there are also conservative Democrats who also seem to favor the special interests of wealth and power.

 **See
"The

 

 
Theory of Economics" on 12 September 2009.



Pat Robertson's Pact with Satan

"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third* and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another,"
                                            Pat Robertson, 12 January 2010
*Actually it was Napoleon I. Napoleon III came to power a few decades later or whatever.

It is a little known fact that  the well known evangelist Pat Robertson has made a pact with Satan and is quite indebted to Satan for his success and prosperity. True story. His religiosity is just merely a clever cover for his evil consort with Satan aka Lucifer. This evangelist's diabolical conspiracy with the one, who also known as the devil, endangers the the very security of our nation and it is the time has come to expose this scandal before it is too late for the survival of our civilization. Thus, it shall be done.

Satan, also possessing  the name of Beelzebub, has Pat Robertson acting as his agent to sow discord in our world.  This evil being wants to divide us and Pat Robertson is trying to do just that. For example, when South Africa had the policy of Apartheid, Pat supported the racist white government in the suppression of the African majority. This is clearly an expression of Pat's own Southern based racial views concerning the blacks knowing their place in society.

His more recent remarks concerns God's alleged punishment of Haiti by placing a curse upon that nation for allegedly making a pact with that sinister being who goes by many names. Since the majority of Haiti is of African descent, the evil of Pat's racism has revealed itself again. This is simply a plan to divide and conquer along racial lines so that the human race, divided and weakened, will end up submitting to the Antichrist when the end times come. It is simply a matter for us, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, of either hanging together or hanging separately.

Haiti's pact with Satan supposedly took place in 1792. Haiti, supposedly made the pact in order to free themselves from French rule, according to Pat. Yet, Haiti would not gain de facto independence until 1804. This independence would not be acknowledged by France until 1825. If such a pact existed, then why would the Haitians have to wait. The truth is that by 1792, slaves controlled one third of the Hispaniola, the island upon which Haiti was a party of. The newly elected Legislative Assembly in France in order to protect their economic interests ending up granting civil and political rights to free men of color in the colonies they have in the West Indies.

The year 1793 witnessed a war breaking out between Great Britain and France. This placed considered pressure upon the National Convention to give in to the slaves demand and therefore in 1794, the National Convention formally abolished slavery and granted to all black men in the Haitian colony civil and political rights. However, Napoleon after becoming Emperor, tried to reestablish slavery in Haiti as he did in Martinique and Guadeloupe. Lacking a navy sufficient to challenge the British navy, Napoleon declined to send the forces necessary to hold onto its Haitian colony. The last French army was defeated on 18 November 1803 and de facto independence from France was achieved on 1 January 1804. It was on this day that it was actually named Haiti, past references to it notwithstanding.

The reality is that Pat sees the Haitian revolt as a sin against nature and is therefore an abomination. Once more, the "colored" people like those he kind of grew up with under the specter of Jim Crow, refuses to submit to the rule of their Caucasian overlords. Once more, here is an example of blacks not excepting their proper place, similar to the manner that the blacks in South Africa before the 1980's would not and of those blacks residing in the American South prior to the mid 1960's would not as well. In short, this evangelist who claims to preach the Lord's gospel, is a bigot. Since God created all of humankind, he could not likewise be as bigoted. This also makes Pat the ideal candidate for the Devil's work.

Pat Robertson would have us believe that the poverty of Haiti, since they had gained its independence, is the result of a curse laid down by the almighty himself. (Haiti is well known as the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.) What that phony representative of God ignores is that Haiti's poverty is the result of having to buy recognition of their independence from France in 1825 by agreeing to make reparations to French slaveholders in the amount of 150 million francs. (This would be reduced in 1838 to 60 million francs.) This was done in exchange for French recognition of its freedom which guaranteed that it would be free from any future French aggression. Since its de jure independence, Haiti has always been burdened by debt, since this debt burden always required more borrowing. The amount Haiti borrowed and the interest rates of the debt that has since incurred, has severely crippled its ability to thrive. Given these very secular facts, why would anyone believe that they made with pact with Satan. This absurd interpretation of Haitian history is just a clever ruse to divert us from the truth, which is that it is Pat Robertson who has made a pact with Satan aka the Devil, Lucifer and Beelzebub.

Pat Robertson is definitely an agent of that infamous deceiver of humankind who works under many names. What more proof does one need than the results of the 1988 Presidential Republican primaries in which Pat as God's candidate, was soundly defeated by George H. W. Bush. This is proof that Pat's proclamation that God asked him to run is a lie. After all, God would not back a losing candidate. The fact is God did not want him to win, thus why would he want Pat to run. After all, Pat is a bigot and he is in league with Satan. The cover of preaching God's word is simply a facade for hiding the reality of his true calling.

The only question is whether Pat is the Antichrist. It has been said that the Antichrist would come from the realm of politics.** Is it a coincidence that Pat's father was a Segregationist Senator from North Carolina, Absalom Willis Robertson, who advocated states rights as a means of depriving African Americans of their constitutional rights? Whether Pat is the Antichrist or not is yet to be seen.

*Wikipeadia.

** As in the movie "The Omen"


Some More Stupid & Sick Quotes by Pat from the Internet

 "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat, can you spell defamation?

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted out of office the current school board. The school board had instituted an intelligent design curriculum for the teaching of within the public schools. This resulted in a federal trial."- Guess what Pat, there are Christians who except evolution. It is even taught as an integral part of biology in Catholic schools.

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Where are the concentration camps and the incinerators , Pat?

"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court."  Translation-  Lord, let these pagan judges kill over so that they might be replaced with more righteous judges if they will not otherwise resign.

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." This is in regards to "gay days" celebrations at Disney World. As to what "your nation" is in reference to, who knows.


 Boldly to go where no man has gone before.

            To go boldly where no man has gone before.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

How Not to Write Like Professor Cohen- The split infinitive

To split a infinitive or not to split an infinitive, is that really the question? On this matter, the community of grammarians is divided. In the Transitive Vampire, Karen Elizabeth Gordon laid down the command; "Don't split your infinitives." The only reason given is that "they"d rather remain intact". The fact is that infinitives being inanimate, probably really do not care whether or not they are split. Therefore no good reason is given here. It is noteworthy that in praising this book, William Safire is quoted in a blurb on the back of Ms.Gordon's book that this is "A book to sink you fangs into." That would only true if one had illusions of being a vampire.

William Safire, in contrast to Karen Elizabeth Gordon, had much to say on the matter of the split infinitive. He defends his position in his book without either an index or a table of contents. For one to discover his position on the split infinitive, one must dig down to chapter 41.

Surprisingly enough, he does not reject the use of the split infinitive. To him, it is a matter of modification. If one wishes the adverb to modify the entire infinitive, the adverb should placed in front. If the modification of the verb would require the adverbs attention then place it in the middle of the infinitive. If the object is to be stressed, he advocates placing it after the verb. This is a very practical manner of dealing with the adverb and the verb it modifies.

A Professor Alan Cohen has a different take on the matter of the infinitive as to whether it should be split or not. On the internet, one will find "Professor  Cohen's 39 Picky Rules of Writing". According to him,"Hiding the adverb between the “to” and the verb, is a default position that frequently robs the adverb of its precision and power. Such is simply his imagination at play and is merely his opinion. To say "To boldly split an infinitive" does not rob the adverb of its "power or precision". The power and the precision of the adverb exists in how it is used as explained by William Safire. Even such an influential writer as Shakespeare has split at least one infinitive in his lifetime.

Professor Cohen admits that modern usage does allow the infinitive being split, but argues that so long as "well-educated and powerful people" do not split their infinitives, one might as well avoid looking" less well-educated and powerful". What splitting infinitives has to do with power is to be pondered upon.

Insofar as education is concerned, many well educated people of the past have done so, such as William Faulkner  and Ernest Hemingway and no one has thought any less of them, as given in the following examples. From Green Hills of Africa by Ernest Hemingway there is "But I would come to where it pleased me to live; to really live." and from The Collected Stories of William Faulkner comes "And then the time came to really bury the silver, it was too late." With due respect to Mr. Cohen, to either say "To live really" or "Really to live" are practically incomprehensible or ludicrous or both. This also goes for "... the time came to really bury the silver" when it transformed to "...the time came really to bury the silver" or "...the time came to bury really the silver".

According to Wikipeadia*, writers in the days of Middle English were splitting infinitives. It is doubtful the they were ever been misunderstood in doing so. For example, John Wycliffe of the 14th century, was one to split those infinitives, as in  "For this was gret unkyndenesse, to this manere treten there brother." ( For this was great unkindness, to in this manner treat their brother. This raises the question as to why the controversy had since arisen.

Since the days of Middle English, it had become rare. William Shakespeare for example, had used it only once that we know of, which is in Sonnet 142;

"Root pity in thy heart, that when it grows
Thy pity may deserve to pitied be "
But nevertheless, a precedent exists for its usage. Since then, split infinitives had reappeared in the 18th century and became increasingly more popular in century that followed by well educated and powerful people. In more modern times, among the splitters of infinitives were Benjamin Franklin, George Eliot, Henry James and Willa Cather. Even Abraham Lincoln was known to split more than just logs. If one is to except the authority of such grammarians as Professor Alan Cohen, one might be expected to believe that the writers previously mentioned do not know their craft. The problem is that grammarians, such as Professor Cohen, have tried to straight-jacket the language with unnecessary rules in which "outlawed" grammatical practices employed in the past. As long as what is written is understood and a precedent exists for the use of such a practice, then why does it matter?

For that well renown linguist, Otto Jesperson, its use was not a problem. This authority on language even denied that that the 'to' is not even apart of the infinitive. In his tome on English, Essentials of English Grammar, he wrote that "The name is misleading". He went on to declare that "the preposition 'to' is no more belongs to the infinitive as a necessary part of it, than the definite article is a part to the substantive, and no one would even think of calling of calling 'the good man' a split substantive'?" One should take note that modal verbs such as 'must' and 'can' are employed without that essential 'to'."

Even if one excepts 'to' as a part of most infinitives, one should take note that the infinitive is already split. After all there is a space between the 'to' and the verb which follows. It has been said that grammarians that had proclaimed that the unsplit infinitive should always be used rather the split version of it, had admired the Latin language. However in that language, the
infinitive is never split since such a form is indicated with the use of a suffix. It is just one word. This makes it quite impossible to split and shove an adverb into that opening. In spite of having borrowed most of its lexicon from either Latin or one of its daughter languages,* it should be noted that English is not a Romance language, but rather a Germanic language. Thus, why should it its structure be latinized?

But if one excepts the infinitive as two words, leading off with the 'to', so what. Perhaps the best defense of the split infinitive is in Who cares about English Usage? by David Crystal. In this, he writes;

"'To boldly go' has one thing in its favour. It is following the natural rhythm of English- the te-tum te-tum
rhythm favoured by Shakespeare and which is the mainstay of our poetic tradition. If the scriptwriter had written 'boldly to go', the two weak syllables would come together, and this would sounded jerky. If he had written 'to go boldly', he would have ended up with two strong syllables together, which sounds ponderous. To boldly go is rhythmically very neat. The StarTrek scriptwriter hasn't really been linguistically bold at all."

Stephen Peacock in How to Write pointed out that that many of the verbs in use are already split infinitives, such as 'undergo' or 'overthrow'. He also argues that the usage of the split infinitive is "to gain a particular effect". This is the prerogative of the writer.

Barbara Strang dismissed the controversy by stating in her book, Modern English Structure, "that fussing about split infinitives is one of the more tiresome pastimes inventing by nineteenth century grammarians." How true this is. One might also add twentieth century
grammarians for continuing that pastime as well.
*Most of the Latin influence came via French.


Postscripts

To Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman,

You seem to have a penchant to make absurd pronouncements. Lately you have seem to outdo yourself when you said in response to President Obama's decision to let the tax cuts expire for those with incomes exceeding $250,000, that after taxes a million dollars is not really a lot of money. Here's a reality check- it's more than most people make in a lifetime.

I swear, the only reason you got that job is because you are African American as is our president and the GOP obviously wanted a token figure of your race to represent their party as a counterpoint to that of our current Democratic President. Let's face, the GOP is almost bereft of minorities. Quite frankly as it's national chairman you are an embarrassment to the party and are really quite the jester.

P.S. Your remarks will make an ideal sound bite for a Democratic attack ad. On behalf of liberals I wish to express my gratitude. Thank you.

To Michael Steele again,

It was about a year ago in which your party embraced the notion of renaming the Democratic Party to the Democratic Socialist Party. To commemorate this dubious suggestion, may I propose the Republican Party be renamed to the Republican Fascist Party.



Glynn Braman

Make a Free Website with Yola.