The hyphenated American construction has been around forever and ever, to denote someone born elsewhere but fully American, or someone born here but of a singular ethnic derivation. IIRC, Teddy Roosevelt spoke firmly against it, insisting that such derivation ought to be ignored as irrelevant.
In my estimation, the term “African-American” was a well-deserved but clumsy attempt to make a polite noun. I regret that it is awkward and clumsy, especially when spoken rather than read. Yes, its “PC”, but then so is “Ms.”, and that caught on pretty well. Its too bad that our efforts to do good are marred by clumsy efforts, but so it goes with us clever monkeys. Luckily, attempts to do evil are equally clumsy and human.
Everybody with the good sense the Goddess gave to pond algae knows that “African-American” does not refer to a white American born in South Africa. That’s just semantic word-play, a pun’s deranged twin that lives in the attic and eats fish heads. Bah! Bumhug!
Letter to the editor in this morning’s Sacramento Bee:
“Greg Gianforte, the candidate who shoved a member of the mean, biased, socialist media, deserves support. I can think of several members of the media who deserve a good shove. Since I am a grandmother, I would just be able to smack them in their mean mouths.”
Apparently the lady doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that there was no shoving, there was knocking down and punching, involved.
So, words having meaning = negation of the concept of metaphors in your eyes. The heat death of the universe will certainly arrive before y’all reach the bottom of that slope y’all’ve set and lubed up.
There is ONE thing that has bothered the hell out of me for a long time…
The mean librul press gave Donny Dump so many passes during his dumpster fire of a campaign, pretending he was legit, pretending he knew what he was taking about, giving him far more credence and FREE air time than he deserved, not calling him on his lies, helping him spread his lies, pretending he didn’t go down in flames in the debates etc etc etc etc
So splain to me… HOW was the press unfair or mean? They didn’t do their job. If they had, he’d have been torn to pieces. They still make excuses for him and let his stooges on their shows, to LIE again and again and again.
Did we actually get an answer as to the severity of Gianforte’s action?
If I were to body slam Gianforte and break his glasses, would it be a misdemeanor? Will I just have to issue an apology? Or do I have to wait for him to ask me a question first?
I’m going to actually submit that the press did cover Donald, did report his lies, and did air all of his dirty laundry. In any other time that I can remember, Donny would have been written off as a joke and tossed into the waste bin of history. People forget that he actually did try to run as president once before (Reform Party in 2000? I wanna say) and the idea of him being president was so laughable that he flew under the radar.
But in 2016, it was a different story. The media are far more fragmented now, and Internet messages resonate as powerfully or even more so than those on network television. We’re also politically one hell of a lot more tribal. The country is divided and angry, and about 35-45 percent of it long ago concluded that the traditional media have a liberal bias.
Trump’s dirty deeds went reported. The real problem as I see it is that a large number of media outlets attacked Hillary and created a right-wing narrative about her. Moreover, the media as a whole, including the CNN’s and traditional networks, were victimized by the long-held journalistic ethic of wanting to investigate all sides to a story. In doing so, they either intentionally or unwittingly created a false equivalency between Trump’s outrageous antics and Hillary Clinton’s shadiness, which while being a somewhat valid critique is nowhere close to the scale of the lies and misdeeds of her opponent. Thus in their attempts to demonstrate fairness, the reality was a lack of fairness in even remotely comparing Hillary’s missteps to those of Trump.
Nice try at a Brickerism, but it’s too short, to the point, and therefore easy to refute. You needed to wrap this sentiment around a couple of double negatives, and smother it with some obscure language and legal codifications. Then claim that people clearly did not understand what you were intending, and refuse to engage with them anymore.
