Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
Stunning Break with Last Eight Years
In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say. Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth. But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring. According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language. "Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist." The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."
The President-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. "Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.
from Andy Borowitz, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obamas-use-of-complete-se_b_144642.html
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Taxes Again
The article below if from Hendrick Herzberg. I have enjoyed his essays in the New Yorker, and was happy to discover his blog at http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/?xrail
Since writing “Like, Socialism,” in which I had some fun juxtaposing Sarah Palin’s boast that Alaskans “share in the wealth” via “collectively” owning their state’s oil to her attacks on Obama for proposing to “spread the wealth” via higher marginal taxes on the rich, I’ve seen numerous e-mails along these lines: "I may not be Karl the Marxist (whoever that is), but even I can easily see the distinction (which evades Mr. Hertzberg) between sharing the proceeds of a common asset, like a state’s mineral rights, and spreading the wealth by confiscating (i.e., taxing) part of what some individuals have produced and giving it to others. The proceeds of government leases of drilling prospects are quite different from Hertzberg’s paycheck. If he can’t see that, why not share his entire paycheck with us?"
I see the distinction, too, but I don’t see much of a difference. What I dispute is the flat characterization of personal income as “what some individuals have produced.” Part of my gross income reflects my individual efforts, of course, but part of it reflects the social and political arrangements that make it possible for me to have a paycheck to begin with. That’s the part that’s withheld for taxes. I don’t regard this as “confiscation,” any more than I regard my other monthly bills that way.
In a democratic society, government is as much a “common asset” as the oil under the tundra. We all “share the proceeds,” such as roads, police protection, the Smithsonian Institution, and not getting conquered by foreign armies. And all taxes redistribute the wealth from some individuals to others, whether the others are defense contractors, firefighters, chicken inspectors, destitute mothers, or Chinese (and, lately, American) bankers.
It is fervently to be hoped that market idolatry—the belief that the market is the only truly valuable institution of society and everything else is a parasite on it—is on the way out. “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,” Mr. Justice Holmes is said to have said. “Freedom ain’t free,” sing the poets of Nashville. Right they are. And neither is civilization.
Since writing “Like, Socialism,” in which I had some fun juxtaposing Sarah Palin’s boast that Alaskans “share in the wealth” via “collectively” owning their state’s oil to her attacks on Obama for proposing to “spread the wealth” via higher marginal taxes on the rich, I’ve seen numerous e-mails along these lines: "I may not be Karl the Marxist (whoever that is), but even I can easily see the distinction (which evades Mr. Hertzberg) between sharing the proceeds of a common asset, like a state’s mineral rights, and spreading the wealth by confiscating (i.e., taxing) part of what some individuals have produced and giving it to others. The proceeds of government leases of drilling prospects are quite different from Hertzberg’s paycheck. If he can’t see that, why not share his entire paycheck with us?"
I see the distinction, too, but I don’t see much of a difference. What I dispute is the flat characterization of personal income as “what some individuals have produced.” Part of my gross income reflects my individual efforts, of course, but part of it reflects the social and political arrangements that make it possible for me to have a paycheck to begin with. That’s the part that’s withheld for taxes. I don’t regard this as “confiscation,” any more than I regard my other monthly bills that way.
In a democratic society, government is as much a “common asset” as the oil under the tundra. We all “share the proceeds,” such as roads, police protection, the Smithsonian Institution, and not getting conquered by foreign armies. And all taxes redistribute the wealth from some individuals to others, whether the others are defense contractors, firefighters, chicken inspectors, destitute mothers, or Chinese (and, lately, American) bankers.
It is fervently to be hoped that market idolatry—the belief that the market is the only truly valuable institution of society and everything else is a parasite on it—is on the way out. “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,” Mr. Justice Holmes is said to have said. “Freedom ain’t free,” sing the poets of Nashville. Right they are. And neither is civilization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
