Author: skzb

I play the drum.

Ruminations on Changes in Language

As most of you know, I’m inclined to be very conservative with regard to changes in English–my reaction is something like, “Okay, I’ll accept that change as soon as you convince me it makes the language more flexible, and permits finer distinctions.” Now that, in itself, is neither good nor bad. I understand that many battles have already been lost, and if I still use “hopefully” to mean filled with hope and never use it for I hope or all right-thinking people ought to hope, and if I consider “they” to be plural, well, that’s my business, and I’m not about to criticize someone else for using them differently.  And lately, I’ve even been trying to grit my teeth and remain silent in the face of “proactive.”

In many cases, especially corporate-speak, I know perfectly well why I hate it: it serves to blur distinctions, and to convey a dishonest subtext (for example, “self-select” in place of “choose” is intended to elevate the importance of the subject, the object, or both).

But what is interesting to me is when I discover exceptions. Blatant misuses of English, usually from the internet, that delight me. I’ve found no pattern for when something makes me grimace in pain, and when it makes me smile.

For example, “U” in place of “you” irritates me, but I actively like “obvs.”

Remember the lolcats thing from a few years ago? I hated that. For about six months. Then, suddenly it made me grin, and I even used it a few times. Why the change? I have no idea.

Much of leetspeak (such as “l33t”) makes me want to hit someone. But there are other things just as bad that I’m totes okay with, and some of them are just adorbz.

So, do you love them all, hate them all, or are there some you like?  And if you can figure out a pattern in my taste or your own, I’m interested in hearing it. Because language.

Some Thoughts on the 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address

Abraham Lincoln is one of my heroes, and I make no apologies for that. I am aware of his flaws, both personal, and political.  I do not demand perfection of a hero; rather, when I consider someone a hero, it means I am responding deeply and passionately to that person’s accomplishments and integrity.  Jerry Garcia, in discussing punk rock, remarked, “What’s important is what the music says, not what it doesn’t say.”  A valid standard, in my opinion, to apply to both art, and our understanding of historic characters.

Yes, I know; I’m sounding a little bit defensive.  It is hard not to.  In the milieu of contemporary science fiction, the pressure is constant to fall into line on a whole series of issues–issues that, as anyone who has followed my blog knows, I disagree with strongly.  I do not believe in fighting for a “kindlier, gentler” capitalism; I do not believe in separating the Working Class into disparate pieces and setting them against each other; I do not believe in fighting for increased prosperity among those who are already more prosperous than 90% of us.

I do believe in equality–in equality of opportunity for education, health care, standard of living, and, yes, personal expression.  In equality of whom and how one might love, and, of course, equality before the law.  Lincoln led a part of the human race in taking a huge step forward in the fight for equality, and I honor him for that.  One hundred and fifty years ago today, he made it clear (though this, perhaps, is the least significant aspect of the Address) that he did so knowing exactly what he was doing.

The fight for equality goes on.  My contributions to that fight are insignificant, involving a few blog posts that are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, and maybe–maybe–by telling the truth as best I see the truth, the creation of a story now and then that helps people understand their world a tiny bit better.  Not much, but it is what I do, and I make no apologies for that, either.  As far as I do anything at all, I do not fight for the advancement of one section of the Working Class (and certainly not for a section of the “people” regardless of class!), but for the equality of all human beings, because I believe that is the right thing to do.

If you want to know who is working against equality, look at those who hate Lincoln and you will have a pretty good idea.  The Right Wingers who run as far and as fast as possible from him because he took a stand for freedom, to the pseudo-Leftists who love finding reasons to tear him down because he took action that challenges their comfortable ideas, flowing, generally, from their comfortable lives.

Among those who fought for equality, Abraham Lincoln stands out as a hero, and the Gettysburg Address stands out as a shining example of a critical moment in that fight.  For a good analysis of what it means today, in general, try this.  But for me, personally, it stands as inspiration.  Yes, the fight is worth fighting. And yes, in the fight to build a better future, there are heroes.

 

 

 

But Who is Supposed to Pay for it?

One hears this a lot: Universal health care:  “But who is supposed to pay for it, and why should other people have to blah blah blah.”  Welfare.  Unemployment insurance.  Public education.  “But who is supposed to pay for it, and why should other people have to blah blah blah.”

Okay, I need to get the snide answer out of the way first:  Anyone who asks that question is probably someone who should be paying for it.

There.  I feel better.  Now, let’s get serious.

The inspiration for this post was when Cory Doctorow tweeted a link to this.  Please take a moment to look it over.

My problem, as always, isn’t with the original post–such filth is part of our lives and will be as long as private property defines human relationships.  No, my problem is with the replies.  One thing that is common to them all is an attitude that goes like, “I can justify having this nice thing, even though I’m on welfare, because of…”  And, yeah, all of the justifications are perfectly reasonable, and some of them are tremendously moving.

But why the fuck does it need justifying?   To justify having something nice, decent, useful, means you’ve accepted the fundamental argument:  It is perfectly okay for some people to be rich while others are poor, and the rich must have somehow earned it, and the poor somehow deserve it, and that’s just how the world is.  To accept that argument is to accept the morality handed to us by those who keep their privileged position by exploiting the rest of us.  It makes exactly as much sense as the slave-holder explaining to the slave how wrong violence is.

Let us be clear: Wealth means an accumulation of commodities (generally in the form of money).  Commodities are produced socially.  No individual–particularly the speculating banker, but even the semi-mythical Man-With-A-Vision-Whose-Hard-Work-Turned-His-Vision-Into-A-Fortune-500-Company–ever created wealth.  Wealth is a social phenomenon, and the creation of wealth happens by people working together.  And this, by the way, ignores the whole question of infrastructure:  Your “personal genius” is able to make money because his employees are able to get to work on roads built at public expense, and use basic skills learned at schools run at public expense, and avoid cholera because of water kept pure at public expense, &c &c &c.  Skip all that.  It isn’t the point.

The point is, we, human beings, society, got together and made everything.  Those with vision enough to see how things can be better are important and deserve praise, because they make vital contributions to making things better.  This does not mean they deserve the lion’s share of the wealth created by the rest of us.

One result of an economic system based on private property is that the system will take some number of individuals it can’t use and discard them.  These people do not need to justify having nice things–we need to demand of those who have appropriated our wealth how they justify denying things to these people.  The poor did not create the system that discarded them.

And, for fuck’s sake, when the Working Class gathers its strength and fights for and wins things like social security, unemployment insurance, better public education, public cultural institutions like libraries and museums, and, yes, welfare, do not try to act as if these are gifts of a magnanimous government that is too generous.  The Working Class fought for those things, and paid in blood.

So, reactionaries like the OP above can take their “But Who is Supposed to Pay for it” morality and shove it up their individual asses.  We have earned it all.  We deserve it all.  And someday–I believe sooner rather than later–we will have it all.