aaron hamburger

Friday, October 03, 2008

Reading Sarah Palin

For now, let's set aside the question of whether she's qualified to be president. What I'm concerned about is whether any candidate for public office ought to be allowed to get away with such atrocious grammar and syntax.

There was once a time in American life, both public and private, when the ability to speak clearly and coherently was considered a valuable asset, even a necessity. But in today's parlance of "OMG!" "BFF!" and the blood-curdling ":)," anything goes. It doesn't matter how you express yourself, it seems, as long as you, well, you know, kind of get across the sort of general idea of what you're trying to say, you know what I mean. Don't you?

But as George Orwell argued so persuasively in his essay "Politics and the English Language," how you say what you say is inextricably with what you mean. If you can't express your thoughts clearly, it's a sign that either A) you're not thinking or B) you don't want your listener to know what you're thinking.

In Sarah Palin's case, both interpretations are true simultaneously. Any human being with even the most rudimentary sensitivity to language who listens to her addle-headed patter ought to be able to detect the complete vacuity behind her words. Yes, I know, that big ole meanie Katie Couric made cute little Sarah all confused with all that grown-up talk. How spectacularly unfair. And John McCain's macho Washington insider handlers just wouldn't "let Sarah be Sarah." Yes, that's why in response to a question about which newspapers specifically Sarah reads, the good governor replied that she read any of them.

Last night in her vice-presidential debate, commentators commended Ms. Palin on her ability to form sentences. Nice work. I'm happy for her. But the question we need to ask is not whether she can form sentences, but what are the quality of those sentences, in terms of language used, the arrangement of that language, and finally the meaning behind that language. Yes, language was present last night, but what that language means in terms of specific policy, is anyone's guess. Which was exactly the point.

But goshdarnit, wasn't she a cutie-patootie!

posted by aaron hamburger at 1:04 PM | 0 comments


	Friday, October 03, 2008 Reading Sarah Palin For now, let's set aside the question of whether she's qualified to be president. What I'm concerned about is whether any candidate for public office ought to be allowed to get away with such atrocious grammar and syntax. There was once a time in American life, both public and private, when the ability to speak clearly and coherently was considered a valuable asset, even a necessity. But in today's parlance of "OMG!" "BFF!" and the blood-curdling ":)," anything goes. It doesn't matter how you express yourself, it seems, as long as you, well, you know, kind of get across the sort of general idea of what you're trying to say, you know what I mean. Don't you? But as George Orwell argued so persuasively in his essay "Politics and the English Language," how you say what you say is inextricably with what you mean. If you can't express your thoughts clearly, it's a sign that either A) you're not thinking or B) you don't want your listener to know what you're thinking. In Sarah Palin's case, both interpretations are true simultaneously. Any human being with even the most rudimentary sensitivity to language who listens to her addle-headed patter ought to be able to detect the complete vacuity behind her words. Yes, I know, that big ole meanie Katie Couric made cute little Sarah all confused with all that grown-up talk. How spectacularly unfair. And John McCain's macho Washington insider handlers just wouldn't "let Sarah be Sarah." Yes, that's why in response to a question about which newspapers specifically Sarah reads, the good governor replied that she read any of them. Last night in her vice-presidential debate, commentators commended Ms. Palin on her ability to form sentences. Nice work. I'm happy for her. But the question we need to ask is not whether she can form sentences, but what are the quality of those sentences, in terms of language used, the arrangement of that language, and finally the meaning behind that language. Yes, language was present last night, but what that language means in terms of specific policy, is anyone's guess. Which was exactly the point. But goshdarnit, wasn't she a cutie-patootie! posted by aaron hamburger at 1:04 PM \| 0 comments		Literary Blogs Beatrice Book Angst 101 Bookdwarf Booklust Book Ninja Book Slut Conversational Reading Emerging Writers Network Gawker James Tata Jessie Sholl Literary Salon Moby Lives Queer Type Rake's Progress The Reading Experience Tingle Alley Other Sites Eco Home Gear Recent Posts This blog has moved Don't Judge a Book by its Hype When a Story's Not a Story Why Write? Why Read? Book Recommendations from 2009 for 2010 This is Just to Say... I Like You, You Like Me, We're a Happy Family Yom Kippur Reflections Leaving Umbria An Italian Adventure Archives October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 February 2008 May 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 August 2009 September 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010