Ben Bernie was the subject of a previous essay distributed recently. Bernie was a very popular band leader who led an orchestra from the 1920s through the 1950s. You may recall that when his orchestra pleased him, he would say, “Yousa, yousa, yousa!” And when he would introduce a variety of songs, he would call them, “a little bit of thisa and a little bit of thata.” This essay is another in the genre of “a little bit of thisa and a little bit of thata.” There is no logical connection between one subject and another. Each one stands on its own. So with that thought, let’s try “a little bit of thisa and…thata.”
You may recall that Clarence Thomas is one of our nine Supreme Court Justices. You may also recall that a few years ago in his confirmation hearings, he was confronted by a woman named Anita Hill who accused him of sexual improprieties. In the end, a Republican Congress approved his nomination to the Supreme Court, where he resides now some dozen years later.
Thomas rarely asks a question or participates during the arguments before the Court, and so it was surprising to find his comments on the subject of education to the winners of a high school essay contest.
One way or another, Clarence Thomas got wound up in his remarks to the high school essayists and advocated a return to the spirit of education he remembered from his childhood. According to Thomas, he wants to see a crucifix and a flag in every classroom. My memory is that the crucifix is a fixture of the Roman Catholic Church. I had no idea that Clarence Thomas had such an education. After his remarks, I still doubt that point in his biography.
Nonetheless, on two or three occasions in his speech to the students, he made the point about the crucifix and the flag. As a libertarian, I have no trouble whatsoever with the flag in every classroom. However, in a public school setting, I doubt that the crucifix has a place. But worse than that, is the thought that this mentality must affect his decisions on the Supreme Court.
Let us say that a Jew or a non-believing citizen were to appear before the Supreme Court and expect justice to be rendered impartially. I have got to say that a man with Thomas’s predilections would not render an impartial decision. Clarence Thomas votes almost totally with Antonin Scalia, another Supreme Court Justice. Scalia is the thinker in that combination. Scalia contends that God and religion are an important factor in every decision taken by mankind. Scalia’s views are heavily weighted toward his Roman Catholic faith. On the subject of same-sex marriages, Scalia has been known to lecture that, if such events took place, citizens would be free to practice bestiality, which of course is the term for copulation with cattle and other beasts.
For those of us who do not hold the Clarence Thomas mindset, this is a frightening proposition. But that is the state of the record in America’s highest court. Anyone who expects justice from these two may be sorely disappointed. And to think, there are two more, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito who share these preposterous views. So much for Clarence Thomas and his views, for the time being.
Now we turn to a subject having to do with the English language, which has always been close to my heart. I am greatly in favor of neologisms that expand the English language. At the same time, I am concerned about bastardizations of the language which seem to outnumber the legitimate neologisms by a large margin. There are two bastardizations that we find used today which come primarily from our government in Washington, DC. The first is “partnering.” Under this construction of the language, we are not going to do something in cooperation with another country or entity but rather we are “partnering” with them. About all I can say is that this term is easily understood but it is not a respectable neologism.
The second word that has come into current use is “referencing.” If I understand the term correctly, for example, a person would not consult or refer to the dictionary but rather he would “reference” it. A sports reporter might reference the Mets’ ball game of yesterday rather than reporting on it or referring to it. And if John Jones were in a partnership with Joe Sweeney, he might reference the partnership as a means of saying that he is partnering with the other fellow.
Now we take up the thought of presidential gifts. The New York Times reported that when Mr. Obama and his wife visited with the Queen of England, he presented her with a gift. There are those skilled in bureauceaticize who would say that Obama “gifted” Her Majesty. May I submit “gifted” as another complete bastardization.
All things considered, these are bastardizations that seem to flow from the mouths of bureaucrats in Washington. They are in a league with the word “tasked” and are almost as bad as “you know.”
While I am on the subject of the English language, I wish to commend the new President for his use of that language, with two exceptions. The first is his tendency to not use periods. He will state a thought and then will say “and” in an elongated fashion and then set off on the second sentence in the thought. My advice to Obama is to get rid of the “elongated ands.” In the speeches that I have followed when he is speaking extemporaneously, Obama continually uses the word “to” and pronounces it as “ta.” In this construction, he might say, “I am going ta Trinidad and Tobago after I get finished with going ta Turkey and Baghdad.” These are small points, I understand, but Obama is a better speaker than that.
And so it is that I have completed this essay on thisa and thata until some more thoughts that would embrace Ben Bernie’s idea pop into my head. When that something else comes along, I will reserve the thought to say “Yousa, yousa, yousa!”
E. E. CARR
April 19, 2009
Essay 376
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: I think Obama took Pop’s commentary too seriously. Obama ends speeches all the time these days with a vocalization of his punctuation, like “Under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period.” He does it all the time.
It’s distressing how many people charged with defending the constitution haven’t bothered to read the first amendment.