Worst punctuation complaint ever

I just found this ridiculous rant concerning punctuation. The guts of that post is that English punctuation is illogical because we don’t use Spanish–style inverted question marks to begin questions (and, mutatis mutandis, inverted exclamation points). By reading his rant you’ll notice that the writer seems not to know the difference between a tag question and a tag itself. The reason for his belief is that it is confusing to rely on context to determine when a question begins. The fact that he makes such a claim shows why he has no clue what he’s talking about.

Heres why.

What happens when you ask a question in the English language? In almost all cases, either you invert the subject and an auxiliary verb (if there’s no auxiliary, add one), or you do the preceding and also begin with one of the wh–words. The main difference between the two question forms is that the former is a yes–no (or polar) question, while the latter is a wh (or non–polar) question. The other form is a tag question. Tag questions are a semantically a subtype of yes–no questions. Let’s look at examples:

  • (Declarative): You went to the store.
  • (Polar) Did you go to the store?
  • (Wh) Where did you go?
  • (Tag) You went to the store, didn’t you?

What do wh– and yes–no questions have in common? The first word(s) (or implicitly, the word order) in either of them indicate that the following sentence is a question. In other words, the beginning of these sentences indicates that what follows is a question. Hence, there is no need for a beginning of sentence question–marking punctuation mark because the words and word order already do that. Tag questions are rare enough that they won’t need special punctuation rules. Indeed, in speech, tag questions have no “marker” at the beginning that tells us a question is coming, but this in no way hinders our ability to make ourselves understood. The same applies to writing.

This post has been edited for clarity.

Jeannieology of a not–Poe

I’ve seen any number of ridiculous objections to the birth control mandate in the US, but this one has got to be one of the loopiest. I found it at Sadly No!, and I swear that it is not a Poe. It’s by someone named Jeannie DeAngelis, and is titled “Is Obama purposely altering America’s religious complexion?”. Considering that Ms. DeAngelis’ writing has also been found at websites like The American Stinker pretty much sums up all you need to know about her. And since I haven’t done a fisking in so long, DeAngelis’ screed provides the perfect target.

Just like a benevolent government that has worked hard to help provide naïve young girls with parent-free abortions,[...]

All women and girls have reproductive rights. Parents don’t own their kids, and they shouldn’t suffer because they happened to be born to fetus fetishist parents. Abortion (and contraception, although DeAngelis didn’t mention it in this context) are legal.

[I]t stands to reason that ‘patriarchal’ Christianity would be next in line to be undermined.[...]

If patriarchal religion is being undermined I’m all for it.

When it comes to challenging authority, the President seems to be particularly obsessed with using birth control and abortion as a weapon.

“Birth control and abortion as a weapon?” You have until the count of ten before I pump your guts full of pills!;)

[...]Barry seems excessively concerned about ensuring that everyone, regardless of age, credo or upbringing, can obtain free condoms, morning-after pills, sterilization, and abortion-on-demand.

Actually, economic and other barriers ensure that most women don’t have abortion or contraception on demand. Additionally, the Hyde Amendment and other laws ensure that federal tax dollars and none of your money™ are not being used to fund (most) abortions (cite).

The only religious group Obama respects and is careful not offend, whether religiously or parentally, is Muslims.

Bush emphasized on a number of occasions that he was fighting Islamic terrorists and extremists and not the vast majority of Muslims who are neither.

The Muslim faith has drawn a line in the sand and the President, who feels very comfortable defying every other authority from the Vatican to the parents of 14-year-old girls[...]

The Pope runs his own country. And again, children shouldn’t suffer because they had the misfortune to be born to parents who abuse them by denying them legal health care.

[A]cquiesces, without question, to the tenets of the Koran.

This conspiracy theory that Obama is a secret Muslim has been debunked a million times.

Barack Obama knows full well that “Muslims believe that health insurance is ‘haraam,’ or forbidden, because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling.” Thus, without question the Obama administration has decided that, unlike other faiths, “This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in [Obamacare].” Obama respects the Muslim stance on gambling, and presto! Muslims are exempt from health insurance, and more specifically the birth control, sterilization, and abortion mandates that accompany it.

Actually, as Snopes and FactCheck make clear, while some Muslim groups object to life insurance, most Muslims have no problem with health insurance or other insurance required by law. Considering that no Muslim groups objects to Social Security, which Christian groups granted exemptions under the appropriate laws do, it is unlikely that any Muslim would be granted an exemption. As Snopes puts it, “[N]o Muslim group has ever qualified for an exemption under the guidelines which define which religious groups would be exempt from the health care law.”

And furthermore, there is no abortion mandate.

DeAngelis then goes on to quote some Catholic dogma about human reproduction and sexuality. The appropriate response to this is, of course, to point out that if one is concerned about abortions (like DeAngelis herself mentioned as recently as last month) and wants to reduce the number of abortions, improved access to contraception is the number one way to do it. That, along with better sex education, is how places like the Czech Republic (cite), Georgia (cite), and elsewhere (cite) have reduced their abortion rates.

Barack Obama, who’s obsessed with everyone else’s sex life[...]

“[O]bsessed with everyone else’s sex life?” I thought this article was written by Jeannie DeAngelis, and not Yagotta B. Kidding.

The question arises as to why a President so focused on controlling so many Americans’ reproductive habits and overriding religion[...]

98% of sexually active Catholic women use contraception. A Majority of Catholics support no–cost contraception (cite). The only religion being overrided is that of the professional virgins almost no one listens to anyway. In addition, as David Frum (a Republican) pointed out, those who oppose the birth control mandate on the grounds of “freeddom of religion” are incoherent, much less the fact that several states have required churches to follow similar rules several years already.

[...]Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama have joined forces, blocked the exits, and are distributing free condoms at the contraceptive circus.

Contraceptive circus? Really?

Meanwhile, Islam is exempt.

See just above. DeAngelis mentioned this in the part of the paragraph that I skipped over. She sure does know how to rant, doesn’t she?

The President is urging and actively assisting in lowering birth rates in a Christian community whose tenets reject contraception and abortion and stands by while, according to Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life population projections, “Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades.”[...]

Ooooh, alert alert, it’s the scary foreign people! That aside, if you read such demographic reports, you’ll find out that the fertility rate in the Muslim world is plummetting. The reason for the continued increase is, of course, population momentum: When you have a large cohort of people of prime reproductive age, the population will almost certainly go up even with a low birth rate.

DeAngelis continues ranting the same stuff for her last paragraph, reiterating her previous wingnut word salad about Muslim exemptions and pretty much nothing that hasn’t been debunked above.

Update: This post used to have a picture, but I removed it on the grounds that it added no value to this post.

I thought they were fiscal conservatives

For people who claim to hate government spending so much, they sure had no difficulty finding the money to triple the budget earmarked for defending the Preservation of Bigotry Defense of (heterosexual) Marriage Act.

Hat tip.

Some days it’s not worth getting out of bed

An actual conversation I had today:

Another person: What are you doing on that computer?

Me: Stuff for college. Why do you ask?

A: I tried using it earlier today. All I got when I turned on the monitor was a logo saying that there was no signal.

Me: Did you turn on the box?

A (looking at the CPU part): What was the computer doing turned off?

Me: I’m pretty sure they turn off the computers when the place is closed, so that they save power.

A: Tell them to keep them on all the time.

Team USA world U18 champs

I have just become aware of the fact that the 2011 IIHF World Women’s U18 Championship ended yesterday. As someone who really likes women’s ice hockey (it’s better than men’s hockey because there’s no bodychecking) I find it a little embarrassing that I didn’t even know this tournament was being held until today. Anyway, Team USA beat Canada 5–2 in the final. Congratulations on winning the fourth consecutive final between those two teams.

The final rankings are:

  1. United States
  2. Canada
  3. Finland
  4. Czech Republic
  5. Sweden
  6. Germany
  7. Switzerland
  8. Japan – relegated to Division I

Read the rest of this entry »

Are You There Janet? It’s Me, Reality.

Exactly three years ago today, a column was published at WingNutDaily that was so completely and utterly full of ridiculous persecution fantasies, it reads like the rantings of someone who had not only gone off the deep end, but gone off the rails carrying the deep end as well.

The column in question is this one. It is by Janet Porter (then Folger). Adopting the perspective of a prisoner writing a letter to the outside world, Porter makes various “predictions” of what will happen to Christians in the wake of the Democratic capture of the US presidency in 2008.

A further discussion of her “Letter from a future prisoner” is after the jump. Before going ahead, make sure that no drinks are on your desk as her column is so full of shit that you’re likely to spill them, and I don’t want you to wreck your keyboard.

Read the rest of this entry »

Online emetic

The Texas Republican Party has released its 2010 platform, and folks, it’s bad for your health. But don’t worry, I’ll serve as a buffer to protect you. Some lowlights:

  • A call to reinstate the sodomy laws that were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas;
  • A call to make it a felony to perform a same sex–marriage;
    • All this while “limiting the expansion of government power”;
  • A call for LGBT people to be denied custody or visitation of a minor, coming close to saying that LGBT people can’t see their own (biological) children;
    • Taking kids from their parents; that’s GOP family values for you!
  • A call to eliminate no fault divorce and promote covenant marriage;
    • covenant marriage is basically a “the man can do no wrong” wife–beaters’ protection act;
  • They go on and on about the sanctity of life and their opposition to abortion, but as the next items show, they don’t really believe it
  • A call for outlawing the morning–after pill, allowing refusal clauses at pharmacies, and for parents to deny their children the sex education they have a right to;
    • Sex education and contraception are the best ways to reduce the abortion rate, and by being in favour of allowing others to deny sex education and contraception to others, the Texas GOP shows their claimed support for the “sanctity of life” is a complete lie; if they truly believed that abortion was murder, they’d realize that violating parental rights and making someone do their job couldn’t possibly be fucking worse than killing someone;
  • Teaching both sides of evolution, intelligent design, and global warming;
    • Shorter Texas GOP: we believe that we are not just entitled to our own opinions, but also our own facts!
  • They go on and on about protecting children, but are against ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
    • Hey Texas GOP! Why are you against children’s rights?
  • They claim to “deplore all discrimination”;
    • Interesting juxtaposition given their view on LGBT rights;

The whole thing goes on and on with (mostly) more wingnuttery stuff like the above.

One final thing has to be said. Just because wingnuts have their own political party in Texas, does not mean that any particular person from there is a wingnut. We don’t use Michelle Bachman to paint all people from Minnesota with the same brush; the same applies to Texas.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers