Site Navigation:
Topics:
Of Course!
I am ashamed to admit — especially here in public on my very blog — that until quite recently, I did not know what the phrase "of course" actually meant. I use the expression frequently, of course, like the literary equivalent of a nervous cough, but I simply took for granted that it was an idiomatic synonym of "naturally," an approximation of "certainly" or "obviously." I never bothered to consider the origins of the phrase.
Then I read Bleak House, Charles Dickens' classic 1850s novel. Midway through Chapter 37, I came upon the following snippet of dialogue:
"Are you in debt again?"
"Why, of course I am," said Richard, astonished at my simplicity.
"Is it of course?"
That's where it struck me: "is it of course?" In other words: "is it a part the course you are taking?" or "is going into debt really part of the ordinary course of events?"
The meaning was there in the words all along: of + course = being a part of the course, a step in the path, a basic constituent of the circumstances. You can't avoid it; it's part of the course. Like that cursed bunker on the eighteenth hole.
The Oxford English Dictionary suggests that the phrase "of course" was originally more limited in meaning that it is today. It was used as a modifier, and therefore writers needed to include a noun to be of course or a verb to do something of course: "a journey of course" is, for example, a journey to be expected as part of the procedure; "to dine of course" is to dine according to the recognized pattern of action; "a muffin of course" would be a muffin somehow implied by the sequence of events; "a matter of course" is a common expression that developed in this form. All these usages take "course" by its literal meaning: an established path, the way of things.
It was not until roughly the beginning of the 19th century, shortly before Dickens, that people started using "of course" as a set phrase, gradually discarding its literal implications. Speakers began to say "of course" as an affirmative answer to a question, as Richard did in Bleak House. They also began to interject it in the middle of their sentences, of course, to imply that what they were saying was only natural, or even to admit the obviousness of their statements.
The Google nGram Viewer reveals how "of course" grew to become a common English phrase over the 19th century. Using data from the scanned texts available at Google Books, the graph below tracks the frequency of the expression by plotting what percentage of all bigrams (or two-word sequences) in English language publications from 1750 to 2000 were the combination "of course."
As "of course" became more common, it became a unit, so that by the turn of the millennium I was able to grow up using the phrase from grade school through college without ever pausing to think about the significance of the words that make it up. That's embarrassing, perhaps, but too fascinating to keep to myself.
Breaking Through the Snow
After the blizzard last night, when winds whipped the snow into great dunes on the ridge, it took a heavy duty end loader to finally dig out the road to the farm.
Mayor Dave Hemmer, who had earlier tried and failed to clear the road with a plow truck, now followed behind to clear up after the loader.
An Icy Thanksgiving Morning
It's toasty at home today where the turkey roasts, but yesterday's freezing rain left a gloss of ice over the outdoor world. The blades of frozen grass in the front lawn look deadly sharp. You wouldn't want to see the roads. Safe travels to everyone, and Happy Thanksgiving!
Irrational Fear & the TSA’s “Security Theater”
The Transportation Security Administration has triggered a media frenzy over its highly-publicized new screening requirements for U.S. airline passengers. Despite the controversy in the press, however, a recent CBS poll shows that fully 81% of Americans support the new scans. This is a remarkable example of how irrational fear — one might call it "terror" — has succeeded at making Americans into obedient subjects for an increasingly totalitarian government.
Yes, I said irrational fear. Considered logically, the idea that Americans must give up the right to the privacy of their own bodies in the name of public safety is ludicrous. The role of security ought to be to defend individual dignity, not take it away. If we are willing to surrender access to our own bodies, then what's left to keep secure? Lives? That sounds noble, but compare the statistics:
- Homicide victims in the US, 2009: 15,241.1
- Alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the US, 2009: 10,839.2
- Total air passenger deaths in the US, 1990 to 2009: 1,632.3
- Total air passenger deaths in the US resulting from terrorism, 1990 to 2009: 265.4
The irrefutable fact is that Americans are surrendering their rights for a security procedure that doesn't even address the biggest risks of flying — and flying is already safer than nearly anything you could do on the ground. The new screenings are essentially just security theater — procedures that create a feeling of safety while offering little protection against real-world threats.
The new security procedures in the US, for example, would not have stopped any of the aviation terrorist plots that have been attempted since September 11, 2001. The notorious "shoe-bomber" and "underwear-bomber," both of whom failed to do any harm, each boarded their flights outside the United States. The most recent foiled attack, involving explosive-filled HP printers sent from Yemen, featured bombs sent as cargo, not carried by passengers. In each incident, the attacks were prevented by good intelligence gathering or swift action aboard the planes — never by the mass screening of either cargo or passengers.
Likewise, while the September 11th hijackers succeeded in their terrible attack nine years ago, they did so in an era when cockpit doors were insecure and airline passengers were allowed to carry box-cutters aboard flights. Security officials fixed those weaknesses long ago, and no one is suggesting a return to pre-9/11 screening standards. The problem is that the TSA has not been content to rest with past improvements, and it has now begun to violate the privacy of millions of Americans for an imperceptible increase in public safety.
Still, you may hold that every increase in security is justified, no matter how small, if it can save even a single innocent life. No one would dispute that we should prevent every death we can — but at what cost?
Should the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require every American to submit to a full-body search and sobriety check before entering a motor vehicle? That would prevent more deaths than the current airport screenings.
Senators Announce Plans to Privatize Elections
Excerpted from a 2013 Newspaper:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A bipartisan group of 37 senators today announced support for the "Restoring Freedom in American Democracy Act," introduced last week by senators Lewis Clark (R-Missouri) and Candy Cain (D-Nevada). If passed, the legislation would hand over responsibility for conducting federal elections to private companies. Supporters of the bill say it will help reduce government spending and ensure fairer, more efficient elections. Critics call the measure unconstitutional and fear it could disrupt voter rights.
"It's time we end this socialist system of state-run elections and take government out of our God-given right to vote," said Sen. Clark to cheers on Capitol Hill. "America needs to live up to its ideals of freedom and open its elections to the free market."
The proposed bill would create a streamlined process for companies to secure authority to register voters, print ballots, operate polling places, and tabulate federal election results on a state-by-state basis. Officials hope competition between polling companies in each state will encourage greater efficiency on election day.
"We've all experienced long lines at the polls and late nights waiting for results on MSNBC," explained Sen. Cain. "We can each remember the mess between Bush and Gore in Florida in 2000, or between Palin and Obama in 2012. The states just don't do a very good job of running elections, and taxpayers will save money by allowing businesses to take over the polls."
Wall Street welcomed the introduction of the bill, which coincided with the IPO of VoteRight, Inc. "Investors are very interested in this opportunity," said Chuck Burgess, CEO of VoteRight. "Over 100 million people voted last year," he added giddily, "and that could translate into more than a billion dollars in registration fees and ballot charges as voters enter the private polling market."
Critics attacked the idea of for-profit polling companies, alleging that fees could prevent poor people and minorities from voting. That didn't bother Joe Montgomery, a mechanic from Oklahoma City. "I don't see why my tax dollars should go to print ballots for people who aren't contributing to the system," said Montgomery. "I'd rather pay up front to cast my vote than pay taxes that subsidize voters who don't agree with me, politically."
Others weren't so sure. "What about rural voters?" asked Audrey Teasdale, a rancher in South Dakota. "It'll never be profitable for businesses to set up polls out here. I'll have to drive hours just to find an open polling place."
Chuck Burgess tried to allay concerns. "VoteRight will bring new frontiers of customer convenience to the election market," he said. "Consumers will be able to vote over the phone with a credit card, or buy as many ballots as they want in the mail. We can keep fees low by letting candidates bid for advertising space. Most people will be able to afford two or three votes each election day. That's a better deal than they're getting now, really."
Americans in several cities are planning silent vigils to protest the legislation. Asked about their concerns, they said nothing.
Sen. Clark was unfazed by the opposition. "Real Americans want this reform, because they've seen that elections in our country have been a scam for too long." Clark won election in Missouri in 2012 with over 60% of the popular vote. "I love America, but the current system is broken. I was shocked, absolutely horrified, when I first learned that when we vote for government officials, we trust the government itself to certify the results! It just doesn't make sense. That kind of thing needs to be done by reliable, independent businesses operating in a competitive atmosphere."
Clark's remarks led at least one opponent, Bernard J. Wolfe, a 58 year old government worker in Kansas City who asked to remain anonymous, to call the senator "that good for nothing son of a bitching sell-out pig." Most citizens, however, seem indifferent to the proposed changes.
"I don't see what all the fuss is about," said Kelly White, a student at Kent State University in Ohio. "Like no one I know votes anyway."