Columbus: Mr. Webster added a new word to his dictionary. English teachers objected, but “irregardless” is in there. It means the same as “regardless” but they added it, I suppose, to accommodate Scrabble players with excess letters and public speakers who prefer words with at least four syllables.
You may know that I have a history of changing the spelling of a few words, but no matter how many times they appeared in my newspaper columns, Webster never brought out a new edition to accommodate me.
Congress got in the word game last week. Webster may be coerced into adding a new meaning to an old word, irregardless of common sense. (Did you notice how I slipped that in there. Gotta keep up with the times.) Back to Congress… during a Judicial Committee Hearing to interview Attorney General William Barr, a few Representatives introduced a new term, “Reclaiming my time.” It is said in a harsh tone, and means “SHUT UP.” (As in, “I only have 5 minutes of TV time to pontificate, so DON’T INTERRUPT ME!”)
This new phrase may come in handy for a parent discussing curfew with an argumentative teenager: “Reclaiming my time. Go to bed!”
Our GDP (gross domestic product) dropped 33% for the months of April, May and June. With the forced Shutdown, if it hadn’t been for farmers, manufacturers, and other essential businesses GDP would have dropped 100%.
Congress is arguing over another Covid relief bill. Republicans want to spend $1 Trillion that we don’t have and Democrats want to spend $3 Trillion that we don’t have. Republicans want us to go back to work and students to be in school. Democrats want us to stay unemployed and students to study at home. That just shows it costs three times as much to support a country at rest as one that’s working. In a more serious tone, if we had all been wearing masks and keeping our distance since May, we might have saved at least $2 Trillion (that we don’t have).
Historic quote by Will Rogers:
“Most people appearing on the stage have some writer to write their material, but I don’t do that. Congress is good enough for me. They have been writing my material for years…
They wouldn’t be so serious and particular if they only had to vote on what they thought was good for the majority of the people of the U. S. That would be a cinch. But what makes it hard for them is every time a bill comes up they have a million things to decide that have nothing to do with the merit of the bill. They first must consider was it introduced by a member of the opposite Political Party. If it is, why then something is wrong with it from the start, for everything the opposite side does has a catch in it. Then the principal thing is of course, ‘What will this do for me personally back home?’” WA #78, June 8, 1924