The King's English

   Who speaks better English, a rich man in London originally named Charlie Battenberg or a left-handed guitar player from a Liverpool slum with an Irish background?
   You decide.
   The point is, one dialect is no better linguistically than any other dialect. One manner of speaking differs from another just as the language as spoken in Liverpool or Brooklyn differs.
   But to say one is "better" than another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   Compare the London dialect to that in Dublin or Glasgow. Or Boston and New Orleans. Or Memphis and Los Angeles. Or Manitoba and the island of Jamaica. Or Australia and New Zealand.
   With each of these regions there are social dialects, based on people's status in society, their gender, their family traditions and other factors.
   One can also compare Spanish as spoken in Madrid or Barcelona, Cuba or Mexico. The Castilian dialect is considered "better" because it was spoken by Queen Isabella in the 15th Century.
   Or compare French as spoken in Paris or Montreal.
   Or Dutch as spoken in Amsterdam or in South Africa, where it's known as Afrikaans.
   Which is "better"?
   The answer is that all or equal, linguistically. They all enable people to communicate. The only thing that specifies one as "superior" to another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   However, speakers of some dialects believe that because their social status is higher, therefore their manner of speaking is "better," and it follows that they are better people.
   Compare that with the American Constitution, which states that we are all created equal. Our financial or social status does not matter.
   Sadly, many people do not accept that, either.
   As for the two people mentioned in the first paragraph, one became king of Great Britain, known as Charles, and the other became world famous as Paul McCartney.
   Each speaks a different dialect. Does that make one "better" than the other?

Listen Up

   Several so-called "experts" have said on TV talk shows that a candidate for president of the U.S. must be "a native born citizen" to qualify for the office.
   Not so.
   The Constitution specifies that a candidate must be a "natural born citizen," which means he or she can be born anywhere in the world but at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
   "Native born" means that he or she must be born in the United States. Those who are born elsewhere are not citizens, no matter the citizenship of their parents. Unless one of the parents is a citizen, the newborn inherits American citizenship from him or her.
   Thus, a child born to military personnel inherit American citizenship because they are "natural born."
   Those who are born elsewhere and later come to America, where they apply for citizenship, become American citizens under the term "naturalized."
   Thus, Barack Obama is a "natural born" citizen for two reasons: He was born in Hawaii, an American state, to a mother who was a native of Kansas.
   Likewise, his Republican opponent, John McCain, was born in Panama where his father was active with the U.S. Navy. In addition, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which is technically part of the nation of Panama for was leased by the U.S. Both his mother and father were U.S. citizens.
   At one time, there was a movement to urge California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger to run for president. He rejected the bid, knowing that he was ineligible because he was born in Austria and became an American citizen after he came to the U.S. as an adult.
   All of which makes one wonder why current spokesmen are using the term "native born" rather than the correct term of "natural born."
   Is it ignorance, or is there a long term plan to have a naturalized citizen candidate run for the White House?

Say What?

"He's not king. I didn't vote for him." -- Monte Python

   Donald Trump cannot be  eliminated from an election ballot because he is exempt from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
   So say some lawyers who support the former president.
   If that be true, then he is also exempt from the laws of libel, and perhaps also other laws dealing with financial behavior.
   Granted, the two are different, but the strategy is the same, to decide which has priority: State laws or federal.
   Opinion: This is a move by the judge to boot the case to the appeals process and ultimately to the Supreme Court.