Complete the Sentence

English was always one of my favorite subjects in school.  (Math was the other one.)  Of its many facets I enjoyed was grammar, and specifically diagramming sentences, which has long since become a lost art.

Miss Adams, the stern but devoted teacher from whom I learned this skill had us underline the subject of a sentence once, the verb twice, put prepositional phrases in parentheses, and write DO & IO above the direct- and indirect objects, respectively.

If your eyes are glazing over at all this, bear with me, as it is instructive in making my case.

A basic rule of English grammar is that a sentence must contain a subject and a verb to be considered complete.

The following are examples of seemingly complete sentences, but I will argue that they aren't really...

1.       To serve and protect

2.       The vaccines are effective

3.       We're making progress at the border

OK, the first one doesn't have a subject, and is therefore doesn't qualify, but is a sentence fragment.  The implied subject is the duty of members of law enforcement whose vehicles bear the motto, hence "our job is to serve and protect".

Without straying into a discussion about the recently much debated role of police in our society, if you've ever been aware of any heavy-handedness even pre-BLM, you might question what or whom the object of the phrase is.  That is, to serve and protect whom? 

The inference is to serve and protect the citizens of their jurisdiction, something which the majority of police officers exemplify.  However, when it comes to cases of enforcing ordinances & statutes where the state, and not a person, is the victim, you might say their job is "to serve and protect the state".

When anyone says that something is effective, the question you should ask is "effective at doing what, exactly?"  It is natural to assume that the effectiveness applies to whatever it was designed to do.  The average person would be comforted by the implied notion that the vaccines (or masks, etc.) are effective at (pick one) stopping the spread, reducing the symptoms, etc.

This is where it becomes helpful to think like a lawyer, and/or just be downright cynical.  Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someday it turns out that the vaccines (or masks, etc.) are really not effective at stopping the spread, reducing the symptoms.  The public outcry will be "but you said they were effective!"

Being the wordsmiths that they (of the epidemiocracy) are, if they even feel compelled to answer, will say "we never said what they were effective at doing."  What they actually mean, but don't say, is (pick one)...

a)      making a profit for our shareholders

b)      making people suspend their skepticism for their and others' perceived benefit

c)       furthering our experimentation in gene therapy

d)      making people give up their autonomy under the pretext of medical protection

etc.

You see how this works.

Though it may seem disingenuous for Kamala Harris to claim "we're making progress at the border", if she means that we're helping to flood our country with a permanent dependent (and therefore Democrat voting) class, and she does, then it's a true statement.

So next time you hear someone (e.g. an anchor or reporter on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, a spokesperson for the CDC, the WHO, any of the pharmaceutical companies, any Democrat mayor, governor, legislator, or any member of the current administration) say any of these things, or anything with this sort of dichotomy, you'll know how to complete the sentence.