20 April—A particularly alert reader caught a typographical error and proofreading lapse in Wednesday’s disquisition. Only the second on The Monitor’s rap sheet. As far as we know, anyway. The only excuse, of course, is “No excuse, sir.” And in all events it’s been corrected. So abject apologies to all whom the inexcusable typo has offended; they may rest assured that The Monitor has not fallen and will not fall into the ignominious abyss of desultory proofreading.

Let’s move on, then, to the particularly alert reader’s other grumble: About goddamn split infinitives in the same disquisition, specifically the italicized and underlined ones in this paragraph:

“The U.S. Senate yesterday, thanks to the Constitution and Majority Leader Charles Schumer’s determination to not let the Republicans have their way, was able to summarily dismiss the absolutely stupid impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that had been engineered by desperate House Republicans in another unsuccessful effort to embarrass the Biden administration.”

Were a defense necessary, we’d simply point to compound verbs. But we won’t bore readers nor our editorially plural self with grammatical niggles. Rather, it’s all about style. Simply put, while The Litchfield Monitor may lack content and moment, it never fails to exude style.

Our unquestionably verbose, invariably precious, overly pedantic words usually get the points across and entertain readers in the bargain. That’s what counts. And you don’t have to pay to read The Litchfield Monitor.

So no apologies for splitting infinitives. Or splitting hairs.

* * * * * * *

Another particularly alert reader, citing the revelation in yesterday’s disquisition that NPR is largely funded by the federal government through the allegedly nongovernmental CPB, questioned the thesis of the last paragraph of Wednesday’s disquisition that NPR is constitutionally permitted to censor news because it’s supposed to be a private corporation.

Excellent point. First, NPR is indeed a private nonprofit corporation. That said, it’s not unknown—to put it mildly—for governments everywhere and at all levels to censor whatever it may be for their own benefit. Why else would they do it? In many countries government censorship is perfectly lawful and a way of life. In the United States, where the Constitution forbids it, the art of government censorship is known to be practiced subtly and insidiously behind the scenes and under the table.

News media, for instance—including NPR—may be threatened with loss of access to whatever or whomever for reasons which may not be publicly stated. Or loss of accreditation or funding.

With NPR and the CPB, that’s probably not necessary with the current administration, of course. If it were or should become necessary, simply look at the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 as a money-laundering scheme. It’s set up to give public media the appearance of independence by insulating NPR through a web of quasi-nongovernmental agencies which nevertheless depend and thrive on government largess— while NPR publicly minimizes the extent of government funding and insists that it’s private donors that keep it going.

Accept the fact that even with a strong constitution limiting its power, the big G can do whatever it damn well pleases. Do you trust your government?