WhatTF! & WhyTF?

{ link » Subject•Article}

I think it safe to assume most English-speaking computer-savvy people know the acronym “WTF” does not stand for “Wednesday Thursday Friday”. It is most frequently used with a trailing “!” or two (or more) to exclaim amazement, confusion, disbelief, etc. Sometimes, depending on personal preference, it is used in a complete sentence, as in ‘WTF is going on here?’, wherein it is also sometimes terminated with a question mark. On such occasions, the W stands almost exclusively for the word “what”.

On some occasions, however, the mere expression of disbelief is inadequate. The perceived outrage to common sense is such that it demands an explanation: ‘WhatTF is going on here!’ and ‘WhyTF is it going on here?’. But the follow-up question is also rhetorical because the perpetrator of the outrageous behavior is not normally predisposed to offer honest justification.

Suppose we examine the first paragraph of the subject article in the context of the probable ‘WhatTF!’ and ‘WhyTF’ rhetorical pair of questions that the author might have asked himself before he wrote:

“The Senate passed the renewal of the Protect America Act with 68 votes, and the Act will pass in the House if Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership allow it to be voted on. So far, however, they have successfully blocked a vote in the House. They have thus advanced the interests of their patrons, class action plaintiffs' lawyers, at the expense of national security.” [emphasis added]

It is intuitively obvious that the plain-text beginning of the above quoted excerpt is the author’s answer to his own (unspoken but presumed) ‘WhatTF’ question. And the italicized portion is the author’s answer to his own (unspoken but presumed) ‘WhyTF’ question. The former is essentially a statement of fact. The latter is an inference, which lends itself to further analysis.

Maybe the justification offered by the subject article’s author is overly prejudicial to Nancy Pelosi’s motives. Maybe she is acting in support of her Nation’s best interests. Maybe she is privy to crucial information not accessible by members of the upper house of our bicameral Legislative Branch. Maybe she is convinced that the Executive Branch is bent on usurping the last vestige of Liberty available to our downtrodden citizenry. Maybe she believes our Nation has no enemies, only friends who require some hugs and reassurances of our benign intentions towards them. Maybe she’s an ignorant twat.

Maybe we should give the Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in line to Presidential succession, the benefit of the doubt. Maybe not.