Language Redux
Again, this country has been hornswaggled by the power of language. And the biggest sucker of them all? The media. In the so-called effort to maintain "detached journalism" or "objective reporting" the media has been tricked into using the language of those who are smart enough to know that language controls meaning. What recently reinvigorated my loathing of our current administration and their continual attempt to control public perception is the Blackwater affair in Iraq.
Blackwater is an "independent security contractor." What the fuck does that mean? Come on, think about it. People that are paid to fight in a war? They are not "contractors." They are not a "private security firm." They are called "mercenaries." I'm sorry people, they are mercenaries. Use the right term. But this is nothing new. When the beginning is smoke and mirrors the perpetuation is too. Listen, how many times have you heard "The War on Terror" or "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq?" Funny. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Yet Congress has NOT declared war. They authorized the use of force. There is difference. Therefore, there is no "war" in the legal sense. And do you want to know why? If there is a war, there are prisoners of war. If there are prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a party) apply and we must respect these prisoners. But we want to torture them for information. But wait, maybe they are criminals and deserve constitutional rights. No. They can't be criminals, because we have no jurisidiction to arrest people out of our country. So thus we invented the "enemy combatant" classification. Yet it was an unconstitutional declaration. The president has no such power to invent such a classification. So before he could be sued, the Republican Congress, as a parting present to the President after being voted out of power, made legal this classifcation after the fact.
But then the "war" which wasn't really a war was declared won years ago when Bush made his triumphant speech before the "Mission Accomplished" banner (and "mission accomplished" is significant because it didn't say victory because there was no war) and we were winners. But then it became obvious the fighting wasn't done and so we had to pretend again we were at war. And at that time, the White House said, we're just "keeping the peace" (a nonsensical term in itself) and if there was "civil war" we're out of there, because we don't want to interfere in such internal disputes (another ridiculous idea considering our involvement there). No, the administration said, we don't want to interfere in that that kind of mess. But then everyone said there was a civil war in fact and then it was all about "insurgency." How convenient.
Is my point not obvious yet? They just keep changing the labels to hide the truth. George Carlin got it right when he compared "shellshock" to "post-traumatic syndrome disorder." The latter lacks the brutal punch of the former. And so the words change the perception. It waters down our outrage. Wake the fuck up America. You're being lied to every day by the words your own government chooses to use because these choice words change the meaning of the message they portend to portray. And the media, right or left, is complicit because they adopt the words verbatim as spoonfed by people who know better. So don't just listen when you hear or read or see the news. Think.
Blackwater is an "independent security contractor." What the fuck does that mean? Come on, think about it. People that are paid to fight in a war? They are not "contractors." They are not a "private security firm." They are called "mercenaries." I'm sorry people, they are mercenaries. Use the right term. But this is nothing new. When the beginning is smoke and mirrors the perpetuation is too. Listen, how many times have you heard "The War on Terror" or "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq?" Funny. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Yet Congress has NOT declared war. They authorized the use of force. There is difference. Therefore, there is no "war" in the legal sense. And do you want to know why? If there is a war, there are prisoners of war. If there are prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a party) apply and we must respect these prisoners. But we want to torture them for information. But wait, maybe they are criminals and deserve constitutional rights. No. They can't be criminals, because we have no jurisidiction to arrest people out of our country. So thus we invented the "enemy combatant" classification. Yet it was an unconstitutional declaration. The president has no such power to invent such a classification. So before he could be sued, the Republican Congress, as a parting present to the President after being voted out of power, made legal this classifcation after the fact.
But then the "war" which wasn't really a war was declared won years ago when Bush made his triumphant speech before the "Mission Accomplished" banner (and "mission accomplished" is significant because it didn't say victory because there was no war) and we were winners. But then it became obvious the fighting wasn't done and so we had to pretend again we were at war. And at that time, the White House said, we're just "keeping the peace" (a nonsensical term in itself) and if there was "civil war" we're out of there, because we don't want to interfere in such internal disputes (another ridiculous idea considering our involvement there). No, the administration said, we don't want to interfere in that that kind of mess. But then everyone said there was a civil war in fact and then it was all about "insurgency." How convenient.
Is my point not obvious yet? They just keep changing the labels to hide the truth. George Carlin got it right when he compared "shellshock" to "post-traumatic syndrome disorder." The latter lacks the brutal punch of the former. And so the words change the perception. It waters down our outrage. Wake the fuck up America. You're being lied to every day by the words your own government chooses to use because these choice words change the meaning of the message they portend to portray. And the media, right or left, is complicit because they adopt the words verbatim as spoonfed by people who know better. So don't just listen when you hear or read or see the news. Think.
Labels: Bush, Iraq, language, politics, representation, words
|| posted by mW @ 10:16 PM
What are the Real Morals and Questions in the Abortion Debate?
Abortion rights activists are in trouble. Their terminology is failing. While they have successfully fended off the "anti-life" labels from their enemies, their own "pro-choice" label is becoming increasingly limited. First, there is the counter-attack on conservative forces, attempting to label "pro-lifers" as "anti-choice." This is a mistake. It exposes the weakness of the word choice. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" are bland. While the "right to choose" sounds nice, it does not link to a moral. The opposing side, for example, has a powerful tool in "pro-life." They have linked their political stand to a moral: saving a life. Now, who doesn't want to save lives? Too simple you say? In the end, yes. But most people don't get that far. For a world ruled by headlines, they have the advantage. The right to make choices in the end must be limited by the right to life. For example, we should all agree that murder is wrong. So, when can you rationalize taking a life? Do you see how the contextualization weakens the pro-abortion side?
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
Labels: abortion, choice, civil rights, freedom, language, politics
|| posted by mW @ 5:37 PM[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010