Posted by Tina
Our language has worked as a tool, serving the people in law and communications, since the founding of our nation. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are fine examples of precise use of the language. Laws must use words to convey definite meanings. Words are used in sentences precisely to avoid misunderstanding and doubt. Likewise in communications words are used to convey information precisely.
People scoffed at George Bush for declaring a “war on terror.” “How can you prosecute a war on a thing,” they asked? They had a point. He could have chosen his words more carefully, although, I’m still unable to come up with a short precise phrase to describe what had to be done. “Overseas Contingency Operations” sure doesn’t cut it, we might as well be talking about aid to Africa. But America isn’t about insulting people without good cause; we are an incredibly tolerant and inclusive nation. Even after the hijacked jets flew into the towers and the Pentagon blew up, and our citizens were murdered in a fiery crash in Pennsylvania, efforts were made to assure Muslim Americans and make a distinction, a precise distinction, as to the persons we knew were responsible. It worked pretty well for the remainder of Bush’s presidency.
President Obama has taken a different path. Precision in language has been taken to another level. There is a difference between being sensitive to the innocent and shielding the guilty. The current policy shields the guilty.
Since the start of the Obama presidency there has been a move to strike certain words from the lexicon. The excuse for doing so is an insult to the notion of precision in language and conveyance of truth. We are told that saying the words radical Islamic terrorist condemns an entire religion. This is absurd and we’re here to help, see here: Adjective: words that describe or modify another person or thing in the sentence. See also, here: Adverbs Can Modify Adjectives and Other Adverbs – Although the term adverb implies that they are only used with verbs, adverbs can also modify adjectives and other adverbs.
Our president, and many of the people who serve in leadership under him, are well schooled in the use of language…they are lawyers. So the bunk they’re floating about needing to ban certain words from training manuals and in speech and communications about terrorists and terrorist activity is political, misleading, and is intended to shield the guilty. Our nation is experiencing more derision, division, and strife as a direct result of these inane word gaming policies. The rules of grammar expose the ruse. This is not leadership. It is activism. Our president has failed us.
As I said, pig-headed … to no purpose.
Was Libbya a character in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm?” One of the pigs?
The pig that ate the Pie for dinner?
Or maybe the pig that took over the bakery and pretended it wasn’t fascist.
Unless it’s you lot describing a “Christian” abortion clinic bomber, the “racist” tea party, or a “right-wing” school shooter.
You lefties love to abuse the language deliberately to shield the truth of a matter, to fool people, to defame and demean the opposition, and you don’t care one bit about insulting or hurting an entire group.
Bunch of phony activists.
“you don’t care one bit about insulting or hurting an entire group.”
Pot call Kettle Black
An entire group? Like Muslims?
The pot is the point Dewey. If you want to call someone out try starting with them that started this game.
Tina: “But America isn’t about insulting people without good cause; we are an incredibly tolerant and inclusive nation.”
And we will continue to be, thankfully, since Trump’s “temporary” ban on Muslim immigration is never going to happen.
“We are told that saying the words radical Islamic terrorist condemns an entire religion”
You’re intentionally picking out the weakest argument in defense of this strategy and ignoring the stronger arguments. I agree that the phrase “Islamic terrorism” doesn’t automatically insult all Muslims, which is why I myself have no problem using the term. But the government gives others reasons for avoiding this term: calling ISIS “Islamic” can be used to legitimize and recruit; denying them the description of “Islamic” and saying that they are not practicing “true” Islam, while fallacious, not only insults them but helps combat ISIS’ narative that they are the defenders of Islam and the Muslim people. What say you to these reasons? Previously you have ignored them entirely.
*Snore* “You’re intentionally picking out the weakest argument in defense of this strategy and ignoring the stronger arguments.”
You are intentionally being a moron. Well, maybe not intentionally, you are compelled to be a moron. The usual Piss tripe.
Pie, I made substantive points in my comment, and you replied with nothing but schoolyard taunts. Just like always. Why you think this makes me look stupid and you look like a genius is a mystery to any rational reader. Why do you even feel the need to comment if you have nothing to say?
“…calling ISIS “Islamic” can be used to legitimize and recruit”
Geez…do you think that these potential recruits don’t know what the first “I” in ISIS means? Do you think they think we don’t? Do you think they aren’t already angry and motivated to fight because of the vitriol and propaganda they hear from the clerics? You reduce them to idiots.
The don’t make them mad argument is weak. It’s an excuse.
“But the government gives others reasons for avoiding this term”
There is absolutely zero reason for avoiding this term within the security arms of government and yet this was the first thing Obama did when he changed the training manuals and banned the use of terms NEEDED to communicate about the problem to secure the nation!
“…saying that they are not practicing “true” Islam, while fallacious, not only insults them but helps combat ISIS’ narrative that they are the defenders of Islam and the Muslim people.
I don’t have a problem with statements by the administration that makes this point clear. We know Muslim Americans that are decent, good, patriotic people. It should be part of the narrative. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about orders to never use the terms…that doesn’t fly in a nation that already knows who threatens us and wonders why our government won’t address those responsible with more force and determination.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you all have been pretty busy making comments…I do my best to respond as one of the hosts but I’m not super human. I don’t avoid anything intentionally!
“The don’t make them mad argument is weak.”
That is NOT the argument. I have explained over and over that that is not the argument. I have explained that if anything, saying they are not Islamic DOES make them mad, which is part of the point. You cannot read.
“There is absolutely zero reason”
I just gave you the reasons. You addressed none of them. Again.
“I don’t avoid anything intentionally?”
You just did.
“War on terror” is succinct and to the point. WWII was a war on fascism, that wasn’t a war on “a thing.” Neither is the war on terror a war on a “a thing.” The war on fascism and the war on terror are both wars on what “a thing” produced. In the last century it was fascism, in this century it is Islamo-fascism.
Let the anal-retentive progressive morons from mentally deranged tedious hell count angels dancing on a pin or speciously split hairs over “linguistics.” I will not join in other than to make this comment.
Yes, Tina, you are 100% correct, Obama language policy IS to shield the guilty. The man is a maniac. He will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the US had ever had to suffer.
Related : Lame Stream Media is for Dummies, CRISIS OF CHARACTER IS OUT
From Drudge —
SECRET SERVICE OFFICER SET FOR TV INTERVIEWS; BROADCAST NETWORKS BLACKLIST
MON JUNE 20 2016 19:47:25 ET
**Exclusive**
Team Hillary is working overtime to block former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne from appearing on ANY broadcast network, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Byrne is set to reveal what he observed inside the White House while protecting the First Family in the 1990s.
‘What I saw sickened me,’ Byrne explains. ‘I want you to hear my story.’
Byrne paints a picture of Hillary as a deranged madwoman running interference on Bill’s sexploits.
The book ‘CRISIS OF CHARACTER’ is finally set for release next Monday. It has already became the top seller at AMAZON for the month of June.
And now Clinton’s circle is preparing to hit back hard!
POLITICO plans an early morning attack on Byrne’s credibility, sources claim, despite his having served in federal law enforcement for nearly thirty years.
Meanwhile, Hillary’s campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread ‘lies’ on any of the nation’s broadcast networks.
‘It’s trash for cash,’ a campaign official warned one producer.
FOXNEWS ‘HANNITY’ will have the first exclusive for cable news, DRUDGE has learned.
Developing…
http://drudgereport.com/flashss1.htm
I’m aware of this Pie. The entertainment industry (AKA MSM) has always been the real blacklisters. it wasn’t McCarthy or Congress that blacklisted actors and writers in Hollywood, it was Hollywood.
The group of conservatives in Hollywood complain of being blacklisted if they make their conservative views known. Apparently they attempted to apply for 501c4 status and ended up being targeted in the IRS scandal…and they are still targeting. This is a very corrupt administration. Putting Hillary back in the WH would just replace one group of corrupt characters with another with a more than a few crossovers remaining.
Next Tuesday and Wednesday I’ll be pretty busy but I will look for the scoop.
Tina, do you really see nothing wrong with a former secret service agent trashing his boss on TV?
Would your answer to this question be different if the boss in question was a Republican?
The Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service has condemned this agent. This take, from a vocal critic of Hillary Clinton who believes the accusations may be true, strikes me as right:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/06/21/the-association-of-former-agents-of-the-united-states-secret-service-condemns-former-agent-gary-byrne-and-his-clinton-expose-crisis-in-character-good/#more-33466
Cartoons for Dummies
Who is to blame for mass shootings in America?
Excellent toon 🙂
From a Politico article
“The left has a second amendment problem. It believes that the right to abortion and gay marriage are fixed in the Constitution — somewhere or other, you’ll just have to trust them — but the black-and-white guarantee of the right of individuals to own guns is a big misunderstanding.
On this issue, the left doesn’t particularly like or comprehend the country it lives in, especially that it was founded by men who distrusted government and sought to limit it by protecting certain essential individual rights, including gun ownership.”
I agree with these thoughts and Tina’s assessment of Pies cartoon post! There all Spot On!
War on Drugs – War on Terror?
All scams. Well thought out crafted lines to sell the public. One for endless profit wars the other to fill profit prisons.
“Let’s start with “terror.” Terror is a general state, and it’s internal to a person. Terror is not the person we’re fighting, the “terrorist.” The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The “war on terror” is not about stopping you from being afraid, it’s about making you afraid.
Next, “war.” How many terrorists are there – hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It’s not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.”
What about the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty”?
Those are metaphorical. Real wars are wars against countries, and in the “war on terror,” we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We’re acting at the wrong level.
Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush – a “war president” with “war powers,” which imply that ordinary protections don’t have to be observed. A “war president” has extraordinary powers. And the “war on terror,” of course, never ends. There’s no peace treaty with terror. It’s a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words – “war on terror” – they’ve enacted vast political changes.
George Lakoff, UC Berkeley linguistics professor and Rockridge Institute Fellow.
“The word terror activates your fear”
No it doesn’t.
“…and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want.”
Utter garbage. I am an adult. The world could use a bit of “strict father” about now…we’ve been partying with older adolescent sibling for much too long now without any restraints. Kids in Chicago are killing each other and putting poison in their arms because of it! Grow up!
“Real wars are wars against countries…”
News flash! ISIS established what amounts to a nation state thanks to our meddling and incompetence following the legal war to remove Saddam and establish an arena to fight al Qaeda and its recruits. We won the war…we lost the peace.
ISIS rules over people in three countries, has taxing authority, banking authority, trade authority. They may not be recognized by the UN (Big deal) but they have managed to form and perform as a nation state.
“And the “war on terror,” of course, never ends. There’s no peace treaty with terror. It’s a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words – “war on terror” – they’ve enacted vast political changes.
There is death to the leadership and an end to recruitment probabilities but it takes a good strategy and determination and grit. We had nearly achieved that goal when a “liberal” change ended the idea of “conservatives in power indefinitely,” a bogus claim, and the not-stupid war commenced. Now the rise of ISIS presents a greater threat to the world with no strategy or end in sight. So much for the professors theory.
The rise of ISIS was created by the USA and their reckless wars.
Explicitly, ISIS was born in Maliki’s “detention centers.” There’s a euphemism for ya, “detention”.
Hussein wasn’t any prize, of course, but we don’t get any kind of kudos for switching out oppressors.
“Utter garbage. I am an adult. The world could use a bit of “strict father” about now…”
Yeah, “utter garbage” … and then you agree. You see that, don’t you?
I’ve been reading more psychology. You won’t like it … about the components of neurosis. (If it makes you feel any better, I also qualify.) I think I’m seeing impulsivity. The fear and anxiety become overwhelming and the impulse to do something, anything, cannot be contained. But the impulse, generally based on incorrect assessments, just makes the situation worse. Hence, your trying to turn ISIS into a “conventional” state, so we can have a nice reassuring ground war with it.
It’s not. We’re not gonna. And you need to try some Paxil. It could help.
“Yeah, “utter garbage” … and then you agree. You see that, don’t you?”
Dewey’s idea of “strict father” demeans fathers and suggests the world doesn’t need discipline and a strong ground of being. He sees authoritarians and Nazi’s. So yes what he said was both garbage and an indication of what is needed in this world.
“The fear and anxiety become overwhelming and the impulse to do something, anything, cannot be contained.”
Being wise enough, sensitive enough, to remove your hand from a hot burner is not an example of an impulse to do “something, anything” lacking in logic or reason. The desire (indeed wisdom) to right what has gone terribly wrong is not based on impulse.
A ground war that includes large numbers of Americans is not necessary. We do need a workable strategy and a leader capable of executing it and we have none. Hillary has already been tested…Benghazi and ISIS, the “reset” with the Russians, the deal with a known sponsor of terrorism (Iran) are her legacy. No thank you!
“demeans fathers”
Well, thanks for confirming that you can only see a group being “demeaned” when it’s a group you happen to like.
What an obnoxious boor you are, Chris.
Tina: “ISIS established what amounts to a nation state”
They haven’t, though. They really do want you to think they have. And you really want to believe that they have, because there is a Democrat in office, and you’d gladly watch the world burn as long as you can pin it on a liberal.
Watching ISIS play you like a fiddle would be funny if there weren’t so damned many of you.
“They haven’t, though. They really do want you to think they have. And you really want to believe that they have, because there is a Democrat in office, and you’d gladly watch the world burn as long as you can pin it on a liberal. ”
Chris, you’re wrong about me.
This entire situation makes me ill. When I think of the blood and treasure spent to rid the world of terrorists, and now the waste it was due to the policies and decisions made since 2008; when I think of all the lives needlessly lost and needlessly disrupted across many many nations; when I think of the greater danger Israel and the world face with the Iran deal; when I think of the sluggish economic situation that exacerbates all of the above, the last thing I think about is silly political games. I am heartbroken and deeply concerned. At the same time I’m facing reality. I don’t have to “pin it” on liberals; they’ve pinned it on themselves. Who do you think has lead this carnival of destruction if not your party with Obama at the head? Who do you think was involved in many of the decisions at State if not Hillary? We must change direction. Hillary is one of the architects of this disaster and part of the the problem. We must have new leadership andd fresh blood under him.
And ISIS is operating as a state, with total control over vast areas in at least three countries, just as I described, with aims to keep spreading their reach. They are true believers in the same vein as the Nazi’s.
TIME: “To Defeat ISIS, We Must Treat it Like a State”
NYT: “ISIS Transforming Into Functioning State”
Gatestone Institute: “ISIS Already in Gaza Strip”
The WEEK: “Why the West should accept ISIS as a sovereign nation”
Jerusalem Post: “ISIS expands its ‘state’ ”
NY Daily News: “ISIS declares creation of new Islamic state with own headman as supreme leader”
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: “The Structure of the Islamic State (ISIS)”
Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah:
Chris you need to stop looking at this as stricltly political. It is bigger than either party. We desperately need someone who can lead, who will listen to experts and come up with a workable strategy, someone who will put together a coalition of nations to handle the many related problems. I know Trump doesn’t look like the best answer but he is the only candidate that offers a different approach.
Unhappily, Trump’s “different approach” looks a lot like racist totalitarianism, and we’re not going for it.
And “workable strategy”?? You just admitted you’re after all-out war. That’s neither workable nor strategy. It’s barbarism.
What are you talking about… Dewey’s idea of “strict father”… excuse me?
You’re excused!