Wednesday, August 18, 2010

A Change in Vocabulary

In reviewing some older posts in search of improvement in my writing style I observed that I have made some serious changes in word choice. In a mis-guided attempt at fairness, I was guilty of “sugar-coating”, under-statement, and general incompetence in appraising the future, now current, president. In my defense, it is possible that I fell for the constant outpouring of media praise for the intellect of the TOTUS and his posture as a “clean, articulate” black man. In plain talk; I got sucked in.

Earlier today I cross-posted from Granny With A Pitchfork and noted that she is far more direct in her criticism. I think it’s a woman thing. It all goes back to motherhood, protecting the weak (babies?), defense of home territory, and crosses the line of various species. Those of us who live in the woods, in an unusually natural environment, soon learn not to mess with a mama with young whether she be bear, bunny, bee, badger or blogger. Some are just naturally owly and protective of their space while others are simply assuming the need to protect their progeny.

Meanwhile, back to the issue at hand; during the run-up to the election we constantly heard the word “articulate.” Now, we are more apt to see it replaced with “incoherent.” This was especially true this last weekend as Obama raised his voice at a Ramadan dinner in defense of the constitution in the Ground Zero Mosque issue—supposedly a noble cause. The next morning, he aired a clarification which attempted to extricate him from interference with local issues which were beneath his pay grade. The result became the epitome of incoherence.

Personal pronouns have become a problem as well. In a campaign liberally laced with “Yes We Can” we have devolved to “Yes I did.” Granted, an election requires “we” to be accomplished but the inference was seeking a collective effort in all matters including governance. By playing off “We, the people” he garnered the votes. The substitution of “I” occurred abruptly thereafter starting with the formation of the Office of the President Elect. This then can be regarded as governance by assertion. Even the most far left of the polling organizations show disapproval on nearly every issue and his absolute disrespect for the will of the people.

“Transparency” is another previously used word by the president and his cronies which was consigned to the dustbin of history upon election. By the expenditure of well over a million dollars, he has managed to effectively conceal any details of his actual heritage from those who seek clarification of his credentials. Collegiate records have been sealed as well. In fact, much of the legislative agenda which the president seeks has been shrouded in mystery, lawyerly prose, and concealed minutia which becomes mammoth once enacted. It seems that almost every day brings the disclosure of some here-to-fore bit of concealed business which had been withdrawn from the public view.

Perhaps the vilest of misrepresented words in current usage is “racist.” Part of the definition indicates an implied superiority of a particular racial group over all others. In the dictionary, the race is unidentified. It is what it is and is not assigned to any special category of persons. Most are aware of the historical occurrences which have precipitated changes in our laws and our behavior. Nowhere in any source of definitions do I see it described as an easy pejorative accusation readily available to defeat sound thinking and sane argument. Perhaps at the close of our collective nightmare that part of the definition may be added. We are also advised by our betters that the victims of racism may only be black. We were promised by candidate Obama, a colorblind society. Just the opposite reality has been delivered. This misuse of the word then results in a highly divisive condition in the nation.

Only by using the 3rd definition—“an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”-- can we confuse the political cult of Islam with religion. The vast majority of our people hold the belief that their personal faith has a benefit to all mankind under the watchful eye of a Higher Power. In no case, other than Islam, does one observe the stated desire to kill or otherwise dominate the non-believer as a doctrinal precept. I don’t pretend to hold expertise in all religions but the concept appears to be singular in that particular one. Even among confirmed atheists and agnostics, that idea is absent. In this circumstance, the president does not substitute another word but misunderstands fully the implications of this venerable word—religion.

The classic among the current word usage is wrapped in the word “lie.” Although immensely popular among those who engage in the habit; lie does not equate to “misspoke.” To lie incorporates intention. To misspeak implies clumsiness or carelessness. To those who understand the language, the two are not interchangeable. To those who have the ability to understand the distinction, “misspoke” simply underlines the evil intention of the speaker to deceive. For believers of almost any faith there are strict injunctions to protect speaking the truth. Few provide any wiggle-room on the matter. But; as they say in the Ozarks: “figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

For a quick primer on proper and unambiguous use of language, I strongly urge you to turn to the United States Constitution. There, upon examination, you come to understand why it took thirteen years to compile that tiny document. It says what it means and it means what it says. The further we get from that document, the further we are along the road to the destruction of our God given rights and the greatest nation the earth has ever seen. Wake up America!

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

No comments: