With all respect to Joe Queenan, doesn’t he have any other fight to pick?
So Obama’s shift in terminology “is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.” And what, W.’s employment of the phrase “global war on terror” wasn’t equally Orwellian, but in the opposite direction — bending the culture’s thoughts toward fear and panic (a.k.a., the only thing we have to fear)?
Yes, Obama is attempting to shift the way we think about global terrorism. And why is this a bad thing? Our fear drove us to greenlight an ill-advised war that cost our soldiers and citizens a devastating and unquantifiable amount of lives, money, emotional and physical damage, etc. (not the mention what it did to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens). Make no mistake: it all started with fear, and that fear — to some not-so-small degree — was sprung from the new vernacular.
We could use a little balance, methinks. Your joke is in extremely poor taste, Mr. Queenan. Tisk, tisk.
Perhaps Orwellian is in the eye of the beholder. The policy of the "global war on terror" may not meet with your approval, but there can be no doubt as to the phrase's meaning. "Overseas contingency operations" strikes me as utterly weaselly. As for calling individual acts of terror "man-caused disasters," the phrase isn't even precise, since all sorts of disasters can be man-made and not be acts of terror at all. You say it all started with fear. I would say it all started with rage over the 3,000-plus persons who died on Sept. 11, 2001. And I don't care to have that euphemized by Obama or anyone else.
If you could go back and have that rage euphemized by Obama or anyone else, and if said euphemization combined with a more rational approach to the issue at hand could've saved us from the disaster that was and is Iraq, would you not do it? I sure would.
Language is manipulation, period. We have to use symbols to convey meaning, and those symbols can only be accurate to our intended meaning to a point. So we craft our words carefully so that they will be received the way we like. In other words, we manipulate. Obama is manipulating us, just like W. did. The question here is one of intent. I believe the current president's intentions to be pure; and I believe that, if there is a Hell, the latter president has about 25,000 life sentences to serve -- with the torture needle ironically set deep into the red zone.
I have too much respect for language to consider it manipulation. I think it is meant to convey truth and that those who use it are obligated to make sure that this what it does convey. I repeat my point: The phrase "global war on terror" may designate a policy with which you disagree, but there is no ambiguity as to what the policy is. The phrase "overseas contingency operations" is an evasive and deceptive use of words. As for Iraq, if it ends up with a stable representative government that is at peace with its neighbors and doesn't brutalize its citizens, I think history may look kindly on the decisions that will have contributed to that. But I don't want to debate policy here and it seems to me transparent that the Obama administration's use of language in this instance is deplorable.
As deplorable as the changing (manipulating the language) of "water torture" to "water boarding"? Or "torture" to "enhanced interrogation"? Or "concentration camp" to "Guantanamo detention center"?
A bunch of Saudis killed three thousand Americans and dubya's response was to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. Because Saddam had WMDs? Or because Cheney needed a fear-mongering mechanism?
But this is an old argument. The Repugs LOST the last election. Two elections in a row if I recall correctly. And the only way the Republicans will regain seats in congress is to manipulate language (let's call it lying cause that's what it is) again. Constant and continuous anti Democratic Party propaganda. Orwellian is in the eye of the beholder, true. But it was dubya and the Repugs that suspended Habeas Corpus, spied on Americans, condoned torture, and bankrupted the country.
May all your overseas contingency operations go well, Blue. Obfuscation by one side does excuse obfuscation on the other side. You can take the Democratic Party's position, if you like. It's a free country. I was not - and am not - taking the Republican Party's side in this. I am on the side of clear language. So, instead of attacking the Republicans version of obfuscation, would you like to try justifying the Democrats'?
The Dems have been back in office for less than 100 days now, Frank. Do they really need defending already? Only in the face of the 'News Corp" propaganda machine.
Obfuscation is less the point of this than the wholesale manipulation of the populace by multi-billionaire publishers, broadcasters and their self-interested comedy hacks who only seem to care about destroying public support for the leaders we elect.
Dubya had eight years of obfuscating and lying and that was quite alright with News Corp. Obama's been in office less than a 100 days. Someone's double standard is showing.
Well, I'll check back in a few months or a couple of years and see if The One's obfuscation bothers you yet. At least Glenn Greenwald is consistent: "My, what a ringing and inspiring defense of habeas corpus that was from candidate Barack Obama. So moving and eloquent and passionate. And that George W. Bush sure was an awful tyrant for trying to 'create a legal black hole at Guantanamo' — apparently, all Good People devoted to a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution know that the place where the U.S. should 'create a legal black hole' for abducted detainees is Bagram, not Guantanamo. What a fundamental difference that is. . . . The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions."
As I follow the exchange that erupted in the wake of your original posting (which included Mr. Queenan's Swiftian slap at euphemistic tomfoolery), I note that the Bush-haters (however dubious their facts) are rather eager to change to subject which I understood to be the intriguing power of language. Denouncing Bush (or anyone else) as a way of deflecting attention from Obama's linguistic contortions is terribly flawed argumentation. As long as observers of the present focus so viciously and illogically on the past, we run the terrible risk of misapprehending the present which will not bode well for the future. Swift, Orwell, and Queenan (to name a few) can teach us a lot about the power of language. I suggest we listen more objectively.
Alas, "my blog" has been forced by my work schedule and my writing challenges into a "sabbatical" (which must look suspiciously to outsiders like an erasure or abdication). Also, in a pique of frustration about several students' reactions to my blogging, I ran up the "white flag" and decided instead to sit on the sidelines of blogdom (but occasionally toss in two-cents every now and then). Perhaps, when the semester ends, I will return to full involvement (under the academic radar of my university). Until then, I hope no one minds that I am merely sitting and tossing.
Don't forget Rupert. We should all listen objectively to Rupert too, right, RT?
BTW: The "Bush haters" are merely citizens who watched Dubya diminish the standing of the USA, in every category imaginable, in the eyes of everyone in the world NOT on Rupert's payroll.
Ignoring the last eight years of incompetence, mendacity, war profiteering, fear-mongering and political dishonesty because revisionists want to hide the worst presidency this country has ever endured is the REAL risk.
Allowing another Murdoch hack to poison the perception of the man we elected to clean up Dubya's mess, less than a hundred days into his administration, certainly would be illogical. And it would inevitably lead to a 'misapprehension' similar to the one we suffered in 2003 that resulted in our invasion of Iraq.
"As long as observers of the present focus so viciously and illogically on the past, we run the terrible risk of misapprehending the present which will not bode well for the future."
Another GOP platitude, Mr. Limbaugh? That's what you've got? You actually think they'll make those pics from Abu Graib disappear?
There was no moratorium on criticism of Bush during his first 100 days in office. Nor should there have been. Obama deserves no special treatment, either, whether it's his first 100 days or his last. And Greenwald is hardly a Republican spokesman or a favorite of Rupert. Moreover, shifting the topic to those precious and pristine and immune first hundred days is a nice way not to address Greenwald's criticism - which, I might add, is a hell of a lot more pointed than Queenan's.
With all respect to Joe Queenan, doesn’t he have any other fight to pick?
ReplyDeleteSo Obama’s shift in terminology “is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.” And what, W.’s employment of the phrase “global war on terror” wasn’t equally Orwellian, but in the opposite direction — bending the culture’s thoughts toward fear and panic (a.k.a., the only thing we have to fear)?
Yes, Obama is attempting to shift the way we think about global terrorism. And why is this a bad thing? Our fear drove us to greenlight an ill-advised war that cost our soldiers and citizens a devastating and unquantifiable amount of lives, money, emotional and physical damage, etc. (not the mention what it did to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens). Make no mistake: it all started with fear, and that fear — to some not-so-small degree — was sprung from the new vernacular.
We could use a little balance, methinks. Your joke is in extremely poor taste, Mr. Queenan. Tisk, tisk.
-G
Perhaps Orwellian is in the eye of the beholder. The policy of the "global war on terror" may not meet with your approval, but there can be no doubt as to the phrase's meaning. "Overseas contingency operations" strikes me as utterly weaselly. As for calling individual acts of terror "man-caused disasters," the phrase isn't even precise, since all sorts of disasters can be man-made and not be acts of terror at all. You say it all started with fear. I would say it all started with rage over the 3,000-plus persons who died on Sept. 11, 2001. And I don't care to have that euphemized by Obama or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIf you could go back and have that rage euphemized by Obama or anyone else, and if said euphemization combined with a more rational approach to the issue at hand could've saved us from the disaster that was and is Iraq, would you not do it? I sure would.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is manipulation, period. We have to use symbols to convey meaning, and those symbols can only be accurate to our intended meaning to a point. So we craft our words carefully so that they will be received the way we like. In other words, we manipulate. Obama is manipulating us, just like W. did. The question here is one of intent. I believe the current president's intentions to be pure; and I believe that, if there is a Hell, the latter president has about 25,000 life sentences to serve -- with the torture needle ironically set deep into the red zone.
-G
I have too much respect for language to consider it manipulation. I think it is meant to convey truth and that those who use it are obligated to make sure that this what it does convey. I repeat my point: The phrase "global war on terror" may designate a policy with which you disagree, but there is no ambiguity as to what the policy is. The phrase "overseas contingency operations" is an evasive and deceptive use of words. As for Iraq, if it ends up with a stable representative government that is at peace with its neighbors and doesn't brutalize its citizens, I think history may look kindly on the decisions that will have contributed to that. But I don't want to debate policy here and it seems to me transparent that the Obama administration's use of language in this instance is deplorable.
ReplyDeleteAs deplorable as the changing (manipulating the language) of "water torture" to "water boarding"? Or "torture" to "enhanced interrogation"? Or "concentration camp" to "Guantanamo detention center"?
ReplyDeleteA bunch of Saudis killed three thousand Americans and dubya's response was to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. Because Saddam had WMDs? Or because Cheney needed a fear-mongering mechanism?
But this is an old argument. The Repugs LOST the last election. Two elections in a row if I recall correctly. And the only way the Republicans will regain seats in congress is to manipulate language (let's call it lying cause that's what it is) again. Constant and continuous anti Democratic Party propaganda. Orwellian is in the eye of the beholder, true. But it was dubya and the Repugs that suspended Habeas Corpus, spied on Americans, condoned torture, and bankrupted the country.
Don't we all feel so safe now?
-blue
May all your overseas contingency operations go well, Blue. Obfuscation by one side does excuse obfuscation on the other side. You can take the Democratic Party's position, if you like. It's a free country. I was not - and am not - taking the Republican Party's side in this. I am on the side of clear language. So, instead of attacking the Republicans version of obfuscation, would you like to try justifying the Democrats'?
ReplyDeleteThe Dems have been back in office for less than 100 days now, Frank. Do they really need defending already? Only in the face of the 'News Corp" propaganda machine.
ReplyDeleteObfuscation is less the point of this than the wholesale manipulation of the populace by multi-billionaire publishers, broadcasters and their self-interested comedy hacks who only seem to care about destroying public support for the leaders we elect.
Dubya had eight years of obfuscating and lying and that was quite alright with News Corp. Obama's been in office less than a 100 days. Someone's double standard is showing.
-blue
Well, I'll check back in a few months or a couple of years and see if The One's obfuscation bothers you yet. At least Glenn Greenwald is consistent: "My, what a ringing and inspiring defense of habeas corpus that was from candidate Barack Obama. So moving and eloquent and passionate. And that George W. Bush sure was an awful tyrant for trying to 'create a legal black hole at Guantanamo' — apparently, all Good People devoted to a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution know that the place where the U.S. should 'create a legal black hole' for abducted detainees is Bagram, not Guantanamo. What a fundamental difference that is. . . . The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions."
ReplyDeleteAs I follow the exchange that erupted in the wake of your original posting (which included Mr. Queenan's Swiftian slap at euphemistic tomfoolery), I note that the Bush-haters (however dubious their facts) are rather eager to change to subject which I understood to be the intriguing power of language. Denouncing Bush (or anyone else) as a way of deflecting attention from Obama's linguistic contortions is terribly flawed argumentation. As long as observers of the present focus so viciously and illogically on the past, we run the terrible risk of misapprehending the present which will not bode well for the future. Swift, Orwell, and Queenan (to name a few) can teach us a lot about the power of language. I suggest we listen more objectively.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, I agree, R.T. (BTW, where's your blog gone?)
ReplyDeleteAlas, "my blog" has been forced by my work schedule and my writing challenges into a "sabbatical" (which must look suspiciously to outsiders like an erasure or abdication). Also, in a pique of frustration about several students' reactions to my blogging, I ran up the "white flag" and decided instead to sit on the sidelines of blogdom (but occasionally toss in two-cents every now and then). Perhaps, when the semester ends, I will return to full involvement (under the academic radar of my university). Until then, I hope no one minds that I am merely sitting and tossing.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Rupert. We should all listen objectively to Rupert too, right, RT?
ReplyDeleteBTW: The "Bush haters" are merely citizens who watched Dubya diminish the standing of the USA, in every category imaginable, in the eyes of everyone in the world NOT on Rupert's payroll.
Ignoring the last eight years of incompetence, mendacity, war profiteering, fear-mongering and political dishonesty because revisionists want to hide the worst presidency this country has ever endured is the REAL risk.
Allowing another Murdoch hack to poison the perception of the man we elected to clean up Dubya's mess, less than a hundred days into his administration, certainly would be illogical. And it would inevitably lead to a 'misapprehension' similar to the one we suffered in 2003 that resulted in our invasion of Iraq.
"As long as observers of the present focus so viciously and illogically on the past, we run the terrible risk of misapprehending the present which will not bode well for the future."
Another GOP platitude, Mr. Limbaugh? That's what you've got? You actually think they'll make those pics from Abu Graib disappear?
-blue
There was no moratorium on criticism of Bush during his first 100 days in office. Nor should there have been. Obama deserves no special treatment, either, whether it's his first 100 days or his last. And Greenwald is hardly a Republican spokesman or a favorite of Rupert. Moreover, shifting the topic to those precious and pristine and immune first hundred days is a nice way not to address Greenwald's criticism - which, I might add, is a hell of a lot more pointed than Queenan's.
ReplyDelete