ABC features today an opinion piece discussing what it calls the Bush "War on Language," which in effect discusses how the Administration's bold and brazen use of euphemism and rhetoric goes unnoticed and unchallenged by the public. Here are some examples:
Post 9/11, the invasion of other countries became a 'preemptive strike', the capture and torture of civilians 'extraordinary rendition'. A sign on the front of the US prison in Guantanamo Bay reads 'Honor Bound to Defend Freedom'. Small comfort to the 460 'unlawful combatants' who after four years still languish inside, without any access to basic human rights.Regarding the recent suicides at Guantanamo, the article points out disturbingly:
No doubt aware of the adverse publicity the facility was receiving in the media, those running the prison decided to re-label suicide attempts as 'manipulative self-injurious behaviour' or 'SIBs', to euphemise still further. After reclassification, predictably the rate of attempted suicides plummeted overnight.One example I like to point out is the use of the phrase "Free Speech Zones" to describe small, remote areas in which protesters are allowed to congregate during political appearances — so remote that the politicians, the intended audience for such speech, can't begin to see or hear them. This has become standard practice for Bush appearances, and serves to shield the President from the mere awareness that there are people who disagree with him — and serves to provide those who disagree no outlet to voice their dissent to their elected officials.
America is suffering from a collective insanity, when viewed under a certain light. Despite endless articles in the press about miscalculations, misdirections and outright deception by the Bush administration, many Americans continue to give it the benefit of the doubt — or, more accurately, to doubt the articles. There are a number of factors here, and books could be written on this subject, but I will try to condense this matter shortly.
The Republican Party has become associated, for better or for worse, with the Religious Right. The Christian beliefs of President Bush have been made public without reservation, to the degree that Bush listed Jesus as his "favorite political philosopher" in a debate. I believe that an underlying and unstated effect of this open belief system, and the partnership of the Republican Party and the Religious Right, is that many Christians simply take Bush at his word. If he's a good Christian man, who's given up his alcoholism, how could he not be telling us the truth?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
One example I like to point out is the use of the phrase "Free Speech Zones" to describe small, remote areas in which protesters are allowed to congregate during political appearance
Just so you know, this term originated during the Clinton administration and the idea was developed by left-leaning college administrations as a way of isolating the general college population from any kind of conservative or religious protest or presentation which would be shoved off into the 'free speech' zone out of the flow of campus traffic and easy to ignore.
Dave
2 - JP
Dave, I was aware it was used by Clinton, but the frequency increased dramatically after 2001. One could make a case for a security concern, but one could also argue the security concern is being magnified as an excuse to allow behavior such as this. It's a perception issue.
3 - Maurice
The poll numbers don't support your claim that "So many Christians on the far right are predisposed to believing Bush and disbelieving his critics...". If your claim was correct you would see larger poll numbers.
Your tone is condescending. Not only do right wingers listen to Rush/Hannity but they also buy conservative books. I would make the bold claim that conservative books outsell liberal books by at least 2 to 1. Conservatives read - liberals watch TV.
4 - Nancy
The problem affects both left & right: the generality of Americans are too damned dumb to question or think; they live to eat, sleep, shit, screw, watch TV/play video games, and mindlessly buy whatever crap is being peddled most urgently. Schools no longer teach critical thinking; it hasn't been a subject for years. Kids are conditioned from birth to march to the drumbeat of consumerism, and spend-spend-spend-buy-buy-buy, accepting the word of marketers that they need, must have, can't live without such&such an item. Americans have been conditioned now for at least 3 generations to accept whatever some self-appointed authority figure dictates, without question. The days of the great motto, "question authority" are gone, and if our leaders have their way, it's for good.
The truth is, our leaders - religious, political, or otherwise - don't want us to think. People who think and question are troublesome as well as hard to control, and even the most cursory examination of public culture as well as media use, etc. shows that Americans have been being led down the path of control for some years now. The current administration is just a tad more blatant about it than previous ones.
The persons mentioned in the above article are the same ones whose gullibility politicians, marketers, and religious hucksters depend on: they're the ones who send in money when Oral Roberts reports a 900-foot Jesus demanding they give; they're the ones who unhesitatingly send their scarce dollars to the likes of Jim & Tammy Faye, & PTL Ministries; they're the ones who, on command & without further reflection, defend & support anything the manipulative liars at the top do or say, not because they (the people) are evil, but because they've been conditioned to be unquestioning, stupid, gullible, and controlled, qualities magnified from their natural proclivities anyway. These are the same gulls that send money to African investment scams, and give checks for payment in full to door-to-door roof repair companies. Some people are just too damned dumb to even be protected from themselves, and unfortunately, those at the top - our self-styled "leaders" take fullest advantage of it. More shame to them, and more blame to them when they finally reach Hell, where they belong.
5 - zingzing
um, maurice... americans, as a mob, are quite dumb. just look at the television they watch, the cars they drive, the music they listen to, the color carpet on their floor, the paintings on their walls, the fact that infomercials exist, the popularity of fast food and pre-"worn" jeans, botox, breast augmentation, jennifer anniston's hair, michael bay, etc, etc, etc.
oh yeah. as for that book... i've met plenty of dumb rich people. but they were beautiful! here's my theory: rich people marry beautiful people and produce beautiful children. refute that.
6 - zingzing
and maurice, did you read past the "americans are dumb" bit of nancy's rant? she points out just which americans are dumb and how they are dumb. unfortunately, lots of her examples are of conservatives (or just plain dumb people) who don't read books, but just watch television. the intelligent conservatives (or people) aren't the problem, it's the masses of dumb hick conservatives (or people) who watch the christian channels (or informercials) and send their money to money-grubbing money whores.
7 - Dave Nalle
Your tone is condescending. Not only do right wingers listen to Rush/Hannity but they also buy conservative books. I would make the bold claim that conservative books outsell liberal books by at least 2 to 1. Conservatives read - liberals watch TV.
I'd argue that not only do they watch TV, but they don't watch TV news, but only entertainment programming - perhaps a lot of reality TV. Some of the things the 'herd' of leftist true believers are willing to accept as true from their leaders could only be believed by people who have little or no contact with actual news of any sort in their lives.
Dave
8 - Nancy
There are plenty on the left who are just as dumb; it's just that they watch different shows & send their money to different money-grubbing zealot whores.
BTW, Maurice, I don't even have cable, ergo no TV; I read & listen to radio. There now.
9 - Maurice
zingx2
your sampling rate is the same as Nancys. All the examples you/she quote are from TV. I don't watch TV (got rid of it 8 years ago) so my view is not distorted like yours.
Read a book.
Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward is a great start for you.
10 - zingzing
dude... i don't own a tv. and the examples i brought up are from other peoples homes, passing by on the street, from inside of passing cars/the radio, reality, the restaurants that are packed, the shops that are packed, etc. has little to do with television.
and i am reading a book right now... franny and zooey, the symposium, bonfire of the vanities, words and music, secret history of disco, and some compilation of music writing from 2002. so there. i keep them in different places.
stop being arrogant.
11 - zingzing
same to you, dave. (stop being arrogant.) like your side is any better at all. i'm sure both sides watch reality television in equal measures. and if a majority of the news media is liberal, as you claim, then wouldn't it make sense for them to pander to their audience? if not, then wouldn't more conservative news media win out? wouldn't abc, nbc, and cbs go all fox news-like? wouldn't they? supply and demand? huh?!
12 - troll
all you guys without TVs have no business commenting on the nature of us dumb watchers
for example - you'll just never know the despair and nausea that we experience as we watch our holier than thou asshole congressmen debate this so-called war resolution
troll
13 - Nancy
You watch the government channel? Voluntarily? I thought they broadcast that partially for Gitmo torture, and partially for anesthesia in hospital ERs?
14 - troll
masochism runs deep in my family
troll
15 - Dave Nalle
same to you, dave. (stop being arrogant.)
That seems like an unrealistic request.
like your side is any better at all.
Like you have any idea what 'my side' is.
i'm sure both sides watch reality television in equal measures. and if a majority of the news media is liberal, as you claim,
When did I ever claim that? You seem to have confused me with someone else. I think that the media is universally in business to make money regardless of political inclinations. So they print or broadcast what keeps viewers watching.
then wouldn't it make sense for them to pander to their audience? if not, then wouldn't more conservative news media win out? wouldn't abc, nbc, and cbs go all fox news-like? wouldn't they? supply and demand? huh?!
The demand is for mindless programming. They all do what they can to fill that demand.
Dave
16 - zingzing
dave... okay, like the side you are taking in this little spat is any better at all. that better?
okay, if the news media is liberal, as the so-called book-reading, no-tv-watching, fuck-nut conservatives claim...
and i agree on the mindless programming bit. but i also stick to my question. if there is a leftist bent to the news media, why is that? because the left watches news? or because the news programmers love pissing off conservative right-wingers? just a question.
oi... how can i call you arrogant if you admit you are. stop taking my fun away. it is my sunshine.
17 - Baronius
"No doubt aware of the adverse publicity the facility was receiving in the media, those running the prison decided to re-label suicide attempts as 'manipulative self-injurious behaviour' or 'SIBs', to euphemise still further."
If you've ever been in the military, you'd understand this one. It has nothing to do with partisanship. In the military, if it moves, salute it, if it doesn't move, paint it, and if it contains two or more words, abbreviate it.
18 - Baronius
Oops. I should mention that in the military, *everything* has two or more words.
19 - JP
Maurice, as far as the numbers, I may be mistaken, however I'm pretty darn positive a higher percentage of Christians trust Bush than non-Christians. This is a center-right country, therefore of course conservative books outsell liberal ones.
How else could one explain Ann Coulter? I still think that choice of news media (I didn't even consider Fox News in my discussion..) not only influences perspective on stories, but which stories one will be exposed to. For example--Dave's comment is funny: "Some of the things the 'herd' of leftist true believers are willing to accept as true from their leaders could only be believed by people who have little or no contact with actual news of any sort in their lives."
Dave, how do you explain conservatives who still insist the earth is only 4,000 years old? Were they not exposed to science?
20 - JP
Baronius, I think the phrase "manipulative self-injurious behaviour" is ridiculous enough, whether or not it's shortened to an abbreviation.
21 - zingzing
"manipulative self-injurious behaviour..."
i think that's how my mother refers to masturbation.
22 - Lumpy
I own 5 TVs. Doesn't mean I don't know when or how to turn them off. Nor does it mean I don't read. Plus watching the history or discovery channel is a hell of a lot more educational than reading a stephen kíng novel.
23 - Baronius
JP, I never said military terminology wasn't ridiculous. If you need a gas mask quick, you better know to look under "mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP)". My point is, SIB reeks of military culture, and shouldn't be used as an example of political euphemism.
24 - Libareal
JP...
Da reeson dat us Libareals dunt by a many books iz becuz we kant reed...
25 - Arch Conservative
Dave, how do you explain conservatives who still insist the earth is only 4,000 years old? Were they not exposed to science?
Um yes there are kooks on the right JP.... what's your point?
You saying there are no kooks on the left?
I mean it's not as if there are certain groups of people on the left who claim voter fraud every time the lose an election right?
The fact is that as somone previously pointed out, this nation as a whole tends to be slightly right of center and there are those on the left who are such narrow minded, narcissistic, dilettantes that they are unwilling to admit the truth before their eyes every time it is reproven so they look for conspiracies under every rock.