The Language of Politics

Planned Parenthood drives deep into genocide

by positioning its clinics in minority districts

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) was a pioneer in the birth control movement and a founder of groups that would become our modern Planned Parenthood. Life Magazine has ranked Sanger as one of the most important persons of this century. She suffered for her beliefs and activities promoting knowledge of birth control methods which were considered obscene and which were thought to promote promiscuity. Her view that suffering was associated with large families persisted throughout her life and was reinforced when she worked as a nurse in her early years. 'I remember that ever since I was a child, the idea of large families associated itself with poverty in my mind.' She saw motherhood as at its core degrading to the female when women were forced by circumstances and lack of knowledge to continue to bear children into a life a misery and squalor. 'Can children carried through nine months of dread and unspeakable mental anguish and born into an atmosphere of fear and anger, to grow up uneducated and in want, be a benefit to the world?' she asked in The New Motherhood. She didn't like large families as a general proposition: 'Large families among the rich are immoral...they invade the natural right of woman to the control of her own body, to self-development and to self-expression...'

From theonion.com:

MIDDLE EAST—With the Iraq war in its fifth year, the war in Afghanistan in its sixth, and  conflict between Israel and the rest of the region continuing unabated for more than half a century, intelligence sources are warning that a new wave of violence in the Middle East may soon blah blah blah, etc. etc., you know the rest.

Read this post from Meteor Blades at dKos:

Many people hate the term "framing." I understand at least one of their fears: framing can turn into an excuse to substitute marketing for principles. In other words, instead of a technique to get a right-on message across, framing can dilute the message, contaminate and weaken the principle. In order to be more persuasive, what we're trying to be more persuasive about gets partially junked. It's a reasonable worry.

Other people, of course, argue that framing is merely a euphemism for marketing, which is a euphemism for manipulation, and no way in hell should progressive politics be marketed because to do so means selling out to the perniciously unprogressive idea that people should be manipulated into accepting any point of view.

 

We talked a bit in class about how "The Daily Show" ought to be required material for class. Even if Jon Stewart and others believe that it's a sad state of affairs that more college students get their news from Comedy Central than from anyplace else, I disagree. The television news is biased. Making fun of the news helps to emphasize that TV news is not to be taken seriously. "The Daily Show" has managed to subvert the cultural authority of television by turning viewers' attention to the way that the media frames truth and ideas. It is important to realize that, like the media, language also frames ideas in order to generate specific emotions and actions in the audience. (more)

"But just because O'Reilly acts like a jerk doesn't mean that Rich, Kurtz and O'Donnell should get a pass to follow suit. Here's a tip for liberals and those who play them on TV: If you're trying to come off as more enlightened than the next guy, it helps not to mimic the very behavior you're going out of your way to condemn."

I find this analysis really intriguing. Offhand I would say I agree; I've been thinking about how liberals get away with a lot of stuff. I hear this type of banter on campus quite often with young white boys especially who think that they have license to say anything just because they hate the bush regime. more later, I am late for the dentist.

Commentary: The hypocrisy of repeating the 'w-word'

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Now that media giants have pulled the plug on Don Imus, the debate has moved to rap lyrics and the limits of free speech. But what we should really address is the hypocrisy of those who blasted Imus for insulting comments about African-Americans and then proceeded to repeat insulting comments about Mexican-Americans.

It's time for a national dialogue on the "w-word." I'll give you a hint: It's an offensive term that is meant to imply that all Mexican-Americans arrived in the United States by swimming across a river -- something that comes across as doubly offensive to immigrants who came to the country legally or those whose families have been here for generations.

You know about the "n-word." And what my gay friends call the "f-word." Most people in the public eye wouldn't dare utter those words in full. In fact, when entertainers have done so, they've paid for it.

And so it's surprising that, lately, there seems to be a rash of media types tossing around the w-word. It's also disappointing given that all this is happening in the aftermath of the Imus affair.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich wasn't all that careful. In arguing that offensive speech shouldn't be censored, Rich wrote that we should "let Bill O'Reilly talk about 'wetbacks.' ..."

Oh, hello. That is exactly how Rich wrote it -- wetbacks. So what that he was quoting someone else. That's no excuse. If that someone else had used the long version of the n-word, you had better believe that Rich would never have printed it in his column.

Read more

Would anyone like to share with me any ideas they have for their project subjects? I find it helpful hearing other ideas when I am trying to figure my own out.

Orwell’s essay “The Politics of the English Language” may descend, at times, into what looks like an appeal to uphold an unadulterated English language (though I may have misunderstood this aspect of the writing), but it presents a worthy argument highlighting the declining quality in prose. The most affective point is how individual and original meaning is sacrificed to the use of hackneyed metaphors and predetermined “verb phrases.” The artful search for words to fit meaning has been reversed, as he claims, to place words before meaning. This may be most clear in political speech and writing. Orwell gives examples of double speak and political euphemisms that are usually used to explain horrendous policies (“A mass of Latin words fall upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.”). However, words without solid definitions and meanings are used in commonplace political speech as well. I find myself becoming trapped in this practice, using phrases that I cannot honestly say I fully understand to abstractly describe what is often very physical and without need of overwritten phrases. I agree with Orwell that political writing is often terrible writing, even if I agree with it. Is it necessary to limit political speech to overused phrases? Can it not find meaning with more visual descriptions or at least with simpler speech? Can there not be some level of artistic quality in political writing and still allow it to maintain a serious tone? Must it often be unreadable?

I like the things we talked about today (almost yesterday??) in class.

This is what a wonderful man, and friend of mine from Evergreen, Allan Hill said in respnse to a TESC email posting by some guy named Tom Foote with regards to the Virginia killings:

'Yes Tom, I whole-heartedly agree with you, as I linger on every strenuous word
you speak. I also think that in order to speak of this current horror in our
academic community, we would have to re-define our language, except for the fact
that as a country, ˜we ran the store dry" on 9/11. All our metaphors to
describe the spectrum of human emotions and conditions like emotional
separation, physical shock, deep psychic scars, loss of community and the list
continues, were all taken, on September 11th, and continue to be taken, as we
speak, at VTI and in Iraq. I think that as a nation, even though there was an
ocean of immediate support from all areas of life during 9/11 and right after,
that spiritual and physical support only cauterized our language. I continue to
believe that ˜with time," we will once again own our words, but only in
constant fear of having to lose them again.'

If you wish to study more about politics, language, and behavior and either show your support or come and grieve...there is a Memorial Service TOMORROW at noon. I am working on a speech for the event as the Union is addressing the audience tomorow.

Students are talking to me about what they want for this campus regarding safety and security. If this is you and you haven't yet voiced your opinion, now is the time to do so. If you need to contact me please do so - my personal email address is public at greenergov@mail.com or you can email the entire Geoduck Union at geoduckunion@gmail.com.