Check for web archive captures
Whose Thesaurus?
By lindamuralidharan on 2016-12-16 04:24:55
Well, language changes over time. I cannot easily understand Shakespeare's English although it is indeed, English. At what
point does grammar matter or meanings of words? I see so many examples these days of what I was taught are grammatical
errors, and yet these things may have been officially changed. Is it really okay to say "Whomever claims the keys that were
found needs to identify them" rather than "Whoever claims the keys that were found needs to identify them"? Is it no longer
necessary to use "so" when declaring a negative? Can we now properly say "She did not run as fast as him" and not "She did
not run so fast as he"? Yeah, two presumed errors in the first sentence. I see these things in print regularly these days or hear
them on TV: no distinction between subjective and objective pronoun forms, no agreement between subject and verb, and
other grammatical faux pas or changes. I do not really know which is which these days. [caption id="attachment_9210"
align="alignright" width="300" ].».:Citizens United decision Citizens United decision[/caption] As to changed meanings of
words themselves, some may be annoying but truly innocuous. We use the noun form of "fun" all the time now when an
adjective used to be called for. And yet I wonder how many changes interfere with good, clear, and accurate communication.
Why do the news media warn us that some violent images they plan to show are "graphic" rather than simply stating that
some viewers may not want to watch the next segment that shows actual images of violence and death? The word "graphic"
means something visual or pictorial, not something horrifying. And television by definition is "visual". The anchor is shown
visually. A segment about pets is "visual", "pictorial". To me, the language is perverted by this strange sort of euphemism. I
wish more Americans would be willing to face reality...perhaps that would help more get involved in reducing some of the
world's suffering...but I also acknowledge everyone's right not to watch certain things. |.plutocracy |-definition I think we
would be better off if TV spokespeople used the English we already have rather than inventing new words that are not
necessary and may even confound an issue. |»peasants-for-plutocracy-by-michael-dal-cerro I have written before about the
use of the term "politically correct." It dates back to mid twentieth century leftists trying to bring some conformity to the
stated positions of a lot of activists who had some similar goals. It was resurrected in the last few decades as a bludgeon to
attack leftists or even moderates who believe it is objectionable or even immoral to openly disrespect people in groups you
don't like especially if you use vulgar put down name calling, the use of the "N" word being the prime example. There are of
course many others....for people with other kinds of heritages that are not North European Caucasian (although groups that
used to be called names themselves often indulge now in using ethnic slurs for others). Being politically correct is now
considered by many to be wrong and foolish and against their best interests whereas I think it is simply a matter of showing
respect for everybody, regardless of difference or similarity to me. On the other hand, if it is considered PC to avoid
mentioning certain topics or issues it would depend on the issue as to whether or not I would agree. I would agree with the
anti-PC people in these instances if the topics are important and need to be discussed and maybe solutions sought. Break
these taboos by all means. Some of us were quite disturbed at the definition of politically correct that Bernie Sanders offered
last week at a televised town hall meeting with Chris Hayes of MSNBC and in front of a diverse audience. Sanders said PC
is spouting off with focus group tested talking points. Some of the present Trump supporters disagreed as did some left
leaning folks. Probably some of that is true in the sense that too many politicians go on with a platitudinous version of what
they believe whether it is things like "Democrats are only about tax and spend." or "We are going to stand up for all the
people." Right and left leaning politicians thus can be useless in how they present their cases. And frustrated voters may
legitimately complain. However, for most of the recent political campaign Trump supporters have made it clear that they
think "politically correct" is avoiding angry, insulting, hyperbolic, even bigoted, rhetoric. Our political discourse would
definitely be better if conversations dealt in clear definitions and specific policy descriptions, often accompanied by a fair
cost analysis. It seems, though, that those railing against political correctness are somewhat hypocritical. Do they discuss in
detail the ways in which the Palestinian people need to be supported in the face of illegal and oppressive policies flagrantly
practiced by the Zionist form of Israeli politics...the form that has always been just under the surface but recently has been in
the driver's seat? Do the opponents of PC explore why major media outlets so rarely report on the illegal acts and dishonest
brokerage policies of the Israeli government and the US weak effort to reign them in? Yes, I know, it is not PC in some
circles to discuss these things too often or too loudly. Could it be that for some who are against PC they are against it only
when they want to bring up an otherwise taboo subject or style of discourse? How often do politicians state they will give up
on some of the power of lobbyists' money and pass some better laws addressing the issue? Well, Donald Trump has said he
would but then he won't need the lobbyists since he is now going directly to the source and appointing corporate heads to his
administration. Rather than getting big business and big money out of government he is just talking about eliminating the
middle person. There are two other misuses of language as I see it that can perpetuate certain societal problems. One is the
constant type of news report that says, "Police are investigating to see if alcohol or drugs are involved." Alcohol is a drug.
The sentence needs to read, "Police are investigating to see if alcohol or any other drug is involved." I can't determine if this
common misstatement comes from ignorance or the very effective lobbying of the liquor industry to make alcohol seem
innocuous while claiming that indulging in other recreational substances inevitably leads to disaster. |*.jobs-overseas On the
other hand, more people these days are calling our current political problems by their rightful names. Take the word
"oligarchy". Whether or not we address elites from both sides of the political spectrum (incumbents are very hard to remove
from office, pals from similar backgrounds or universities tend to associate with and bring into the fold those of similar ilk)
or the several institutions and corporations that can buy influence, we seem to have a select group making decisions in ways
that shut out many concerns of the millions of he rest of us. Oligarchies are entities ruled by a small group or cabal. (In our
case at least small relative to us masses.) They may gain influence from common university backgrounds, as celebrities,
from wealth, or from ambition to climb the ladder of "success" or influence. Some may be backed by a powerful
constituency...that could be a formidable group of high tech managers, a particular religious group, trade unions, lobbyists
for a particularly powerful industry. Then there is the word "plutocracy". That too references a small group but one that is
based on wealth specifically. We already know that there are many millionaires in Congress. We currently see many more
being brought in to powerful governmental positions and some of the latter are billionaires. And we have long known about
the campaign donations and high paid lobbyists that do the bidding of the already rich and powerful. Unfortunately these
words seem to apply increasingly to what we keep hoping is a democracy in stead. We also seem to have a couple of new
words to understand and apply to our government in addition to plutocracy and oligarchy. We now hear the appropriate word
"corporatocracy" used to describe how so many corporations get to dictate aspects of governmental policy and we see their
increasing influence in the corporate creature Donald Trump and his tendency to prefer people of like mind and wealth and
position in our society. He seems to particularly like to have them in his budding administration. [caption
id="attachment_9214" align="aligncenter" width="260" ].income redistribution to the wealthy income redistribution to the
wealthy[/caption] There have always been great leaders of social movements designed to improve our society with regard to
climate, economy, health and other issues, and there exist today highly competent executives leading some of our significant
nonprofits. Nonetheless, we do not see their expertise being sought or harnessed by the current political leadership (as
represented by the president elect). |».ipirates And then there is the term "kleptocracy". As in so many of the dictatorships on
other continents, this is when government agents enrich themselves at citizens' expense, either by directly stealing funds or
using various legal subterfuges to direct public funds or potential public funds to themselves. We have already seen that
members of the Trump family tried to use taxpayer paid web sites to advertise Trump family products. The influence of the
various family members with official foreign representatives may result in more profits for their businesses. |»,iclasswarfare
This is problematic in at least three ways. First, even though a given policy that an administration might implement in
exchange for a business advantage could be good for the United States, there is no guarantee of that. It is equally likely that
a policy contrary to public interests might be negotiated in return for private profit. Next, there is just the unfair advantage
that certain individuals have over other competing citizens in increasing their wealth. If a person can use her official position
to advance her wealth this is related to kleptocracy. We are already distressed that so many congresspeople go into the world
of giant business to get wealth based on their knowledge of how the legislative process works....knowledge gained at
taxpayer expense but not necessarily shared back for the general good so the direction we see government taking now seems
even more unfair and likely to increase the serious public crisis of income inequality. Income inequality in some instances,
aside from just being inhumane as currently constituted, can lead to civil unrest that does not always turn out well. Let's
illustrate a type of abuse that is part and parcel of our present scene. The specific man nominated for Secretary of State, Rex
Tillerson, is and has been for decades an executive at EXXonMobile. Some time back the land locked African country of
Chad discovered and prepared to develop a lucrative oil field. With oil companies and supportive countries such as the US, it
was agreed that an oil pipeline would be built to get the oil to port and that the huge revenues due the country itself would be
put to public use building schools and other desperately needed social infrastructure. But then Exxon, under Tillerson's
leadership, got to break the agreement and made a new agreement with Chad. If Exxon got the exclusive use of the oil
profits (aside from Chad's share) it would build the pipeline itself and give the money to the corrupt government of Chad
and not to systems that would build the infrastructure of the country's institutions to benefit the people. The dictator of
several decades then spent not just a fortune on himself but also spent billions in arms purchases to keep himself in power.
Today the country is among the poorest in the world. Tillerson directly undid US government official policy that would have
also served the people of Chad in order to increase the profits of an already powerful and rich company. And himself, too, I
suppose. [caption id="attachment_9216" align="alignleft" width="300"]l®.;Wall St. Thanksgiving Wall St.
Thanksgiving[/caption] How much of this type of behavior do we, the American people, want to be responsible for? Who
will be our leaders? What is the role of ethics in government? How are we going to talk about these issues?
