Warmonger

The appellation of warmonger was applied to John McSame the other day by a radio host doing a warm up for Barack Obama, creating a storm of criticism. I decided that rather than just going off on a partisan rant or some such I'd consult an expert - of sorts. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has this to say, in full:

war.mon.ger n. (1590) one who urges or attempts to stir up war

Now I have no particular use for John's politics, but then I have no use for the politics of the administration he intends to perpetuate, but calling names is considered childish. There is, however, a difference between accurately naming something and just being rude. John McSame was one of the most vocal boosters of going to war with Iraq and he is today one of the most enthusiastic supporters of that war. He also is one of the most vehement advocates of making military threats against Iran. Now if Iraq qualifies as a war, then being Mr Booster for for its prosecution and continuation directly qualifies as urging war.

So let's be exactly accurate in our language, Iraq was invaded by the USA under false assertions, those assertions were debunked and the reasons for continued warfare were modified - repeatedly. John McSame claims the Democratic nomination candidates are guilty of failure of leadership for suggesting we leave Iraq. John McSame repeated the false assertions of BushCo, enthusiastically stoking the war fever.

Speaking in absolutely accurate language, John McCain is a warmonger. Nobody need apologize or retract or modify or denounce or in any manner deny accurate usage of the English language. That is absolutely nonsensical, I don't care what John McCain did in Vietnam, he is a warmonger, by definition. If you want to call him a hawk, that's fine, it means the same thing, you just think it's politer. It isn't, politics is a strange business, lying is called spinning or mis-speaking, all that amounts to is remaking the language, not changing facts. The English language doesn't need the politico's help, it is one of the most expressive and accurate languages in the world. Warmonger means what it means and the fact that Webster neglected to put picture of John with the definition doesn't mean you can't put the word under his picture with no fear of being inaccurate.

Political Civility

Another place I used to write for had reader regularly accuse me of incivility in the political arena - generally ascribed to my being a left loon - and I really did very little to dissuade them of the idea. There is a reason for incivility beyond being generally overwrought, it also the action of calling a thing what it is, a lie is a lie; a person engaging in that conduct is a liar. That is something considerably different than arguing a point regarding the benefits of small government versus large active government. If that one stirs you into throwing rude adjectives and adverbs all around, you need a hobby. You may not convince a dedicated opponent, but there are a lot of folks out there who aren't dedicated, they're looking for information and a persuasive argument - chances are a bunch of frothing at the mouth ain't that.

When Mitt Romney stood up in a debate and stated an absolute falsehood regarding UN Inspectors, never corrected it, and wasn't corrected by any of the others I lost my mind. He made an untrue statement in order to justify a policy, it was his linch pin, and even when called out for it later made some comment about context. Why you lying sack, the context was that it bolstered your policy - it was not taken "out of context" - other than it wasn't debate night when you were called on it. That is not a policy difference, I could have lived with that and not gotten real basic with language. We do no one a service when we allow or downplay this kind of thing.

George Bush and his administration have lied to the American people. Some try to make the case that the WMD intelligence was flawed, maybe some of it was, but there were great gobs of garbage that they knew was just that. They continue to get away with it because they're not called on the garbage, a relative handful of people call the lies just that, but the media maintains civility. They just cannot work up to stating plain facts with plain words. When Cheney states months after it's been disproven that Saddam was tied to al Qeada and 9/11 it is not a misstatement, it is an out and out lie. Nobody stood up and said, "Why that's a bald faced lie," not one. This stuff isn't spin, it isn't mistakes, it is lying.

Halliburton didn't "over-charge," they committed theft, they are thieves not some confused corporation. They were forced to pay back money, they didn't offer it, it was taken back. Now just exactly why criminal charges weren't levied might have to do with connections rather than facts.

There is a difference between pussy-footing around language and civility. It is entirely uncivil to ridicule Dennis Kucinich for being short and homely and having a tall beautiful wife, it's the same thing to pick on Rudy for having some gay friends or too many marriages. It is not uncivil to call Rudy an authoritarian, that's what his policies are, but to call him names is another thing. I don't find any personal connection to the man, politics aside, but I won't make an issue of it. My personal taste in personalities is not an issue, whether I find a candidate likable or a complete s***head is not germane to anything other than whether I'd choose to spend time around them.

I am not going to refer to illegal immigrants and immigrants with the same term of immigrant, it is inaccurate and lumps together people who should not be lumped. I am not going to call voting in violation of the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US something other than treason, whatever Party. No end is served by calling things by other names than what is accurate. It is not civility, it is participation in the degradation of our system.

It would be entirely uncivil to make a large deal out of public official's sexual orientation or "misadventures" like getting caught up in a prostitution prosecution, it would be if their public life wasn't to a great extent defined by their puritanical political policies. It isn't the sex that's the issue, it is the public hypocrisy, another form of lying. I call the President George II and his administration BushCo because they are demonstrably true short-hands, there are a heck of a lot of names I don't call him. I don't call him those despite his bullying tendency to make "pet names" for his sycophants who evidently tolerate that behavior.

I don't call people traitors for having a difference of opinion on a direction to take regarding Iraq, I think BushCo is making us much less safe, I believe they're getting troops torn up and civilians killed to no good point, but I don't call them traitors. People who torture in the name of this government or direct it are criminals and a disgrace to the nation. I can't think of any interest served to play at naming it a crime.

There are two major parties in this country, the Democratic and the Republican Parties, nothing is served by making rude or mocking names out of either. No matter what your political bent you are perfectly aware that there are fine people who belong to one or the other Party.

There is plenty of rudeness in the political arena today, there are plenty of enemies where there need be none and much of that behavior has generated real anger and it is time to stop that. There is no reason whatever that Congressmen from opposing views cannot sit down and have drinks after work other than the nonsense that goes on. I can think of lots of reasons why I wouldn't sit down with a liar or thief, but those really are in short supply and that's the shame of it. People who should be shunned by all aren't and political opponents are. The problem isn't a lack of civility in politics, it is the misapplication that's the problem. There are things worth fighting over and there are also things worth disagreeing over and there is a difference and it is important to recognize it.

Word Searches and Other Oddities

If you have a small enough blog and a site meter you can find out how people from where get to your site. Links are real common, the Lefty Blogs listing brings people from Blue Oregon, Loaded Orygun's sidebar link brings them, and my comments on other sites bring them. This is all pretty ordinary and straight forward, and a greatly appreciated service. These visitors intend to get here, it's the unintended that get my notice.

I put up some pics of my cowboy action shooting outfit and mentioned the shotgun as showing in word searches from a previous mention, the name in the title is currently driving 4-8 visitors per day. I already knew that, but "fancy words" in a title that finishes "for wishful thinking" is driving several per day. I'm pretty darn sure my article isn't that famous, but I'll be dogged if I can figure what it is they're looking for, as diverse a group as you can imagine, India, Taiwan, China, Harvard, Brooklyn, and more. SAA Colt is popular, but I knew that, but how about "how to butcher a turkey" hitting Geo II's pardon of a turkey or hits from all over the world on an obscure little blog for Litvenenko? I could understand AP, NYT, BBC etc, but "Chuck for..."?

Baker City comes up frequently, I understand that living here, but after all, we're a 10K population in the middle of nowhere. State and Federal agencies show up pretty often as visitors, I kind of assume they're Oregon transplants keeping up as are some of the high power educational institutions that visit, NASA, I admit, throws me.

I do thank the regular visitors, I'm flattered that you find this little endeavor interesting enough to come back. I hope the accidentals got some use out of this, at least more than "what do blue collar workers from Ontario, Canada do for jobs" did.

Words and More Words

Words are such wonderful things, there's so much information included in them and in some usages so much music. They contain not only information and music but also feelings. Ah, words, I suppose it's obvious as a Blogger that I love words.

Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.

Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.

George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?

Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?

Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.

Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.

The Prez Sez

The Washington Post carried an article about GWB saying we are safer. Now I'm going to quote the end of the last line:

"...an extremist group of folks bound together by an ideology, willing to use terror to achieve their objectives."

Sound like anyone we know? Nearby?

Let's do a little defining and move on. Let's just suppose that the objectives are, gasp, achieving and maintaining political power - fairly common amongst terrorists.

Webster's 9th Collegiate says " terror ... 1 : a state of intense fear "

This is the most secretive administration in history, think about it, WWII, atom bombs, McCarthyism, this is the most secretive. Secrets are the antithesis to an informed involved populous, the "deciders" if you will.

Terror level alerts have gone up before each election since 9/11. The Republican and Administration mantra is we're strongest on terror so you'll be safer. 'you are scared now, aren't you?'

Iraq and Al Queda are linked - denied by the CIA and Saddam Hussein's own papers. You are safer because we're fighting them there - terror acts world wide have skyrocketed since the invasion.

Opponents of the Iraq War are the friends of terrorists - see above

A wartime President has extraordinary powers - Congress declares war, not GWB

The Bill of Rights can be suspended in wartime - what war? The 1st Ammendment is being whittled at, the 4th Ammendment has become virtually meaningless. The 5th and 6th Ammendments are being abused almost beyond belief, in full view of the public and in secret.

I'd say our homegrown, elected terrorists have moved very far foward with their objectives, people are scared, power is accrued to them, the people abjectly surrender their rights, and...

There are a couple ways to deal with situations like this, voting the rat bastards out is simplest and least wasteful...