Some time back I read an interesting article. I can't find the source, so I'll do my best to paraphrase it here. If we find the source, I'll extend my apologies as I have no intention to plagiarize, but rather to stimulate discussion.

There is a battle under way to control the vocabulary in politics. I'll submit one example for this discussion, which is the phrase "war against terror" that is coined by the right and (I think) mistakenly repeated by everyone else. Aside from the grammatical issues of waging war on terror, a concept more than an entitity, what we really have is a "war against terrorists." This subtle shift in vocabulary has profound impact on how one thinks of the military campaign under way.

Consider the fact that there are probably only a few thousand true terrorists in the world that are willing and able to strap bombs on their bodies or carry out deadly missions. Although this small cadre is dangerous and should be taken seriously, it shifts the perspective when one thinks about waging war with the individuals rather than the nebulous concept of terror or fear. If we are serious about rooting out this group, then special forces and covert operations will be our tactic, not smart bombs and tanks.

Mentally substituting "terrorists" for "terror" when hearing this phrase puts it into an entirely mode of thinking. I submit that we ought to focus more on the enemy and less on the how the enemy makes us feel.

I submit that we ought to focus more on the enemy and less on the how the enemy makes us feel.

I agree. We ought to focus (and we should have focused) like a laser on the perpetrators and their direct associates.

This administration, though, used the events of 9/11 to have a broad, unending "war on terror" purposely.

There is no doubt that republicans have been the "winners" in defining the vernacular of politics.

Look as "Family Values" with the implication that the other party opposes those values.
Look at "pro-life" implying that the other side is "pro-death"

Democrats are "soft on defense" This one I love the best, not because of its inaccuracy but because of its sexual connotations. Flaccid, impotent Democrats.

There are many others.

Some time back I read an interesting article. I can't find the source, so I'll do my best to paraphrase it here. If we find the source, I'll extend my apologies as I have no intention to plagiarize, but rather to stimulate discussion.

There is a battle under way to control the vocabulary in politics. I'll submit one example for this discussion, which is the phrase "war against terror" that is coined by the right and (I think) mistakenly repeated by everyone else. Aside from the grammatical issues of waging war on terror, a concept more than an entitity, what we really have is a "war against terrorists." This subtle shift in vocabulary has profound impact on how one thinks of the military campaign under way.

Consider the fact that there are probably only a few thousand true terrorists in the world that are willing and able to strap bombs on their bodies or carry out deadly missions. Although this small cadre is dangerous and should be taken seriously, it shifts the perspective when one thinks about waging war with the individuals rather than the nebulous concept of terror or fear. If we are serious about rooting out this group, then special forces and covert operations will be our tactic, not smart bombs and tanks.

Mentally substituting "terrorists" for "terror" when hearing this phrase puts it into an entirely mode of thinking. I submit that we ought to focus more on the enemy and less on the how the enemy makes us feel.


Don't want to sound knee jerk defensive or contrarian, but that phrase is perfectly correct according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end; a class war, a war against disease c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3


Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands; insurrection and revolutionary terror
synonym see FEAR

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

We have had wars against drugs, hunger, AIDS, poverty, and lots of other things. The administration is correct in using the term "terror," even though the more common usage is "terrorism."

Democrats/Liberals have been successful at redefining terms, too. There is constant revision apparently to avoid ever demeaning or insulting people. I never know what to call "black" people, so I just stick with "black" and hope for the best; I can't keep up with "African American," "Negro," "Colored," and maybe even "urban," that are still all commonly used in legitimate contexts, for example, NAAColoredP, "United Negro College Fund." Same thing for disabilities, gender neutral terms, etc.

Democrats/Liberals have been successful at redefining terms, too. There is constant revision apparently to avoid ever demeaning or insulting people. I never know what to call "black" people, so I just stick with "black" and hope for the best; I can't keep up with "African American," "Negro," "Colored," and maybe even "urban," that are still all commonly used in legitimate contexts, for example, NAAColoredP, "United Negro College Fund." Same thing for disabilities, gender neutral terms, etc.

If the republicans had been in charge of these you wouldn't be confused.

It would be crystal clear.

If the republicans had been in charge of these you wouldn't be confused.

It would be crystal clear.

You mean we'd be saying "black, white, disabled, alien, illegal-alien, Indian..." -- plain, unambiguous terms that everyone understands?

You mean we'd be saying "black, white, disabled, alien, illegal-alien, Indian..." -- plain, unambiguous terms that everyone understands?

is my biggest grip re: my liberal brethren (ooops, and sistren).

Speaking of which, where's czar been? I miss the little fellow.

You mean we'd be saying "black, white, disabled, alien, illegal-alien, Indian..." -- plain, unambiguous terms that everyone understands?

Exactly. The Republicans may be many things but ambiguous is not one of them.

They tend to be as subtle as a Tyson (pre-rape) right cross.

...for white folks to have.

...for white folks to have.

I'm frankly weary of having my linguistic chain jerked every few years because someone somewhere decides suddenly to take 'offense' at a perfectly sound and usable word.

While I'm at it, If someone can explain to me the syntactical distinction between 'colored people' and 'people of color,' I'm all ears.

I understand why blacks would object to the old 'colored' formulation, given its history and context of usage. I'm at a loss how 'of color' is any great improvement, or any improvement at all for that matter, but apparently it's a quantum leap forward.

At some point, we liberals developed mush for brains, at least on certain subjects.

I blame it on bored academics like professors hoo and Red, whose ilk (I believe) did this to us for their own perverse amusement.

A Race is not a Race if it changes depending on which country you're in.

African American isn't a race, it's a description. Go up to Canada and see if any black people refer to themselves as African American.

I really don't understand the need for the constant juggling of the nomenclature. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I don't mind at all being called White. What's the problem with being called Black?


I'm frankly weary of having my linguistic chain jerked every few years because someone somewhere decides suddenly to take 'offense' at a perfectly sound and usable word.

While I'm at it, If someone can explain to me the syntactical distinction between 'colored people' and 'people of color,' I'm all ears.

I understand why blacks would object to the old 'colored' formulation, given its history and context of usage. I'm at a loss how 'of color' is any great improvement, or any improvement at all for that matter, but apparently it's a quantum leap forward.

At some point, we liberals developed mush for brains, at least on certain subjects.

I blame it on bored academics like professors hoo and Red, whose ilk (I believe) did this to us for their own perverse amusement.

My guess is that this happens periodically in an effort to "cleanse" the terminology. No matter what the term for any minority or "less abled" person, the term acquires a substandard implication eventually. So, they attempt to start new with a clean term that has a less obvious substandard implication, the use it for a while. It's a bit patronizing, in my view.

I think that gender neutral terms are much more acceptable, at least until the terminology become so strained and awkward that it seriously detracts from the message, and actually becomes the message. When I read something that is obviously gender neutral, and it's filled with feminine pronouns she, her, etc., I give up. The author apparently thought it more important to torture me with strained phrases than express clear thoughts. Nonetheless, I have no problem with "Member of Congress" versus "Congressman," etc.

My comment is/was meant without judgment.

In a manner simmilar to commentary/discussions say about Jews by gentiles. Not off limits by any means. Just, "entertaining".

A Race is not a Race if it changes depending on which country you're in.

African American isn't a race, it's a description. Go up to Canada and see if any black people refer to themselves as African American.

I really don't understand the need for the constant juggling of the nomenclature. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I don't mind at all being called White. What's the problem with being called Black?
Don't call me white, I'm Irish-American! (Terrorist Roots) Besides what the heII is a race anyway? Biologically speaking, humans belong to one species. Races are either mass-start or TT. Negro, caucasian, asian, are as silly as dividing the world into blonds, brunetts and redheads. (Hey, didn't we do that to women in the early 1900's?)

You are exactly correct. Race has no meaning as it is commonly (& incorrectly) used.
Black, white, yellow we are all the SAME race, Human.

We have had wars against drugs, hunger, AIDS, poverty, and lots of other things. The administration is correct in using the term "terror," even though the more common usage is "terrorism."

You bring up good counter points about how the Left has also abused vocabulary, but the history war examples you cite have a zero success rate. We still have drugs, hunger, AIDS and poverty. I try to think of why we call them wars, but the only explanation seems to imply that we take the mission seriously, as if we were fighting for our lives. The truth is that we really wage a skirmish against these social ills, not a war.

Since reading the article (which I still can't find) I've mentally substituted "terrorists" for "terror" when hearing the phrase and it is fascinating how differently I think of the task before us. It puts into relief the whole notion of deploying cold war era weaponry on guerilla forces. We have a strong historical precedent in Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet 80s invasion) to show that the approach is flawed.

But I digress. My point is simply to spur dialog about the terms we use and how they affect the debate.

Don't call me white, I'm Irish-American! (Terrorist Roots) Besides what the heII is a race anyway? Biologically speaking, humans belong to one species. Races are either mass-start or TT. Negro, caucasian, asian, are as silly as dividing the world into blonds, brunetts and redheads. (Hey, didn't we do that to women in the early 1900's?)

I'm a redneck cracker, a very specific separate race from the rest of humanity, the only race it is entirely permissable to make fun of, and I will thank you to refer to me as a Crackro-American.

The word is misused; if anything it's a war on terrorism (the tactic) not terror (the emotion).

Whenever the government wants to change something they declare war on it. More word play?



Some time back I read an interesting article. I can't find the source, so I'll do my best to paraphrase it here. If we find the source, I'll extend my apologies as I have no intention to plagiarize, but rather to stimulate discussion.

There is a battle under way to control the vocabulary in politics. I'll submit one example for this discussion, which is the phrase "war against terror" that is coined by the right and (I think) mistakenly repeated by everyone else. Aside from the grammatical issues of waging war on terror, a concept more than an entitity, what we really have is a "war against terrorists." This subtle shift in vocabulary has profound impact on how one thinks of the military campaign under way.

Consider the fact that there are probably only a few thousand true terrorists in the world that are willing and able to strap bombs on their bodies or carry out deadly missions. Although this small cadre is dangerous and should be taken seriously, it shifts the perspective when one thinks about waging war with the individuals rather than the nebulous concept of terror or fear. If we are serious about rooting out this group, then special forces and covert operations will be our tactic, not smart bombs and tanks.

Mentally substituting "terrorists" for "terror" when hearing this phrase puts it into an entirely mode of thinking. I submit that we ought to focus more on the enemy and less on the how the enemy makes us feel.

I'm a redneck cracker, a very specific separate race from the rest of humanity, the only race it is entirely permissable to make fun of, and I will thank you to refer to me as a Crackro-American.

I read that as Crack-ho American the first and second time.

I read that as Crack-ho American the first and second time.

Crackroism came to the fore, my young friend. I forgive you.

I'm a redneck cracker, a very specific separate race from the rest of humanity, the only race it is entirely permissable to make fun of, and I will thank you to refer to me as a Crackro-American.

And we much appreciate it. But my daughter's smart and lovely new Kentucky-born school teacher has shaken even my deep-seated Kentucky prejudices...