Here I sit weak and weary, toiled and troubled, trying hard to escape the endless prattle that will engulf us all from now until...well as long as politicians exist. This group of well paid and usually under performing windbags blather away, saying whatever sounds great to the group they're speaking to, and seldom are they asked to explain what they mean, or can any of what they say be proven. I know I know this is what they do and we, the governed, swallow it up like baby birds in the nest and beg for more, insatiable. This may be one of our great failings and I think the worst part of it is that it works every time. I have mentioned this before, so no doubt I'll say it again, but wouldn't it be something if they only spoke about issues in which they were actually fluent? All right all right, that's enough of that for now, you see I really have a somewhat different point, and it involves words-uses and meanings. So hang on, we might be going outside the box a little.
What I want to talk(some might say babble on) about is the way certain words have become ostracized when used in a political context. The first is liberal. Now first a little personal history-in 1964 I was an ardent Goldwater backer, that's right, a conservative. I was in high school and as is the wont of many a high schooler, I was pretty sure I had it all figured out. I read his books and it seemed to make sense, less government, less spending all of this to make a better life for residents of the land of the free. Yup sounded good,... he got clobbered in the election, but he provided the seeds for what had grown into the Reagan era, with whom I did not agree. Today these self-proclaimed wizards of conservatism rail on about what liberals want to do, as if liberal was a profanity. They say things like "LIBERALS want to give welfare to the homeless!" Or "LIBERALS want to take away your guns!" "LIBERALS think you should have socialized medicine!" The list goes on and on, but the issue isn't whether their point is valid, its about the liberal thing. Liberal and liberty both have the same roots, and I know it sounds trite, but this country was founded by Liberals-meaning a new different approach, as opposed to the old system, i.e. the monarchy. So when the neo-conservative of today rants on about liberals, what's he (or she) actually saying? If its about restricting the government, say so, if its about reducing spending, act responsibly. Actually, as to that first point, think back to W.(shudder) and the laws he pushed through about government watchdogs or whatever you call it, think its okay to have them listen to your calls? Ahhh...that's for another day.
Another word that these people spit out is Union. There seems to be quite a push to demonize unions. I understand that not everyone agrees about worker unions, and personally I think all should have the choice as to joining. BUT, anybody who lives in this country and considers themselves upwardly mobile middle-class, should know what unions have done to allow this. Coal miners, rail workers and many just common labor workers of the 19th century, literally fought to change working conditions and in turn allowed workers to enjoy a better quality of life. A simple example-Scrooge expecting Marley to work Christmas, way it was then, unheard of now. Granted, there are problems, but blaming unions for government budget shortfalls is not telling the whole truth. Basically its telling people the reason things cost more is because I have to pay that guy for something you might not have, but would like, so blame him and not me. There's all kinds of unions, they may not call themselves that, but they are. What's the AMA, or OPEC, or any PAC, any organization that forms up to promote a common interest . Like ohhh, maybe the USA.
There is one more that seems open to discussion, and this might require some that box stuff. Terror and its worker bee, the terrorist. A terrorist invokes terror, well duh, however; my point is from the idea of what is considered terror. Causing a great fear by going outside the bounds of what is considered normal life in such a way to cause great turmoil to society. Now we today tend to think of all terrorists as radical, suicidal maniacs who think nothing of causing great damage and death to anybody that happens to be in the area. Rightly so, these are terrorists, but, they did what they did for whatever their cause or belief is and think nothing of those affected, they feel that their actions are justified because of their beliefs. That would be the thinking inside the box, not my forte. Are not people who undertake criminal behavior to further their own profits also exhibiting terrorist behavior when it reaches the levels that it requires government involvement to sustain a nation's quality of life? A radical blows up a building and people demand government action, banks give mortgages to people, knowing that they will fail(I know this is an overly simplistic example of the whole problem,but hey, its what I do), and this forces the government to take action. These people knew what they were doing, they may not have thought it would go this far, but it happened by choice.Now why instead of treating these people as economic terrorists do they get rewarded. You know that it will happen again.
facbook So, blowhards do a lot of blowing and use words that will fire up the masses, exploiting the language as best they can, but it seems to me that while they're getting all puffed up the ones that are behind them gaining the most return from all this wind just keep watching their piles get bigger, Now there's a union.
