The Current Language of Politics

Apparently I am not (in the last two entries) communicating well in the exchanges in the posts of Oct. 3 and Oct. 4.  Whether we continue them or not I want to try again to state what  I think about this and some things that I don’t think about this. 

1.  I am with the supporters of the ACA on the issue.  However, the Republican general position (smaller government) is a legitimate position and they have a right to use all legitimate methods to pursue it.  One is to use the rules of the House to prevent a vote on "the Senate Bill".  They can do that - and Obama can get on TV and say: "Just have a vote!" and make them look bad.

2.  I am offended by the tactics that my side (let’s call them the Ds) is using – in particular the name-calling.

As was noted in one of the posts "extortion  does have a definition": 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.  

Please note the word criminal.

3.  It seems to me to be particularly offensive to call the opponents (let’s call them the Rs) “extortionists” when the Rs are using the same tactics that the Ds have used in the past (when the Rs and Southern Ds held a majority in one body or the other of Congress).  This kind of hyperbolic language was not used.  You can say that it is because our politics was not so bitter then, and I will say sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between cause and effect.

4.  Since a basic principle of the ACA is that the government will “rob Peter to pay Paul” by forcing the payment of a fee or a tax or a premium by Peter. (I agree with C J John Roberts that a rose by any other name …)  The money will be used to provide “affordable” health care for Paul.  Does that sound like any criminal activity mentioned above?  I would agree that the operation of the ACA is technically not extortion.  But I agree only because it is the government which is doing it and it is done according to law.  Still, it seems to me to be spectacularly ironic for the Ds to say that the opponents of the ACA are engaging in – extortion.

5.  Consider the following two things in connection with Obama’s sudden adoration of “the law”.
1. a) About the ACA's health care individual mandate Obama says: “It’s the law we can’t delay that.”
b) About the ACA's health care employer mandate Obama says: “We are delaying that.”
2. About the “Dream Act” (which did not pass and change the immigration law) Obama said I’m not going to enforce that part of the immigration law. Poof

This is not a minor irrelevant discrepancy from out of the blue.  Obama makes 1.a)  the justification for calling the Rs extortionists.  Because “the ACA is the law and therefore I can’t negotiate about that”.  The other two are the evidence that he doesn’t take that argument seriously.

6.  I support the ACA and I think the Rs are messing up bad on this and that they will pay for it.  I think the arguments that can be brought to bear against their position are strong and persuasive.  Instead the Ds have chosen a type of name-calling that leaves their defenders making arguments like, “Well, I don’t really know what the president meant by that.”

I support Obama, but I am depressed about him. In general, I believe that we should not have to wonder what the President intended to say and, especially, the world should not have to wonder whether or not he meant it.

 

English as the official language?

In 1787 the Constitutional Convention conceived of the United States of America. There was, however,  much work to be done to bring about a successful birth. Ben Franklin and the Pennsylvanians wanted their state to be the first to ratify the document.  To that end they published 3,000 copies of the document and distributed them throughout the state.  Two thousand of them were in English and one thousand were in German.

Apparently, even in the womb, the nation avoided paralytic monolingualism..

Innuendo

While we are on definitions how about this illustration of one  by Sen. Harry Reid
who hopes Republican opposition to Obama is not due to his race.

"Here we are seven months into his second term and nothing has changed," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) told Las Vegas-based National Public Radio Affiliate KNPR. "It's been obvious they are doing everything they can to make him fail. And I hope, I hope, and I say this seriously, it's based on substance and not the fact that he's an African American."

The opposition couldn't possibly be because they support different policies.

Racist definition

Defining racist seems to be most difficult.    I am going to offer my own definition for comment on Yellowarmadillos. 

1.   An act may be considered racist when made as the result of a decision consciously influenced by race.  

      2.   A racist is someone who commits a racist act.

For the moment, and for discussion, I will say that item 1 describes the only racist act(s).

language and the war on terror

One of the things that irritates me is the misuse of the language, particularly by the press who are among its professionals and should be among its guardians

Two examples:

"to beg the question" is a term of logic that means to assume what you are trying to prove.  For example:  "those people" have a higher crime rate because they are more violent.

The press uses it to mean "to raise the question".

"to decimate" was a disciplinary practice used on the Roman legions.  If they fled in a battle, then they were lined up in some order and counted off.  Every tenth man was executed.

The press uses this to mean "to destroy".

The latter example may prove useful to the President.

During the 2012 campaign he and Biden loudly and frequently declared that they had decimated Al Queda.  (Notice the restraint - I did not say "brayed".)  On Oct. 21, 2012 I wrote here that the President's misrepresentation of what happened in Benghazi was probably motivated by a concern that it would make his middle eastern policy appear to be a failure because they had, in fact, not destroyed Al Queda.

Now it appears that Al Queda is far far from destroyed.  Perhaps Carney will soon explain that the President had never said that he had "destroyed" Al Queda, only that he had "decimated" them which everyone knows means killed about a tenth of them.

The name game

Choosing the appropriate title for your organization or group is very important if you are involved in something controversial. [Perhaps even if it is not controversial.  For example, people who play golf are called golfers which flows much better than say chess players.  But we chess players would probably not respond to chessers.]

 This post contains a few items like this and solicits additions to the list.

I think groups should be able to choose their own name. Up to a point.  The point is when they start to usurp other people's legitimate titles and roles.  Undocumented workers does that on two counts.  They are not all workers and "undocumented" is an attempt to make it sound like they are the same as a legal resident except for a little detail about papers.
Perhaps you have seen on TV a discussion in which one of the advocates says "undocumented workers" and the other says "illegal aliens" when they are both talking about the same group of people.  People also appear to refuse to use the word illegal and attempt to conflate the two categories (legal and illegal immigrants) which allows them to claim that if you are opposed to illegal immigration then you are opposed to legal immigration as well. 

You once had pro abortion rights and anti abortion groups.  Both sides got smart and went for pro choice and pro life.  Both of those seem legitimate and positive.

Any one born in this country is a native american so I don't like using that title Native Americans for the indigenous population of the Americas.  In Canada they use the title First Nations which seems quite appropriate.

Sometime in the last forty years the term sexual preference (which indicates choice) gave way to sexual orientation (which does not).

The gay rights movement's marriage equality was a stroke of genius.  Technically a gay man, G, and a straight man, S, both had exactly the same marriage rights before the current changes in some laws.  That is, each of them could marry a person of the opposite sex.  Of course, since G was gay, those were not the marriage rights that he wanted.  Marriage equality now means that each has a right to marriage with their preferred partner type.  [I wonder if the advocates of legalized marijuana could make a similar case for intoxicant equality.  That is, I should have the same right to my preferred intoxicant as you have to yours.]

Lincoln quotes

Today's quote November 15 was:  In early 1861, with the Civil War coming, Abraham Lincoln counted his assets and noted:
 “I should like to think that I have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

 Dan noted his appreciation in a comment to another post.  I thought I would give him a chance to put it here and add that it is one of my favorites.

Another of my favorite Lincoln quotes is one which is now appearing in the trailer to the new movie "Lincoln." It begins-- " I am the President of the United States, clothed in immense power, and I will have ..."

I have been told that the following distinction is trivial, but I offer it to you anyway.

I think that it is profound that he did not say some variation of  "I am the immensely powerful President of the United States and I will have ...." which would imply that he saw himself as someone who held his own great power.  What he actually said seems to me to suggest that he saw himself as an instrument whom the people had temporarily 'clothed' in their immense power.

To see the difference, imagine which choice would have been made by, say, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Lyndon Johnson.
(Slightly modified at 5:58.)

The opposite of loneliness

.
"We don’t have a word for the opposite of loneliness, but if we did, I could say that’s what I want in life."
Marina Keegan, Yale class of 12 who was killed in a car crash last Saturday. 
.

Nixon, Rodino, and Jordan

.
In the summer of 1974 the country was in the midst of the agony of realizing that Richard M. Nixon had committed acts that qualified as the "high crimes and misdeameanors" that were required for the impeachment and removal of a President of the United States.

The House Juciciary Committee hearings were televised and were opened by Chairman Peter Rodino who went all of the way back to Runnymede in the year 1215. If memory serves, he began with , "It is now more than seven centuries since the barons of England forced King John at the point of a sword " ... to agree to the Magna Carta and accept the fact that the King was not above the law.

The principal argument being made by Nixon's supporters was that the things that were done were not sufficiently grave to warrant impeachment. One thing that made the case difficult was that a lot of the documents that would have been evidence were destroyed in paper shredders.

Barbara Jordon was a first term MC (member of Congress) from Texas. She had been placed on the House Judiciary Committee which would determine whether the constitutional requirement would "reach these offenses". She made a spellbinding speech in support of impeachment which ended with:

"If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder."

You can read the speech here, but I would recommend that you listen to it here.

The judiciary committee eventually recommended to the House of Representatives three articles of impeachment against Nixon.

I was confident that Nixon was doomed. I even made a bet on it. Another example of how it pays to say exactly what you mean. I bet Franz $10 that "Nixon will be impeached." I lost because:

On August 8, 1974, Nixon announced his resignation effective the next day, before the House could vote to impeach him.
.

Tax code expenditures 2

.
We are subsidizing ethanol and other energy sources so that they can compete with oil.

But we are also presently subsidizing oil companies. A proposal came to the Senate that we should stop that activity. Senato Wicker (R of Mississippi) voted against it and said: "The suggestion that the appropriate response to soaring gasoline prices is greater taxation upon the companies that produce gasoline runs counter to common sense."

That is, Wicker argues that to stop a subsidy is an increase in taxes.

So much for the notion that the debt was all the Democrats doing.
.

SCIPing

.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Bertrand Russell

This is related to what I have called "Statement contrary to presumed bias".
That is, if a man does believe an assertion (to be a bit more general than fact) that is against his instincts, then his belief carries more weight than it would if the assertion were in line with his instincts.

I have wanted a name for this. When someone either makes or believes a Statement Contrary to Presumed Instincts.
With only one permutation I get: SCIP.

In his statement listed here on June 2 last, Senator Goldwater was SCIPing.
.

Tax code expenditures

On April 15th I complained that Obama is apparently among those who think of that part of your income that you keep after taxation as "government spending".

It was based on his suggestion that we could reduce the deficit by "cutting expenditures in the tax code."

I thought he was thinking like those in the first paragraph. He may think that way, but that remark is not evidence of that because it appears that there is a genuine concept called a "tax code expenditure."

So here is what I think that I have learned since then.
The government supports certain activities roads, PBS, etc by direct subsidy. That is clearly an expenditure.

But they also support certain other activities by granting to a corporation or individual a deduction (or direct tax credit) for charitable giving or home mortgages. This also "costs the government money" and is therefore an "expenditure" just as surely as if the government sent a check. If you eliminate those things I mentioned or the farm subsidy program you reduce the deficit.

So it would appear that I was W... WR ... WRO ... . Well, I don't seem to be able to say the word, but you get the idea.
.

1984 + 27

.
Until I watched Jon Stewart afterwards, I didn't even notice that Obama had said that the way we would cut the deficit was "... and spending reductions in the tax code." That is just how you say raise taxes right?

I had forgotten that some politicians, and Obama is apparently among them, think of that part of your income that you keep after taxation as "government spending".

Jon wondered whether we would have enough savings to cut the deficit AND pay those royalties to George Orwell.

Added April 18,2011: It appears that there is a genuine concept called a "tax expenditure" I will say more on April 19th.

word order

.
For those who think word order makes no difference.
Consider the following:

Only I hit him in the eye.
I only hit him in the eye.
I hit only him in the eye.
I hit him only in the eye.
I hit him in only the eye.
I hit him in the only eye.
I hit him in the eye only.
.

Hypocrisy

.
Hypocrisy has a value too.

When a society or an individual claims any sort of moral high ground for itself and then doesn't live up to that ideal they are called hypocrites.
This is generally condemned. But there is a silver lining. If one claims the moral high ground then their children may just call them on it. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner comes to mind and the whole boomer generation who tried to hold their parents to account resulting in the antiwar movement and women's movement etc.
.

Language

Muslims attacked us on September 11, 2001. True or False

Park 51 - 5 - the right to build

From the August 16 post: “Obama said Muslims had a right to build a mosque. The media reported that he supported building it. Obama said he supported the right to build. The media reported that he supported building it.”
It has been suggested that the media has cleared that up afterward.
On Sept 9 Obama said: “If you can build a church on a site, if you can build a synagogue on a site, if you can build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on a site.”
On CNN’s situation room that afternoon their discussion included this:
Anchor: after his waffling (see Aug. 16 post) “this was very clear and very definitive where he stood on the mosque”
Ed Henry “No doubt about it. When he first spoke at the White House … and then walked it back … “today there was sort of no hedging he just said (the quote above). That sounds like an endorsement.”