Words Mean Things
The English Language is a living language. Every year new words make their way into the language and some old words fall from grace and are no longer used. Depending on the motivation of the change this can be a good thing or a not so good thing.
Back in the 1960s if there was something on TV that you wanted to see, you better make sure that you were sitting in front of the TV ready to watch when it was on. Then by the late 1970s we could use a VCR to “tape” a show when it was on. Now we can “Tivo” a show and watch it when we want. This change in language seems to make sense, because it happened naturally and followed our developing technology. This is a positive change in language.
When I was child when we went to the circus we saw some midgets. They were people just like us but smaller. Today you see “Little People” Somewhere somehow the term midget has become offensive and the term “Little People” has become a more enlightened and less offensive term for little people. This is a natural progression in the language and is easily accepted by the public. This is also a positive change in language.
In 2001 there was a significant act of terror in this country that killed thousands of people. The term terrorism meant something. Those involved in committing acts of terror were chased down and prosecuted with extreme prejudice. That was the process where young men and women in uniform hunted the murderous scum down until they found them and fired sophisticated weapons into the murderous scum until it was determined that the prosecution was extreme enough. A Global War on Terror was the persistent prosecution with extreme prejudice until all of the bad guys were as dead as possible. This process involved, intelligence, the military, and some really effective weapons. The Chicago principle was used when we had a Global War on Terror. You send one of our guys to the hospital, and we’ll send one of your guys to the morgue. Others tend to play nice in the sand box when the rules are clear and the consequences of your actions are real world consequences. This is an example of clear understandable language. You hurt us, we’ll hurt you into a grave.
It doesn’t appear that we have a Global War on Terror anymore. Now we have “overseas contingency operations” as I understand it these operations involve the same intelligence to find and identify the bad guys, but now we use diplomats to chase them down and formally apologize for our alleged past sins. Our diplomats are usually accompanied by a crack team of ambulance chasers to set the groundwork for law suits and claims against this country for using unkind language directed at the murderous scum in the past as they successfully dodged some of our weapons. They’re read their Miranda Rights as though they stole from the Public Piggy Bank, like some of our elected empty suits, but we’ll discuss that at another time. Some overly zealous diplomats have actually attempted to surrender to the murderous scum, but since our diplomats are not French, and the appropriate votes in the senate couldn’t be taken in time to legitimize the surrender they’re usually not accepted by the murderous bastards surrendered to. The transition from Global War on Terror to overseas contingency operations was not a natural transition in language.
This didn’t happen naturally as with the transition from watch the program to, tape the program to, Tivo the program. It didn’t progress from a social acceptance where the term midget was offensive and the term Little People a kinder more polite less demeaning term that was generally accepted and used. This attempt to purge the concept of Global War on Terror out of our language and replace it with overseas contingency operations by elected and appointed bureaucrats who appear ashamed of this country misses the mark.
They feel that we’re being punished for this countries past sins and that we deserve what we’re getting. They’re too naive to recognize a terrorist act for what it is, unprovoked violence on the citizens or interests of the last world Superpower for inadequate reasons. The reasons are adequate to cause the terrorist to act, but inadequate for this Great Country to sit back and let it go unchallenged. What you don’t challenge you condone. As we learned from some very good philosophers from Chicago in the 20th century, you send one of our guys to the hospital, and we’ll send one of your guys to the morgue.
A decisive approach to a problem usually comes to a better conclusion than a touchy feely approach. The reluctance to use the accepted words to describe an event accurately doesn’t change the event. When you’re observing an aggressively unattractive female strut her stuff in front of you, she doesn’t become a beauty queen just because you call her one.
The touchy feely approach to a problem is only marginally effective when dealing with touchy feely subjects. What wine to have with dinner, or which shoes go with which outfit could be considered touchy feely subjects. Defending our country our citizens is NOT a touchy feely subject. Decisive leadership and rapid, decisive, action will bring about a clear positive result much sooner than feeling their pain or concern for their motivations. The one lesson we needed brought to Washington from Chicago, “You send one of our guys to the hospital, and we’ll send one of your guys to the morgue” is the only one they left behind.
Vote the Bums Out,