Sign Up |  Login

     
 
    My Blog |  Popular Posts |  Top 100 Blogs |  Recent Blogs |  Random Blogs |  Write a Blog |  Manage Categories |  New Members |  Comments  
   View Blog
 
 Language Manipulation - Semantics
From My Perspective - - -

There seems to be an unwritten code for most politicians, that in order to succeed with proposed legislation, one must be adept with Language Manipulation and the clever use of nuance, idioms and semantics. Semantics is: “The study or science of meaning in language. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form…” It reminds one of the old saying: “A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.” It also suggests remembering the words attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The Basic Premise is that ambiguity confuses the true definition and detail. This is a tool used when discussing “Funding” for a proposed Legislation. The current discussion of Health Care Reform is using this tool when the statement is released that there will be a savings of $81 Billion without indicating there is still a Basic Cost of more than $850 Billion, and the reduction of Medicare Funding, and the Increase of Taxes (shall we call them enhancement fees, or a way to arrive at universal inclusion?). The Congressional Logo should be a Spider Web to symbolize the words of Sir Walter Scott: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Language is intended to Clarify – not Confuse! Language is intended to Help – not Hinder! Language is intended to be Definitive – not Deceptive!

An illustration of Language Manipulation is given in a Headline on Breitbart in an Associated Press Release on October 26th with this Headline: Pelosi: Health Care 'Public Option' Needs New Name. The AP News Item states: “A government-sponsored public option for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different name, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday. In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as The Consumer Option. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term Competitive Option. Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.”

Another illustration is when The War On Terror underwent Semantic Revision. A News Item in the Washington Post on March 24th, 2009 stated: “The U.S. is no longer engaged in a war on terrorism. Neither is it fighting Jihadists or in a global war. President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. The President does not describe this as a war on terrorism, said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a new way of seeing the fight against terrorism. The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the administration was not using the term war on terror…” What is the new term for the activity of the U.S. Military in Iraq and Afghanistan? It is NOTWar On Terror” but “Overseas Contingency Operation".

All of this is a far cry from the words of Jesus Christ in the Sermon On The Mount (Matthew 5:37): “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” In the New Living Translation, it is stated: “Just say a simple, 'Yes, I will,' or 'No, I won't.' Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong.” And, in The Message: “Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong.” Jesus confronted the Pharisees (Matthew 12:36-37) with these words: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless (idle) word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Jesus condemns Language Manipulation! He wants us to be exact and precise in the words we use – say what we mean and mean what we say! Consider these things with me!
    Posted by peripheral on 2009-10-27 05:58:04 | Rating: | Views: 33
    Email This to a Friend            Print This Blog Post  

  Bookmark:
Permalink:  
   Blog Comments
  
To be fair, the term "War on Terror" was created for the very reason you wrote this blog. Guys like Frank Luntz are hired to turn "Estate Tax" into "Death Tax", "oil drilling" into "energy exploration", and "global warming" into "climate change". It was never a "War on Terror". If that was the case, we'd also be fighting against Hezbollah, Al-Ummah, Revolutionary Nuclei, Hamas, Sendero Luminoso, and all the other terrorist groups around the world. We're just (poorly) fighting one group. I'm looking forward to when politicians spend less time worrying about labels and more time worrying about people.
Posted by  colinstmichael  on 2009-10-27 11:35:37 
  
good read. i lament that language leads to lying,and hypocrisy and obfuscation is the norm, in all levels of human activity....

though, reaching such a wise and wisdom-toting age as mine own, i must say that semantics is indeed a needed concern...

rallying people around a movement, etc, oft-times needs to be clever in its utterance, can you imagine if instead of being named Jesus, he had been called Freinhoffenburger Clemptitine. I think not. Language, and its utterance has value.

imagine saying what would freinhoffenburger clemptitine do? e-gads.

but moreso, manipulating language is needed in everyday life too, unfortunately:

man walks into a store. asks: "how much is that doggie in the window?"

owner: "400."

man: dang thats alot, why so much?

owner: (truthfully) because i need to turn a profit of at least 3% on every sale, and my wife and i are planning a vacation this year so i had to push it up to 4.5%.

man: so in otherwords, you would and could sell it to me for less?

owner: yes.

man: then why don't you?

owner: f*** off.
Posted by  bloodintheeyes  on 2009-10-27 19:00:33 
Would you like to comment?

    (Maximum characters: 5000)
    You have characters left.
  Blog Information
 

peripheral
Alabama, United States

Latest Posts

 To Wheedle Or Not To...
 Supercilious Slogan
 When Leadership...
 The Faux Pas of the...
 Hubris and Absurdity...

peripheral's Links

 No links found

Blog Categories

 Nothing found

Blog Archive

 November 2009 (10)
 October 2009 (9)
 September 2009 (14)
 August 2009 (15)
 July 2009 (15)
 June 2009 (15)
 May 2009 (14)
 April 2009 (12)
 March 2009 (15)
 February 2009 (6)
 January 2009 (10)
 December 2008 (15)
 November 2008 (17)
 October 2008 (17)
 September 2008 (12)
 August 2008 (15)
 July 2008 (14)
 June 2008 (4)

Comment Archives

 November 2009 (7)
 October 2009 (5)
 September 2009 (1)
 August 2009 (15)
 July 2009 (20)
 June 2009 (2)
 April 2009 (1)
 March 2009 (4)
 January 2009 (1)
 December 2008 (1)
 November 2008 (2)
 October 2008 (4)
 September 2008 (1)
 August 2008 (1)

Page load time: 0.48820900917053 ms