Sunday, January 20, 2013

What's In A Word? In Politics, Everything!

I am sure this is not the case for everybody--after all, the majority of voters elected socialists to the White House and Senate another time--but I am pretty sick and tired of the left creating new meanings for English words and phrases. I like the English  language. It is a bit cumbersome at times, with all of the words that sound alike but spelled differently, and it probably uses way too many French words to be ideal, but it is the language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. The Founding Fathers spoke, wrote and understood the English language in superb fashion. They said exactly what they meant. It is not their fault that many today are not educated enough to understand what they meant--that would be primarily the fault of our education system and the teachers' unions, I think. So, I am annoyed at how easily the socialists have stolen the meaning of words and phrases to corrupt the minds of English speakers.  I have three examples that particularly irritate me.

Example 1: One cannot read an old classic book or watch an old classic movie or television show without seeing or hearing the word "gay" used in the proper way, but having today's meaning of the word crash in and destroy the whole experience.  The culprits, of course, are the liberal political correction police. Because the term "HOMOSEXUAL" is found to be too harsh for the homosexuals to which it correctly applies, society has been bullied into using a word which means something totally different in its origins. Because of this nonsense, the perfectly good word meaning "happy-go-lucky" will likely never be used again in the proper way.  I think I understand why the word, "Queer" was eventually found offensive, but as I understand it, that was originally chosen by the homosexual community as a preferable term to "homosexual". Be that as it may, I find it not at all queer that most of the homosexuals in the media these days seem to be anything but happy-go-lucky. They want the word "Marriage" to mean something totally different from what it currently means, even from God's definition.

Example 2: The term "Fair Share" has also taken a big hit in modern times.  For some crazy reason, we have allowed a progressive income tax system to exist as a way of generating revenue. The word "fair" has many meanings, including "light in color", "pleasing to the eye", and "According to rules". Nowhere in any dictionary have I found a definition of the word that suggests inequality.  The word "Share", of course, primarily means a "portion". In almost every way is suggests equal divisions. In no way does "share" mean sole possession. However, our "friends" on the left have adopted a definition of the wealthy paying more, if not all of the the income taxes taken as revenue by the federal government. The term ":Fair Share" should mean that everyone would pay an equitable part of the income tax burden. I think God had it right when he commanded us to pay a tithe of ten percent of our increase. The rich would always pay more than the poor, because ten percent of a lot is more than ten percent of a little. This should be logical, but logic has never been the strong suit of the progressive left. And so we have an inequitable system in which the top one percent of income earners pay 30% of the nation's income tax burden while about fifty percent of the nation pays no income tax. If anyone is not paying their fair share, it would be the ones who pay no Federal income taxes.

Example 3: We have been hearing a lot about "Assault Weapons" the last couple decades. Is not any weapon considered an assault weapon? The last time I looked up the term, assault, in the dictionary--just now is so happens--the term meant "any violent attack, as an act, speech, or writing.  ...bodily injury to another. Rape, and so on." Weapon is defined as "any implement for fighting or warfare. Any means that may be used against an adversary: verbal weapons. The sting, claw, spur etc., of an animal". Interestingly, "defensive" is defined as, Intended or suitable for defense." It seems clear to me that weapons are not the sole property of those with a prerogative to assault their neighbors. I, for one, own defensive weapons. It does not matter if they are knives, swords, guns, or even my fists. Each of these weapons can be used for offense, but I live my life in a Christian attitude that allows force to be used in strictly defensive ways. It seriously matters to me how many rounds my magazines hold if my weapons are to be used for defense. If someone or some people want to do me or mine bodily harm, I want to be as sure as I can be that I have as many rounds possible to stop any possible threat. The progressive left can call it what they want, but I know that any weapon I and other law-abiding citizens possess are not "Assault Weapons" but Defensive Weapons".

These are not all of the examples I could draw upon, but they are sufficient, I think, to make my point. The progressive left co-opts language to create straw man arguments, like "pro-choice" when it ignores the value of the unborn and neglects to allow the unborn any choice. They realize that "pro-abortion", though more accurate, is a less harsh terms and is less offensive to the ignorant masses to whom they depend for votes. Language is the best way to make accurate and precise arguments and it is also the best way to muddy the water and distract from the true points. We should not let the left have their way with our language. Our language is virtually under assault, and as we have learned from the dictionary, assault can be rape and weapons can be verbal. So, I guess you might say English language has been ravaged.

No comments: