BS: New World Order Newspeak

Subject: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:02 PM

There's all kinds of great Newspeak coming out lately, courtesy of the media boys (and girls) of the New World Order. It behooves all of us to learn this Newspeak so we can separate the good guys from the bad guys and stay informed.

Some examples:

A. "regime change" - This used to be called "war", "conquest" or "invasion", but that sounds too violent, so good guys don't invade and conquer anyone any more...they "seek regime change". Learn it and use it wisely!

B. "take out" - means "kill". It also means "assassinate". Good guys don't do things like that, they "take people out". Okay?

example: O.J. plans to "take out" Nicole on the weekend. The USA plans to "take out" Saddam.

Got it? Good. Let's move on...

C. "ethnic cleansing" - Oh, my, this is a beauty! Talk about the poetry of language. This is what used to be called "genocide", but people are too upset when they hear the word genocide, so we say ethnic cleansing now, to make it sound cleaner and neater. Remember this.

D. "terrorism" - This used to mean acts or tactics intended to terrorize a group of people. Now it means the same thing, except only when bad people do it. "Bad people" means...umm...well, certainly not Americans or Israelis or...um...maybe not the British and the Australians...or...well, but probably just about everybody else, specially if they're not in a national military uniform when they commit the terrorist acts. In other words, poor people who lack a well-equipped army but want to fight anyway are terrorists.

Remember...When good guys use acts or tactics intended to terrorize a group of people it's called...regime change. (See section A. above)

E. "decapitation" - Used to mean cutting someone's head off (usually in an official execution). Now it means "assassination of an enemy leader". Take him out, in other words. (See section B above.)

There's lots more great Newspeak. It works kind of like mafia tough-guy talk (like "rub out"), but it's much kinder and gentler sounding. Feel free to make your own contributions to the thread, by adding your favourite Newspeak words and phrases...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

"Ethnic cleansing" also includes expulsion of populations - for example what happened to the Palestinians back in 1948, which wasn't genocide as such.

It might have been coined as a euphemism, but I think now, after Bosnia especially, for most people it conveys the sense of something pretty ugly and despicable.

Probably better than "population exchange" which was widely used at one time for that kind of thing. A ot if people used to buy the notion that this was somehow relatively benign.

"Surgical strike" is one that Little Hawk missed. Implying a neat and humane activity that is supposed to benefit the patient. And it ain't really too much like that on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

"Collateral Damage" is another beauty.

It means, "Oops! Well, we killed a few innocent bystanders. Well, okay, maybe more than a few..."

This can happen even with the good guys, but that's just something you have to accept, because bad things happen in war. Hey, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? (Didn't Kruschev say that? Oops! More collateral damage. Well...shit!)

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:27 PM

Well, danged!

You all missed one of the biggies! How about "liberate" where they good guy "liberate" your sorry butt from the pool of folks who still have a pulse.

Yeap, we're gonna "liberate" them folks! Translation: Bomb them into the Stone Ages!

Yep, just leave my sorry assed Wes Ginny butt enslaved, thankee!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:44 PM

"Compassionate Conservative." That has to be some kind of double-speak. Now, I'm not too sure what that's supposed to mean, but from my observations so far, "Compassionate Conservatives" have about as much compassion as a school of barracuda.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:50 PM

Actually, Don, they do exist. I've met some. They very seldom, however, get elected to high office.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:52 PM

Good one, Don. The oximoron of the century! Compassionate conservative? Like, what can that possibly mean other than letal injection over the electric chair?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:01 PM

I guess my old Boeing supervisor back in the pogrom of the early Seventies was a Compassionate Conservative. He smiled and wished me luck when he handed me (and 67,000 other people) my lay-off notice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM

How about the press "embedded" in various military units? Embedded like a splinter, or embedded like under-the-government's-thumb-so-they-have-to-report-what-the-government-wants-reported?

Sounds like someone's embedded alright. George and Shell and Dick and Exxon.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Jon Bartlett
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:12 PM

Can a "smart" bomb can tell wrong from right? Could a smart bomb go looking for a more appropriate target?

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:12 PM

Sounds a lot like the "Compassionate Communists" back in Stalin's day. :-) Funny how these guys find their spiritual counterparts on the other side of the World (in the Cold War, etc.) and expect the rest of us to pay for and die in their useless disputes over turf and power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:15 PM

"took responsibility for the bombing" (as in, act of terrorism) -- Should read, "a group of murders admitted they committed the cowardly act of blowing up a pizza parlor full of innocents"

"Neo-Conservative" -- Anything but. Typically, reactionary pro-fascists who only pretend to believe anything philosophically "conservative."

"Liberal" -- Used to be a political philosophy, is now a neo-conservative derogatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

"Progressive" -- Term recent adopted by those who would have formerly called themselves liberals. Former political progressives are now, apparently, not calling themselves anything.

"Domestic violence" -- Reality: Beating, murdering or raping your spouse and/or children when they shoud eb able to trust you, and, in fact, might have right up until the act itself.

"Family farm" -- Used to mean a FARM owned by a FAMILY. Now means a small wholly-owned subsidary of a larger agricultural corporation, which uses the phrase "family farm" to gain more federal subsidies. Also (rarely) means a farm worked by a family, but owned by a bank with a 120% mortgage.

"Patriotism" -- Blind acceptance of the actions of your government.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:19 PM

And just how'd these bombs get so smark, anyway. By going to Sunday School?

They're all dumber than a box of rocks!

Can't hold a decent conversation. Can't work a crossword puzzle. Can't balence a check book.

All they can do is kill people! Real smart!

Bunch of dummies. Just like the folks that shoot 'em a folks!

At least the dumbass "smart bomb" has an excuse. It's dumb. What excuse are the folks that shoot 'em, drop 'em have?

Smart bombs?????

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:35 PM

Smart bombs? If they were really smart, they would go off in the factory that is making them...

Ah, Nicole, marvelous contributions! We still have a "Liberal" Party governing here in Canada! Amazing, isn't it? They are well known for having very few principles (if any), but being canny political survivors. Thank God, they have decided not to participate actively in this war.

The local Liberal member of parliament is actually a very likeable man. I'm met him a few times, and I respect him. But I don't think much of his party.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:13 PM

There's a wonderful parlor game built on this mechanism in which every verb is identified in three forms ranging from the most euphemistic to the most derogatory.

I chat, you share, she gossips.

I glow, you perspire, he sweats.

I cleanse, you commit genocide, he wipes out masses.

I liberate, you disarm, he invades....

work out your own examples.

Actually "liberating" things in the chaos at the end of WW II was a euphemism for just stealing food, vehicles, clothes or anything else you needed.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:29 PM

"Reproductive" freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:38 PM

What's this thing they call "polls", or is it pole? All I know about them is that it's something that someone keeps shoving up my ass while they're whispering half truths in my ear. Hope I wasn't to vulgar, just stooping to a lower though not rearer common denominator. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:58 AM

Barry, I like that one. In a country literally awash in corruption and greed, one in which literally everything is for sale, where the crimes of corporate executives, bankers, politicians and clergy are documented every day in the news and highest good espoused by our leaders is profit, we are expected to believe that the companies who provide poll results remain a beacon of truth and integrity amid the squalor of malfeasance.

Give me a break.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:07 AM

Good point there, Mark. The trick with polls is how you word the questions! If you word them in a clever enough manner, you can get the poll to support any given viewpoint you want. Politicians know this, so do pollsters, and they plan accordingly.

That is what is commonly known as chicanery.

Or to use Amos's method shown above to descrive the pollster:

It's a) I plan my poll expeditiously b) you mislead to some extent c) he lies like a rug!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 03:33 AM

"New world order": copied almost verbatim, I believe, from the rhetoric of the Nazi party of 1930---45.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: alanabit
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 04:05 AM

"Strategic Weapons" - weapons which kill (lots of) people so far away that you do not have to look at all the nasty mess they make.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: GUEST,Sarah
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 04:17 AM

I've heard that some US sources are calling the bombing of Iraq 'urban renewal' - just after they awarded their own companies all the contracts to rebuild it!

What was the sickest yet - was an announcement on the BBC this morning that a wave of troops had gone into Iraq to take a particular town to enable 'aid' convoys in! Just so happens that this town is also one of the main oil ports.

I suppose it might be a bit difficult to make use of aid if you've just had your head blown off.

See you in London on Saturday for the protest.

Cheers
SArah

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:06 PM

tactical nuclear weapon - This is a kinder, gentler Bomb. Why? Instead of devastating a whole city and killing several hundred thousand people, it devastates a few blocks and kills maybe 10,000 people. Good guys relish the thought of using these to "take out" key concentrations of bad guys (like maybe the Iraqui Republican Guard or someone like that), while not damaging too much valuable infrastructure in the process. It's the human way of nuking bad people, without causing too much "collateral damage".

We are clearly moving toward a kinder, gentler World by leaps and bounds, due to the courageous efforts of kinder, gentler leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

Here's another one that might qualify:

"gay" - used to mean happy, carefree, etc. Now it means "homosexual" or "lesbian". What's wrong with just saying "homosexual" or "lesbian"? Well, "gay" sounds kinder and gentler, I guess...

I don't know to whose advantage this one might be, but it's odd how these things go in and out of style. The common insult in schools now, on the part of homophobic young fools, is to call someone else "gay"! The usual typical nonsense repeating itself yet again. The kinder, gentler word did not solve the problem, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: alanabit
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 02:25 PM

The word "gay" is shorter and acceptable to most homosexual people. Agreed that the words "homosexual" and "lesbian" should be perceived as nuetral. At any rate, I do not want a return to the nasty, vindictive terms of abuse like "queer" or "faggot".

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: JohnnyBeezer
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM

Hi McGrath of Harlow New Town!
Thinking back to my History books. Didn't Jinnah insist on the Pakistanis moving out and being given a state of their own? I believe so.Surely this was not "Ethnic Cleansing" Gandhi wanted them to stay. And they've been at each others throats ever since. Keep watching the Kashmir area for the next "Mother of all Battles" with nuclear weapons thrown in for good measure. It will make the Palestinian crisis look like a Mods and Rockers thing.

Cheers
Johhny N

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Kim C
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 03:47 PM

Excuse me just a minute.

I'm conservative. I'm also so damn compassionate I don't even kill bugs in my house. I trap them in a jar and take them outside.

The inference, however, that I couldn't possibly be compassionate because my political beliefs happen to be mostly conservative, does tend to put a little dent in my compassion; and frankly, I don't appreciate it very much.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 04:09 PM

Kim, I believe Don was refering to the doctrine of Compassionate Conservatism, not that conservatives can't be compassionate people.

There are several books on the subject, including one ghostwritte for GWB. The core doctrine is that religious faith -- only fundamentalist Christian faith, though -- can solve all social problems. Someone is starving? It's their fault because they didn't pray to God properly. The "compassionate" thing to do is to let them starve, but teach them to pray before they die.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 04:37 PM

Kim, I don't know what a "conservative" is. A lot of my views are what, in normal times, would probably be called "conservative." But I eschew such terminology these days. When today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" sit complacently by and watch the Constitution being run through the shredder rather than becoming outraged and speaking out to preserve it as a true conservative would, I can hardly call them "conservatives." There are other, far less polite terms I could use. "Hypocrites" is one of them.

Benjamin Disraeli once commented "I regard myself as a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal." That more or less describes my position (no, to an intelligent person, the two are not inconsistent). He made another comment which I seem to find applicable these days: "I know what to expect from my enemies. It is my friends who confound me!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:34 PM

Don-If "social liberal" includes welfare, single-payer medical care, etc., how can it work with fiscal conservatism, and if it doesn't, what does it mean to you?

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM

"Dual Use" is one that we'll be hearing over the next few days as more and more sites are targeted to be bombed because of their ability to have a "dual use". So like if a meeting took place a year ago in a Bahgdad hotel, it could be considered for baombing under the "dual use" interpretation.

So, keep your ears on for this little excuse to bomb buildings where civilians will die...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:34 PM

Don, you get a perfect "10" for pulling the Disraeli remark out of your hat!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:56 PM

The social liberal in me is concerned with the needs of people. The goal is a happy, healthy, well-educated, prosperous populace. This involves the elimination of poverty, which will go a very long way toward reducing if not entirely eliminating crime, and it would provide the solution to the vast majority of problems this society is heir to. This is well within the means of a rich country like the United States. In fact, if we don't know how to go about it, we could swallow our pride in our so-called "Yankee ingenuity," put aside our prejudices against various "isms," and learn from several European countries who have come very close to achieving this goal. Much closer than we have.

My "inner fiscal conservative" would be careful in the use the available funds, targeting it wisely and efficiently, and not allowing it to be consumed by the administrative costs of massive bureaucracies.

One is moral principle. The other is practical implementation.

Okay! I hear you screaming "Socialism!" But try to get off that hackneyed continuum. Unclench your teeth and try to think in terms of worthwhile goals, the obstacles to those goals, and solutions for those obstacles. First, ask yourself if the welfare (yes, dammit, welfare!) of the nation's citizens isn't a matter of primary importance. The Constitution (the supreme law of the land, and the clear statement of the principles this country claims to live by) says that it is. It's one of the mandated duties of the government to promote the welfare of its citizens. Not just the CEOs, not just the corporations, not just the wealthy, but all of its citizens.

You see, my conservatism centers on trying to bring the stated dreams of this nation's Founding Fathers into fruition—to see those ideals become a reality. And I firmly believe that this is possible. Not bloody likely the way things are going, but possible. Most of this nation's problems—crime, drug use, unemployment, homelessness [even when employed], inadequate education, inadequate health care for millions, the list goes on and on—could easily be solved if we really cared to, and if the government were really responsive to the concerns of the people, not just a few favored special-interest groups. That these conditions exist in the richest, most powerful nation in the world is a testament to the moral and ethical state of that nation. It's been said that a people's moral fiber is demonstrated by its treatment of its weakest members. How are we doing? Not very well!

All right, then. I do not consider myself a Socialist. But, I ask—what is wrong with a little "socialism" if it leads to that happy, healthy, well-educated, prosperous citizenry that we say we would like to see? With that as the end result, I don't see the harm in pissing off a few hard-nosed right-wingers in the process.

At the same time, if, instead of trying to enforce "democracy" on recalcitrant nations at the point of a gun, we used a small percentage of our defense budget to alleviate poverty, misery, and ignorance in the rest of the world (with no strings attached, by the way; just because it's the right thing to do) it would go a mighty long way toward eliminating the roots of terrorism, spread a lot of good-will around the world, and may—just may—even lead eventually to world peace and prosperity.

Ah! But that might not be profitable, would it? Well—in the long run, of course it would be highly profitable. But it wouldn't help this next fiscal quarter's bottom line!

As the dominant species on this planet, what is our ultimate goal? What the hell are we here for?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:08 PM

Very well said, Don. I consider myself both a capitalist (small-scale, that is) AND a socialist. How about that?

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM

Just a quick comment to add to Don's essay --

The old adage says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In many cases, an ounce of preventative "welfare" solves a bigger and more expensive problem down the road. Social programs, when carefully applied, can be more fiscally conservative than not having them at all.

Which is cheaper -- free heart medication, or an emergency room trip for heart attack, funded by taxpayers?

Which is cheaper -- the cost of a good public education, or the $50,000 or so per year it costs to house a prisoner year after year?

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:43 PM

Ah, yes..and which is cheaper? Free dental care or desperately ill people who are dying by degrees because of rotten teeth they simply cannot AFFORD to get fixed?

I've known people in that very spot. Several, in fact. Dental care is prohibitively expensive in both Canada and the USA. It's free in Cuba and it's free in a number of European countries, I believe, such as in Scandinavia.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:04 PM

'Like Iraq? Only dumber'

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM

Don:

In the first thread that I ever started here at Mudcat, "Department of Peace", the arguments revolved around profitability. Once we get out from under this current regime, should that ever happen, we need to rethink the defination of *profit*.

Excellent post, my friend.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

Profit, in truth, is that which actually benefits the whole community...and the whole community includes Nature as well as Humanity (who are a part of Nature). This is recognized within the framework of a family (hopefully), and a society should best be seen as an extended family, not a bunch of isolated individuals looking out for number one.

That takes us back to "intelligent altruism", which Amos and I were discussing as the best course to follow awhile back...

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:58 PM

Exactly, Little Hawk. Like I said, we have to redefine "profit".

Mankind needs to shed itself of the narrow definition of profit. One very much related to money. If mankind is not taken further toward a life of peace and spirituality, then there is no real collective profit in monetary profit, just individual profit. Individual profit does not take mankind a single step toward the general health of the the Earth's collective well being...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Sam L
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

My own favorite journalistic euphemism is still Small Farms Disappearing In Tennessee.

But I can't equate the actions of any power regime in which people are relatively free to express their thoughts to any power regimes in which people are decidedly not, just for the sake of a little lame fake irony. Yeah! Why do people say they "clean" fish?

    Well. For one thing, there may be small kids in the room when grown-ups want to watch the goddamn cocksucking news of what's going on in the fucking shitty old world, and thanks for thinking of that, somebody. Thanks for putting up a buffer so a parent can explain as as best they can as much as they see fit to their own kids. Grown-ups with their George Carlin wisdom think they're the only people in the world.

Things that are not the same, still are not the same, whether or not you can make fun of it in terms of us good guys and dem bad guys. Some things and some guys are pretty motherfucking bad indeed. Despite how mixed the motives may be in "taking somebody out", I'd still probably shoot in the face, decapitate, or just cut the head off of, gut and clean like a fish, "field dress", fry in a skillet with onions, whatever you want to call it, a few Very Important Persons in the world, myself, with my bare hands, if it came to it, and if I could, newspeak euphemisms, or none.

    I don't know much about security or military issues, and I'd rather there were no wars, all I can do is hope things turn out for the better, but I'd also rather people be able to sing write and say what they want to, and not be mutilated their whole lives. I give a good rat's ass about power posed as culture, here or there. Sorry for the tirade, y'all but I needed it.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:51 AM

It will not scar children to call regime change...war. It will not scar children to call "take out"...kill. It will not scar children to call ethnic cleansing...land robbery and genocide. It will free them to think clearly about what is really happening. Children are not so naive or clueless as you think. Matter of fact, most little boys are fascinated with the idea of killing things (as long as it's merely on a fantasy level, rather than happening in real physical life).

Nor does it require the use common vulgar obscenities to express what is actually happening in the World these days.

The Newspeak is intended to sanitize what is happening, and make outrageous actions by certain people look like...well, really helpful and useful activities that will benefit all humanity.

That is hypocrisy, intended to shape public opinion. Children are usually rather good at picking up hypocrisy, and they see a lot of it. That's why so many of them go through a bitter, angry phase when they hit the teenage years. They have good reason to be angry with the adult world. It lies to them every day of their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Peg
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:25 AM

Great thread. Some of you might be interested in the following. Check out that list of names at the bottom!!!! Scary times we're living in. I feel like emigrating to Australia.


New American Century

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 01:10 PM

Thanks for posting that, Peg. That's quite a document. I shudder to think what this cabal (now running this country) regards as "American principles and interests."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:47 PM

A bit of thread drift, if you will forgive me:—

I can't recall when and where I met Buzz Ross. It was in the early Sixties and I was singing somewhere almost every weekend. I became familiar with Buzz's face in the audience before ever I knew his name. He became a guitar student of mine, and over a period of time we became close friends. Buzz had to drop out of high school before he finish, and he was attending Edison Technical School (precursor of Seattle Central Community College) to get his GED while he supported himself by working graveyard shift at an all-night gas station.

During the Sixties, Buzz, Diane, Marcia, Loren, Loren's sister Luanne, and I all palled around together. Every time I sang someplace, they were in the audience. We partied together, got together during the week at the Pizza Haven in the University District for coffee-klatsches, and almost every night before Buzz went to work at the gas station, he and I would drop into the famous/infamous Blue Moon Tavern or, if the Moon was too crowded and noisy, Al's Tavern or Bly's "Bounty" for a couple of beers. Loren, Marcia, and I wound up working at Boeing in the late Sixties while Buzz continued to work at the gas station and contemplated what he was going to do in terms of a career.

The Vietnam War was going full-blast, and Buzz knew he would soon be drafted. So he took the initiative. If he volunteered, he could pretty much chose his branch of service rather than having to go wherever they put him. He decided that flying helicopters had a lot of career potential. So when he went into the service he entered training as a helicopter pilot.

Just before he was due to go overseas, he and Marcia got married, and a nicer, more well-suited couple than Buzz and Marcia would be hard to imagine.

Marcia and I worked in the same division at Boeing: Production Illustration department at the 747 plant in Everett, Washington. About three weeks before Christmas, Marcia told me she had received a letter from Buzz. He was in Vietnam, and had been assigned to fly med-evac helicopters. He was happy with this, because he would be a non-combatant, trying to save people rather than trying to kill them.

Two weeks later, Marcia received notice. Buzz had been evacuating a number of wounded. As they took off from the battle area, the 'copter was fired upon and sustained damage. Despite that, Buzz managed to horse it back to base and bring it in for a landing. But because of the damage, the 'copter was difficult to control and they landed hard. One of the rotor blades chopped through the cockpit and stuck Buzz in the head. The wounded had been evacuated safely. But Buzz died the following day.

And two weeks after that, at a New Years Eve party, at one point in the evening Marcia and I sat in a corner, held each other, and wept.

That, I think, is why I responded in particular to the helicopter crash in Iraq.

I become very angry with those who think that war is any kind of solution. My opposition to war, especially a war that has not been forced on us, is not just philosophical. I can say with strong, personal conviction that it's a tragic, needless waste. One of the reasons why I am so opposed to wars in general, and particularly a meedless war that my own country initiates, is that war does these sorts of things to people. When a person dies in war, it isn't just that one person. It isn't just a battlefield statistic. It's a life with all of its potential cut short. And it's all those people at home, too. Friends and relations. War is a sign of abject failure. It sanctions and embraces the very worst in human nature.

You didn't know my particular story, Ireland, so no offense taken. Considering the tone of some posts, I can see where you might have misinterpreted my remark.

Peace,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:00 PM

My apoplogies. This wound up posted to the wrong thread. The ravages of posting to two different threads in rapid succession. This was intended to go to the "BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops" thread. Sorry. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:16 PM

Don:

A vivid story and well told; the immediacy of Marcia's place in the picture is heart-stopping. This is the reality that those who think of war as a political token never feel or sense, it seems to me. This is the raw stuff that the euphemisms defend them from. This is "collateral damage" and all the other satanic semantics of glib political newspeak designed to cover up the ground truth of slaughter in the sand, the destruction of families and of hopes, perpetrated by people with big false pictures in their small brains, like Hussein and Bush -- a pair of psychos who deserve to live together in isolation for ten years..

Thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:58 PM

Here's another one: "liberate"

It means to achieve military occupation of by force of arms. It means to conquer.

Now, when a country is occupied by several factions hostile to one another (like Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds in Iraq), then the arrival of a foreign "liberator" will always be welcomed by whichever outfit is presently on the bottom of the heap.

In just that way, huge cheering crowds welcomed the Nazis into cities in the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other places in the western Soviet Union in 1941. Those crowds were angry at Stalin, just as the Shia Muslims and Kurds are angry at Saddam...but they were very naive to think they were being liberated. They were not.

The Nazis went into Soviet Russia for the same reason that the USA and the U.K. are going into Iraq...to secure valuable resources and strategic land areas. To conquer, not to liberate.

German soldiers mostly didn't know that. They genuinely believed the Nazi propaganda and saw themselves as liberators. Naturally. They believed they were the good guys.

Stalin's boys saw themselves much the same way when they came back the other way in 1944-45, pushing their way to Berlin.

And I imagine that is the way American soldiers see themselves too. Why wouldn't they, given human nature?

It's not liberation, folks. It's conquest. Call it what it is. And it is not in the interests of the young men and women who are carrying the guns and driving the equipment. Not in the least.

The Vikings were not embarrassed to admit to what they were doing when they conquered and pillaged a country, but they lived in a far simpler (and more brutal) society, and didn't need that kind of false propaganda as a motivator for their fighting men. We've taken some steps forward in sensitivity since then...people now have to be convinced that it's humanitarian to bomb and kill their foreign brothers and sisters for the cause of the hour.

Quite a list of names there, Peg! I wonder if we'll see some of them at the next Nuremberg trials?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:20 PM

Thanks, Peg for the second time today. Take a peak for what we have planned for China if they don't behave. Funny how that crew reveres the Reagan years. I remember them as the time education, mental health programs, etc. were tossed out the window and the streets of New York filled with homeless people many of them veteran's of Viet Nam whom nobody wanted to know.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Sam L
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:01 PM

Little Hawk, I don't in the least suppose that hypothetical children in general are terribly naive and clueless. But perfectly good and true insights about children in general with which I happen to agree don't always apply to particular children at particular times. I still think it's not a bad idea to let actual parents with particular children have a little lee-way to handle discussions. Sadly, people who don't have kids are always better at these things than people who do--in a perfect world only childless people would have kids. Kind of like how people who don't go to war are always wiser and go around liberating people all over the place than the poor dupes who get sent under that rubric. Very obvious euphemisms, like most of these, seem to me the least objectionable kind, it's the slyer stealthier ones that make good sport.

Yes, journalistic euphemisms are meant to sanitize and construe terrible things in a positive way, but adults are not as clueless and naive as some people think. Okay, okay--but not all of them.

    "Surgical strike" is only part euphemism, part accurate
description, relative to current actual means of war. They are actually more accurate than they used to be, and I think that does matter to anyone who has to drop them, I don't begrudge them that phrase, and wouldn't scoff at it either if it were my home that was missed.

And it is not entirely unreasonable to hope that something better, something more "liberated" even, might emerge after the current war. I do not care to be cynical about that possibility, and even if I am, somewhat, I might keep some of it to myself. I'm against the war, and have the impression that our current president here is a self-righteous idiot, but I'm not going to let that persuade me that I can predict the future.

   Certain basic rights that I hold to be self-evident were partly paid for in wars, and horror, and injustice, conquest, aquisition of resources, and genocide. But there they are. I hoped that the threat of war would do some good, and hope for some good for somebody somewhere, somehow, now, since I can't alter the fact. I prefer that to self-congratulatory cynicism--and there's some of that here and there on this thread, unless I mistake the tone. Some of the ironies depend on equating things that are not equal. Cynicism and realism aren't quite the same thing, for example. What's the point in not hoping for the best in a bad situation? Being able to say I told you so?

I think that other sustained policies--other than war--could effect changes I'd like to see--but I don't see those sustained policies, and like a dog drinking from a toilet, will take anything I can get. War is always the wrong answer--stop the presses--but sometimes it's all that is actually going to happen. I may be projecting my western values of individual human rights on other "cultures" but I can live with that. The war may not liberate anyone, but it still stands a better chance by far than that purblind idealism will ever rid anyone of a despot.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:15 PM

Amos..the 'word game' you refer back up there ^ was made famous, if not invented, by the columnist Sidney J. Harris, who would occasionally fill an entire daily column with them.

One I remember (approximately) was "I have the courage of my convictions...YOU are a bit stubborn...HE is a hidebound reactionary."

but the formula is always the same. "He is a tyrannical dictator...YOU are a heavy-handed oppressor ...I am an enlightened leader who dares not leave the governing to lesser men."

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Escamillo
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 12:37 AM

Contribution: how do you call the action of a police officer writing down a ticket for your traffic infringement ? We call it "hacer la boleta".
Well, this was the expression that the military used in Argentina in the 70s, meaning assasination in the dark, or disappearance. 30,000 "boletas" were written down, but the world did not notice. Nobody came to liberate us, perhaps because those killed were considered a "threat over democracy", and the military regime was not very dangerous to other countries... until they decided to put a hand on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Fortunately the regime fell down by its own corruption and by pressure of the people. A case of "non-viability".

Un abrazo,
Andrés (in Buenos Aires)

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 07:20 AM

The art of using euphemisms is neither new nor restricted to governments. I can remember how some left radicals after a demonstration turned violent which left a policeman paralysed talked about 'policemen clapping' (my translation).

Some euphemisms in that process lose the 'eu' (=good) part in that sense that nobody any longer considers them euphemisms. McGrath has made this point already with 'ethnic cleansing' and I agree. I shall give some more examples in which most have forgotten that the word once has started as a euphemism.

Two examples from this thread: electric chair (for a killing machine) and pogrom (why use a Russian word for sectarian/racist mass murder?).

Or: concentration camp
Or: lucifer (bearer of light)
Or: torture

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Sam L
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 09:37 AM

Or "canola" oil, which is actually rapeseed oil.

Or "surgery" which is supposed to sound like a proceedure to benefit a patient, but which is often an expensive and damaging knife-invasion which was not really necesary. "Surgical strike" might be pretty apt, after all, one way or another.

I can't get into the spirit of this, and should probably have left it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:22 PM

And then, of course, there's life insurance...which is actually death insurance. That one predates the New World Order, though.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 06:55 PM

Around our way they say "Oilseed Rape" - and even that is a euphemism of sorts.

I had a colleague once whose husband was a farmer. She told me he delighted in coming in from working when she had her respectable ladies around for tea, and saying things like "I'm thinking of having a little Rape in the top field".

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Kaleea
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 04:15 AM

"New Speak" or "News Speak"?? In the news, reporters want their readers (or viewers) to perceive them to be smart, which isn't very smart. Cause we know that some feller who goes along for the ride in the middle of dubbya's boms aweigh plan just to send us a few pics & speak to us live from the middle of "over there" can't be that bright. Anyhoo, I prefer "redneck speak!"

smart bom: a purdy blonde gal whut iz smart, tew!

take out: ah mon take n go tew Jim Bob's BBQ Joint n Bait shop n git me sum o them thar really greasy BBQ frog's legs!

collateral damage: Thet thar dang blasted no gud horse's p'toot, Bubba Bob dun run hiz trakter inta m' brand spankin' noo 1967 trailer whut I dun jist tuk out a sekund morgeej on t' pay fer m' noo ah-to-ma-teek combinashun beer openin' fishin' pole 'n sawed off!

new world order: Ah heerd tell thet most everbodee in the hole countee iz a gonna take n go tew Jim Bob's BBQ Joint 'n Bait Shop, 'n order 'em sum 'o thet thar speshul o' th' day, Frikaseed Road Kill Sooprize!

terrorism: ah mon take 'n git 'er wrists 'n yank off all 'o them thar high falutin' joolree braysletz she gotted in them thar plastik bubblz frum thet thar machine whut's sittin rite next t' th' bubble gum macheenz at Walmart, mm thin ah mon not let 'er put 'em bak on!

   Thet thar iz eenuff fer now!

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:27 PM

By golly, Kaleea, you are right! It is "News Speak". You can hear it every day on CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Another example:

The televised viewing of dead bodies of US soldiers is "disgusting".

The televised viewing of dead bodies of a) Iraqui soldiers and b) Iraqi civilians is....   

a) evidence of the effectiveness of coalition firepower   

b) Saddam's deceitful hate propaganda

It's a good idea to carry a New World Order Manual of News Speak Words and Phrases at all times, so you can keep this stuff straight in your head, and not forget who the good guys are.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:41 AM

Here's some more generalized News Speak stuff...

It is considered very cool at this point to discuss what will be done in reconstructing Iraq by various key players (and good guys) such as the USA, the UK, Haliburton, the U.N., relief organizations, etc...after REGIME CHANGE has been achieved (see News Speak Manual above for full definition of regime change).

It is not considered cool at all to discuss what will be done if regime change does not occur...in other words, if the war somehow fails to achieve its stated objectives and bogs down...or, God forbid, fails entirely...or even mutates into a wider conflict, ultimately threatening many nations!

This is not discussed much at all, because it is unthinkable to the good guys. Besides, the "bad guys" are outnumbered 85,000 to one in high tech firepower, so how could it possibly go awry, right????

Therefore, do not discuss it. Don't even think about it. Forget I even mentioned it! Whew! (wiping sweat off brow)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 03:15 PM

"That is hypocrisy, intended to shape public opinion. Children are usually rather good at picking up hypocrisy, and they see a lot of it. That's why so many of them go through a bitter, angry phase when they hit the teenage years. They have good reason to be angry with the adult world. It lies to them every day of their lives. "

The odd thing, Little Hawk, these children grow up to do and promulgate the very same thing. This is nothing new, of course.

I read once that withholding bad news or tragedy from the old folks is unnecessary- they've imagined or heard it all.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 06:18 PM

You're quite right, Ebbie. That's what generally happens. And so, "the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, even to the 7th generation".

It's very sad.

I think it's because most young people simply give up at a certain point and decide "I can't beat 'em, so I'll join 'em" (specially under the pressure of needing MONEY).

I never did that. I've been an outsider all my life. I still feel just as rebellious and outraged at common hypocrisy and moral decay as I did when I was 18...but I'm a whole lot more confident now about how to cope with it, how to be independent of it, how to survive, and how to still make a good life for myself...and for a few others too, along the way.

I can't offer a nutshell primer on how to do it for anyone else, though. Everyone has to find their own unique way to be a real thinking and caring human being instead of an enslaved corporate robot. (Ever read "Dilbert"?)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Sam L
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:59 PM

Ebbie, Little Hawk,
Have you ever seen Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers? Babies are pods. What happens is, you go to sleep with a baby in your house, you wake up different. You don't remember. You wonder what you used to do with all your time. You start urging your friends, Come, be like us, it's better this way.

You really don't have to be hypocritical with kids, but you'll be wrong no matter what you do. I'm okay with that, I'm pretty happy with the deal. It's good to be around people of different ages, I've discovered, older and younger, and try to keep up with both.

I've watched a little news, since my previous posts, and it is pretty disconcerting, not just the news, but the news speak. Still, it's impossible, I think. How would you report this stuff without spinning it somehow? It can't be done. I think they're scared of sounding critical, or opposed, maybe because many or most of them are. The whole idea of journalistic objectivity is problematic, at best, and here it is on pretty thin ice.

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:13 AM

I was watching a Discovery Channel programme this evening that included a demonstration of high tech C Rations, including a small thermite heating pad to heat the food. The manufacturer or distributor of the stuff, kept saying they were for our "war fighters".....What's wrong with the words "soldiers" or "troops"? He sounded like a four year old with a limited vocabulary.

I can understand words designed to sanitize or mislead, but what's this supposed to do?

Subject: RE: BS: New World Order Newspeak
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:27 AM

You're right, Fred. I knew by the time I was 18 that I didn't want to have or raise any children, and I didn't. It's very tough not to get locked into the system when you have kids (not impossible, but tough...). And you're right that it's almost impossible not to spin the war reporting. Good insightful comments all around...

- LH