Just one week into the Trump presidency, the newly inaugurated president and his circle of sycophants are working overtime to convince us that words and facts are meaningless. Sifting through President Trump’s rambling streams of disconnected, fact-less word spills can be discouraging and downright terrifying. When word upon contradictory word spills out in a jumbled torrent of ill-informed grandiosity and juvenile vindictiveness, confusion reigns.

Does anyone believe that this deeply disturbing spectacle of dysfunction at the highest levels of government creates a serious and focused environment for taking on the most difficult and dangerous challenges America and the world face? Job creation, health care, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change – every challenge to our well being and security demands clarity and a mature mindset with the capacity for sifting through the facts and analyzing the nuances of debate.

Unfortunately, the chaotic pattern of pronouncements and then retractions that became the defining character of the first week of the Trump show inspires zero confidence.

Words and facts are foundational. They are what bind us together in common understanding and purpose. Peddling propaganda, falsehoods, and lies undermines our democracy. When words become empty and stripped of coherence or meaning, the essential dialogue necessary for a civil society to define commonly held principles and debate real policy prescriptions is rendered mute.

Whether we are progressives, centrists, conservatives, or members of the far right, we should at least be able to sit down together and agree on what is real and what is fiction.

When Kellyanne Conway paused during an interview on national television and swallowed hard before spewing out the most distortive words spoken by any representative of any administration in recent memory —her farcical “alternative facts”—she dropped a poison pill into our national discourse that will take the collective effort of all of us to expunge.

When White House strategist Stephen Bannon told the New York Times that the media should “keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” his words left no doubt about his disdain for the First Amendment and the press’s solemn obligation to hold the government accountable to the people.

Looking back on the Trump administration’s first shaky week in office, perhaps we should be grateful to Conway and Bannon for ripping down the curtain and pulling out all the stops. Perhaps this early stomach-turning glimpse into the deep cynicism at the core of the Trump administration will be the kick in the gut we all need.

For now we know. Now we can be sure of one indisputable fact: that this administration seeks to redefine our understanding of the words we use and the facts we observe and to use those distortions to bully those who disagree with them into silence.

We cannot let them succeed.

The post Toxic word spills are poisoning democracy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We have done such a poor job of processing Donald Trump’s tweets. Our reaction has always been to immediately parse the literal content. Fact-check the minutia, but don’t look at the strategy behind the message. This has caused system overload and rendered us unable to grasp what’s really happening.

In a recent On the Media podcast, host Brooke Gladstone and guest, George Lakoff investigated the taxonomy of Trump’s tweets. Lakoff is a retired Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is now Director of the Center for the Neural Mind & Society.

Lakoff divided Trump’s tweets into these categories: preemptive framing, diversion, trial balloons, deflection and generalization. Lakoff thinks such understanding is important if the media is to responsibly report on the tweets rather than just magnify the misinformation.

Here is how Lakoff breaks things down:
Preemptive framing
Frame an issue before other people can get a chance to. For example, with Trump’s tweet, “The only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big, they were totally embarrassed.” In other words, it was the Dems’ fault they were hacked. And as Gladstone observes, it puts forth, “the idea that the Dems lost so big when, in fact, it was one of the narrowest losses in history. So that’s all framed, so you have to go back and deconstruct the tweet before you can even address it.”
Or, take this Trump tweet, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote, if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Wrong on so many counts, but he’s already reframed the popular vote.
Diversion tweet
Get people talking about a small issue when there is something much bigger on the horizon. For instance, Trump’s attacks on Meryl Streep when conflicts of interest and the Russian hacking were coming up.
The trial balloon
Put out an idea in an offhanded fashion and see what the reaction is. As in, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” If it resonates, stick with it. Otherwise let it fade away.
Deflection
Attack the messenger! As with Buzzfeed and others for putting out the discussion of the Russian leaks. Take the focus away from the content and place it on the means by which it was put forth.
Generalization
Take a specific case and say that it’s the general case. Lakoff calls it “Salient Exemplar.” For example, “There is a rape or a murder, a shooting by a Mexican, he says, they’re rapists and killers. He does that all the time.”

Lakoff cited this recent Trump tweet as falling into the first four categories: “Intelligence agencies should not have allowed this fake news to leak into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?”
First, preemptive framing: this is fake news. Secondly, diversion: it’s gonna be discussed whether or not it’s fake news or should have been leaked, rather than the content. There’s deflection, which is attacking the messengers, and then you get the trial balloon: will the intelligence agencies be stopped from doing this? Are they working like Nazi Germany?

Lakoff’s prescription for dealing with the tweets? Should the media not report on the them at all?

You begin by telling the truth and giving the evidence for that truth, then mention his tweet, point out that that contradicts the truth and then talk about what kind of tweet this is. You know, you say, this is a case of diversion. Here’s what he is diverting, quickly. Don’t have a panel discussion about it, you know, just do it and go on. Keep going back to substance and the truth.

The next four years will be a challenge to reporters. As Lakoff puts it, “The media is addicted to breaking news, so we have to give the tweet first. That’s the breaking news. WRONG, because that allows [Trump] to manipulate you as a reporter and manipulate the truth.”

We all have to be better than that.

The Lakoff portion of the podcast, along with a transcript can be found here. The entire podcast, entitled The Game Has Changed, is well worth listening to.

The post Trump’s tweets: a taxonomy of trouble appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Before capitulating to misanthropy, George Carlin delighted many of us by eviscerating the meritocracy’s treacherous rhetoric. Towards the end of his life, he tragically appeared to love words more than humanity.

One of Carlin’s best riffs explored the linguistic evolution of “shell shock,” a World War I phrase vividly describing the psychological damage of combat. The alliteration of “sh” amplifies the violent, shrieking cause—shells—and the horrific effect—shock. Carlin observed, “Two syllables…almost sounds like the guns themselves.” Indeed, the word “hell” is embedded.

During World War II, the military-medical complex labeled the most severe cases “battle fatigue,” leaving the remaining troops to fend alone in a culture that censured mental illness. Systemic violence remained central, because that four-syllable phrase honestly used the word “battle.” However, “fatigue” intimates lassitude more than devastating horror.

The conflict in Korea introduced “operational exhaustion.” That chilly euphemism eliminated the role of war in destroying so many young people’s lives. “Operational exhaustion” was supplanted in Vietnam by a more medical-sounding phrase, “post-traumatic stress disorder.” Carlin noted that its major contribution was a hyphen.

The existential horrors of warfare had just become another set of treatable medical disorders, preferably with cheap but lucrative pharmaceuticals. Our society’s decision to inflict widespread harm by sending part of its citizenry into harm’s way was rendered ordinary, similar to suffering caused by accidents, parental abuse, crime, or other awful events. Everyone has been unfairly or arbitrarily injured at one time or another: Everyone tries to “get over it.”

But there should be a special place of tragic honor for those who suffered so much on the battlefield. Some were shocked by the death and maiming of friends. Others were shattered by the killing of enemy troops or noncombatants. Leonard Cohen, another sadly departed guide for the distraught and perplexed, once sang, “Whatever makes a soldier sad will make a killer smile.” Acknowledging these psychic costs (the greatest debts of war) might encourage our nation to do more for its veterans (starting by creating a greater collective presumption against combat, particularly “wars of choice”).

Carlin also excoriated “collateral damage” and “enhanced interrogation.” For starters, both doctrines obfuscate governmental intentions and responsibilities. The broadest definition of “intent” is that an actor intends every effect that they can foresee will be caused by their action. In other words, we often resolve to do something that will produce a mixture of desirable and undesirable results. We can hope that the government’s primary purpose was to kill terrorists and not to terrorize or even alienate populations so they would continue fighting. Sadly, some people on both sides seem to enjoy exacerbating “The Clash of Civilizations.”

It is not only foreseeable but also demeaning to characterize the slaughter of innocent civilians as “damage.” Collateral damage obscures how America systemically uses “weapons of mass destruction” to commit war crimes. For some reason, a bomb dropped by a B-52 or a drone on a wedding, funeral, or hospital is allegedly less disgusting than a terrorist bomb planted at a local police station. “Enhanced interrogation” is equally misleading, suggesting that torture is a more effective way to gather intelligence. Actually, there often was no interrogation, no plan to gather data from those stale, unreliable sources. There simply was systemic sadism. Thus, the chilly phrase exaggerates torture’s value and denies how it is actually utilized. We refined two forms of State terrorism, bathed in euphemisms reeking of refined, faux expertise, an unholy mix of Madison Avenue and lawyer-talk.

We thus need to approach all prevailing rhetoric with great suspicion. Sometimes, leaders flaunt Orwellian flips, instructing us that “War” is “Peace.” More often, they don’t abide by professed principles. Official promotion of “transparency” usually signifies that the leader is withholding crucial information. Hillary Clinton discussed transparency all the time.

President-elect Trump is a master of the Art of the Lie and the Flip-Flop. Top-down surrealism serves many functions. Some people will devotedly believe his nonsense, such as the alleged participation of millions of fraudulent voters in the 2016 election. They are “useful idiots.” Others see through those fabrications but remain loyal, thereby demonstrating a capacity for leadership under their glorious trailblazer. Dissenters and skeptics complain, exposing themselves as an opposition to be marginalized. Many others remain silent, hoping that neither power nor truth catches up with them. Who knows? Perhaps human pollution is not making the earth uninhabitable for humans.

The first step is to divide these broad, vacuous concepts into separate, useful categories. If the phrase is not a flagrant lie or hypocritical cant, it may have value. “Post-traumatic stress disorder” does not blatantly reject the reality principle, which is grounded in respect for all facts. It is important to acknowledge how injuries can poison the mind. Often, the mind’s repetitive recollections are worse than the triggering event. This protracted anguish explains why successful tort plaintiffs are compensated for immediate pain and long-term suffering. Indeed, “suffering” and “distress” are more accurate terms than “stress,” which sounds somewhat mechanical.

However, there are profound differences between combat and domestic violence in forms, origins, and effects. Perhaps we should we reserve “shell shock” for veterans and use “post-traumatic stress disorder” for noncombat injuries. That linguistic move might make smug American civilians, who fortunately have not witnessed homeland war for well over a hundred years, less willing to send others into a bloodbath and more willing to help them when they return.

These examples reveal multiple layers of obfuscation that make it easier for the powerful to avoid scrutiny and create double standards in application. Fortunately, we have tools to analyze contested political terms, all requiring clarity refined by comic skepticism. Carlin study of history revealed alternative formulations. Most of this stuff is like extraordinarily bad poetry; we need to listen to the feeling tones within a prevailing phrase. Do the words graphically and accurately describe the problem, like “shell shock,” or are they a wordy concoction of abstractions reflecting the deadened imagination of the bureaucratic mind?

Intentionality, causation, foreseeability, and reality become lost in a mist of off-putting gibberish. Whenever the scope of the concept is elusive or obscure, there is an increased chance of bad faith. What functions does the phrase serve? What is being emphasized, hidden, or ignored? Who benefits and who loses? We need to determine all the effects that lurk beneath these less than majestic generalities and then normatively assess those outcomes. If war only causes medical problems that have afflicted everyone to some degree, perhaps it is not so hellish.

The next few essays will use these tools to compare and contrast such fraught terms as “Identity Politics,” “Culture Wars,” “Political Correctness,” “Affirmative Action,” “Diversity,” and “American Exceptionalism.” If some of what will be written pisses you off, just dismiss it as collateral damage.

The post Reflections on George Carlin, in the era of Donald Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recent references to Donald Trump’s bizarre ramblings in interview transcripts (Trump’s NYT transcript: Read it, and weep for our country) make one yearn for a kinder, gentler time.

In 2001, Richard Thompson, a cartoonist for the Washington Post, published “Make the Pie Higher.” It is a wonderful mashup of actual quotes from George W. Bush.

Read and let your mind drift away from Mr. Trump.

Make the Pie Higher

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It’s a world of madmen
And uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the internet
Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish
Can coexist.

Families is where our nation finds hope
Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

      — George W. Bush (true quotes, as organized by Richard Thompson)

The post Make the pie higher: nostalgia for W in a Trump era appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Politicians have been using code words for many years [Remember “states rights,” one of the all-time classic code words, meaning institutionalized segregation and racism?] In 2016, we may have established a new record: It seems that there are more new “dog-whistle” words and phrases in this cycle than in any previous era.

I’m going to attempt to list and analyze some of these new words later in this post. But first, a definition and a bit of history.

Wikipedia defines political code, otherwise known as “dog-whistle politics,” as:

…Political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently distasteful to the general populace. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

But you knew that already.

You may not know—as I didn’t—that, in 1981, infamous Republican political trickster Lee Atwater described the evolution of political code—specifically “states rights”– in a very non-academic, realpolitik [and highly offensive] way that we all can understand and abhor: Wikipedia quotes him as saying:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—–, ” “N——,” “N——-..” By 1968, you can’t say “n——-” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N—-. n—–.”

That’s about as direct a definition as you can get. And that way of speaking in political tongues has not gone away. The difference today is that there’s a lot more of it.

But to get back to academics just for one paragraph: You may vaguely remember your high-school or college years, when some English professor or another tested you on rhetorical terms, one of which was “metonymy.” That’s the figure of speech that replaces the name of a thing with the name of something else with which it is closely associated.  Example: Using “the Crown” to refer to the English monarchy. [Remember learning the differences between metonymy and simile, metaphor and synechdoche? Yeah, me neither.]

Anyway, political code words and phrases are examples of metonymy.

So, here are some of the newer examples of political code words and phrases, with my personal, unofficial, un-dictionary-ike translations:

Make America Great Again

Translation: Preserve the dominance and unquestioned political ascendancy of white males. Keep America ‘pure. Stop letting immigrants ‘steal’ our jobs. Stop letting these pesky women, with their ideas about equal pay, gain power in the boardroom and in politics. Let’s go back to the days when white people ran the country and we didn’t have to attend to the needs of minorities or even associate with them or acknowledge ‘their’ existence.

Broad-shouldered defense

Republican Mike Pence slipped this in during the 2016 Vice Presidential debate.Translation:“Men are better warriors. Women [Hillary Clinton, of course], with their narrower shoulders, weak female bodies and yukky monthly menstrual cycles, aren’t manly or aggressive enough to stand up for America. Women do not belong in the military—they are destroying morale.

Passionate

Donald Trump and his surrogates use this term to describe his followers.Translation: angry, alienated, willing to call people names, prone to using racial, xenophobic and misogynistic slurs and even resorting to violence.

Deplorables

Hillary Clinton used this label to describe some of Trump’s supporters. See ‘Passionate.”

Stamina

Trump says that Hillary Clinton lacks the stamina to be President. Translation: Testosterone, balls, masculinity. Basically, she’s a woman: They bleed from their ‘whatever.’.

The Presidential look

According to Trump, Hillary doesn’t have it. Translation: Only men can be presidents.

Alt-right

The term du jour that attempts to sanitize, with a new name,the extreme right-wing of the Republican party. Translation: People, organizations, websites, bloggers and news outlets that espouse extreme, radical, white supremacist, nativist hate. Much more muscular than the Tea Party. Not to be confused with traditional Republican conservatism, which is mild and wimpy by comparison.

Locker room

Caught on tape bragging about his own entitlement to engage in sexual assault, Trump dismisses the conversation as locker-room talk. Translation: Boys will be boys. This is normal conversation and behavior for males. We brag to each other about our sexual predilections, fantasies and conquests, and no one thinks there’s anything wrong with that. People who complain about it are wimps [not masculine like me]. Get over it. Women lie about sexual abuse all the time. Sexual abuse is not a problem.

Temperament

This code word has different meanings when used by Trump and by Hillary Clinton.

Translation for Trump: She’s a woman. They cry. They complain. They’re weak. They lie. It’s all their fault. They’re ball-breakers and should just go back to changing diapers, getting our dinner on the table on time, and stop trying to take our power away from us. Also, see “stamina.”

Translation for Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is psychologically unstable, thin-skinned, can’t take any criticism. His anger is out of control. He throws public temper tantrums. He’s an emotional 6-year-old who should not be trusted to use mature judgment when given the power of the presidency. He’s dangerous and unfit for public office. Bat-shit crazy and out of control.

Smile

Republican haters of Hillary Clinton, as well as political pundits and commentators [some of them women], have variously advised her to “smile more,” and “smile less.” Translation: Woman. Too ambitious. Not nice, not ladylike. Too strong. Too weak. Not attractive the way a lady should be. I just want to ogle women [the ones I think are attractive enough for me] and not have to listen to their “ideas.” Out of place in a world where males should be in charge. Too wonky for a woman—stop worrying your pretty little head about these things, little lady. And not just you, Hillary–all you gals. Just be pretty for me and serve my needs–that’s your job–be happy with what you’ve got..

Politically incorrect

Donald Trump and his minions claim that it’s a virtue to buck the prevailing norm of political correctness.Translation: We can be as offensive as we want to be. We can insult minorities, shame women, incite violence, and make up our own facts. We’re “outsiders,” so we don’t have to care about being diplomatic, or displaying common decency or courtesy. That’s for suckers, losers and touchy-feely left-wingers. We’re entitled to say anything at all, and who cares who gets hurt or whether we are permanently undermining the civility that is a basic underpinning of a democratic system. We won’t play by the rules. We’re having a tantrum, and you can’t stop us.

One final comment:  Although code words are still very much in play–and we can expect more in the days and years to come–the dog-whistle world seems to be evolving. While coded language can be and is used to hide real sentiments, there’s a simultaneous trend toward just coming right out and expressing whatever offensive thing comes to mind at the moment. At least the use of code words served as a tacit acknowledgement that it was societally unacceptable to say some of this stuff outright. The way things seem to be going, it’s becoming more normal for people to talk openly and unabashedly about–and even act on–their worst impulses. And that may be even scarier than the code words themselves.

The post New political code words: an unofficial glossary appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When the conversation gets around to women’s history, and the subject is women’s struggle to win the right to vote, you’ll often hear the term “suffragette.” Many people think that the term describes the women who defied the social norms of the early 1900s by protesting in the streets and lobbying politicians and presidents for the right to make their voices heard on election day. They’re right, but  they’re wrong.

The term “suffragette” was, indeed, used to describe women like Christabel Pankhurst and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. But it was a derogatory term. The suffix “ette” connotes smallness. Those who opposed women’s rights, and who wanted to demean the efforts of the women activists, used the term “suffragette” as what we would now call a put-down.

The women activists called themselves “suffragists.” In an article on Truthout, Ellin Dannin answers the question: “Ette,” vs. “ist” Why make a big deal?

The suffix “-ette” means small things. Tacking “-ette” onto a word turns it into a diminutive – towelette, usherette, cigarette, novelette, statuette and so on. Those who fought for women’s suffrage – the right to vote – were part of a serious movement for civil rights, equality, and ending human bondage.

There was nothing “ette-ish” about the struggle for American women’s right to vote. The women and men who fought for women’s right to vote – the right of suffrage – from the dawn of the 19th century into the 20th century were courageous “-ists” – suffragists.

Women’s right to vote mattered, because the right to vote was – and still is – seen as the means to make all other rights possible. Suffragists wanted more than just ticking a ballot. Woman suffragists wanted women to have the right to attend school, to own property, to have a say in how their children were treated and to have a right to the integrity of their bodies.

Along the way, the suffragists won many battles; however, in a gross miscarriage of justice, the enemies of women’s equality seem to have won the naming rights.

We can change that. Although more than a century late, we can restore the name these activists chose for themselves – Suffragists.

The post Please don’t call them suffragettes appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sadly, the 40-year campaign by conservatives to take over the political dialogue (and the political system itself) has been a success. Right-wing messaging is everywhere and has become the vernacular. But those of us on the left—and in the middle, too, come to think of it—must not give up.  Language counts. We need to try harder to—as my pre-school teachers often said—use our words to convey what we mean. And even though we may have heard all of this before, (we’ve all read George Lakoff, right?) it’s worth reminding ourselves to use our own talking points, rather than mindlessly adopting the language of the right.

Addicting Information offers this helpful compilation of words and phrases to avoid, and ways to recast the dialogue:

(1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, try: Unelected Government. This puts them in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

(2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, try: Earned Benefits. This term not only sounds better for the progressive cause, it’s also more accurate. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are all forms of insurance that we pay into all of our working lives — via a percentage of our income — and then collect from when the time comes.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: (Also referred to as: Capitalism, Free Markets, and Supply-Side Economics) Like “Fascism” and “Communism,” “Free Market Capitalism” is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society. Instead, try: Socialized Risk, Privatized Profits. This best describes the dramatically failed experiment in unfettered capitalism, as practiced in the late 20th century and early aughts.

(4). Government Spending: (Also referred to as: Taxes, Burden, and Inconvenient) Conservatives talk about “government spending” like it’s this awful thing, but the fact is, communities across America benefit from U.S. tax dollars, especially supposedly anti-government red states, which receive way more federal tax money than they contribute.  Instead, try: Investing in America. Because, that’s what our federal tax dollars do. They invest in education and infrastructure that wouldn’t prove profitable for businesses, but which still benefit society in the long-run.

(5) Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage: While these phrases are technically accurate, they play into the conservative notion that marriage between two men or two women is somehow different and inferior than a “real” marriage between a man and a woman. Instead, try: Marriage Equality.

(6). Gun Control: Yikes! That sounds like you want to control people, and all those “freedom loving” folks who want to bully gays and people of color into staying in their place will use that word against you. Instead, try: Gun Safety. It sounds so nice, non-coercive, and reasonable … plus, it’s true. Most of us aren’t against guns, we just want them used safely. Or, for some added punch, try: Gun Violence Prevention.

(7). Homophobic: People who oppose equal rights for gays, lesbians, and gender atypical individuals are not “afraid,” as the “phobic” suffix implies. They are mean, bigoted @ssholes. Instead, try: Anti-Gay.

(8). Illegal Aliens: It’s easy to support draconian laws against people we refer to by such a scary and impersonal term as “illegal aliens.” It’s way harder to act against our neighbors, friends, the families of our children’s classmates, or the nice lady who sells those plump, fragrant tamales on the corner. Plus … are they really “illegal?” If Big Business … Ooops … I mean “Unelected Government” … didn’t want them here — for their easily-exploited, low-cost, skilled labor (yes, our neighbors from south of the border do offer specialized skills for which U.S. agribusiness refuses to fairly compensate) — they’d be gone. Instead, try: Undocumented Residents. Why not? They already do much of what we officially-recognized U.S. citizens do, plus they’re having more kids than Anglos are. Seems like immigration provides an ideal way for us to avoid the demographics crisis hitting Western Europe and Japan.

(9). Pro-Life: Ugh. They are NOT pro-life. Once a child takes its first breath, these supposed conservative “pro-lifers” couldn’t care less about the quality of life for the child or mother. Let’s call them by their true name for once. Instead, try: Anti-Choice. Because, that’s what they really are about. They don’t care about “life.” They only seek to deny choices to women. Not just the choice of whether or not to have a child, but whether a woman can — like a man — embrace her full sexuality without having to worry about pregnancy, and whether she can make related choices about her body, her career, and when to have children, as men always have.

(10). Right-To-Work: Who came up with the phrase “right-to-work” ANYway? It’s total B.S. and doesn’t give you the right to do anything, unless you want to reject unions and earn less money than you would in a pro-union shop. In “right-to-work” states, non-union workers in union shops can decline paying union dues. Which sounds fair, but is not, because union shops pay better wages to their employees, and hence should receive dues accordingly. Instead, try: Anti-Union: It’s far more accurate, and — as unions increasingly gain favor — will make conservatives look bad. Because “right-to-work” really does mean: Right to choose amongst sucky wages and benefits packages.  Several readers have also suggested: Right-To-Fire (without just cause), and Right-To-Work-For-Less.

(11). The Environment: When people talk about “the environment,” they often sound annoyingly self-righteous, as if lecturing people with dubious hygiene practices. Unfortunately, you can’t count on people to make environmentally friendly choices — especially when people are struggling financially and these choices cost significantly more. Instead, try: Shared Resources. That makes way more sense. We may not care about some  factory dumping crap into the ocean, but we dang-well care about our neighbors up the river not properly maintaining their septic tank.

(12). Welfare: When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes. The majority of us need help at one time or another. Instead, try: Social Safety Net: When people think of a safety net, they’re more likely to think of a protection of last-resort, and one that they can instantly bounce out of like circus acrobats. And if we continue to grow the middle class — instead of cutting taxes for the rich and allowing companies to pay sub-living wages — perhaps the latter will be true again.

The post 12 phrases progressives need to ditch, and what to say instead appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Newspapers, linguists, politicos, magazines and blogs are always looking for end-of-year hooks for stories. One perennial favorite is to choose—unilaterally, or via a poll or reader suggestions—the word or phrase that either best characterizes the past year or that went viral for one reason or another. The American Dialect Society  sponsors an annual contest, to which the public can contribute its nominees. ADS’s guidelines for nominated words offer a good framework for evaluation:  According to ADS, the best “word of the year” [WOTY] candidates are:

— demonstrably new or newly popular in 2011
— widely and/or prominently used in 2011
— indicative or reflective of the popular discourse

ADS will announce its winners on January 5. Until then, here are some options—suggested by other sites and groups—that seem worthy of consideration:

 “Occupy”

National Public Radio’s [NPR] resident linguist, Geoff Nunberg says, “If the word of the year is supposed to be an item that has actually shaped the perception of important events, I can’t see going with anything but occupy. It was a late entry, but since mid-September it has gone viral and global…Occupy is that rare linguistic phenomenon, a word that bubbles up out of nowhere and actually helps to create the very thing it names.” Nunberg’s full explanation of his reasoning offers an excellent analysis of the linguistic and political implications of his nominee.

“Tergiversate”

Hard to pronounce [“ter-JIV-er-sate” ], and outside the everyday vocabulary of most people, it means  “to change repeatedly one’s attitude or opinions with respect to a cause, subject, etc.; equivocate.” It’s Dictionary.com’s word of the year. The panel of editors who chose it describe their decision this way:

We could say that, in 2011, the stock market tergiversated; or that the public tergiversated about Occupy Wall Street…”This word encompasses a sense of ‘flip flopping’ but it also implies a number of other complicating forces. Unlike ‘flip flop’, ‘tergiversate’ suggests a lack of intentionality – it’s a change in state more out of necessity, as new events happen at great speed, whether in the economy, politics or attitudes.”

The word’s origins come from the Latin for “to turn one’s back”. Though not in common usage, it was utilized by The Times of London in August to describe the changing attitudes of stock markets.

Dictionary.com’s panel also considered “occupy,” “austerity,” “jobs” (both the noun and the person), “zugzwang” and “insidious.”

“Volatility”

“Volatility may not be trendy like “occupy” or “Arab Spring,” but it’s the one word that characterizes the bipolar mood of 2011 in everything from politics to economics,” writes Dennis Brown, on his blog, The Web of Language:

Volatility describes the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; scandals in college sports and investment banking; the Republican presidential scramble and the Greek debt crisis; regime change in Libya and in Italy; the Iranian nuclear build-up and the Fukushima nuclear melt-down.

Throughout the year, the Dow Jones Index has been the poster-child for volatility, jumping up and down by hundreds of points like a high-stakes game of Chutes and Ladders. Indeed, given the daily shake ups not just of the year that was, but of the ten years since 9/11, volatility could well be the word of the decade, and with no end.

“Squeezed middle”

Never heard of it? Yeah, me neither. That’s because it’s a phrase more in use across the pond—in England—than in the U.S. But, it’s the word [or should we say phrase] of the year chosen by Oxford Press.

Squeezed middle: the section of society regarded as particularly affected by inflation, wage freezes, and cuts in public spending during a time of economic difficulty, consisting principally of those people on low or middle incomes.

Runners-up on the Oxford list were: “arab spring,” “bunga bunga” [see: Berlusconi], “clicktivism,” “crowdfunding,” “fracking,”  “gamification” [wha?], “occupy,” “the 99%,”” tiger mother” and “sifi” [huh?]. That last one may not win WOTY, and it’s really acronym, but it’s one that, in current, global economic times, might be a concept to keep in mind. It means:

“a bank or other financial institution regarded as so vital to the functioning of the overall economy that it cannot be allowed to fail. [Acronym from systemically important financial institution. Pronounced “SIFF-ee”, rhyming with “jiffy”.]

Previously, on WOTY…

 A look at the past decade’s WOTY list from the American Dialect Society is a trip down America’s cultural and political memory lane.

2010: app

2009: tweet

2008: bailout

2007: subprime

2006: plutoed

2005: truthiness

2004: red state/blue state/purple state

2003: metrosexual

2002: WMD

2001: 9-11

But if this year’s word of the year doesn’t become part of your everyday vocabulary[“Tergiversate?” Really?], don’t worry. Many previous WOTY’s didn’t stick around long, either. Mental Floss offers the following list of dead, shortlisted WOTY’s that must have seemed trendy at the time, but now occupy space in the dead-word dust heap. They include:

 “Bushlips, 1990. [See “read my lips.”]

“Meatspace,” 1995 [It was supposed to refer to the “real” world, as opposed to cyberspace.]

“Intexticated,” 2009 [Shorlisted by Oxford Dictionaries, but ultimately defeated by “unfriend.”

“Millennium bug,” 1997 [This phrase had a short run, especially because the expected global financial disaster predicted for 2000 never happened. In 1999, “Y2K” got more play.]

See ya’ next year. I plan to still occupy this spot in 2012, without tergiversating. My middle, however, could use a bit of squeezing.

p

The post What’s the word of the year for 2011? appeared first on Occasional Planet.