Jargoning Away the Meaning
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditAuthor:
Harrison
Tags:
Democrats enemy combantant Geneva Convention individuals captured in connection with armed conflicts and counter terrorism operations Janet Napolitano jargon Liberals man created nazis Obama overseas contingency operations Terrorism war on terror word useage
Remember, it was a man-created disaster.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano doesn’t want you to feel scared… she wants you to relax, take a deep breath, and use jargon so you’ll feel better. Reality won’t change, mind you, only your perception of it will as long as you remember that September 11th was not an act of “terrorism” but, instead, it was a “man-caused” disaster. Do you feel better now? Over 3,000 people were murdered in an act of “man-caused” disaster. You’d think Democrats would not want to be biased against women and would instead call it a “human-caused” disaster but, alas, I digress.
Remember, fear is a bad thing even though it is in the nature of every animal on earth and can give us the impetus to escape harm or exhibit incredible strength. We, as Americans, must turn against our nature and not allow such an unhelpful thing as “fear” to control us because: “it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Also, keep in mind, because there is no more “terrorism” we cannot fight a “war” against it so we must now say we are conducting “overseas contingency operations.” And anybody we find in a contingency operation overseas is not an “enemy combatant” but instead they are “individuals captured in connection with armed conflicts and counter terrorism operations.”
And while we are at it, we should forget that the term “enemy combatant” came to be in order to distunguish someone wearing a uniform and fighting under a military chain of command (and thus gaining protections under Article IV of the Geneva Conventions) from a person who is not fighting for an army of a state. In fact, we should try not to worry about petty things like the origination of words or terminology because those are inconvenient when discussing terrorism.
I apologize, I used the word “terrorism” when I should have said “individuals captured in connection with armed conflicts and counterman-caused operations.” That doesn’t really make any grammatical sense but when I read it outloud I don’t feel alarmed at all because I can’t understand it. If I can’t understand it then I guess I shouldn’t worry about it because it seems harmless. Something like September 11th could never happen again because I don’t hear the Obama administration using all of those scary words anymore so I guess the threat has passed!
One of the reasons why the Germans were able to murder so many Jews during WWII was because the extermination of them was turned into, except for the final stage, a bureaucratic exercise. The Germans, always well organized, had an excellent bureaucracy. The Nazi leadership was very disorganized owing to the fact that Adolf Hitler loved to pit department heads against one another thinking that the best idea would win out. But the bureaucracy saved him because it was somehow able to still organize and carry out his plans.
Every step along the way to a Jew’s death in the concentration camps was organized. Names, places, addresses, families, destinations, etc. were all neatly tabulated and checked and re-checked. This process can be seen throughout the movie Schindler’s List. What this process did was not only make the collection of the Jews more efficient but it also removed responsibility in the minds of many of those participating in this genocide because each person was only contributing a tiny part of the total process. Surely the rank-and-file soldier who simply checked a name off on a list could not be responsible for much, could he? Of course not. Even many of the Jews who were victims of the Nazis did not know what was happening to them until it was too late. They were told to label their luggage so they could retreive it later. They were told their hair was needed for insulation in jackets. They were told they would be taking showers… then when they did realize it was too late.
The words we use affect how we think about reality.
The Nazis were very good at using powerful symbols to get their message across. They were also gifted in the creation of jargon such as: “Endloesung” (Final Solution), “Selektion” (choosing who would be gassed), “Lager” (concentration camp), and “Entartet” (degenerate art). It is no different than using the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “genocide.”
The use of jargon whether it be by the Nazis, news organizations, or the Obama administration when it comes to fighting the “overseas contingency operations against man-created disasters” is the same. Its purpose is to change the way the people who use and hear those words think about the task at hand.
The Bush administration created many new terms such as “enemy combatant” and, of course, the “war on terror” but these new words and phrases expressed exactly the meaning that they should… they did not attempt to sanitize “terrorism” by saying “man-created.” After all, sandwiches are “man-created” as are robberies and sweaters. The entire meaning of “terrorism” is to create terror. But, again, why bother with these types of silly distinctions..?
Just as no one snowflake is responsible for an avalanche, no one word is responsible for changing the way we think about the War on Terror but, in the end, an avalanche is an avalanche and a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and either, if you are caught in one, could get you dead. That isn’t a very comforting thought but it’s not supposed to be… that is the point.
And this article, in case you were wondering, was “man-created.”
Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.
9:45 AM
Yep…I am scared. Scared of people like you. Incredible…absolutely incredible.
9:54 AM
Thank you for responding to the issues raised in the article.
6:07 AM
Harrison,
Terms like “the war on terror” and “the evil empire” were descriptions used by Bush to attempt to create fear among the people of this country. He thought that by using inflamatory terminology he could get the right-wingers to support his militaristic approach to solving all the problems of the world. Put down your Ak-47 and take a chill pill, Harrison; the term “overseas contingeny operations” is a much better term than “war on terror”. By the way, you’ve reached a new low in Obama-bashing by going after his terminology. Your comparisons to Nazi Germany were really over the top!
askcherlock’s last blog post..Pakistan’s Dominos are Falling
5:00 PM
Every administration creates new terms to use but the ones I listed are pretty absurd and seek to remove all meaning from them. In the end, they could be describing IKEA furniture instructions.
5:01 PM
“Evil Empire” was used to describe the Soviet Union. And it was an apt term.
Perhaps I could have discussed Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. The purpose of those terms and the ones by the Obama administration are the same.
12:30 AM
Another term currently being redefined in the political lexicon: extremist.
New definition – ex·trem·ist – (?k-str?’m?st) – 1. People who read and agree with Harrison’s blog. 2. People who think it is “cool” that Harrison has an AK-47 (if you ever make to Utah, a state with real 2nd Amendment rights, let’s go shooting). 3. Anyone who opposes Barack Obama’s policies.
Burro’s last blog post..Polar Bear Huggers
12:41 AM
Ha that’s very funny. I don’t have an AK but I bet my Saiga could keep up with you. Ten rounds at a time that is.
10:59 AM
It’s a war on English, plain and simple. It’s even more inane than seriously discussing the ‘meaning of “is”‘. Mixing it up with Merriam-Webster has the world laughing at us: and not just the British media and the French people & President but the Taliban, too. We were promised the world would have a different image of us. It’s going smashingly well, I think.
BTW: Have they defined “Acts of God” yet? Will the next hurricane be an Act of Gaia?
11:18 PM
I don’t have an AK yet. I had one in my hands that I was thinking about buying at the last gun show. It just didn’t feel right to pay twice as much for a gun than what I could have paid three months earlier. Then I started hearing rumors that the gun show had sold out of AK ammunition within a few hours. It all seemed like an uphill battle.
Hoping to go to a gun show tomorrow, but my hopes aren’t high. The market has been pretty much cleaned out. In a way, just threatening to impose tighter gun restrictions leads to contrived scarcity in the market, so Democrats are essentially “making it harder” for law abiding Americans to legally purchase the guns we want. Maybe I should become a player in the Southern border drug trade.
Burro’s last blog post..Polar Bear Huggers
12:01 AM
Democrats will tax ammo, prohibit surplus ammo, and ban lead. That will keep firearms legal but too expensive for people to use.
I hear you on paying more for something that was cheaper but they will probably get even more expensive. My Saiga is a good rifle and fun to shoot at targets with. You should check them out!
12:40 AM
Yeah, I tried to make the “investment” argument to my wife.
Burro’s last blog post..Being popular is the most important thing in the world
7:27 AM
“Democrats will tax ammo, prohibit surplus ammo, and ban lead. That will keep firearms legal but too expensive for people to use.”
You have no proof of that but you follow the instructions of your overlords and pass it along anyway. Fearmongering is what Repugnants do best when they are not engaged in their other native pastimes: lying and making shit up. You will claim you are not one of them but you are. If you were actually a centrist you would have the occasional pro-Obama piece and/or anti-Bush piece — but you don’t. So we have established that you are not a centrist at all. Most of your Obama attacks are race-based – that makes you a racist. I haven’t seen you pull the “muslim” card yet but I’m sure it’s not far off. Either that or I just haven’t sifted through enough of your junk yet.
Other than that, most of your stuff is well-written. Pity it is based on fantasies instead of realities. A wasted mind.
8:52 AM
Please illustrate were I have ever mentioned President Obama’s “race” for me. When it comes to discussions of “race” it seems that generally it is Liberals who label anybody who disagrees with our president as “racist” because they cannot say anything else.
8:57 AM
Why don’t you look up the “Ammunition Accountability Act” and then come and talk to me.
2:54 PM
Why do you never provide references for people to look up?
You don’t need to overtly mention Obama’s race. It’s in most of the twitter comments you find so funny and it was a major part of the tea bagging you brag about. It’s all around you. You just can’t see it.