http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/18/precision-in-language-makes-things-clear/
Quote:
Precision in communication is a good thing. Writers who care about their craft always look for the word that best describes an action, a thing or a person. Sometimes there is no perfect word.
As a writer concerned with precision, I occasionally purge a word from my vocabulary because the word has been so overused and badly abused that it no longer has a clear meaning.
It's been some time since I dumped "liberal" and "conservative" from my vocabulary because, in my opinion, they both had become meaningless through careless usage. Essentially, both have come to mean "Satan" or "traitor" depending on who uses them.
They have degenerated into hateful epithets for lazy, nonthinking people to hurl at others. It is not a crime or a sin to be liberal or conservative in the real meaning of the words, but the real meaning of both has been replaced by the verbal equivalent of an obscene gesture.
My banning of the words won't stop them from being abused, but I don't have to participate. In fact, the true test of whether a person even understands a word is whether or not he or she can define it succinctly. If you can't define a word, you don't know what it means; it is a hollow sound borrowed from someone else.
"Socialism" is hanging on in my vocabulary, although it's another vague word dragged out every time health care reform comes up. Lately, I've begun asking people to define socialism when they use it as an argument against health care reform. Any person who understands the word can give a single-sentence definition.
Let's try it. "Socialism is a system of government under which there is no private ownership, and all means of production and distribution are controlled by the state." At one time, most American students learned this in civics class before facts became political footballs. It does not apply to this country.
Asking for a definition of socialism sometimes results in an angry outburst from a person who has been using the word to describe policies he or she just doesn't like. If the person doesn't know the definition, it's embarrassing. If he or she does, it's also embarrassing.
The moment a person who understands the definition of socialism speaks it out loud, it becomes clear that health care reform isn't about socialism. It's about entrenched self-interests in a health system that spends more and delivers less value than any other free society.
Socialism is still in my vocabulary because it has apparently lost some of its evil overtones already. Opponents of health care reform are desperately floating scary ideas like "rationing," "euthanasia" and "federally funded abortions" to obscure the real issue that countries like France, the Netherlands and Canada take better care of their citizens than we do.
Rationing already happens based on age, disease and finances; we are already paying higher premiums for the people who have no alternative but emergency rooms; voluntary counseling for the elderly doesn't equate to euthanasia clinics; and abortion is a sure way to stir controversy, whether it's relevant or not.
Do I want a bureaucrat making decisions for me? No. But insurance clerks are now making those decisions, and it's profit, not my health, that concerns them. They can refuse to insure me or cancel me on a whim without explanation. Somewhere between the two extremes there's a solution, but we have discuss it rationally to get there.
We can start by at least understanding what the words we use actually mean.
David Hunter, who writes this column for the News Sentinel, is a freelance writer and former Knox County sheriff's deputy. You may write him at P.O. Box 1124, Powell, TN 37849. His e-mail address is davidhunter333@comcast.net.
As a writer concerned with precision, I occasionally purge a word from my vocabulary because the word has been so overused and badly abused that it no longer has a clear meaning.
It's been some time since I dumped "liberal" and "conservative" from my vocabulary because, in my opinion, they both had become meaningless through careless usage. Essentially, both have come to mean "Satan" or "traitor" depending on who uses them.
They have degenerated into hateful epithets for lazy, nonthinking people to hurl at others. It is not a crime or a sin to be liberal or conservative in the real meaning of the words, but the real meaning of both has been replaced by the verbal equivalent of an obscene gesture.
My banning of the words won't stop them from being abused, but I don't have to participate. In fact, the true test of whether a person even understands a word is whether or not he or she can define it succinctly. If you can't define a word, you don't know what it means; it is a hollow sound borrowed from someone else.
"Socialism" is hanging on in my vocabulary, although it's another vague word dragged out every time health care reform comes up. Lately, I've begun asking people to define socialism when they use it as an argument against health care reform. Any person who understands the word can give a single-sentence definition.
Let's try it. "Socialism is a system of government under which there is no private ownership, and all means of production and distribution are controlled by the state." At one time, most American students learned this in civics class before facts became political footballs. It does not apply to this country.
Asking for a definition of socialism sometimes results in an angry outburst from a person who has been using the word to describe policies he or she just doesn't like. If the person doesn't know the definition, it's embarrassing. If he or she does, it's also embarrassing.
The moment a person who understands the definition of socialism speaks it out loud, it becomes clear that health care reform isn't about socialism. It's about entrenched self-interests in a health system that spends more and delivers less value than any other free society.
Socialism is still in my vocabulary because it has apparently lost some of its evil overtones already. Opponents of health care reform are desperately floating scary ideas like "rationing," "euthanasia" and "federally funded abortions" to obscure the real issue that countries like France, the Netherlands and Canada take better care of their citizens than we do.
Rationing already happens based on age, disease and finances; we are already paying higher premiums for the people who have no alternative but emergency rooms; voluntary counseling for the elderly doesn't equate to euthanasia clinics; and abortion is a sure way to stir controversy, whether it's relevant or not.
Do I want a bureaucrat making decisions for me? No. But insurance clerks are now making those decisions, and it's profit, not my health, that concerns them. They can refuse to insure me or cancel me on a whim without explanation. Somewhere between the two extremes there's a solution, but we have discuss it rationally to get there.
We can start by at least understanding what the words we use actually mean.
David Hunter, who writes this column for the News Sentinel, is a freelance writer and former Knox County sheriff's deputy. You may write him at P.O. Box 1124, Powell, TN 37849. His e-mail address is davidhunter333@comcast.net.
See? Don't let varus' tripe make you think that everyone in Tennessee is a complete and utter fool.
Bolded parts are mine.
