Sundries

The voices in my head are in abundance. Due to laziness and my medical affliction CRS, I have simply not written about a variety of issues on my mind. Thus, some of these topics are perhaps a bit dated, but the voices must be heard nonetheless.

BUSH SPEAKS, CARLIN SPINS IN GRAVE

George Carlin hated euphemisms, those indirect words or phrases that are substituted for various reasons for phrases that are more to the point. In his book When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, Carlin wrote, "Not all euphemisms are alike, but they have one thing in common: They obscure meaning rather than enhance it; they shade the truth."

It's generally acknowledged that politicians, and governments in general, are masters of the euphemism. A phrase used by the Bush administration recently proves this point. President Bush has stated unequivocally for some time now that there will be no "timetable" for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, stating time and again that conditions on the ground will determine when troops depart. John McCain agrees with this and reamed his primary opponent Mitt Romney a new one for supposedly suggesting a timetable for Iraq might be a good idea.

Time passes, conditions on the ground are improving, and quite frankly, the Iraqi government would like to know when the hell we plan on leaving. US people did lunch with Iraqi people and lo and behold, a "time horizon" was agreed upon for the removal of US troops. Excuse me? What the hell is a "time horizon" other than another way of saying the word "timetable"? Ah, but King George will not allow use of the word "timetable" so a new way of stating "we're leaving on such and such a date" had to be thought of. So "time horizon" was settled upon. Much mushier sounding than "timetable", a time horizon could turn out to be a pretty vague thing. Hard to see an horizon sometimes, what with all that smoke from roadside bombs and gunfire.

RE-EDUCATION: LIKE SUMMER CAMP, BUT WITH FORCED LABOR

Speaking of euphemisms: In China, two women in their late 70s, both of whom use a cane and one of whom is blind in one eye, were sentenced to "re-education through labor," a euphemism for a prison camp where you make small rocks out of big ones for 10 hours a day. The crime these old ladies committed was that they applied to stage a legal protest, their complaint being that they weren't fairly compensated when the Chinese government seized their homes for redevelopment. Yes, that's right, they applied to stage a legal protest.

In China, if you want to protest, the government requires you to fill out a form. All well and good I suppose, except for the fact that when you go to fill out the government required form, the government sentences you to forced labor in order to "re-educate" you, the education being the concept that if you want to protest anything the Chinese government does, don't, because if you do, you will be punished, possibly severely. Some protest applicants simply aren't seen again, much like Luca Brasi in "The Godfather," except that protesters families won't even get a bulletproof vest with a dead fish in it wrapped in a newspaper. What their families will get is most likely nothing, only silence.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex defines "evil" as, among other things, "morally bad or wrong; wicked," and also "causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful." I think the Chinese government could very well be classified as evil. They seem to be a government intent on crushing not just dissent, but the very idea that the Chinese people should even think anti-government thoughts, much less act on those thoughts. They wish to crush the independent nature of the human spirit. That's evil. If you want more evidence of Chinese evil, presented for your approval is the sight of people's homes being stripped from them in the name of progress. More? How about calling an independent country (Tibet) part of China when it's not. You want historical evil: How about the 20th-century history of Chinese oppression and the millions who died under Mao and his bright ideas.

Let's just understand the Chinese government for what it is, evil. Based on this understanding, maybe the US could form a foreign policy that will take into account the human rights of Chinese citizens. At the same time maybe we can figure how to stop the Chinese government from running wild like Hell's Angels at a beer party in San Ber'doo just because the Western World wants to make make a ton of money in the Chinese marketplace. Over a billion Chinese: that's a lot Cokes and Marlboros, but is it worth selling the soul of a democratic America for?

WORD!: A RETARDED VIEW OF THE WORLD

An alleged comedy, "Tropic Thunder," premiered last week to a brief firestorm of controversy. (I suppose I shouldn't call it "an alleged comedy;" I haven't seen it and probably won't until it comes out on DVD.)
In the film, a character uses the word "retard" quite often in one scene. Because of this, the people at Special Olympics, as well as other groups, threatened to boycott the movie and have generally expressed outrage at the use of the word "retard." I'll bet most of these people are like me and haven't even seen the movie. And yet these speech and though police are outraged.

They may be well-intentioned with their anger, or at least they think they are, but in reality, they just don't get it. The movie is a satire of Hollywood and the intelligence, or lack thereof, of some movie makers. The character (Robert Downey, Jr) who uses the word "retard" is talking to another character (Ben Stiller, who also co-wrote and directed "Tropic Thunder") about his having acted in roles where he portrayed a mentally challenged person. Downey's character is obviously not as smart as he thinks he is, and he is not particularly enlightened. But that's the thing. This is a character speaking, not a real person. Have we become so fearful of words, and hateful towards these words, that we don't even want to hear a fictional character utter certain epithets? Are we that willing as a society to give up some aspects of freedom of speech in order to save some amongst us from hearing certain words?

David Greising is a guy who gets it. In the August 17th edition of the Chicago Tribune he wrote an article in which he pretty much tells everyone to calm down and explains the concept of satire. However, I would like to go out on a limb here: In his piece on the movie, Greising states the word " 'nigger'...cannot be funny under any circumstances." I don't totally agree. If I use the word, it is indeed just racist and possibly hazardous to my health, if used in the wrong circumstances. But when Richard Pryor used the word to great effect back in the 1970s it was pretty darn funny. More recently, Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock have used the word and gotten laughs with it. (Truth be told, at some point in his career (after he caught on fire due to sloppy drug use), Pryor renounced the word and swore never to use it onstage again, and Chappelle seems to have some misgivings about the racial aspects of his late, lamented Comedy Central show, feeling that possibly he had been putting black culture on TV for the amusement of white America.)

There are some in society who believe that some words are so offensive that they should be banished to a permanent exile, never to be seen or heard again. That's why we see abominations like the phrase "the N-word"; we have become too frightened as a people to even spell out or speak certain words out loud lest we be branded as, at worst, racist or at the very least simply callous and ignorant. Granted, there is a time and a place for everything, including the usage of some words, but never in a free society should words be forever cast away, lest someone take offense at their use.