“…Using That Word” Pt. 2

The last word

As much as I’m disinclined to broadcast my weakness for skepticism, irony, sarcasm and other love stories, it might be more constructive than the average catharsis to give a few more of them a brief airing.  

(Therapeutic suggestions may be offered in the Comments section)

As a recent missive “You Keep Using That Word” discussed, the MSM, politicians, talk show hosts and othe ‘pundits’ have reduced the potency or outright castrated the primary meaning of “study”, “investigation” and “controversial”.

A few that didn’t make the cut:

“Explosive” - The guilty parties mentioned above want to generate maximum attention with such terms. Understandable. But their redundancy and misapplication are creating more yawns than gasps. Have you ever actually heard an “explosive” news story? Revelations may be of great significance, but they rarely go “BOOM” – with the possible exception of whomever received a subpoena. (I know – “too literal”. Stay with me)

“War Zone” – Anything that doesn’t look like the cover of Architect Digest or the Robb Report or Garden and Gun looks like a ‘war zone!’. Hurricane, tornado, miscellaneous storm damage all resemble a ‘war zone’ – which diminishes the heinous tragedy of war. Unlike ‘natural disasters’, war is inflicted unnecessarily, cruelly and disproportionately on the innocent. Ignoring extreme weather warnings gets a one-way ticket to the hell that follows while war leaves few options and longer detrimental effects for those seeking safety. Often they are forcibly prevented from getting away by the same megalomaniacal bastards who started it all, remaining cozy and protected within their ‘safe spaces’, far from the hellfire raining down on “ordinary citizens”.

“Unacceptable!” – Even when used properly e.g., “The conditions in this war zone are unacceptable!” the word has become, at best, a flaccid response. “Unacceptable is unacceptable!” The guilty (see above) abuse the term, being those who have nothing to say beyond the epithet. If (insert condition here) is “unacceptable!”, what does the Source propose be done to rectify it? (crickets). They see the problem. They know where, how and why it came into existence. They declare it “unacceptable!” and hustle off to the country club. Or call for a “study”, demand an “investigation”, or declare it “controversial!”.

 Lastly

 “What can be done? How can we fix this enormous problem while we still can?

After max focus and detail on the Problem du Jour, too many of my scribbling colleagues fail to offer so much as a hint to what could be done to address this ‘threat to our Democracy’ or similar empty exhortations! Worse, many leave the field without even a venue for exploration and discussion

Here’s one from a piece on the just recently recognized problems within our vaunted Halls of Ivy:

“My view is that, above all else, we must focus on returning American higher education to its original purposes: to seek the truth; to teach young adults the things they need to flourish; and to pass on the knowledge that is the basis of our exceptional civilization.” (Attribution mercifully omitted)

Well, goody.

And just how will this monumental task be accomplished? Who will do the heavy lifting? Where will the required cooperation come from? The bad actors who built the problem will not be rushing in with support to overthrow all that’s been working pretty damn well for them.

With all due respect, the Unamed Author offered “four things must be done.” His first goal:

“End DEI”.

OK…

Using conservative calculations, about 18 generations will be required to accomplish this and his other three. And that assumes little/no opposition.

No one I know believes America is tip toeing through the tulips of civilization. Wading to the deep end of the cesspool would be a more accurate analogy.

What to do?

As previously suggested, becoming your own Dr. Samuel Prescott would be a good start. Tough to communicate with the somnambulant.

Organize small, local groups of like-minded people to discuss solutions to local problems with an eye to aligning with other small, local groups with similar issues and goals.

Communication is the beginning of everything good, bad or ugly. Working for the Good is, as another over-worked expression goes “An important first step”. Right now, the Bad Guys are many small steps ahead of us. This might be a good time to stop using empty Rhetoric and put Pragmatism to work.

BW

Thanks for reading this far!

Looking forward, an old pal from my DC days, economist Tom Di Lorenzo,will be joining the NFSCD podcast in the New Year to discuss the importance of knowing at least the basics about something so monumentally boring as ‘economics’. We’ll also yap about his new position as President of the Mises Institute and what a ginormous resource it is for getting your leg (and brain) up on what the hell is going on around here!

In a couple days, my mostly-regular visit with investigative journalist and author, James Bovard and a look at the ugly parts of current events so you don’t have to. But should. Forewarned…forearmed…etc.

Meanwhile, take a few nanoseconds to Share this gem with those who need a swift kick in the head and, if you haven’t shaken that bout of Infectious Procrastination, pop that Subscribe Button. The rest of our gang of rascals, rebels and reprobates look forward to your company…

As will I!

BW