The meaning of a word
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” -- Ronald Reagan
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.
Excerpted from the website of Ron Paul
*Politics and the English Language, 1946.
10 comments:
Mr. Orwell would have a field day with the bipolar appraoch Dr. Paul takes to Congress: criticise wasteful earmarks across the country for his Presidential bid, but glom them up in DC for his Texas district
"Pet Projects
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
Tim, please consult your copy of the Constitution for the page saying "wild American shrimp" are supposed to be subsidized by the federal taxpayers
lol. nonetheless, I pointed this out when the story broke four months ago...
http://timwhitelistens.blogspot.com/2007/08/transparency-in-earmarks.html
At first it really stung to learn, but on the whole... I still believe he's the best candidate.
Also keep in mind though that as an ObGyn... he never accepted medicare/medicaid... and never rejected a patient. He did his work pro-bono. So on a personal level, he is quite principled.
The difficulty is in the "balancing act" between standing true to your principles and recognizing that represent others.
I believe that if he is the POTUS, he will advocate strongly for the principles which he espouses... that being "less government and less war."
Of course, that also is only at the federal level. And my guess is if federal taxes/spending decreased in CT decreased by $10, then state taxes/spending in CT would increase by $10. But IMO, that would be an improvement as the state gov't is less distant and would be more accountable.
I believe it would be more accountable because the spotlight (the press) would follow the money. So if the federal gov't shrank, the special interests/lobbyists wouldn't be interested in going there... they'd go to the state level... and the press would follow.
I realize there are lots of factors here, but I do think that Ron Paul would move the country in a better direction than any of the other candidates... R or D.
Tim, you know when you make this guy out as the second coming of George Washington $400 million of earmark requests just seem rather un-Founding Fatherish
as for your example. wouldn't local governments in TX be more careful about spending $400M of their own money than the "free" federal money the good dr. went hat in hand to get?
"Physician, heal thyself"
wouldn't local governments in TX be more careful about spending $400M of their own money than the "free" federal money the good dr. went hat in hand to get?
I would certainly think so. Again though... he's not perfect by any means, but I do feel he's the best choice.
since we are on the topoc "meaning of a word" , here's a new, and appropriate, one
From the NYT's Buzzwords 2007:
earmarxist n.
A member of Congress who adds earmarks — money designated for pet projects — to legislation.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDA1MzlkZmY4ZjFmMjUwYTQxNTQzNDQxZTY4ZWU4MDA=
Tim, it's like me talking to a friend about some doomed romance. "He/she just ain't all that"
touche (sorry... no accent mark!)
but I'm still voting for him.
And to not to Paul's credit, but to the generally sad outlook of the US Congress and to the good credit of a few... I think Boehner, Shadegg, Flake and two or three others have actually never requested an earmark.
“Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.
Remember these words above as the superintendent presents his proposed budget on Jan 3rd. We're in the people business, he'll say. How many more teachers will he want this year? What numbers games will he play with the medical trust fund account?
I have great respect for all the candidates who run for office
We have a great democracy and should be proud of the good ol USA
Be thankful for our great town and state and country
The Inland Wetlands Commission will be Wednesday, Jan. 2 at 7:30 p.m.
When are they supposed to make a decision. Seems like there are still a lot of outstanding issues.
If this application is approved, it will have huge consequences on the environment.
Will Cheshire of the developers win?
Inland wetland approved the north end by a 5=0 vote tonight
Post a Comment