Word Warriors Win the Immigration Battle – How Advocates of Unlimited Immigration Use “Newspeak” to trick America

What is in a word? Some would say, “The power of thought.”  Others might say, “Limits on the power of thought.”  The wholesale adoption of one “politically correct” term by the news media, politicians and advocates of unlimited immigration to the United States has tricked many citizens’ and paved the way for major changes in our country’s future.

Illegal Aliens – Replaced by Undocumented Immigrants. The phrase ‘Illegal Aliens’ implies that these people are a bunch of law-breaking creatures from outer space, while ‘Undocumented Immigrants’ suggests that they are good old-fashioned immigrants that simply have not gone through the hassle of being ‘documented’ yet.”  www.newspeakdictionary.com.

The genius behind this language switch is that the word “immigrant” means a US Citizen who came from another country, obeyed the law, and completed the legal process of adopting America.  From the time they arrived here until the time they received citizenship, they were “registered aliens.”  By using the word “illegal” combined with “immigrant,” unregistered aliens are associated and equated with law-abiding citizens.  No wonder immigrants are angry; they are being lumped together with unregistered aliens, living here illegally.

But how and when did rigorous, ethical, journalists and other “guardians” of our language abandon their posts and join forces with the promoters of wholesale disregard for our legal system?

ABC gives some background on the media’s usage: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/linguists-york-times-illegal-neutral-accurate/story?id=17366512

According to the article, Jonathan Rosa, an assistant professor of linguistic anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, disagrees with the immigration activist Jose Antonio Vargas, who launched a campaign to monitor the use of the term by major news outlets.

“There is nowhere in the legal field that the phrasing ‘illegal immigrant’ has been the norm. However, that same phrasing has been part of certain political strategies,” Jonathan said.

The article continues: “A group of 24 scholars, led by Rosa, put out a statement last week arguing that “illegal immigrant” should not be the preferred phrasing because it’s imprecise and frames the debate in narrow terms. “It is baffling to think that [The New York Times] would suggest ‘illegal immigrant’ is accurate and neutral,” Rosa said in an interview with ABC/Univision. “The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act defines immigrants as people who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, so “legal immigrant” is a redundant concept and ‘illegal immigrant’ is oxymoronic,” he noted.”

Americans should take note that they are being subjected to this style of “newspeak” tactic on many fronts every day.

Texas psychiatrist John Tennison, M.D wrote an article in 2004 following 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act, “Newspeak:  Manipulation of Language, Thought, and Behavior by Those in Power.”  http://texaspsychiatry.com/Newspeak.htm

Dr. Tennison cites examples of language manipulation and “repurposing” in George Orwell’s 1984, Fahrenheit 451; he warns Americans about the intentional subversion of the words we use to manage our perceptions.

“As a result of 9/11, the site (www.newspeakdictionary.com) takes a look as such expressions as “Cowardly Act,” “Attack on Freedom,” “Terrorist Attack,” “Shock and Awe,” “Enemy Combatant,” and “Iraqi Terrorists.”

“Thus, regardless of the field of inquiry – world politics, psychiatry, etc. – careful and precise use of language, and vigilance for its abuse, will help us all live more closely to the truth and be less easily manipulable by powers that might be well-intentioned, but misguided, or that might not have our best interests in mind.”

Where do “political correctness,” “euphemistic avoidance,” and “semantic manipulation,” touch your thinking and your life?

Advertisements

Use Shocking Events to Revive Your Hidden Agendas – Wrangle Specious Segues from Non Sequitur Tragedies

I try to give the American public the benefit of the doubt.  Every time we are presented with obvious, patent, ploys by politicians, I keep thinking, “Maybe this time they will see through this chicanery and circus.  Maybe this time they will say, “Hey!  What has this to do with that?  How did we get into all these other unrelated areas when were riled up by THIS?”

But it does not seem to matter how monumental or blatant the “bait & switch” is, we fall for it every time.

Before we get to the details, I have to mention some “rhetorical devices” used to great effect to connect unrelated events to topics at least a light year away from the events at hand.

  • Emote great sympathy and outrage at the recent event
  • Then generalize the elements of the event by collapsing the distinctions and distorting the statistics so you can maintain the emotional charge and still reassemble and morph the discussion into the topic you secretly want to address.
  • Decry and vilify any opposition as unsympathetic monsters who secretly wanted the tragedy to happen, and danced with joy as they watched all the people suffer. (Be sure to use a condescending tone when referring to “them.”)
  • Praise your unrelated, impotent, expensive, but popular proposals.
  • Present your ideas as an “inspired expansion” of “common sense” solutions to the problems underlying the tragedy.
  • Add criminals, and suicides, and the kitchen sink murders to the discussion, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the tragedies.
  • Avoid explaining the logical connections between the events and the proposals.
  • Avoid any promises of measurable results.

Let us review the recent actions by our President and Vice-President following the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

A deranged young man kills his mother, proceeds to an elementary school nearby, and uses a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine to shoot 70 people, killing 20 children and 6 faculty members before shooting himself.

Tragic?  Heinous?  Insane?  Horrifying? Of course! Especially when other mass-shootings are revived and appended as grim reminders of “Man’s Inhumanity to Man,” and the persistent, pervasive quality of the evil pandemic spawned (not by insane delusional psychotics, but) by GUNS.

Now let us examine what we just got from the President and Vice President of the United States of America in response as a fix.

Have you read the transcript of the President’s presentation?  (See “Obama Plan” below.)  It boils down to a whole bunch of, “Hey, you.  Yeah, you the ones that work here, DO YOUR JOB!”  Plus a bunch of useless bureaucratic deck chair rearrangements.

First, regulate the sales of already regulated types of guns, (banning these, limiting those) (ignore the existing 300 million weapons already owned by US citizens; then dust off of the obsolete, antiquated, and laughable “background check” apparatus; plead for cooperation and coordination of state and federal agencies to talk to each other and share information to make the database more respectable.

Add some union appeal (more police) (train the teachers), add a bunch of meaningless research grants for the “causes of gun violence;” throw in a token of more mental health professionals, and ask for a pittance to deal with the abandoned mentally ill.

Cite the yet unimplemented provisions of recent legislation to put mental illness on par with all other medical conditions covered by insurance.

The deadly events of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc. were rarified anomalies.  Every expert in such events tells us that these are extremely rare, undetectable, and unpredictable; as such, they are immune to any law or organized defense.

Has anyone explained how these attacks would have been detected and thwarted by ANY of the provisions proposed?  Hmmm, seems we forgot to remember.  But in moments of helplessness, we grasp any Teddy Bear for comfort.

Conclusion

I still hope we can peer through this glittering $500 million package of hope and secret agendas.  I hope we can see what we, the people need to do to address our real concerns, and not rely on the promises of politicians.  These problems are ours; we are at the root of these problems in our society.  We are not blameless; we create and sustain the culture that brings forth such deadly madness, and inhumanity.  I hope to see individual citizens take personal responsibility for the social infrastructure under all the real problems we face.

How can we be surprised at angry, violent, aberrant, psychotic behavior when we condone, endorse, finance, and teach our children:

  • Modern day virtual isolation via technology
  • Family and community disassociation
  • Incessant, avid desensitization to violence
  • Avoiding, ignoring, denying and shunning mentally illness

Take action in your own home, your own church, your own community to become aware of how these disintegrating habits tear at our sanity.

Reconnect with the people in your life.  Pay attention to what is going on with them.  Care enough to break through the addictions to get your family back.  Please, do not settle for remote control of our families, our country and our lives.

Obama Plan

Know the Language Before You Talk About Guns – Do Not Shoot Off Your Mouth If Your Brain Is Not Loaded.

Recently, guns have become a widely broadcast topic, aside from waging wars for the last decade or so.  Regardless of your feelings or attitudes towards firearms, you will be better served to have your terminology straight before you enter a discussion on the topic.  You could lose considerable credibility if you display ignorance of the basic terms.

Just to put my credentials in order, my father gave me my first 22 rifle when I was 12, after rigorous teaching, training, and practice of the gun safety and hunting rules.  Later I learned about and used pistols, shotguns, and high-powered rifles.  I spent six years in the US Army, including a 1969 tour in Vietnam.  I have disassembled, cleaned, reassembled, and fired all the military small arms (proficiency with pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, and grenade launchers), shy of a 50-cal machine gun.

The language used in our news media, video games, and reports of gun-related incidents does not accurately match the vocabulary of those with a background in weapons.  Here are several key distinctions to make in your thinking and speaking, if you concern yourself about guns:

1)  Single-shot, vs. single action, vs. double-action.

a)   Single shot – means the weapon must be manually reloaded and cocked   before   each shot.  Examples: a barrel-loaded musket, a flint-lock pistol, a single-shot shotgun.

b)  Single action – means the weapon must be manually cocked to reload before each shot.  Examples:

i)  The Colt Single Action Army revolver— also known as the Model P, Peacemaker, M1873, Single Action Army, SAA, and Colt 45; when the hammer is cocked it rotates the cylinder to the next shell chamber.  The user must pull the trigger to fire the round, and then manually cock the weapon again to bring another round into position

ii)  The Colt 1911 magazine-fed pistol (the firer must manually cock the trigger to fire the first round; the recoil pushes back the slide which ejects the spent round on its way back, then loads the next round from the magazine, on the way forward, and cocks the weapon, ready for semi-automatic firing )

iii)   The Winchester, lever-action 30-30 rifle, (ratcheting the lever expels a spent shell and loads a live round into firing position and cocks the trigger – allowing the user to fire the round)

iv)  All bolt-action rifles (ratcheting the bolt back and forward expels the spent round and loads a new round into firing position – pulling the trigger fires the round.)

v)   Pump-action shotguns – store shells in the stock of the weapon. The pump action ejects the spent shell and feeds a new shell in to the chamber.

c)  Double-action – means that pulling the trigger reloads, cocks, and fires the weapon.  Example:

i)  A six-round Smith & Wesson Police Special 38 cal. revolver pistol (the first part of pulling the trigger pulls back the hammer, and rotates the cylinder aligning a new round to firing chamber; then the last part of the trigger pull releases the cocked hammer to fire the round).

2)  Semi-automatic, Automatic, Hybrid

a) Revolvers – Technically, a double-action revolver is also semi-automatic, but is not magazine-fed, and does not eject the casings.  Most revolvers hold 6 rounds in their cylinder.  Rapid re-loaders are sets of revolver shells in a holder that allows the firer to first, open and empty the revolver’s cylinder and eject the shells, then use the re-loader to replace all the shells at once.  Those skilled with revolvers can fire at almost the same rate and continue to fire as many rounds as the users of semi-automatic magazine-fed weapons.

 b)  Semi-automatic tube-fed shotguns – a semi-automatic shotgun can hold 5 or more shells in a spring-loaded tube under the barrel.  The recoil of each shot ejects the spent shell and loads a shell from the tube.

 c)  Magazine-fed – hunters have used magazine fed shotguns and rifles for decades.  The military needed faster reloading, more rounds per reload, and the ability to pre-load ammunition in advance to meet the demands of combat.  A military magazine is designed to hold several rounds (usually 20) and has a strong spring in the bottom to push the rounds up to the chamber.  The number of rounds a magazine can hold is effectively limited by the strength of the spring to push them up

d)  Semi-automatic – in magazine-fed weapons, means that pulling the trigger fires a round, ejects the spent casing, loads another round, and cocks the trigger in one action.  Each pull of the trigger fires another round from the magazine.

e)  Automatic – pulling the trigger fires a round, ejects the spent casing, loads another round from the magazine, cocks the trigger and releases to fire another round as long as the trigger is depressed.  A machine-gun is by definition an automatic weapon.

f)  Hybrid – a manual selector switch sets the weapon to either semi-automatic or automatic.  When either setting is selected the weapon fires accordingly: semi-automatic requires the firer to pull the trigger for each round fired; Automatic means continuous fire when the trigger is pulled and held.  Military and police rifles have this option.

I post these distinctions mostly for people not familiar with the terminology for firearms.

The media uses the term “semi-automatic” quite regularly when describing shooting incidents; without these distinctions, people who have only seen weapons on television or in movies might confuse “semi-automatic” with “Automatic” machine-guns.

Federal Gun Laws spell out requirements and restrictions that apply nationwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

States have additional gun laws concerning registration, ownership, and use of various types of weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Many people know much more than I do about guns.  If anyone notices a factual error, please comment so I can correct the mistake.

A Long Close Look In an Honest Mirror – Self-Deception, Fear, Blame, Righteousness, and What Is So

I could examine how I think, believe, choose, and behave every day; but I do not.  I have many opportunities, occasions and reminders that I control my life choices, responsibilities, and results; New Year’s Day is one of those annual openings to reflect; this is a great time to examine the mirrors I use to see the world, others, and myself.

Have I been using my “Snow White Wicked Queen’s Mirror?” – I can hear the echoes of my version of “Who Is the Fairest of Them All?”

What do I see in my “Fun House Mirror?” – I find exaggerations, along the lines of “Does This Make Me Look Fat?”

Do I find myself driving with trepidation, eyes glued to my “Rear View Mirror?” – Do I doubt myself with a self-recriminating, “And, How Has That Worked Out For You?”

How often do I view, blame, and judge others through my “Two-Way Mirror?” – I find safety and superiority in many versions of, “Guilty, Undeserving Suspects in the Line-up?”

Could it be the right time to dust off my “Honest Mirror?” – Am I ready to ask myself:

  •  Do I feel driven to be attractive enough, good enough, careful enough, superior enough?
  • Do I??
  • Do I need these things to take and find joy in my life?
  • Am I in a beauty contest?
  • What is the prize?
  • Am I in a life or death talent show?
  • Can I ever win?
  • Am I what I fear from my past?
  • Who am I?
  • Are There Really Monsters Under My Bed?
  • Am I afraid to wake up, get up, and turn on the lights?

In my Honest Mirror I expect to find some answers, some chagrin, and once again another year of smiles.