When words no longer have specific meanings – they no longer have any meaning. Words represent concepts – we must all agree on their definitions or we lose their concept representation value. If words‚??¬†definitions are warped – their usefulness is eviscerated.
If ‚??up‚?Ě¬†is suddenly, repeatedly used to mean ‚??down‚?Ě¬†– without anyone calling out the linguistic abuse – it ceases to be useful. And our language – our ability to communicate – is damaged.
Why does this happen? The late, inordinately great George Orwell¬†explains:
‚??The decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer.‚?Ě
The Left are the masters of this language abuse.
President Barack Obama¬†at least thirty-six times said a variation of:
‚??If you like your health care plan – you can keep your health care plan.¬† Period.‚?Ě
Then bizarrely, obnoxiously¬†claimed:
‚??What we said was you could keep it if it hasn‚??t changed since the law was passed.‚?Ě
No, that wasn‚??t what you said.¬† The words you used conveyed a different meaning entirely.
Remember when once (and he hopes future) White House resident Bill Clinton¬†said?
‚??It depends upon what the meaning of the word¬†‚??is‚??¬†is.‚?Ě
Do we really have to allow him to redefine the verb ‚??to be?‚?Ě
The Left even abuses terms they themselves made up.
They then try to run from them once the Reality-based community rightly defines them.
The Left is unfortunately not alone in misapplying words to things that have nothing to do with their meaning.
Behold Fred Campbell.¬† Who was last year¬†considered¬†for a Republican slot on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Thank goodness we dodged that bullet. Campbell has recently¬†twice¬†in print went on¬†word-abusing benders¬†– to defend the Crony Socialist, government-mandate status quo in how we pay for television.
Get his titles – in which he tries to equate free market proponents of a deregulatory bill with the biggest of Big Government proponents.
Wow. Sounds awful. What does Senator John Thune (R – South Dakota)‚??s bill¬†do?
(It) let(s) cable and satellite customers choose which broadcast TV channels they pay for‚?¶.‚?Ě
Well that actually sounds‚?¶really good.¬† I rarely if ever watch the broadcast stations. Yet I pay for them every month. Even though back in the days of rooftop antennas and rabbit ears I received them for free.
I am now forced to pay for what was once free because of Crony Socialist law. Behold¬†Must-Carry:
In cable television, governments apply a must-carry regulation stating that locally licensed television stations must be carried on a cable provider’s system.
Retransmission consent is a provision of the 1992 United States Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act that requires cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to obtain permission from broadcasters before carrying their programming.
Of course ‚??obtain permission from broadcasters‚?Ě¬†means arrive at a dollar amount to pay the broadcasters. Which of course not only forces us to pay for once-free broadcast stations – but inherently jacks their prices.
If you and I sat down to negotiate a price for my widgets – after the government has mandated that you purchase my widgets – don‚??t you think I‚??m going to inflate the price of my widgets?
The broadcasters know this – and have for decades leaned on this government-created crutch. Why is Fred Campbell so blissfully unaware?
Senator Thune‚??s bill would undo this little sliver of Crony Socialist nightmare mess. Yet Fred Campbell bizarrely calls it ‚??Big-Government‚?Ěand what uber-Leftist ‚??Net Neutrality Extremists‚?Ě¬†would want.
Words mean things. Except when the Left – and Fred Campbell – do what they do to them.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter