In A Word - Gobbledygook. Watch TV, listen to talk shows and read the papers. Your reward, nonsense
Gerald Eisman
July 08, 2006
Gobbledygook: Unclear, wordy jargon.[Imitative of the gobbling of a turkey.]
As I read the commentary of all conservative columnists, listen to the words of the talk-show hosts, and hear the opinions of those who tune in to the programs, I begin to understand why America is so deeply mired in difficulties both at home and abroad. It's not that I think they are wrong or greatly outspoken with their opinions, for what they say is personal. The thoughts may be theirs and it is their right to voice them. It is also our right to agree or disagree with them, but it is also our right to ask that they speak in clear, thoughtful sentences that employ a subject, a predicate, and the truth.
Unfortunately, most of the Conservative and Republican rhetoric is one step beyond jabberwocky; it is gobbledygook. I read it in the collective thoughts of columnists like Cal Thomas and Charles Krauthammer. I hear it over the airwaves when I hear Rush Limbaugh and I see it on TV when I watch Hannity et. Al. They all say the same thing and all in the same manner. The fact is, their opinions are so slanted and so similar, one might almost think they are scripted.
One major complaint voiced in the past few days is that the Supreme Court is tending to lean too much toward the center. How interesting of the babblers to notice, but were one to ask of the Democrats and Liberals if they share that opinion the answer would be a polar opposite. Roberts and Alito, they would complain, had tilted decisions too far right. Mr. Krauthammer feels the court made a monumental mistake in its decision to declare president Bush's military tribunals illegal. How dare they asks Mr. K.
Perhaps it would be advantageous were Mr. K. to study the law for several years as did the justices and forget about second guessing the decisions handed down. He has the right to disagree but not to pontificate based on his lack of expertise of the law. His column, which appeared July 8, states the court misread the congressional intent in the law and, more importantly, misread the intent of the Geneva Convention. I think it rather arrogant of Mr. K. to set himself up as an expert in legal interpretation, pitting himself against nine jurists with years of training and experience. Such writings as he has offered constitutes gobbledygook.
In a local newspaper in South Carolina, an expert calling himself a political and marketing consultant, has taken it upon himself to castigate, try, and convict the New York Times of treason for aiding and abetting al-Qaida by divulging his truth. In this experts eyes, the times is guilty of disclosing national secrets to the enemy by reporting covert government activities to the public. What he doesn't mention is that, though there were legal avenues to follow for obtaining permission to do what they did, the administration chose to sidestep the legal protections of Americans and just went ahead and performed illegal functions. How sad that his misguided lamentations omit the facts that would point up the illegality of the government's actions. That's gobbledygook!
What amazes me is the classification of war that the government has labeled its fight with terrorists. That's much like our "war" on drugs, one which we've been fighting for years and losing, I might add. With whom are we at war? The terrorists are everywhere and could be anyone including your next door neighbor, just like Timothy McVey.
When a country wars, it wars against another country. Congress declares war and we fight the army of the enemy. Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, with whom else are we at war? Giving up operations during a declared wartime would be treasonous, particularly were those to aid and abet the enemy. But what is treasonous in this case is ignoring the built-in protections of our nation and doing as we please without respect for the very foundation upon which our country was founded.
The verbal defenses uttered by those who would have us believe we are "at war" are a sham. They designed to cow us into fearfully withholding our personal opinions and, like lemmings, follow the leader down a path to destruction. Well, the leader is wrong in what he is doing and how he defends his suspension of our founding fathers fondest dream, a nation built on law and justice.
When I hear all these people talk I think of only one word. Gobbledygook!
As I read the commentary of all conservative columnists, listen to the words of the talk-show hosts, and hear the opinions of those who tune in to the programs, I begin to understand why America is so deeply mired in difficulties both at home and abroad. It's not that I think they are wrong or greatly outspoken with their opinions, for what they say is personal. The thoughts may be theirs and it is their right to voice them. It is also our right to agree or disagree with them, but it is also our right to ask that they speak in clear, thoughtful sentences that employ a subject, a predicate, and the truth.
Unfortunately, most of the Conservative and Republican rhetoric is one step beyond jabberwocky; it is gobbledygook. I read it in the collective thoughts of columnists like Cal Thomas and Charles Krauthammer. I hear it over the airwaves when I hear Rush Limbaugh and I see it on TV when I watch Hannity et. Al. They all say the same thing and all in the same manner. The fact is, their opinions are so slanted and so similar, one might almost think they are scripted.
One major complaint voiced in the past few days is that the Supreme Court is tending to lean too much toward the center. How interesting of the babblers to notice, but were one to ask of the Democrats and Liberals if they share that opinion the answer would be a polar opposite. Roberts and Alito, they would complain, had tilted decisions too far right. Mr. Krauthammer feels the court made a monumental mistake in its decision to declare president Bush's military tribunals illegal. How dare they asks Mr. K.
Perhaps it would be advantageous were Mr. K. to study the law for several years as did the justices and forget about second guessing the decisions handed down. He has the right to disagree but not to pontificate based on his lack of expertise of the law. His column, which appeared July 8, states the court misread the congressional intent in the law and, more importantly, misread the intent of the Geneva Convention. I think it rather arrogant of Mr. K. to set himself up as an expert in legal interpretation, pitting himself against nine jurists with years of training and experience. Such writings as he has offered constitutes gobbledygook.
In a local newspaper in South Carolina, an expert calling himself a political and marketing consultant, has taken it upon himself to castigate, try, and convict the New York Times of treason for aiding and abetting al-Qaida by divulging his truth. In this experts eyes, the times is guilty of disclosing national secrets to the enemy by reporting covert government activities to the public. What he doesn't mention is that, though there were legal avenues to follow for obtaining permission to do what they did, the administration chose to sidestep the legal protections of Americans and just went ahead and performed illegal functions. How sad that his misguided lamentations omit the facts that would point up the illegality of the government's actions. That's gobbledygook!
What amazes me is the classification of war that the government has labeled its fight with terrorists. That's much like our "war" on drugs, one which we've been fighting for years and losing, I might add. With whom are we at war? The terrorists are everywhere and could be anyone including your next door neighbor, just like Timothy McVey.
When a country wars, it wars against another country. Congress declares war and we fight the army of the enemy. Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, with whom else are we at war? Giving up operations during a declared wartime would be treasonous, particularly were those to aid and abet the enemy. But what is treasonous in this case is ignoring the built-in protections of our nation and doing as we please without respect for the very foundation upon which our country was founded.
The verbal defenses uttered by those who would have us believe we are "at war" are a sham. They designed to cow us into fearfully withholding our personal opinions and, like lemmings, follow the leader down a path to destruction. Well, the leader is wrong in what he is doing and how he defends his suspension of our founding fathers fondest dream, a nation built on law and justice.
When I hear all these people talk I think of only one word. Gobbledygook!
Print
Email
