Earmarks: the other, other white meat
Scott Bannon
January 25, 2006
What was wrong with calling it Pork, were the pigs offended?
The [American] English language constantly changes. I've heard that it's the hardest of all languages to learn--though I picked it up easy enough (my teachers all sed I wus da bestist in da class) as a small child--but in adult reflection I can see why it's so hard for someone who didn't grow up with it to master. Just when they think they've got it, we change it.
Pondering some obvious examples of our evolving language; handicapped became disabled and are now challenged, soldiers suffering Shell Shock saw their conditions upgraded to Combat Fatigue, but have since acquired Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Christmas Trees are calling themselves Holiday Trees all of a sudden.
It doesn't take anyone who's watched the softening of our language long to realize that many of these euphemisms tend to begin with the Political Correct crowd. The self-appointed speech police who's ideas and opinions are enlightened beyond the intellectual grasping of us common folk who have decided that humanity's continued existence depends solely on no-one ever feeling the least bit bad about themselves or their lot in life again, lest we might see a need to do better.
That seems too easy of a target though and not all euphemisms can be cleanly traced to them, but I've found that while much of our softening language does stem from the P.C. crowd, all of our softening language seems to begin in Government. That makes sense, the most vocal P.C.'ers are all in or running for office, and who better than someone that needs you [the voter] to speak in circles that will avoid ever opposing your opinions [even when it does] and only serve to make you feel... well, better about yourself and just happy in general.
In addition to 'feel better' words and phrases from the P.C.'ers, non-P.C.'ers in Washington have found that by rewriting the language they can better direct our opinions and focus on issues (which used to be problems) they favor or oppose. For instance, remember when the Estate Tax became a Death Tax? When rich politicians who were tired of paying taxes after they died decided they could get poor voters to support their efforts by changing the label to something that poor people fear, death. Up until then, poor people could care less about the Estate Tax--since most poor folk have no estates to tax--but death, well, that's something even poor people get eventually and no poor person wants to be taxed during their trip to the (insert your P.C. choice of eternal dwelling here please).
How about "collateral damage"? It may sound like something the P.C.'ers came up with, but in fact it was the military who coined this one to avoid questions on how or why their "Smart Bombs" could have slaughtered civilians during the conflict. Another famous military input has been "friendly fire". I first heard that one in the early 1990's, during the Gulf War and still have no clue what it's intended to mean. How is a metal projectile, launched with the specific purpose of killing (or at least severely maiming) and traveling at incredibly high rates of speed ever viewed as friendly?
More recently we've heard the term: unlawful combatants. I was curious about just what exactly that one described, and as it turns out, it seems to be a new label for what we used to call prisoners of war and criminals. Some would argue that only soldiers can be prisoners of war, but the case can be made that the U.S. has made a formal declaration of war on terrorists and in so doing gave them status as prisoners of that war. But beyond that semantic debate, the term itself, unlawful combatants, seems somewhat redundant and at the very least just plain silly. Are there lawful combatants out there? This term would seem to suggest there are. How about unlawful non-combatants? Do they exist, and if so how should we treat them if we meet one on the street?
And that brings me to Earmarks. I've heard this one an awful lot lately and decided to Google [a noun and a verb] it for some clarity. What I found was this little buzz-word is a cute sounding, elusive moniker for Pork. Remember Pork? For years candidates have promised to 'trim the Pork', 'cut the Pork' and 'end the Pork' in Congressional spending, and it appears at long last they've finally put 'a stop to Pork'... by calling it earmarks.
The [American] English language constantly changes. I've heard that it's the hardest of all languages to learn--though I picked it up easy enough (my teachers all sed I wus da bestist in da class) as a small child--but in adult reflection I can see why it's so hard for someone who didn't grow up with it to master. Just when they think they've got it, we change it.
Pondering some obvious examples of our evolving language; handicapped became disabled and are now challenged, soldiers suffering Shell Shock saw their conditions upgraded to Combat Fatigue, but have since acquired Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Christmas Trees are calling themselves Holiday Trees all of a sudden.
It doesn't take anyone who's watched the softening of our language long to realize that many of these euphemisms tend to begin with the Political Correct crowd. The self-appointed speech police who's ideas and opinions are enlightened beyond the intellectual grasping of us common folk who have decided that humanity's continued existence depends solely on no-one ever feeling the least bit bad about themselves or their lot in life again, lest we might see a need to do better.
That seems too easy of a target though and not all euphemisms can be cleanly traced to them, but I've found that while much of our softening language does stem from the P.C. crowd, all of our softening language seems to begin in Government. That makes sense, the most vocal P.C.'ers are all in or running for office, and who better than someone that needs you [the voter] to speak in circles that will avoid ever opposing your opinions [even when it does] and only serve to make you feel... well, better about yourself and just happy in general.
In addition to 'feel better' words and phrases from the P.C.'ers, non-P.C.'ers in Washington have found that by rewriting the language they can better direct our opinions and focus on issues (which used to be problems) they favor or oppose. For instance, remember when the Estate Tax became a Death Tax? When rich politicians who were tired of paying taxes after they died decided they could get poor voters to support their efforts by changing the label to something that poor people fear, death. Up until then, poor people could care less about the Estate Tax--since most poor folk have no estates to tax--but death, well, that's something even poor people get eventually and no poor person wants to be taxed during their trip to the (insert your P.C. choice of eternal dwelling here please).
How about "collateral damage"? It may sound like something the P.C.'ers came up with, but in fact it was the military who coined this one to avoid questions on how or why their "Smart Bombs" could have slaughtered civilians during the conflict. Another famous military input has been "friendly fire". I first heard that one in the early 1990's, during the Gulf War and still have no clue what it's intended to mean. How is a metal projectile, launched with the specific purpose of killing (or at least severely maiming) and traveling at incredibly high rates of speed ever viewed as friendly?
More recently we've heard the term: unlawful combatants. I was curious about just what exactly that one described, and as it turns out, it seems to be a new label for what we used to call prisoners of war and criminals. Some would argue that only soldiers can be prisoners of war, but the case can be made that the U.S. has made a formal declaration of war on terrorists and in so doing gave them status as prisoners of that war. But beyond that semantic debate, the term itself, unlawful combatants, seems somewhat redundant and at the very least just plain silly. Are there lawful combatants out there? This term would seem to suggest there are. How about unlawful non-combatants? Do they exist, and if so how should we treat them if we meet one on the street?
And that brings me to Earmarks. I've heard this one an awful lot lately and decided to Google [a noun and a verb] it for some clarity. What I found was this little buzz-word is a cute sounding, elusive moniker for Pork. Remember Pork? For years candidates have promised to 'trim the Pork', 'cut the Pork' and 'end the Pork' in Congressional spending, and it appears at long last they've finally put 'a stop to Pork'... by calling it earmarks.
Print
Email
