Saying what you mean

We often are told that being effective in what we do is, in part, dependent on how well we can differentiate between what is important and what is urgent.  This is an example of the former which got displaced by the latter.

I started writing this in January 2010 after watching Glenn Beck attempt to show how Progressivists have misrepresented or disconnected history from people today.  That particular issue has nothing to do with my topic, nor is this supporting or disputing Beck’s arguments, but I mention it because it provided me with the jumping off point for my thinking.

On at least two occasions in his program Beck said, “Back in a second” before a break.  For some reason I counted those seconds and, the first time counted 210, the next one I didn’t count accurately, but estimate that it was at least 150 seconds.

The point here is that we use many words and expressions which do not mean what they say, and when we use them we often don’t even consider what it is that we intend to say … rather we just utter something that expresses an approximate idea that we haven’t even clarified for ourselves.

One of the most frequent terms that comes to mind which is used by younger people is “whatever,” as a response to somehow indicate that no further discussion is wanted.  I’m not intending to be critical of young people when I say this, but wouldn’t it be much better to simply say something like, “Let’s talk about something else”? Or, “This topic bores me,” or whatever really expresses the mood of the moment.

If we, ourselves do not take the responsibility of choosing and using terms which express clearly what it is that we want to communicate, why should we be the least bit surprised if politicians, journalists, teachers, children, or anyone are misunderstood or ambiguous.

Like anything else, if we wish to see change in things around us, we must initiate a change in ourselves and if we want others to start meaning what they say, we, too, must do the same and the start to that is to choose words that allow us to say what we mean and to insist that others who are trying to communicate with us do the same.

Technorati Tags: Glenn Beck,Progressivism,communication,language,journalists,meaning

Devaluation in the works?

In watching the TV reports of the US budget along with all the commentary and analysis I was suddenly stuck by an odd realization: This year is two thousand nine, next year is twenty-ten. What happened to the other one thousand nine hundred and eighty (2000 less 20)?

I realize that this is an acceptable alternative way of speaking about the year, but still it strikes me a bit odd that for the first 9 years of this centry we used one form and then in the 10th year we switch to another. Is there any rational explanation for this?

There's another thing that occurred to me in mulling this over. Maybe, this is the way the politicians plan to deal with the massive debt and deficits which the US government is running and planning. Divide a trillion by 100 and it becomes 10 billion. Doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?

Is the US dollar going to be devalued during the Obama administration?

Seizure of Arms stashes

Every time I see a TV news report of a seizure of an illegal arms stash, I find myself being amazed at the attitude of the reporters who seem to build up the idea that the public is being relieved of a tremendous threat to their safety. But never do these reporters ever try to answer the question: "Why do these stash of arms exist?"

To me it seems that the reasons criminals accumulate arms is because they want to be prepared for a possible confrontation with armed opposition, which quite often might include those people who legally have the right to have extensive arms ar their disposal ... that is to say law enforcement agencies.

What I'm thinking is that if authorities in any country did not possess extensive and powerful armed weapons, then those who oppose them, or who might wish to, wouldn't go to the bother of building up their firepower.

This line of thinking is an extension of the idea that violence begets violence, and while it might be argued that the legitimate arms holder only have their arms in order to do their jobs and protect the public from anti-social elements, it might also be true that if they weren't armed in the first place the criminals wouldn't be as violent as they appear to be.

I don't claim to have the answer to the elimination of violence in the world, but I do believe we need to start looking for ways of stopping the bullies without resorting to the same tactics which the bullies use so that our "good" bully beats up the "bad" bully. Sooner, or later the good bully is going to be tempted to abuse his power and when he does he will be the bad boy.