generalspeaking

Monday, August 12, 2013

Accomplishing Nothing Whatever

The delicacy of language, the back-bending tact, the pirouetting sensitivity to tender sensibilities have set this current administration apart from its coarser predecessors who while genuflecting civilly to the holiness of Islam, the serenity of the religion of peace brutally abducted by the 9-11 terrorists and jihadis whom they did not hesitate to name as such and for their pains were themselves labelled Islamophobics, has set U.S. President Barack Obama's White House aside from the norm.

Americans value free speech, considering it a virtue to be defended, and under American law it has the status of a religion itself. It is enshrined in the American Constitution. It occupies the very first place of reverent respect and acute attention, as it is in and of itself so vital to freedom and liberty that it is reflected in the very First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Cornell University Law School

Words can wound, they can stir one's patriotism just as readily as they can foment xenophobia. Reasonable people take reasonable care of their use of language and nomenclature. Words can quite precisely describe what is meant, and they can be used for circumlocution, and defence to obstruct and to obsequiously curry favour, and alternately to cast blame and derision.

In the United States, the choice is there; to be openly critical when there is a need to do so, or to hide behind the facility of broad-language words in a vocabulary of discretion.

President Barack Obama has chosen to hide. Lest he give offence. That his country is continually on the defensive against offenders is belied by his anxious determination to appear balanced, moderate, reasonable. Returning cerebral coolness for brutal violence. The problem is that among intellectuals cerebral coolness has its place because reasonable people are capable of reasonable debate to reach an understanding before brutality lifts its ugly head.

Those more given to brute action than reasonable debate have no respect for, use of, or facility with the language of diplomacy. They view it as a risible ploy to hide a coward's soul; one who has no wish to meet head-on-head with an enemy who considers himself to be powerfully supported by a malevolent God who instructs the faithful to smite and smite again, lest one's enemies fail to take their just anger seriously enough.

This is why the words "Islamists" and "Terrorists" and "Jihadists" are impolite and not the stuff of civilized speech. Extremism and fanaticism are likewise needlessly insulting to the belligerents who despise weakness of action and words. And it is the reason why, in an administration that characterized a bloody jihadist attack in Benghazi as a "protest", looks no more kindly in describing a hasty retreat of panicked defence from Sanaa as "a reduction in staff".

The former head of the U.S. Homeland Security whose tact stopped at the border between Canada and the United States when she infamously reiterated the canard that the 9-11 attackers flooded into her country over the border from Canada, had no problems speaking of terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters". And labelling the "global war on terror", as an "overseas contingency operation". Neat, tidy, and inoffensive.

Except to those who respect plain speech that means what is said.

Pity, all of those absurdly meaningless verbal acrobatics accomplishing nothing whatever.

Labels: Communications, Crisis Politics, Islamism, News Media, Terrorism, United States