When words lose their meaning . . .

When words lose their meaning
the people will lose their freedom.  Confucius

I’ve always supported and voted for Nader. Despite his being labeled a “socialist” by the corporate-owned press, he’s anything but. We’ve been close friends for twenty-five years. He’s cited my America, Inc. capitalist treatise many times on national television interviews. You can thank Ralph for the Freedom of Information Act and countless other legislative acts to hold government accountable, maybe even your life if you drive a car.  Ralph isn’t perfect but he comes about as close as any human I’ve seen in the political sphere.  He’s always been right, even when he knew the political consequences of telling the truth. Que cajones!

I’m flattered he cited my autobiography as exhibiting “semantic discipline” and putting me in the company of Pulitzer Prize winning Chris Hedges, one of my heroes for sure.  I’ve tried to exercise the same semantic discipline in this governor’s blog.  Here’s his article:

Words Matter

by Ralph Nader

Ever wonder what’s happening to words once they fall into the hands of corporate and government propagandists? Too often reporters and editors don’t wonder enough. They ditto the words even when the result is deception or doubletalk.

Here are some examples. Day in and day out we read about “detainees” imprisoned for months or years by the federal government in the U.S., Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t the media know that the correct word is “prisoners,” regardless of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld disseminated?

The raging debate and controversy over health insurance and the $2.5 trillion spent this year on health care involves consumers and “providers.” How touching to describe sellers or vendors, often gouging, denying benefits, manipulating fine print contracts, cheating Medicare and Medicaid in the tens of billions as “providers.”

I always thought “providers” were persons taking care of their families or engaging in charitable service. Somehow, the dictionary definition does not fit the frequently avaricious profiles of Aetna, United Healthcare, Pfizer and Merck.

“Privatization” and the “private sector” are widespread euphemisms that the press falls for daily. Moving government owned assets or functions into corporate hands, as with Blackwater, Halliburton, and the conglomerates now controlling public highways, prisons, and drinking water systems is “corporatization,” not the soft imagery of going “private” or into the “private sector.” It is the corporate sector!

“Medical malpractice reform” is another misnomer. It used to mean restricting the legal rights of wrongfully injured people by hospitals and doctors, or limiting the liability of these corporate vendors when their negligence harms innocent patients. Well, to anybody interested in straight talk, “medical malpractice reform” or the “medical malpractice crisis” should apply to bad or negligent practices by medical professionals. After all, about 100,000 people die every year from physician/hospital malpractice, according to a Harvard School of Public Health report. Hundreds of thousands are rendered sick or injured, not to mention even larger tolls from hospital-induced infections. Proposed “reforms” are sticking it to the wrong people—the patients—not the sellers.

“Free trade” is a widely used euphemism. It is corporate managed trade as evidenced in hundreds of pages of rules favoring corporations in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” lowers barriers between countries so that cartels, unjustified patent monopolies, counterfeiting, contraband, and other harmful practices and products can move around the world unhindered.

What is remarkable about the constant use of these words is that they permeate the language even if those who stand against the policies of those who first coin these euphemisms. You’ll read about “detainees” and “providers” and “privatization” and “private sector” and “free trade” in the pages of the Nation and Progressive magazines, at progressive conferences with progressive leaders, and during media interviews. After people point out these boomeranging words to them, still nothing changes. Their habit is chronic.

A lot of who we are, of what we do and think is expressed through the language we choose. The word tends to become the thing in our mind as Stuart Chase pointed out seventy years ago in his classic work The Tyranny of Words. Let us stop disrespecting the dictionary! Let’s stop succumbing to the propagandists and the public relations tricksters!

Frank Luntz—the word wizard for the Republicans who invented the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax” is so contemptuous of the Democratic Party’s verbal ineptitude (such as using “public option” instead of “public choice” and regularly using the above-noted misnomers) that he dares them by offering free advice to the Democrats. He suggests they could counteract his “death tax” with their own term “the billionaires’ tax.” There were no Democratic takers. Remember, words matter.

Using words that are accurate and at face value is one of the characteristics of a good book. Three new books stand out for their straight talk. In Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, my former campaign manager, exposes the obstructions that deny voter choice by the two major parties for third party and independent candidates. Just out is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges. Lastly, the boisterous, mischievous short autobiography of that free spirit, Jerry Lee Wilson, The Soloflex Story: An American Parable.

Not withstanding their different styles, these authors exercise semantic discipline.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author.

A Free Press?

My buddy Dan Meek, the great public interest lawyer, sent my last blog (The 800 pound gorilla) out to 242 press outlets in Oregon. The subject was the most important issue facing the country. It was relevant, pertinent and topical; all the things a good press release should be, and well written too if I do say so myself. Not a single mention of it from any of the newspapers, radio or TV stations – and sent from a candidate for governor! Why no mention? It’s because we don’t have a free press in this country, not since the CIA infiltrated it in the 40’s. Google search Operation Mockingbird if you think I’m exaggerating.

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times.

John Swinton was one of New York’s best-loved newspapermen, called by his peers “The Dean of his Profession.” He made this statement when asked to give a toast before the New York Press club in 1953. It wasn’t reported in the press of course. It did come out in Senator Frank Church’s senate investigation in 1975 but few noticed. I did.

So while you’re reading about Chris Dudley missing another free throw or Allen Alley taking a stroll or Kitzhaber wearing jeans, take some time to do your homework before you let the press tell you who to vote for. Please.

State of the Union?

“In a word, the state of the union is ANGRY! The question for the president 
and for BOTH parties to figure out is, at what?

Because we have a two-party system, the only choice people have if they 
don’t like what’s happening is to vote for the other guy,
 even if the other guy is largely responsible for what’s happening, and the 
guy that’s in there now is in there because of the other guy’s mistakes.

People are angry at deficits, largely run up by the irresponsibility of the 
Bush administration, and topped off by Obama.
 They’re angry that the bankers who got us in this mess are making millions
 while we lose our shirts, thanks mainly to deregulation
 promoted primarily by Republicans (but signed off on by Clinton). They’re 
angry about jobs, but there’d be a lot more of them if the 
stimulus package had been larger, which would have increased the deficit, 
which they’re angry about. They’re angry that Washington 
seems wholly beholden to special interests, so they’re going to vote for the
 party that loves special interests at least as much as the 
party in power now. They’re angry at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which 
were started by the party they just voted out a year ago.
 They’re angry that Obama has accomplished so little of his agenda, so 
they’re going to vote for the party that has unanimously opposed
 every single aspect of it.”

Ed Stein

Ed pretty well sums things up.  Gore Vidal said it too: “It makes no difference who you vote for — the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people.” There is NO difference in the major parties!