Oops...
...did you know that it was possible to change the definitions of words? Apparently, the government couldn't figure out a way to spy on us AND protect our rights to privacy so they've decided to do something that I have to admit, I never thought of. They just want to change the definition of privacy. (I saw that on FoxNews. They mentioned it so briefly that I didn't hear who it was who said it. Why is that? I would think that changing the definition of something so basic would be HUGE news. Can you imagine the implications of that?)
If that's an option, I want to change the definition of income.
They've even been so kind as to recommend a new definition for us...one that doesn't include "anonymity". I guess that should pretty much let us know what to expect...a government with lists. Government lists are not good things...ask the Jews, I think they'll agree.
I wonder if they'll change enough words to cause confusion. If they do, they can just have another list, one with all the new words. They could even call it New-speak." Ya think?
Most of us have heard the saying, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Ask kids if they've heard it. I haven't heard anybody say that in decades. I'd be surprised if young people knew that saying at all. How come nobody says that anymore? Is it just a totally outmoded notion? Do we NOT believe that one anymore?
That's a really, really bad saying to dismiss. If you want to change sentiments, couldn't you have started with "Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It's off to work we go!" or even, "Another day another dollar!"? Those sentiments are kind of silly. And I don't even know if they're really sentiments anyway. Whatever.
But screwing around with our right to disagree is dangerously close to shutting people up and wasn't that just the sort of thing we came here to avoid?
I was talking to another nurse the other day and when I mentioned the Founding Fathers and the idea of Freedom of Speech the guy asked me, "Do you really believe that?" He seemed to think that it was sort of stupid to buy into he notion of the Founding Fathers and their quaint notion of Freedom.
The guy wasn't from America. So, maybe he didn't know that we are all raised to believe in that crap. We're taught that young people can go off to war and fight to a most glorious death on the battle field defending the idea that all men are created equal and with those pesky inalienable rights.
As we sit here choosing a new President, we keep asking the candidates what the candidates think about the war in Iraq. None of them have the balls to give you an answer, but you can ask. I think we need to ask a more important question, "What is your definition of "privacy" and do you think it needs an update?". Let the candidates ignore a really good question for a change.
After all, if the young people are going to die protecting such things, they should probably know what they are.
What is the idea that our young people are dying to protect right now? Do you know? I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with Democracy. But what the hell does that mean? And how do we know if they'll change that word, too?
I understand the idea of fighting to protect US and OUR rights. But I don't think we were ever supposed to give up our young men for the rights of non-Americans. I'm not sure how they shuffled the Constitution to come up with that lame, "We're fighting for Democracy." line. But, they did. We already have Democracy and no one was trying to take it away from us like they were in WWII.
Our Constitution is a "living document". That means that it was written to be adaptable to the changes that occur in society. But some things weren't written with the idea of being changed. It never occurred to the writers of that document that anyone wouldn't want to change things as basic as the right to privacy so they didn't write in any plan for changing it (I believe you can find discussion of the right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment, I'll check after I post this.).
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they chose each word very carefully. I wonder if it ever occurred to any of them that we didn't need to change the laws...we could just change the definitions of the words they chose. I sort of doubt that they ever considered that. If they had, I'm sure that they would have written a plan for that as well.
You know, I believe Orwell and Bradbury were trying to warn us of what could happen when the language is changed by the Government. They went to a lot of trouble to think that idea through when they were writing 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. How odd that instead of taking those books as warnings, we seem to have taken them for "how-to manuals".
Meg
The right to privacy-It is the Fourth Amendment. I read a little about the history of that amendment and apparently, it arose from the maxim that, ''Every man's house is his castle''. They didn't say that so that men could stand in the middle of their kitchens and bark orders at women...it was meant to grant the homeowners freedoms against the king. Think of the implications of that idea. Totally anti-Patriot Act.
...did you know that it was possible to change the definitions of words? Apparently, the government couldn't figure out a way to spy on us AND protect our rights to privacy so they've decided to do something that I have to admit, I never thought of. They just want to change the definition of privacy. (I saw that on FoxNews. They mentioned it so briefly that I didn't hear who it was who said it. Why is that? I would think that changing the definition of something so basic would be HUGE news. Can you imagine the implications of that?)
If that's an option, I want to change the definition of income.
They've even been so kind as to recommend a new definition for us...one that doesn't include "anonymity". I guess that should pretty much let us know what to expect...a government with lists. Government lists are not good things...ask the Jews, I think they'll agree.
I wonder if they'll change enough words to cause confusion. If they do, they can just have another list, one with all the new words. They could even call it New-speak." Ya think?
Most of us have heard the saying, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Ask kids if they've heard it. I haven't heard anybody say that in decades. I'd be surprised if young people knew that saying at all. How come nobody says that anymore? Is it just a totally outmoded notion? Do we NOT believe that one anymore?
That's a really, really bad saying to dismiss. If you want to change sentiments, couldn't you have started with "Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It's off to work we go!" or even, "Another day another dollar!"? Those sentiments are kind of silly. And I don't even know if they're really sentiments anyway. Whatever.
But screwing around with our right to disagree is dangerously close to shutting people up and wasn't that just the sort of thing we came here to avoid?
I was talking to another nurse the other day and when I mentioned the Founding Fathers and the idea of Freedom of Speech the guy asked me, "Do you really believe that?" He seemed to think that it was sort of stupid to buy into he notion of the Founding Fathers and their quaint notion of Freedom.
The guy wasn't from America. So, maybe he didn't know that we are all raised to believe in that crap. We're taught that young people can go off to war and fight to a most glorious death on the battle field defending the idea that all men are created equal and with those pesky inalienable rights.
As we sit here choosing a new President, we keep asking the candidates what the candidates think about the war in Iraq. None of them have the balls to give you an answer, but you can ask. I think we need to ask a more important question, "What is your definition of "privacy" and do you think it needs an update?". Let the candidates ignore a really good question for a change.
After all, if the young people are going to die protecting such things, they should probably know what they are.
What is the idea that our young people are dying to protect right now? Do you know? I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with Democracy. But what the hell does that mean? And how do we know if they'll change that word, too?
I understand the idea of fighting to protect US and OUR rights. But I don't think we were ever supposed to give up our young men for the rights of non-Americans. I'm not sure how they shuffled the Constitution to come up with that lame, "We're fighting for Democracy." line. But, they did. We already have Democracy and no one was trying to take it away from us like they were in WWII.
Our Constitution is a "living document". That means that it was written to be adaptable to the changes that occur in society. But some things weren't written with the idea of being changed. It never occurred to the writers of that document that anyone wouldn't want to change things as basic as the right to privacy so they didn't write in any plan for changing it (I believe you can find discussion of the right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment, I'll check after I post this.).
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they chose each word very carefully. I wonder if it ever occurred to any of them that we didn't need to change the laws...we could just change the definitions of the words they chose. I sort of doubt that they ever considered that. If they had, I'm sure that they would have written a plan for that as well.
You know, I believe Orwell and Bradbury were trying to warn us of what could happen when the language is changed by the Government. They went to a lot of trouble to think that idea through when they were writing 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. How odd that instead of taking those books as warnings, we seem to have taken them for "how-to manuals".
Meg
The right to privacy-It is the Fourth Amendment. I read a little about the history of that amendment and apparently, it arose from the maxim that, ''Every man's house is his castle''. They didn't say that so that men could stand in the middle of their kitchens and bark orders at women...it was meant to grant the homeowners freedoms against the king. Think of the implications of that idea. Totally anti-Patriot Act.
posted by Meg Kelso | 6:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home