Word Jumble

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

I am alternatively amused and fascinated by the different meanings we imbue on a word. God knows that I love and make frequent use of my share of obscenities and profanities.

"I had heard that word at least ten times a day from my old man. He worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium; a master."

Someday, perhaps the spawn will speak so lovingly and eloquently of me.

I honestly think I could make some sailors blush if given the opportunity and I managed to snag the spouse largely as a result of my salty tongue, but I digress. Word meanings—isn't it crazy how we decide that "fuck" is a bad word and that "flock" is not. They are merely letters and sounds put together that we put our meaning on.

Then there are those words that mean different things in different places. One favorite of mine is shag. Here in the good 'ole U.S of A it is a rip, roaring dance made popular on the beaches of the southern states back in the 1950s and 60s. But you cross the pond to our intrepid neighbors in the English language and shag is a less than romantic form of copulation. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe . . . that sort of thing, you know?

So I am intrigued by the hullaballoo that the Right has made about President Obama's lack of the use of the word terror. Does it matter what we call it when someone decides that their ideas and opinions are more valuable than the lives of other innocent human beings? Or does the fact that those human beings don't hold those same values or opinions dear, make them somehow guilty? I guess in the eyes of those terrorists or bombers or extremists, those who aren't with them are against them. Gosh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In the end, terror is just a word that tries to contain the horror of one person or one's group decision to cause harm, unexpectedly and without warning, to another person or group. It is the action and meaning behind the word that we need to focus on, not the word itself.

"Dead Wrong"

Those are the words that Vice President Biden used when he commented on  Darth Vader's Dick Cheney's comments that Americans are less safe today because we aren't hanging terrorists up by their toenails.

As you may have gathered from yesterday's post (Spies Like Us), I am not even remotely in favor of the tacts the Bush Administration took to "secure" our safety. And I am deeply disturbed that Obama's people are not only keeping these tactics available, but are expanding on them. Wiretapping without a warrant and sending people to undisclosed locations does not keep us safer in the end. Not only does it turn people around the world against us and create even more future terrorists, it takes away many of the basic tenants of civil liberty that our country was founded on.

But what is most intriguing about the hubbub around Cheney's and Biden's remarks is the media's response to what Biden said. 

First of all let me set some things straight—Cheney is no longer in office; he doesn't have access to the information to determine what the United States security position is.

Secondly, it is poor cricket indeed for the former administration to be so bold in their criticism this early on in the new administration's time in office. Dubya ain't doing it; his daddy didn't do it, and Clinton didn't do it. There is a time for former leaders to criticize, but it surely isn't during the first 100 days when so much is at stake. While it would appear that Cheney has indeed "gone rogue," it would be nice if someone could reign him in. (Where is a man-eating shark when you need one?)

Finally, even if it were ok for Cheney to be critical at this point, or even later when it would be in better form, there is no need to sound so gleeful about the idea of another terrorist attack on Americans. This man is practically begging someone to do something just so he can be pronounced right. That is disturbing and he just might be even more deranged than I previously imagined.

But back to Biden. Joe's response to Cheney struck me as measured and almost subdued, which is saying a lot for Biden. I mean dude hasn't always been one to watch what he says . . . . This time around, however, I feel like he struck the right tone, respectful disagreement. CNN has more here.

The Right is being critical of Biden's response (of course), as Salon's Joan Walsh details in her blog post and as seen in this MSNBC clip where she debates David Rivkin, who not only thinks that Cheney isn't insane, but also managed to get Joan's name wrong too. Classy. Biden is not the one out of line here. Not even close.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Doing My Part

I saw this over the weekend and in addition had a friend send the Daily Kos link to it This is worth checking out because it just illustrates the crazy notions rattling around in Palin's skull. I mean come on, a bomber is a bomber and thus a terrorist. I don't care if they are in Israel blowing themselves up in a market or in Arkansas targeting an abortion clinic. Same difference in my book.