- Calling soldiers “Warriors,” like they fight for the Greco-Roman Empire
- Calling the country the “Homeland,” like its an island fortress where our species first emerged and must stay to survive, surrounded by hostile alien vampire globs
There’s some kind of leak between my dreams and my so-called reality. It used to be one way, the normal way: bits and pieces of my life show up randomly in dreams. You know, your dog is in your dream, giving you advice, and she’s also your mother. But ever since April 13th, dream-stuff has been appearing in my waking world. For example, as I am writing this, I’m sitting in a café in Vermont, and on the chalk-written menu is raisin-flavored kombucha. Yes, Vermont is full of the hippy probiotic drink kombucha. But nobody really makes raison-flavored kombucha. It’s something I dreamed last night, along with the kombucha-flavored, vegan, raw chocolate cream pie, which I just noticed is also on display here in this café. It makes me wonder what else I’m seeing that I forget I dreamed up.
The problem with the “War on Terror” is that it’s not. It’s not a war on terror, it’s a war on terrorists. It’s the easy way out – attacking people instead of problems. As we kill person after person, we can claim victory after victory without ever winning anything. The war becomes self-perpetuating, even allowing the use of terrorism in fighting terrorists. As the war kills enemies, it creates enemies, which creates more terrorism. Thus the war acts as a living being, ensuring its own survival.
Before those of you who are eligible cast your indirect vote for US President (I hope all of you have come to know your state electors well, since your vote just technically authorizes them to vote on your behalf) it’s important to really know the candidates. Yes, you can look at position papers, voting history and party platforms, but it’s much more revealing (and fun) to see what their very names tell us.
Let’s start with President Obama:
Here are even more oddities about the English language:
In U.S. politics, we like to believe that everything is balanced; if the Republicans are doing something bad, the Democrats must be doing it too. Outside of the extremely partisan, news commentators will generally be sure to mention that if there is corruption on one side of the aisle then the other side must be up to some dirty tricks as well. If they don’t express that assumption, they fear they may sound biased, and I think that viewers feel more comfortable with the idea that politicians are all tainted regardless of their party affiliation. Read the rest of this entry »