For @#$% sake, choose another word

By Jim Cosgrove
https://www.kansascity.com/living/family/article97041052.html

Consider the F-word. Yup, that F-word. The granddaddy of all curse words. The exhaustingly exploited F-bomb.

Yes, I’ve used it. You’ve probably used it, too. And if you haven’t, you’ve thought about using it.

That emotionally charged word has become a topic of interesting conversation in our house now that school has started.

“I hear that word all the time from the boys in my class,” our younger daughter said.

“Yeah, me too,” said our sixth-grader. “Third grade was about the time I started to hear it.”

While they might hear it more often on the playground and in the cafeteria, it’s not like they haven’t heard it before at sporting events or from strangers walking down the street.

I’m not particularly offended by the F-word. It’s just annoying, like a linguistic gnat. Its overuse renders it meaningless. Like when it’s used to describe something awesome and something heinous. How can it be both?

It starts creeping into the lexicon of kids who want to feel cool and empowered, like they’re getting away with something. And it pretty much continues to be used by those same kids when they’re adults and for the same reasons.

A few years ago, I attended a presentation at work by a well-respected and talented video producer. About 15 minutes into his talk, he dropped an F-bomb, then he paused, and with a mischievous grin said, “It’s cool if I use that here, right?” He had the self-satisfied look of a 10-year-old who just got away with passing gas at Thanksgiving dinner.

Despite some squirming and uncomfortable laughter from most of the nearly 100 people in the audience, not one of us was willing to admit to being “uncool.” Apparently he took this as an expletive-approving green light.

I started counting how many times he used the F-word and finally gave up after a dozen or so. I soon lost interest in the presentation, because his videos, although impressive, were completely upstaged by his lack of class and his disrespect for a professional environment. Maybe some people found his cavalier attitude refreshing and endearing. I guess I’m just not that cool.

From a grammatical standpoint, I must admit that the F-word has impressive versatility. Although it emerged primarily as a verb, its variations can be used as a noun, adjective, adverb, interjection and an effective intensifier. There aren’t many words with that kind of range.

But aside from that, it’s a lazy choice. And I find it boring when comedians use it excessively. The most creative and funny people don’t have to lean on obscenities and shock to get a laugh.

I can appreciate that the F-word has its place when, say, a hammer falls on your toe. And I have to laugh in conversation with my Irish friends who were weaned on the word and can’t help using it in every other sentence. And it’s pretty funny when Grandma drops a cuss word at a family gathering and grabs everyone’s attention.

As a parent and a lover of language and civility, my appeal to habitual F-bombers is to simply show some respect. We’ve taught our girls that a person’s choice of words is often an indication of how they’ll treat others. If people use disrespectful language, they’ll likely be disrespectful in other ways.

Words have power. They carry energy, vibrations and resonance. The F-word has especially low vibration. That’s why it’s a popular choice in negative energy situations of anger and aggression.

Most people avoid lobbing these word grenades around children or their own moms. So why would we not extend the same respect to friends, co-workers and strangers — or to an audience we were being paid to address?

If you want to grab attention with your language, then consider a creative challenge to try something new. Check out a thesaurus. You’ll find thousands of interesting words in there.

Some personal observations by Snowflake:

The F word might be the granddaddy of all curse words, but the C word is far more offensive - just saying.

Otherwise, I would say people who over-use the F word have a F......in' lack of imagination - just saying

Impeachment Hearings & Vetting Information Sources

Ranking member Devin Nunes gave his opening comments before the start of witness testimony in the House impeachment hearing this morning. His version of reality, presumably the GOP-Trump vision, is mostly the opposite of the democratic vision. One of the sources that Nunes dwelled on in his opening statements was reporter John Solomon. Nunes claimed that Solomon's reporting contradicts most or all of the democratic view of what Ukraine did not did not do.

Who is John Solomon?

Wikipedia has a bio on Solomon. The bio includes these comments:

John F. Solomon is an American media executive, and a conservative political commentator. He was an editorialist and executive vice president of digital video for The Hill[1] and as of October, 2019, is a contributor to Fox News.[2] He was formerly employed as an executive and as editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[3]

While he won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism in the 1990s and 2000s,[4][5] he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.[6][7][8] During Donald Trump's presidency, he has been known for advancing Trump-friendly stories. He played a role in advancing conspiracy theories about wrong-doing involving Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden and Ukraine; Solomon's stories about the Bidens influenced President Trump to request that the Ukrainian president launch an investigation into 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which led to an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.[2]

Some of Solomon's reporting has been criticized as inaccurate. Wikipedia:

On the same day that The Washington Post published its article, The Hill published another opinion piece by Solomon in which Solomon states that there are "(h)undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents...(that) conflict with Biden’s narrative."[30]

Solomon's stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as "an outright fabrication", but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon's claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corruption activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon's claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31]

At least for now, House republicans are relying significantly on Solomon to see no impeachable, illegal or improper offenses by the president and duplicity by Joe Biden. Republicans adhere to that despite evidence that key pieces of Solomon's information is false. Some of the documents Solomon relies on for his narrative appear to be innocuous, at least on first blush, e.g., this and this.

Who and what are people supposed to believe?

Few Americans are going to read translations of Ukrainian documents and put them in context. They are not going to spend hours reading and confirming accuracy of facts and narratives by Solomon and others who assert the same. They should not have to do that. It is the job of the mainstream media and our political leaders to distil and accurately convey relevant facts and truths.

These days, the issue of who and what to trust in politics comes up over and over and over. Partisans tell us to trust people like Solomon and/or independent journalists who convey narratives that are either not reported by the MSM or at odds with existing MSM reporting and/or facts of record.

Someone is lying about reality here. The two competing impeachment narratives are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be mostly correct. Both can be mostly wrong, but only one can be mostly correct. What is astounding is the fact that both facts of record and the reasoning applied to them are in bitter, non-resolvable dispute.

In view of the situation, it is fair to call this tribalism, not reasoned politics. One side to the other arguably is much more at fault for the situation than the other. That assumes that one side is mostly right about their facts and logic and the other is mostly wrong. For better or worse, the analysis and ultimate conclusion is clouded by partisan subjective assessments of right and wrong. For most of the president's defenders, the now acknowledged quid pro quo does not amount to anything improper, unethical, illegal or impeachable. Nunes' opening statements seem to make that clear. The moral assessment on the democratic side mostly appears to be or is that at least impeachable acts are at issue.

Which set of facts and narrative is most likely true?

What are the controlling facts here? Most people, maybe about 95%, will mostly believe what their tribe and the various MSM and non-MSM media sources they rely on tell them. In essence, facts are now partisan things. Constant but unwarranted attacks on the professional MSM by the president and his supporters make have succeeded in poisoning the MSM as a reliable information source for millions of Americans. The vacuum that decades of mainly conservative distrust has creates leaves a huge opening for non-MSM sources to begin to look more reliable and trustworthy. Millions of Americans believe, or could come to believe, that Solomon's narrative and facts are reliable and true. In this vacuum, Americans can come to believe that reporters who publish on crackpot sites are telling truth even when they are not.

If that analysis is basically correct, and it appears to be, the people who have fomented unwarranted distrust. This is not an argument that the MSM is completely unbiased or that it never makes mistakes. It is biased and sometimes makes mistakes. The MSM has largely fallen to corporate ownership and the inherent censorship that comes with the profit motive. Despite the shortcomings and flaws, this is an argument that the MSM is still routinely more reliable than many or most the alternatives that people raise to advance their own narratives.

Based on the relevant facts and reasoning that flows from the facts, Nunes assertions and Solomon's narrative are both indefensible and wrong.

If that logic and conclusion is flawed, what are the facts and counter arguments that make it more wrong than right?

The Rule of Law is Falling

A few minutes ago the Supreme Court hinted that it could grant the president a shield to hide bad acts and crimes while in office by making investigation of him impossible. One news source writes:

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts is ordering an indefinite delay in the House of Representatives’ demand for President Donald Trump’s financial records. Roberts’ order Monday contains no hint about how the Supreme Court ultimately will resolve the dispute. It follows a filing by the House earlier Monday in which the House agreed to a brief halt for the orderly filing of legal briefs, while opposing any lengthy delay. Those written arguments will allow the justices to decide whether they will jump into the tussle between Congress and the president. Last week, Trump made an emergency appeal to ask the justices to block the enforcement of a subpoena issued by a House committee to Trump’s accountants. The House has until Thursday to respond, Roberts said. The high court has a separate pending request from Trump to block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor for Trump’s tax returns.”

This is what the fall of the rule law looks like. That the court would even consider an “indefinite delay” is incomprehensible. Corrupting courts and law enforcement is how tyrants and kleptocrats rise to power. The separation of powers is collapsing before our eyes. In my opinion, if the court really does wind up blocking investigations long as Trump is in office, or even for ‘just’ a month, that would effectively end of any pretense at independence and impartiality that Chief justice Roberts can seriously assert. Pretenses of independence and impartiality are already very weak assertions. Both just might be about to completely disappear. Obviously, the president and his supporters will cheer this development as a return to the constitutional rule of law or something akin to it.

Documentary: Plutocracy

Plutocracy: government by the wealthy; an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth

Plutocracy is a five part documentary that describes the brutal conflict between American labor and owners. Each part is about 1 hour, 50 minutes to 2 hours long. This is a low-budget production that includes interviews with historians, e.g., Peter Rachleff. The series relies heavily on documented history and paints a dark, gruesome picture of economic struggles in the US that public schools do not teach. The series is online and can be viewed at many sites, e.g., here and on YouTube.

Part 1 of Plutocracy, Divide et Impera (Divide and Rule), focuses on how American people were intentionally divided by rulers and wealthy people on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex and skill level. The point of fomenting division was to keep society distracted and weak in the face of unified wealth which was fighting hard and dirty to keep people misinformed and in poverty.

When West Virginia coal miners in the early 1900s decided to form labor unions, the owners fought back. Extreme working conditions including long hours, high accident rates and severe health hazards led workers to try organize themselves. They fought back by striking and forming labor unions. The coal industry itself fought back by importing replacement workers, and imposing contracts that barred workers from unionizing. In the process of fighting for freedom from the brutal capitalism that wealthy industrialists imposed, thousands of lives were lost, and thousands more were wounded or jailed.

Plutocracy, Part 1 at 59:11

The documentary suggests that when workers united to fight for fair and equal rights, some progress was possible. The documentary argues that the country's Founders saw a potential for these class conflicts. One can argue that attempts to protect individuals, for example in the Bill of Rights, were directed more at protecting the masses from government than they were at protecting them from capitalists and brutal laissez-faire capitalism. It isn't clear that similar brutalization of workers cannot occur under socialism or communism. This just shows one vision of the American experience.

This documentary makes it much easier to understand and accept the argument that in America, power and wealth are synonymous for the most part. The amazing power that industrialists were able to bring to bear in brutalizing and murdering workers speaks for itself. The question this work raises is how accurate and fact-based is it? Heavy reliance on historical records lend credence to the work and its message. Nonetheless, propaganda can take truth, optionally mixed with lies and misleading content, and present it in different lights, good, bad or ambiguous.

How real is this?

My search for a review of the series by a historian turned nothing up, which is concerning. The left wing sources I scanned all cited this work approvingly. The right wing sources I looked at either don't mention it or I missed reference to it. If anyone knows a historian who has reviewed some or all of this documentary, their thoughts about the historical accuracy of this work would be appreciated. My guess is that this is mostly truth with modest propaganda woven into it.