Armchair Pundits

Reality Check

Lileks has long contended that words matter. Often times, a word will find its way into the everyday vernacular, only to have its meaning misapporpriated by the user. Consider the word "fetish." I have heard this word attributed to salads, mayonaise, chocolate, and many other mundane items. In such cases, the user is utilizing the term "fetish" to indicate his or her proclivity for the item in question. This is problematic, for if repeated often enough--by enough people, the meaning of the word becomes changed.

The word fetish, in it's common clinical application, refers to an inanimate object, or non-sexual body part, that elicits sexual arousal and which may become necessary for sexual gratification. So literally translated, the aformentioned uses, indicate an arousal from salads, mayonaise, or chocolate.

Of course, this is but one small example in a world of thousands of misuses. If repeated often enough, words may come to have new meanings. "Holy Cow! That's sweet dude!" When used precisely, words convey the message of the communciator in a powerful manner. In fact, such a communicator is likely to be termed articulate.

This governance of words and meanings, is equally applicable to other domains. For instance, axiomatic wisdom, and other phrases or concepts that have found their way into our nomenclature. Consider the following notions: "The separation of church and state" and "Bush lied." The former is touted widely as a constitutional issue, and yet those six words do not appear anywhere in the constitution. They come from a letter between a Baptist denomination and Thomas Jefferson. Is this an important issue? Absolutely, because the concept was intended to keep government out of church affairs, i.e., the establishment of a state chuch, which is something the framers were all to familiar with in Europe and did not want to replicate.

It seems readily obvious, that meanings and intent are crucial to understanding and interpretation. The implications are far reaching--from SCOTUS nominees, to Biblical scholarship, to how the newspapers are read, it is inherently epistimeological, and world-view shaping.

This brings me to the latter issue of "Bush lied." This has been so touted, it appears to be regarded as fact, with no need for quibbling. The latest debacle concerning Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, and "the leak", seems to have furhter cemented this notion with the public, e.g., Bush's approval ratings.

I feel compelled to respond with--"Did he really?" The blogosphere has widely challenged this assertion, from the professional punditry at The Weekly Standard & National Review, and yet it seems to fall on deaf ears with most media outlets and the general public. Does truth matter? Absolutely. What then are the facts? Norman Podhoretz recapitulates the facts, with a thorough time-line, and searing analysis. A convincing response to this specious charge. Read the whole-thing. It will be a shot of adrenaline to your discourse.

posted by Grisby @ 1:47 PM