Words Mean Things: Why Is That A Hard Concept To Grasp?

In current political parlance, there seems to be a major disconnect between the terms "debate," "free exchange of ideas" and the left. So often in the last years, the left has been particularly nasty in it's interaction with the right. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that there is not ANY nasty, snarky, mean-spirited, stuff coming from the right, both now and in the DOC (Day's of Clinton), but it seems to be worse now on the part of my unfavorite leftoids.

I have cut loose with a four letter word or two in my time, but I usually disdain the use of foul language (now, don't get me wrong, I love FOWL language - fried chicken, cock-au-vin, roasted turkey, pheasant under glass, etc.) but cursing to me seems to detract from any argument.

Let's take a look at some recent exchanges: From Marc Cooper's site and some lefty type commenters:

We've been lying down, getting anally raped by your kind for years GM. There will be no more sitting down anymore, only standing up."

"PS Fuck you"

"I would add that Democrats need to keep telling their 2006 election narrative: Republicans are an out-of-control, corrupt, and highly partisan majority party that without fail heads for the most right wing, confrontational position."

"Go to hell GM. You're a heartless, lying right-wing troglodyyte and total fucking idiot who doesn't give a shit about what this president is doing to future generations. You'll spin and lie and say anything just to buy time to see your backward agenda enacted. I'm sure you and your red state comrades will be pleased when the Bush court legalizes sexual intercourse with all non feral barnyard animals. Perhaps they'll do so on the inauguration of Jefferson Davis."

[Note: emphasis added in all the above]

And that is just from a single post that Marc has up. Now, I will explain that Marc does not necessarily endorse that kind of language and is quite welcoming of rightist points of view though he almost never agrees with it.

From another source, the infamous Democratic Underground to be specific:

This is the best the RETARDICANS can do?

"...it doesn't appear as if Mr. Roberts has *any* experience as a judge. He's a mob lawyer, plain and simple and the mob is George Orwell's party.[note, referring to Judge Roberts]"

"Bush and his GOP goon squad are going to start bringing out the rubber truncheons and whacking the liberals on the elbow in retaliation for "partisan politics."

"I'm trying to get as much as I can on this guy. So far, it seems that just over half of the people on Daily Kos are saying that we should be relieved that this guy isn't a raving lunatic and that the Dems should save their firepower for "extraordinary circumstances." Fuck that. The SCOTUS *is* extraordinary."

this was added on one post:
[Note: emphasis added in all the above]

Nifty huh? Nuke the Republicans? Who the heck knows. But I digress, more samples here from that Arbiter of Class, that paragon of sayings including "Screw them" The Daily Kos:

If you want to attack Roberts, start researching his opinions, his law review articles, and any other relevant materials. But to say that he's inexperienced is simply an incorrect and frankly laugh-inducing argument. Let's stick to arguments that make sense and have a chance of outlining differences between right-wing legal jurisprudence and what the general public deems acceptable -- [Note: wow, that one actually made sense.]

"Let the Republicans defend incest and rape, as they push the police state nominee and defend treason in cases where they do it. [Note: Ahhh, that's more of what I expected]

"Who gives a hoot about "extensive, unprecedented prior consultations" with the Senate if you ignore what they say? Why waste everyone's time with this dog and pony show if you're not going to consider other's views?" [Does it occur to this commenter that consultations means listening to what the Dems have to say, not necessarily AGREEING with what they had to say? Nah, I thought not!]
[Note: emphasis added in all the above]

But, I digress. This essay is about words meaning things, we have an excellent discussion (separate and apart from the use of foul language above) on intrepretation of the Constitution from Justice Antonin Scalia regarding original intent vs. actual meaning. Example, Protien Wisdom's entry "In which I discuss hermeneutics with a leftover steamed dumpling from last night's dim sum meal." How's that for a delightful blending of words? Jeff Goldstein has excellent fun taking on Stanly Fish's Op-Ed in the New York Times and does a bang up job (you really need to read the whole thing as GR the Instapundit would say.) Fish's argument is that one needs to "interpret" the meaning of the constitution, not take the words used as what they mean. Wow, how thick is that? OK, I say to you "I'm gonna punch you in the nose" but I actually mean "I'm really upset with you and it almost drives me to the point of violence and I really wish you wouldn't do what you did that angers me so." Fish really has it wrong her folks, his argument is that since words only convey intent, we must look for the intent. To heck with that. If you threaten to punch me in the nose, I'm going to take you at your word.

In the lexicon of the Islamo-fascist we understand that we have two choices, death or dihimitude. Well, Fish would argue, and I know that I'm being glib, I know the meaning of my words here, that their intent is to remove the crusader from their midst and let them have their Muslim state as Allah intended it. Well, no, they are saying submit or die. Their actions say submit or die with dying being their preference. Stanley, Stanley, Stanley, please tell me what it is that you don't understand? Scalia cannot ask the authors of the Constitution what they meant, he can only go on what they said. These people (the authors that is) were educated, passionate men, they knew which words to use.

The left has choices of "intent" in their interpretation of the Constitution, to wit, Congress shall make no law..... What is difficult about that? The left LOVES the first amendment, especially the separation clause. Of course, there is no "separation clause" per se, according to the left, it as the authors "intent." No it wasn't, they didn't say NO ONE could pass a law, they said CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of a [state] religion, or prohibiting the free expression of religion. The exact words are:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, folks this isn't rocket science. You can argue all day long that this means that schools can't open with a non-sectarian prayer and you can't display a Menorah, or the Ten Commandments or any of the other "stuff" that the ACLU demands of modern society. It means what it says: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The vast majority of the people endorsing the constitution were religious men. They had a state religion, the Church of England and they wanted no part of having the state shove another one down their throats. They said nothing about display, nothing about prayer in school, nothing. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Got that?

Too, I've often wondered why the Left, the ACLU, and others of that way of thought have decided that the amendments all mean what they say except for the 2nd, 9th and 10th. When was the last time the ACLU stood up for those rights that "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Can't answer that readily can you?

Well, enough for today. Just remember, if you want to have courteous discourse with someone and they cuss you out because of your political beliefs, you must be a conservative and they must be a liberal. Yes, I'm kidding, I know it goes both ways. Unfortunately, usually, today, it doesn't.

Update: Welcome Mudville Gazette Readers, stick around, I'm sure you will find some other interesting stuff.

Another Update: More Good Reading at the TRAFFIC JAM at Outside the Beltway

Posted by GM Roper at July 20, 2005 10:55 AM | TrackBack