Another case of "Niggardly"?
Lou Dobbs, anchor of CNN's Moneyline, is in some trouble, it seems. To lift a quotation found via James Taranto's Best of the Web (you really should subsribe; you know you want to; it's free, entertaining, and sheds some glaring white light on various bits of nonsense. Set your browser to WSJ Opinion Journal and subsribe; you won't regret it):
Dobbs: "The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction."
The comments immediately ignited angry phone calls to CNN, according to insiders...[W]ith stunned viewers from Arab countries registering strong complaints.
The term "Islamist" has been in general use for some time, and it refers to Islamic fundamentalists; i.e. those for whom there is only one true path to salvation, to wit, theirs. All others are infidels, including their brother Moslems, and hence are to be killed.
The "niggardly" reference is to a dust-up that happened in the hyper-politically correct municipal "government" (yes, those are ironic quotation marks) of the People's Republic of Columbia (a/k/a Washington, DC). Some details may be found here. One never would wish to give offence intentionally, but when faced with this kind of PC, just speaking the Queen's English should be sufficient.
And yes, my humble opinion is that a) we should all be speaking (reasonably) correct, grammatical English, and b) creativity in establishing neologisms should not be discouraged, but not to the point where garbled (or gargled) versions of existing words take on meanings lightyears from the original, and certainly not to the point where ignorance of those who hear the words dictates what the words mean.
Speak plainly; mean what you say.
Lou Dobbs, anchor of CNN's Moneyline, is in some trouble, it seems. To lift a quotation found via James Taranto's Best of the Web (you really should subsribe; you know you want to; it's free, entertaining, and sheds some glaring white light on various bits of nonsense. Set your browser to WSJ Opinion Journal and subsribe; you won't regret it):
Dobbs: "The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction."
The comments immediately ignited angry phone calls to CNN, according to insiders...[W]ith stunned viewers from Arab countries registering strong complaints.
The term "Islamist" has been in general use for some time, and it refers to Islamic fundamentalists; i.e. those for whom there is only one true path to salvation, to wit, theirs. All others are infidels, including their brother Moslems, and hence are to be killed.
The "niggardly" reference is to a dust-up that happened in the hyper-politically correct municipal "government" (yes, those are ironic quotation marks) of the People's Republic of Columbia (a/k/a Washington, DC). Some details may be found here. One never would wish to give offence intentionally, but when faced with this kind of PC, just speaking the Queen's English should be sufficient.
And yes, my humble opinion is that a) we should all be speaking (reasonably) correct, grammatical English, and b) creativity in establishing neologisms should not be discouraged, but not to the point where garbled (or gargled) versions of existing words take on meanings lightyears from the original, and certainly not to the point where ignorance of those who hear the words dictates what the words mean.
Speak plainly; mean what you say.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home