Word Games in the World

The world is full of word games.  Even our lives in the world can be one big word game.  Though we may have the 1st Amendment and are technically free to speak, there are all kinds of societal rules governing what is appropriate and inappropriate for any given situation.

Political correctness, which is a societal judgment of which words are appropriate to use to describe people, professions, or things, has been a divisive issue.  Should we make an effort not to offend  people when we speak, or have these restrictions trampled our rights of free speech?  This is a question you have to answer for yourself.  For me personally, I have no problem with sexist, racist, and other terms used to demean people being frowned upon.  You're technically still free to say them, as you should be, but the shift has made some areas of civil discourse more, well, civilized.  Of course, from the way the political arena looks as of late, people are still bashing each other just as thoroughly as ever.  Politicians are adept at using word play, a type of word game, to spin the argument against their opponent and paint themselves in a more favorable light.  Gotta love rhetoric.  I discussed this once in a previous post, so I won't go into too much detail about that here.

I can think of a couple high profile examples of language controversy.  Less than a month ago, actress Gwyneth Paltrow stirred up controversy when she tweeted a picture of Kanye West, Jay-Z, and herself.  In her description, she used the "N" word.  I don't think I need to spell it out for all of you to know what I mean by that.  And as much as I enjoy controversy, I don't want to be accused of being racist.  I will, however, offer my take on the situation.  She was tweeting the name of the song that they were singing at the time.  Saying a word offensively is one thing.  However, since she was quoting the name of the song, why should anyone be angry?  The use of these offensive terms is generally accepted in music and novels.  After all, it can often be used as political commentary, and is also used as a form of empowerment.  As for novels, how can you write a historical piece focused on racism in America without using such a term?  It would certainly be difficult.  I think we sometimes need to look at the intended meaning behind the use of a typically offensive word before we get angry.


Then, even more recently, Michigan Representative Lisa Brown was silenced after saying the dreaded "V" word, which is the clinical term for a part of the female body, during an abortion debate.   Apparently using the name of a body part offended several people in the assembly, though I'm kind of stunned as to why.  Well, I'm actually not stunned.  It's a body part that can be used for sexual purposes, so I guess it's considered "offensive by association."  Now, I'm not going to go into her subsequent actions and whether they were appropriate or not (that is a whole new can of worms and would dominate the rest of this post).  You can read more HERE and decide for yourselves.  However, I will say this.  She said the actual name of a body part that half the people in this country have.  I can think of several slang terms she could have used that would have been far more inflammatory and would have justified action against her.  However, she used the clinical term of a body part that is inevitably involved in an abortion debate.  Maybe people need to get over it.  It's a word we had to say aloud in a high school anatomy class, for crying out loud.  These were full grown adults who were complaining.  Something seems off there.  And I know I didn't write out the "V" word either, which makes me seem hypocritical, but I think the absurdity of me not saying it helps me make my point.


Anyway, the point I'm trying to make in all this ranting is that language comes with all sorts of rules, both written and unwritten.  Language belongs to society and is constantly under construction.  It's political, it's tricky, and malleable.  Anyone who understands it well enough can use it to make any point they want.  It's all about the words you use.  The world is one large word game.


I want to say now that I never intended to offend anyone with the content of this long rant.  I was trying to make some serious points and offer my own opinions.  Think what you will of what I believe.  For any of you who I may have offended and still decided to stick with it this far, or for any of you who simply love word games, here's a little fun for you.  Follow the links to play some free, and fun, word games.  These sites have a ton to choose from.  Or just do your own search for "word games."  If you can't find anything to your liking from that long list of results, well, then I certainly can't help you.


http://www.wordgames.com/
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/games/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/game/index.htm

Have a good day everyone!

Free Speech: Big Brother is Listening

In thinking about what to write about for this first installment of Worldly Wednesday, it occurred to me that there were so many choices available to me that I thought my brain might self-destruct.  Then, in looking through recent posts from other blogs I follow, I stumbled across this video posted by Rob from Commonwealth Commentary. This blog is worth checking out as he features interesting political stories.

Anyway, watch the video and ask yourslef "Is Homeland Security already watching me?"



If Homeland Security wasn't already watching me, they probably are now that I've posted this.  I'm guessing they probably don't want this information out because people who are actually up to something might start using new code words to communicate.  In the world we live in, who knows?

The world changed for Americans after 9/11.  There's no escaping that fact.  While I agree the government should make it a priority to protect its citizens from genuine terrorist threats, have we as a nation gone too far in our suspicion?  In America we have freedom of speech thanks to the 1st Amendment.  We are still free to say these kinds of words online, but if we do, we may be sacrificing our privacy.  Should we be okay with that?

I can say this much.  I'm not comfortable with the far-reaching nature of this list.  It seems to stretch too far.  How many people are unwittingly bringing themselves under government scrutiny while checking out the latest news stories about the wars we have going around the world?  How many people looking for pork recipes or deciding where to go on vacation are being monitored?

I've often said that we need to choose our words carefully, because words have power. Yet, even the most innocuous of words can make you seem suspect these days. One can argue that if you're participating in social media, you're already voluntarily surrendering your privacy.  However, it feels different to have a government official poring over my online history than it does to have regular, everyday people reading what I have to say.  The government has the power to do much more damage to your life than most everyday people.

Here's a quote for you to ponder.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
 
-Gerald Ford 
Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974) 

Bullies and the Beaten Down

I just want to say this much.  I HATE it when people bully others who are different from them.  Whether it's due to race, economic background, sexual orientation, personal interests, or a child's inability to relate easily with others, tormenting people needlessly is a despicable act.  Young children and even adults can become overwhelmed with the negativity thrust upon them, and some of these people resort to suicide.  It's a serious problem.


On the one hand, I think legislation aimed at this problem may be a good thing, but when it comes to 1st Amendment rights, things get a little bit tricky.  The last thing in the world I want is for us as a nation to lose our ability to express ourselves freely.  That is part of what defines us as a people.  If we overly restrict our speech in the realm of electronic media, as many say AZ House Bill 2549 would, we all ultimately lose.  The bill would make it unlawful to  use language intended to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend."  Now, to be fair, the law does attempt to make it clear that the person issuing such speech must have intent to harass the target, and the target should have a reasonable fear for the safety of themselves or those close to them.  If you want to determine for yourself whether this is the case, here is one article that briefly addresses the concerns that have been raised.


Even so, is that enough?  Who judges?  We all know judgments can be flawed.  We're all human, and there are always those who will twist any situation to their benefit.  The democratic process is made possible by our freedom of speech.. We lose that, and we could lose everything else.


Legislation aimed at disarming bullies treads a thin line, and any line crossed to benefit one group can ultimately be turned against them as well.  If the 1st Amendment is violated, that impacts us all.  Such bills need to be very specific in their language and should undergo rigorous review before they are passed.  The public should have every opportunity to see such bills through their various stages of revision.  We are, after all, the ones who ultimately hold our legislators accountable for the work they do.


I believe schools have the right to regulate bullying through policies that address the unique situations of their district.  Students have a right to free speech, but the school should also remain free of tormenting behavior that adversely impacts the learning environment.  These policies are left to the school board and parents to decide.  We need to make it clear that harassment is not acceptable.  If people actively and consistently stand up for the bullied, we wouldn't need policy to begin with.  In our schools and in our towns, we can see the difference between off-handed comments or one time statements of opinion and bullying.  With laws, we leave the decision to someone who may not have seen all the facts.  In our lives, we will see the facts if we choose to look out for them.  When local policies cross a line or are clearly not doing enough to address a serious issue, then the government may step in, but in a limited capacity.


I know I've said this before, but what bullies need to understand is that hurtful words have a power they may not fully understand.  I have to believe that those who bullied people to the point of suicide didn't intend for things to go that far.  And for those bullies that genuinely hope to inflict real pain on others and enjoy it for their own sick benefit, the fruits of your actions will catch up to you.  And this is not a threat.  It is a statement of fact.  People will only tolerate the brutally hurtful for so long.  You have the right to say mean things to someone, of course, and that should remain the case.  However, that doesn't make what you're saying right.  You should know when you're crossing the line, you should understand there are consequences for that, and you should know what they are.  Before you say something, you should be willing to accept those consequences.  Words have staying power, especially in a world with the internet.  Don't claim ignorance when something you said is used against you.  This is a risk you take when you utilize your 1st Amendment rights.


Now, to briefly address another concern I've heard.  Some have said that bullying aimed at homosexual students in particular should not be regulated because it would infringe upon the religious liberties of those who believe homosexuality is wrong.  I must say this: there is a difference between expressing a deeply held belief in a civilized manner and being openly hateful to someone.  When you're harassing someone for something like sexual orientation, even when it does correspond with a deeply held belief, you can't convince me it isn't hateful to do so.  We need to learn to love people and be kind to one another, even when someone lives in a way that violates your own conscience.  Bullying them won't save them.  If anything, it will only make them feel more isolated and alone.  And in those instances, they may not even be able to turn to their own family.  Love and kindness should be the default position anyone takes.


So what do you do if you're bullied and feel like there's no way out?  First of all, you need to find someone you can talk to.  Even when there is no policy in place that can protect you, the best protection you can offer yourself is the support of others.  This can be family, friends, anyone who will listen.  And for those of you who can't find anyone you know to listen to you, you can turn to the online community.  Yes, cyber bullying is an epidemic problem with social media, but that same social media can be your ally is you know how to use it.  The story of a girl who used Reddit to stop cyber bullying shows how people can band together to stop this kind of behavior before someone gets hurt.  We can take our own power back. 


While I doubt anyone would want to talk to me, I want to make it clear that I am also willing to listen.  I've been bullied, so I understand the pain all too well.  It can wreak havoc on your self-esteem, but you don't need to be alone.  I'm putting this out there because I want to reach people with my point of view, and if I weren't willing to accept the consequences of that, I'd be a hypocrite.  Plus, I really do care.

WTF?

I just want to say WTF to a high school in Indiana that expelled senior Austin Carroll for posting a tweet containing the notorious F-bomb.  Now, if this was done in class, I can see the school having reason to be upset, although I think even in that case expulsion would still be going too far.  The tweet was posted in his home well outside school hours (about 2:20am), and he wasn't even using the four letter expletive to insult the school or anyone who works or goes there.  Instead, he was merely discussing the versatility of the term.  If anything, he could have called it an impromptu English assignment.  He clearly has a passion for language.

Granted, he used a school owned computer to post the offending tweet, but even so, students are still protected by the 1st Amendment.  If his activities weren't being disruptive to the learning environment of the school in any way, why should administrators be so upset?  Words are powerful, yes, but is this one word justification enough for all this?  I think not.

Santorum vs. Pornography: An Epic Battle

As if freedom weren’t in enough danger already, the threats just keep on coming.  Like it or hate it,hardcore pornography will be under attack if presidential hopeful Rick Santorum makes it to the White House.  He has vowed to enforce obscenity laws that would prohibit hardcore pornography from being distributed online, in stores, through the mail, etc.  The man who keeps talking about the importance of economic freedom is promising to shut down a multi-billion dollar industry that contributes countless tax dollars to the government every year, and whose sales “stimulate” the economy, so to speak.

He argues that pornography denigrates women, leads to violence against women, and weakens marriages.  First off, most women in the porn industry choose to be there for various reasons.  As legal adults, it should be their right to make that choice.  Second, the violence against women he talks about is already illegal, and not all studies conclude that it influences men to behave violently toward women.  If anything, it does men a great disservice to assume that watching pornography changes men so much that they can no longer control themselves.   And third, if pornography supposedly destroys your marriage, I assume there were probably underlying issues.   In that case, it is likely a symptom of a problem rather than being the actual problem.

My attitude toward so-called obscene material is this: If you don’t like it, then don’t watch it.  Regulating porn to keep it away from children is one thing.  Outlawing it altogether is going way too far.

One thing that worries me is the lack of clarity when material is defined as “hardcore.”  And knowing Santorum, he'll take it as far as he can.  If such a ban went too far, we could be looking at a bold new era of banned books, which, by the way, was a reality only a few decades ago.  Barney Rosset, who passed away this past February, fought for the freedom to publish and distribute books that were illegal due the obscenity laws of the day.  Though Santorum signed a pledge awhile back that called for him to fight against pornography, among other things, it seems interesting that he reiterates such a hard-lined position right after such a prominent crusader for the freedom of the press died.  Hmmm . . .  Coincidence, maybe, but it still seems a bit much.

As a writer, I can’t trust someone who wants to thoroughly control what you can watch.  If the obscenity laws are once again believed to apply to written materials, it could potentially affect me, along with many others.  We shouldn’t look at this as just being about porn, because that’s only scratching the surface.

No politician should have that much control over what we view in our own homes.  Or write.  Or say.  If you despise pornography but love the first amendment, this should still disturb you.

The Power of Words: Personal Responsibility

We’ve been hearing a lot about Rush Limbaugh and other personalities that have used defamatory and degrading language against women.  Bill Maher is an example from the other side of the political spectrum.  Thanks to the wonderful thing that is the 1^st amendment, we have the freedom to say things, but there are responsibilities that go along with the words we choose.  Words are powerful and have consequences, both intended and unintended.  We must accept those consequences, and we must think carefully about what we want to say.  I discussed this at length last week.

That being said, I’d like the present the other side of things.  As the person on the receiving end of harsh insults, we feel hurt and angry.  It’s all too easy to take insults to heart, especially if we hear them enough.  That’s why children who are bullied often experience low self-esteem.  You hear something said about you often enough, you start to believe it.

However, there comes a point when you need to take responsibility for who you are and how you feel about yourself.  Words injure, but only if we let them.  Half the power that words have comes from the person on the receiving end.  It makes no sense to yield all power to a bully by letting their word s damage you.  Try to be strong.  Stand up for yourself by refusing to believe what they say.  Show them that they’re wrong and that they won’t break you.

Half the time, the person tearing you down doesn’t really know you.  If they don’t know you, why should they play a role in defining you?

The Power of Words: The Rush Limbaugh Edition

Lately I’ve been angry about something, and it feels good to finally be getting it out there.  This has nothing to do with my writing, but it does deal with words and the power they hold.  I’m sure we’ve all heard by now how Rush Limbaugh spent three days on his radio show talking about Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress.  She made the point that the pill can potentially be expensive for someone in college, and that the pill is often used to treat a medical condition.  These things are true.  Are there cheap off brand versions available?  Yes, of course.  Then again, your doctor decides on your prescription, and some of the off brands don’t work for everyone.  If you’re one of these women, costs can add up.  That being said, should insurance companies be mandated to pay for these prescriptions in their entirety?  This is the question we should be focusing on.  Instead, this issue has turned into a mudslinging match of the worst kind.

Now, as a writer, I’m glad that we have freedom of speech.  It’s a wonderful thing, and every time I hear about people wanting to impose limitations on that freedom, I get very nervous.  If we lose that right, we may as well give up everything else as far as I’m concerned.  You can’t have real freedom if you can’t express yourself.  And when Rush Limbaugh made his comments about Sandra Fluke, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” he was certainly exercising his right to free speech.  You’ll never catch me disputing that.  Does that make what he said right?  No.

Let me explain my position.  I never subscribed to the saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”  That’s complete crap.  Bullies say horrible things precisely because they hurt.  The best we can do is not let the mean-spirited words of others get under our skin, which is much easier said than done.  I know this all too well.  The bullying I endured as a kid helped shape me into the person I am today.

So I can say this with confidence.  Words are powerful.  They can persuade, inspire, create, and destroy.  “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  This is a saying I can get behind, except, of course, someone’s actually making fun of me from the corner of a room while someone’s impaling me with a sword.  That is one instance where I may be inclined to change my position on this.

Rush used the words he did because he knew they were laced with powerful meaning.  He knew they would get a reaction.  I’m sure he said what he did to be funny, and many people did find it funny.  I won’t dispute that either.  However, his choice of words angered many, including me, because it suggested a belief that many no longer find acceptable:  if a woman is sexually active, it’s okay to call her a slut.  It’s not, in my humble opinion.  He even suggested that he’d pay to give girls aspirin to put between their knees.   Yes, sex is something that should be handled with careful consideration, but let’s not pretend that having sex immediately invalidates her right to be treated with dignity and respect.   Women shouldn’t be denigrated over their sexual choices, especially if men won’t be. 

A definite misstep was his calculation of how much sex Sandra must have been having to spend $3000 in three years of school.  First of all, she said it could cost that much, not that it did for her personally.  Second, we’re talking about the birth control pill. I never thought I’d have to take the time to say this, but you take one pill a day.  The cost is the same no matter how many times you have sex over that three year period.  While reading the comments sections of articles dealing with this issue, I was stunned by how many people didn’t seem to know this.  Third, he said that the taxpayers would be her pimps for paying her to have sex.  Tax dollars wouldn’t cover the cost of contraception.  Insurance companies would.  If anything, insurance premiums would go up, and I've even heard just as many people saying that they'd actually go down due to the decrease in unwanted pregnancies.  I don’t know how it would all work because I’m not an expert at these things, nor am I a fortune teller.  However, if we’re going to have the conversation, I’d at least like to get it right about what's actually at stake.

What Limbaugh did in using this language, besides hurting Fluke’s feelings, is distract us from the issue at hand.  There are a lot of valid questions to be asked, but they’re not really being asked or answered because of the controversy that sprung forth from this.  In an article entitled “Pills For Sluts?: Sixquestions for Rush Limbaugh about sex,promiscuity, and contraception,” William Saletan talks about some of the questions Limbaugh has raised, whether advertently or inadvertently, and should discuss.

1.What’s the problem with contraceptive insurance: socialism or promiscuity?

2. How much sex is too much? 

3. Is contraception a sex enabler?

4. What consequences should a woman face for having sex?

5. Is pregnancy prevention a legitimate medical need?

6. What responsibility should men bear?

These are good questions, and I recommend you read his article to hear what he has to say about them.  There is also, of course, the question that brought this about in the first place.  Does requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception infringe on religious liberty.

I’m all for having a good, honest debate about these issues, and I want to know people’s thoughts on these questions.  However, the way that Rush handled it in no way promoted civil discourse.  Of course, that wasn’t his intention.  He’s an entertainer, and as such, we have to expect this from him.  However, he also bears a responsibility in choosing his words.  People turn to him for information as well, so while he’ll undoubtedly put his spin on it according to his personal opinion, as he is free to do, responsibility also indicates he should at least be factual in the information he provides.  He’s doing more than entertaining, after all.

Now, do I believe he should be fired for what he said?  No.  His words may have been irresponsible, or merely poorly chosen, but he is free to say these things whether we like it or not.  That’s the beauty of America.  At the same time, he is representing his employer, so they are free to fire him if they want to.  Just as his advertisers are free to keep walking away if they want.  The advertisers who have walked away understand the power of his words as well as anyone, and they don’t want the beliefs reflected in those words to cast a bad light on them.  Rush and other people like him have to be prepared for this kind of reaction, because that’s the responsibility that comes along with his word choices.

Now, he’s since apologized for his words.  Is he sincere?  Or is he bowing to the pressure?  The fact that he went on a three day long rant before backing down suggests an answer, but who knows?  He may actually mean it.  As an entertainer, he pushes the envelope further because he needs to hold an audience.  Sincere or not, he still has to live with the consequences of what he said.

I only hope this mess settles down so we can answer the important questions that have been raised.  We need debate.  We need solutions.  As much fun as it’s been arguing over whether Rush went to far, let’s focus now on what actually matters.