Calling It What It Is (Mary Lyon)

[Tace]

By Mary Lyon, From The Left -- World News Trust

Nov. 28, 2006 -- It’s almost like a latter-day Declaration of Independence with a nice, clear, round period now coming at the end of the sentence. What a month this November has been! First, the Good Guys trounced the republi-CONS in an avalanche of votes too large for the GOP and its Diebold demons to steal. The Democrats have taken back both Houses of Congress. And now, FINALLY, we’re also starting to take back the language of the debate. The line was crossed by NBC and its sister network MSNBC, with the executive edict causing a seismic stir throughout the newsroom: Iraq is INDEED in the throes of civil war, and that’s what we’re going to call it.

Why was this so unmentionable for so long? Well, maybe I shouldn’t ask that with a straight face. I think most of us know the answer.

I’m no expert in military affairs or the waging of war. I’ve never been a soldier, I’ve neither ever seen combat nor worn my country’s uniform in peacetime. The closest I’ve come is whenever I look at an old photo of my dad during World War II, dressed up in his Air Force duds. My husband’s disability spared him from Vietnam. My kids already know the answer to “What did you do during the war, Mommy?” I served proudly under a series of protest signs -– as did they, several times, at my side. All I know is what I read in the newspapers and more extensively, online. And with what little civilian understanding I bring to the table, it sure as hell looks like civil war to me. Has for a long time.

This has been, quite literally, a war of words. And unlike with Iraq itself, in which we’re repeatedly told we’re winning, that freedom is on the march, the enemy’s in its “last throes,” that nobody’s hearing all the “good stuff” we’re doing over there, and that mission’s been accomplished, it’s now official at least to some in the media. We’ve turned the corner on the conflict here at home alright, and we’re finally winning the war of words. Truth will out, and it’s finally happening here. It’s a kind of liberation that fans of George –- Orwell, that is, NOT Bush –- can rightfully celebrate. How things are labeled and referred to, how they’re constantly spun for public consumption, dictates how they’re perceived, and the GOP has known this for almost three decades.

It goes beyond the embarrassment of “freedom fries” to more systemic verbal gaffes and gamesmanship. That’s why dissent has morphed into treason, why extreme social stingey-ness is more commonly known as tax relief, and Bible-based “creation science” has insinuated itself into the study of evolution. A “Clear Skies Initiative” legally guts clean air standards; our troops -– living, breathing (well, at least, for the time being), and valuable as individual human beings -- are mere “fungible assets,” and now, of course, hunger is “food insecurity.” And torture is whatever the White House says it is, depending on the mood du jour. Antics with semantics is what allowed the republi-CONS to convince the gullible and trusting that they were for smaller government, with the adults back in charge, while they’ve been exploding the size and costs of everything in Washington like a swarm of unruly children with unlimited access to Daddy’s liquor cabinet and the keys to his car. Those of us with our pathetic little “reality-based” world were merely to be sneered at, vilified, marginalized, and trampled over.

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=665&Itemid=1

[calimary]

1. Yay! It's up! Thanks Tace!

:hi:

[Tace]

2. "Those of us with our pathetic little 'reality-based' world"

That line really strikes home.

[dchill]

3. "our pathetic little 'reality-based' world"

...must be in its "last throes."
;)

[calimary]

4. Thanks! Sure feels like that's how the bad guys see it.

As they arrogantly dismiss us. Well, that appears to be ending, folks.

[calimary]

8. I'm still burning over that smug, arrogant little put-down some five-odd

years ago.

Who do you suppose said it? rove maybe?

[DemReadingDU]

25. Reality is a demanding mother

Right on Mary Lyon, excellent article you have written!


my subject line is from this article...
10/10/06 It's a Small Reality-based World After All
Robert J. Elisberg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/its-a-small-realitybase_b_31382.html

[calimary]

27. I went there and I found this:

"You can create your own reality, but reality will always send you crashing deep into the vortex. If, in your own created-reality, you can walk off the edge of a cliff because you've constructed an invisible, magical bridge, that's fine - but the moment you actually step off that ledge, reality will hurl you to the bottom of the hellish pit. And that is precisely what's happened to the neocons now."

Gawd - the whole commentary is full of gems like this one! GREAT find! Thanks for the link! Yeah, neocons. Yeah, rove. Seems there's quite a bunch of us who see things for how they are.

I kept that passage from the Ron Suskind reference in the link:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
A senior adviser to Bush, as quoted by RON SUSKIND.

There's another quote here somewhere... um... let's see...

Ah - HERE: "Pride goeth before a fall."

[nam78_two]

5. K&R/nt

[calimary]

22. Appreciate it much!

:thumbsup:

[puebloknot]

6. K&R Wonderful! And speaking of George Orwell...

George Orwell, 1984:

"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

[calimary]

7. Do you remember the "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode in which

Picard was tortured and coerced to say he saw five lights? And he never broke. He remained steadfast through the entire ordeal/episode that he saw FOUR lights. I think I recall Will Pitt writing a column of his own at one point, and using that example in his title. "I See Four Lights." Might still be available at Truthout.

This is just so Orwellian now that I'm continually stunned. My husband grouses about it all the time - even wrote to Olbermann about it, and shortly after he sent his email about it, Keith happened to make an Orwell reference on one of his shows. My husband went around the house strutting for a week after that.

[puebloknot]

11. Vaguely remember that.

I'll look up Will Pitt's article.

Olbermann is a good portal for us all to get the word about to the big world. And we *all* need to out-strut Dubya! :)

[DemReadingDU]

24. William Pitt - I See Four Lights

10/16/02

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.17A.wrp.4.lights.htm

[ClassWarrior]

9. The War of the Words...

Nice job, word woman!

The only thing I'd add is Lakoff's caution that - tho it's accurate to call the local conflict a "civil war" - the US involvement is an occupation:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/occupation/view?searchterm=Iraq

In fact, I only refer to it as the Iraq Occupation anymore.

Visualize. Then DO.

NGU.

[calimary]

10. As usual, Lakoff makes a good point.

Had a friend, out of the blue, send an email around a few days ago talking about this fabulous book she just discovered that she insists should be on everybody's "must read" list. It's Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant."

[ClassWarrior]

12. Did you tell her about the new one from Rockridge?

"Thinking Points?"

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints

NGU.

[calimary]

23. Cool! Good plug.

Lakoff just absolutely ROCKS!

:yourock:

[AdHocSolver]

13. The purpose of not calling Iraq a civil war is not what you think.

Denial isn't the reason for refusing to admit Iraq is in a civil war. The real reason is to cover up the fact that civil war in Iraq is really Bush/Cheney's plan B. The invasion was begun to secure the Iraqi oil fields to prevent Iraq from selling oil outside of OPEC control which Saddam was planning to do. Saddam was working to circumvent the embargo on Iraq, which would increase the world's oil supply and reduce oil prices and therefore OPEC and U.S. oil company profits. Bush/Cheney plan A was to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and put a U.S.-friendly puppet government in place which would sign agreements with the U.S. giving our oil companies full control over Iraq's oil production. In fact, these contracts were recently signed. However, the puppet government in Iraq is so weak, it cannot control the country. Yet this is still not a problem for the U.S., since the purpose is not to pump oil, but to prevent the pumping of oil so as to reduce supply as world demand increases. This allows the oil companies and OPEC to control and fine-tune oil prices to their benefit.

So where does plan B come in. Since the U.S. has its oil contracts, and the U.S. military controls the oil fields, the Iraqis can kill each other off as much as they want and it won't affect the price of oil through increased production. The U.S. need only keep enough troops in Iraq to secure the oil fields and the rest of the country can go to... do whatever it wants. In fact, if the Iraqis fight each other, then they won't get together to reclaim their oil fields. The Republicans don't want people to figure out what is really going on so, like every good magician, they draw your attention over there while they are pulling the rabbit out of the hat over here.

By the way, the best first step to get the U.S. out of Iraq is to first get Halliburton and the other private military contractors out of Iraq. They control the war and nothing will change until they leave. Congress should cancel and unfund their contracts and put full control back into U.S. military hands. This would not be abandoning our troops. It would be helping them.

[calimary]

14. Welcome to DU! Yet another good point.

As I said at the end, it's just really pathetic that this is the best we can do about this utter horror at the moment. Adjust the terminology - "undoublespeak" it. Then again, our moms always did want us to clean up our language anyway, didn't they?

[calimary]

17. Looking back over your post, you reminded me of something.

Not only is this a worthy point, but do I remember correctly that Saddam was also considering switching over to oil sales in euros instead of the dollar? We couldn't have that, either, now could we?

Of course it was the oil. It was always about the oil. I'll bet that once the Dems get subpoena power in the House and start SERIOUSLY probing cheney's secret energy task force meetings (as Henry Waxman has been trying to do all along - now he can do so with teeth), we'll see what's long been suspected - that the oil companies were huddling with cheney over a map of Iraq, carving up the oil fields and making wish lists in the first few months of the bush White House occupancy.

[bobbolink]

29. That's what I remember, also. I think there were some posts about that here.

However, my memory being what it is...

:hi:

[calimary]

30. I've seen it here and there in a LOT of posts.

And elsewhere, too. Probably at some of the other sites like Consortium News and From the Wilderness and what not.

Just off the top of my (pointed little) head.

[bobbolink]

31. Shows ya just how solidly dependable and straightforward our darling media is.

:thumbsdown:

I think I'm used to it, then it hits me with something like this, just what the corporate media has wrought.

No wonder the earth is falling off it's axis... all those poor founders are spinning like tops. :(

[DemReadingDU]

26. It's all about the oil

you said...
"This allows the oil companies and OPEC to control and fine-tune oil prices to their benefit."


I have believed that we aren't in Iraq for the oil to supply us, rather for the Bush administration to control the oil supply to keep prices high which results in big profits for the oil companies.

I imagine the Republicans are not going to like it when Waxman gets the gavel in January and investigates Halliburton.


edit to add Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[newyawker99]

28. Hi AdHocSolver!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DeepModem Mom]

15. One of your best yet! The power of words. K&R

[calimary]

16. Thanks!

Always appreciate your input, DMM.

:hi:

[Erika]

18. Substituting "food insecure" for the hungry was the last straw

Great post. I don't know where we would end up if the rubber stamping bushbots had been left in charge for four more years.

[calimary]

19. Yeah. "Food insecurity." Kinda makes ya wanna barf, doesn't it?

Now THERE'S "compassionate conservatism" for ya. And let's just remember - THAT is OUR face to the world. Still. Every time I think he and his grow can't get any more repulsive, they prove me wrong.

[blue sky at night]

20. Nice post.

well thought out, and I'll bet it took a while to hash out. Doublespeak lives.

[calimary]

21. Thanks - I had this whole other companion compilation - full of quotes, passages,

bits from threads here and other sites around the internets. The whole rough draft with all that raw mateiral covered at least six pages.

I used to work at NBC. Nice to see them leading the way on something worthwhile - as ridiculously overdue as it is. This is a big crack in the facade. It's not quite like they're refusing to drink the Kool-aid anymore. They've just decided, for a change, to set the glass down for awhile. At least it's a beginning.