Reply to thread

I think we can agree that there are numerous examples of changing the name of something to make it sound more palatable.  Where the argument falls apart is whey we try to ascribe using semantics to the "other" party, whichever one that is.  It is a political ploy, and the reason it is used so often is that it works.


An "estate tax" might be controversial, but who would vote for a "death tax"?  Regulate lobbyists, and they become something else.  If we're tired of the "war on terror", let's change the name.  (Surely, they could have come up with something better than "overseas contingency operation)  People don't like taxes?  Let's call them "fees" instead.  Plus c'a change, plus c'est la meme chose, (the more things change, the more they stay the same) as the French say, and no, I don't remember how to spell French words very well. 


Using the word "war" for what is actually not a war at all is another example. We not only used to have a war on terror, but we still have a war on drugs, and a war on poverty.  Since the last two have resulted in more drugs and more poverty, I suggest we start a war on common sense.


Back
Top