Use the Power of Language, Part II

Logo from Boston.com

Earlier today, Laura Walker tweeted a link to a post about forensic analysis of the bombs used at the Boston Marathon:

Excellent, detailed guide to analyzing the remnants of the IEDs used in the Boston Bombings: http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/examining-improvised-explosive-devices-how-did-boston-bombers-do-it/introduction via @spearheadbroken

People in the media understand how subtle connotations can be used to shape opinion. Laura's tweet hit me today as an example of just that. The phrase “Improvised Explosive Device” and its abbreviation “IED” have become so commonplace that it seems any non-military explosive is designated as such. But is it accurate?

Are we using the word “improvised” to mean “home-built”? Because buying materials and learning methods to build a specific thing is not improvisation. In fact, the word “improvise” comes from a word that literally means “unforeseen”. Was McVeigh’s and Nichols’ truck bomb improvised? The materials they used were not designed to be an explosive, but they purchased those materials expressly to make an explosive. Hardly unforeseen. Acquiring skill and materials with intent to perform a specific action is not improvisation.

To me, this means that the term “Improvised Explosive Device” was invented, or at least more broadly applied, in order to disguise the fact that terrorist groups are at work. “Oh, he’s no terrorist! He just became angry at the US and threw together a little fireworks to express himself.”

Of course, the quick acceptance of the term may have had more to do with the catchy abbreviation and disregard for the actual meaning of the words, and no sinister plotting was involved. In fact, a variation on a theme admonishes us never to ascribe to malice what may be explained by mere stupidity. Ah, well, I guess I just wanted to rant.

A Symptom of the Problem

The Nevada Assembly passed Tuesday, and sent to the Senate (who sent to committee on Wednesday), a bill requiring a “cooling-off” period between the time a State Legislator leaves office and the time said former legislator becomes a paid lobbyist.

It passed the Assembly 40-1 with 1 vacant seat.

As I tweeted last night, I oppose this measure on principle. The chief principle being, that if our legislators had principles, lobbyists would never exist.

I’ve written before (although I can’t find it now) that the way our Republic ideally should work is that each candidate should say, essentially, either “I want the Government to take care of you,” or “I want the Government to leave you alone.” Then the elected representatives would stick to that principle on all proposed laws and policies. Rather than a representative saying “you sent me here, what should I do?” they’d say “you sent me here to do this, and that is what I’ll do.” Therefore, lobbying would be ineffective.

Idealism aside, I oppose the idea of a “cooling-off” period. Either the practice should be banned outright, or it should be unrestricted. It is illogical to have people wait a few months. It is even more illogical to make exceptions such as those included in Amendment No. 565 (which partially appears as Subsection 2 of Section 1 of the bill as passed by the Assembly).

I was going to conclude with a comment about sending this post to my State Senator, but realized that was against my principles. HA!

To Win the Heart

“Angel and devil” by Dreamambul

 The great Professor Mondo today has highlighted an article discussing how science is treated through moral filters on both the right and the left (perhaps among other things). The Professor’s conclusion is that in the left-right battle, each side is trying to impose its morality on the other (or on everyone).

One of the quotes within the quoted article has a leftist writer advocating policy to “minimize risk”. My takeaway from the paragraph was that to leftists, it is immoral to expose individuals to the risk of the consequences of their own actions. To me, it is immoral not to do so.