POLITICAL EUPHEMISMS and other double talk: by Sanity Clause, 11-27-97

Definitions: eu·phe·mism, n. [<Gr. <eu- good + pheme, voice < to speak], 1. the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distasteful or offensive, than another. 2. a word or phrase so substituted (e.g., remains for corpse). WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD EDITION. hu·bris, n, [Gr. hybris.]wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or from passion. WEBSTER'S UNABRIDGED. in·ter·pret, v.t.; [ME. interpreten; Ofr. interpreter; L. interpretari, to explain, expound, from interpres (-etis), an agent between two parties, a broker, negotiator, interpreter.] WEBSTER'S UNABRIDGED. spoz·'ta, Contraction of supposed to. Sanity's personal Lexicon.

My musings, to some, seem like just so much dicta, until they are considered. I think this is why my web-site was donated to me by my friends unbidden. My friends said, "By the way, you're a web site."

The sovereign people of the United States of America have to start thinking about their servant government, and how to regulate it. Merely voting is not sufficient to overcome bad government.

Gravity isn't just a good idea somebody had, it's the LAW; our constitutions on the other hand being written expressions of the government the Framers wished, are only ideas on paper. The former is a description of natural law (is), the latter a prescription for a condition wanted (spoz'ta be).

Language is a convention whose use is as much art as science. I enjoy a well-turned phrase as much as the next guy, what I am venting spleen about here is the use of language for obfuscation.

"This is the greatest country in the world!" (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar) when exclaimed by anyone who has not visited or at least studied all of the rest of the countries to me just sounds stupid.

"The courts have exclusive authority to interpret the law." Oh really? Authority for the existence of government flows from the sovereign people, like the constitutions say it does; so, saying what the law is, is spoz'ta be the people's right, as spoken through their elected legislature. Where did the government get the idea courts have an authority for which there is no express grant from their sovereign? Out of thin air!!

"Today the Whitehouse said-" is one of my favorite euphemisms. Offices can not speak, only officers can. The Disney Studios have not visited their audioanimatronics upon the Whitehouse to put a big rubber mouth on it! So what does it really mean to say, "Today the Whitehouse said-"? NOTHING. The same goes for all of the phrases used by today's media which say that any office did something. Officers can take or fail to take action, and might, if we had an honest government, be held to account by their sovereign. Saying that their office was responsible; however, really means no person is responsible or accountable.

In his letter to Creighton (April 3, 1887) in which the now famous and often quoted "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." first appeared, Lord ACTON also wrote, "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means." Think about it: Saying office while not naming which officer acted accomplishes a sanctification. But "This is the greatest country in the world!" after all; therefore all our public officials must be OK, right? This is not faulty reasoning or reasoning at all, it is misplaced faith; governments are not in the truth business.

"You're spoz'ta trust the government." is ridiculous. Government in a free country is itself a ministerial special trust. Officers are the sovereign's trustees. Just because one is entrusted does not mean he or she is trustworthy, as it is only after the bestowal of trust that it may be seen whether or not it is upheld, or, put another way, office does not sanctify officer. With voting as the sole control iniquity continues until an election is held.

My all time winner is, "prosecutorial discretion." Prosecutorial discretion, in Missouri, is the brain child of John Ashcroft, who, as Attorney General, promulgated the opinion that a prosecutor could act to render what for all intents and purposes are judicial determinations of the viability of cases. This executively legislated dicta has taken root and borne bitter fruit indeed. Now in Missouri prosecutors routinely deny victims not only their day in court, but even access to grand juries. Justice is now just-us, across the board. Without an in to the good-ol'-boy-club you can not even get an appointment for an interview with a prosecuting attorney to complain about first class felonies! This is autocratic whimsy not discretion in any way shape or form. This euphemism is "less distasteful" only to tyrants! Missouri's Appellate Courts have said such discretion is "absolute." So now "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the operative phrase because government can no longer be regulated.

That's right boys and girls, I confess, this is an "us versus them" rant. "We, the people" either have a constitutional servant government or we do not. This is as black and white as an issue can be.

I have a euphemism I'll use here, it is manure. It a crock of manure for so-called public servants to deliberately ignore the checks and balances of our constitutions and still say they are upholding them.

The two historical remedies for this infamy are revolution and civil disobedience. I have practiced the latter for over twenty years now and shall continue in Peace so to do. CAVEAT TYRANUS! (Tyrants beware!)