Definitions and pet peeves
May 29, 2012 | 4 Comments
At times, I am too much of a stickler for the established rules of the English language. I understand that language evolves, but when it does so stupidly, I tend to resist. I’m working on this.
Anyhoo, as much as I’m trying to embrace new and shiny uses of the language, it would help if we could try not to totally obscure the meanings of words in such a way that clarity is lost. A few recent examples from the news:
1. Austerity: Okay, fine, some people don’t like any budget cuts whatsoever, but is it really helpful to suggest that any rollbacks against the ever-bloated federal budget are “austerity” measures. The Tories have brought the budget back in line with the pre-Economic Action Plan! days – you know, back when they were killing Chretien’s surplus at a moderate rather than accelerated pace. Yes, terminating 12 000 public service jobs is going to hurt people (the other 7 200 cuts are coming through attrition), but there are healthy severance packages and in some departments up to 18 months notice being given. This ain’t Greece.
2. Nanny State: Though I am quite pleased that the NDP is finally waking up to the distastefulness of a nanny state, arguing that cutting EI is a nanny state move is pretty incoherent. Well, at least they didn’t say ‘austerity’, I guess.
3. Evangelical vs. evangelical: The capital ‘E’ is important here (sort of like Conservative vs. conservative, Liberal vs. liberal, Gleek vs. gleek… ok, I made that last one up). Many (most?) Christian churches are evangelical. It means to spread the good news (though it needn’t be proselytizing). However, Evangelical churches are a particular strain of Christianity, generally associated with U.S. mega-churches like Mars Hill (though I don’t usually hear Canadian churches adopt the moniker). Talking about evangelical Christians when you mean Evangelical Christians isn’t a huge deal, but it is wrong, and it leads me to believe you don’t have a firm grasp on the topic at hand. I could also bring up Catholic vs. catholic, but I think that ship has sailed.
Comments
4 Responses to “Definitions and pet peeves”
Leave a Reply
May 31st, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
arguing that cutting EI is a nanny state move is pretty incoherent
I suppose we should be grateful they didn’t call it statism. After all, it’s the state doing the cutting back.
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
May 31st, 2012 at 1:43 pm
We’re all libertarians now!
[Reply]
May 31st, 2012 @ 1:56 pm
The thing I’ve noticed is the tendency in some-but not all-conservative circles towards what one could call a “conservative nanny state”, what with the push to introduce restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.
I suppose you could say I’m pro-choice and don’t have a problem with gay marriage, in large part because I think these are areas where the government has no business legislating. I’m baffled by the notion that gun ownership, for instance, is somehow more off-limits to government intervention than a woman’s maternal health choices or people being able to marry whoever they choose. Hence Stephen Harper can be commended for resisting the push by some of his caucus to try and bring these issues back onto the agenda.
But the fact remains that a lot of these Evangelical Christians, particularly in the U.S., don’t seem concerned so much with reducing government influence in peoples’ lives so much as they are being the ones in charge of determining just how the government intervenes in the first place.
[Reply]
June 4th, 2012 @ 10:56 am
As has been noted elsewhere, only some “conservatives” are small government conservatives (from a technical, political-science point-of-view, they are actually classical liberals, but whatever).
The mandating of morality (or the attempt to do so) is not a new phenomena, of course. The first emperor of the Roman Empire – Augustus – introduced laws (with step penalties) that outlawed adultery (he was subsequently obliged to exile his own daughter and grand-daughter for violating the law).
Regardless, creating laws about morality need not be seen as ‘expanding government.’ We have many laws in the criminal code, and these are seldom seen as Big Government. And, of all the ways that the Canadian Conservative government has been attacked over Bill C-10, I haven’t heard it stated that this expands the size of government.
It may be seen as restricting freedom (Bill C-10 creates new penalties for dealing drugs near schools, for instance, which, I guess, limits your freedom to deal drugs where you wish), but restricting freedom doesn’t necessarily equal larger government.
[Reply]