Words can change facts. Uh...maybe. Okay, no--but they can convince voters that things are fine!
Facts are facts. Does anyone believe that simply speaking words that contradict facts can change those facts?
Western politicians either believe that, or want you to think it's true.
One current example (out of many possible choices!) is the so-called "truce" between Ukraine and Russian-backed "rebels." The EU and the emperor's team were oh-so-breathless in having negotiated this "truce"--which lasted about ten minutes. The short life was due to the fact that Putin has absolutely no interest in ending the fight, since it so powerfully serves his own interests, and there is no risk to him in continuing to do so.
Everyone with an IQ above room temp could--and many did--predict the result that indeed happened. But to hear the EU and Obozo pols squawk, they really really did a great thing.
Except it changed nothing. Words don’t change facts, even though politicians act as if they do. The fact is that Putin is winning and is not about to stop punching simply because the Europeans have rung the bell. He’s going for a knockout, stomping on his foe lying on the canvas. The political problem for the West is how to keep calling it a truce.
Having lost on the battlefield against the far better-supplied rebels, Ukraine now will appeal for the EU to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to order the rebels to stop firing. But there is no pressure European leaders can bring to bear on Putin. Oh wait, they can impose travel bans on a dozen Russian officials.
Laughable. Ludicrous. One has a hard time imagining a stronger proof of powerlessness. And Putin reads this correctly.
According to Reuters the “rebels” have turned back European monitors trying to reach a pocket where 8,000 Ukrainian troops are surrounded. It's clear why: The monitors would be able to verify continued Russian supply and rebel firing.
But never fear, citizen: The right words, spoken by Special Leaders, can change any silly "fact" thingies.
For example, the Obama administration refuses to describe ISIS as being religiously motivated. Much more soothing to just call them ordinary folks; random guys, whose only reason for turning to terror is because they can't find good union jobs. Call them anything but who they are.
But in fairness to both the Obama administration and the Franco-Germans, their spokesmen are torturing the language for a reason. They are doing it to maintain a facade as long as they are able; to avoid the use of terms that, if uttered, might be interpreted as suggesting the need for action. Certain phrases, once officially spoken, would make even the dumbest voter sit up and realize that something was wrong.
Solution? Avoid the words and you avoid admitting the actual situation, which then allows them to avoid taking effective action.
Charles Krauthammer summed it up: “Churchill saved England because in 1940 he was able to enlist the English language, and he put it to work on behalf of civilization. What this administration is doing is precisely the opposite."
Western politicians either believe that, or want you to think it's true.
One current example (out of many possible choices!) is the so-called "truce" between Ukraine and Russian-backed "rebels." The EU and the emperor's team were oh-so-breathless in having negotiated this "truce"--which lasted about ten minutes. The short life was due to the fact that Putin has absolutely no interest in ending the fight, since it so powerfully serves his own interests, and there is no risk to him in continuing to do so.
Everyone with an IQ above room temp could--and many did--predict the result that indeed happened. But to hear the EU and Obozo pols squawk, they really really did a great thing.
Except it changed nothing. Words don’t change facts, even though politicians act as if they do. The fact is that Putin is winning and is not about to stop punching simply because the Europeans have rung the bell. He’s going for a knockout, stomping on his foe lying on the canvas. The political problem for the West is how to keep calling it a truce.
Having lost on the battlefield against the far better-supplied rebels, Ukraine now will appeal for the EU to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to order the rebels to stop firing. But there is no pressure European leaders can bring to bear on Putin. Oh wait, they can impose travel bans on a dozen Russian officials.
Laughable. Ludicrous. One has a hard time imagining a stronger proof of powerlessness. And Putin reads this correctly.
According to Reuters the “rebels” have turned back European monitors trying to reach a pocket where 8,000 Ukrainian troops are surrounded. It's clear why: The monitors would be able to verify continued Russian supply and rebel firing.
But never fear, citizen: The right words, spoken by Special Leaders, can change any silly "fact" thingies.
For example, the Obama administration refuses to describe ISIS as being religiously motivated. Much more soothing to just call them ordinary folks; random guys, whose only reason for turning to terror is because they can't find good union jobs. Call them anything but who they are.
But in fairness to both the Obama administration and the Franco-Germans, their spokesmen are torturing the language for a reason. They are doing it to maintain a facade as long as they are able; to avoid the use of terms that, if uttered, might be interpreted as suggesting the need for action. Certain phrases, once officially spoken, would make even the dumbest voter sit up and realize that something was wrong.
Solution? Avoid the words and you avoid admitting the actual situation, which then allows them to avoid taking effective action.
Charles Krauthammer summed it up: “Churchill saved England because in 1940 he was able to enlist the English language, and he put it to work on behalf of civilization. What this administration is doing is precisely the opposite."
posted by SF at
1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home