LANGUAGE AND SILENCE

lan·guage

–noun

A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition; any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.

si·lence

–noun

Absence of any sound or noise; the state of being forgotten; concealment; secrecy.

This SoundBite (about the Freedom of Speech) is the nearest, and dearest to my heart, and, to sum, why I wrote Veracity. 'Nuff said - on to the clip.

CENSORSHIP

cen⋅sor⋅ship

The act, process, or practice of censoring; the office or authority of a censor - a person tasked with the examination of books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds; or, (Laura's definition) the suppression of critical thinking by delimiting the facts upon which well-rounded conclusions are able to be reached.

This week's Word Watch is about Censorship as it relates to the Freedom of Religion and why it's so critical to the process of thinking for one's self. Years ago, I was hugely impacted by a brave and important letter published by the American Librarians Association regarding the Patriot Act. A portion of this act made it lawful for government officials to keep tabs on what books American citizens were checking out of their libraries - books such as those on world religions, the study of militia and weaponry, etc. Further, the Patriot Act made resistance by the librarians (if they told patrons to watch their selections, etc.) legally actionable. In other words, librarians could be thrown in jail for letting patrons know. When certain educational material becomes fodder for profiling, said educational materials will be avoided, thereby censoring the field of knowledge from which conclusions about this topic can be drawn. The worst kind of censhorship of the kind we're never aware of. It's not the taking away of books, or even words, we've enjoyed. It's keeping up from being aware of them in the first place. For more about this issue, and its fallout, see American Library Association.

The ALA had this to say about the whole mess: “The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”—from ALA’s Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act.

Check out this week's SoundBite here. This week, it's all about the Freedom of Religion.

MEDIA MONOPOLY

me⋅di⋅a

The means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.

mo·nop·o·ly

Exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action; exclusive possession or control; a commodity controlled by one party.

It’s time, my friends. We are at a crucial tipping point regarding our freedoms. We either empower ourselves and consume our information with a critical mind or we lose everything we once were. Corporations are banking on the idea that our votes, our opinions, and our purchasing preferences, can be bought. We must learn to question everything, to sniff out agenda, to develop a hunger for truth that cannot be sated with hate. If we arm ourselves diligently, we just might make it. We’re at terrible risk of losing our country to the highest bidder. Let me explain why.

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act banning the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Since 1947, corporations have been banned from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates. Why? Because, without these restrictions, it’s a free-for-all of special interests. A town-square armageddon.

Big business has an unprecedented opportunity to ‘purchase’ legislation amenable to their needs. How does such a purchase occur? See the following examples.

Regular, old cash gets product kind of purchase:

$ -> ITEM PURCHASED

Corporation buys seats kind of purchase:

$$$$ -> PURCHASE OF ALL TV SPOTS BETWEEN 9AM-9PM ON EVERY CHANNEL -> INFLUENCE WATCHING VOTERS -> GET VOTES FOR PREFERRED CANDIDATE -> CORPORATE ASS IN GOVERNMENT SEAT, AS PLANNED.

Thing is, monopolies are prohibited in the physical marketplace, so why not here? Why not prohibit this less tangible, far scarier monopoly regarding the distribution of information? This is a monopoly of power. A monopoly that seeks to prejudice the mind. Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s say Atticus Finch would like to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. Unless he’s willing to get in the back pocket of a corporation, there’s no way he’ll have enough money to even get his name heard. The voters will never even know about Atticus Finch because the airwaves will be jam-packed with support for Big Corporation’s Candidate X. Poor Mr. Finch will be knocked out of contention before the race has even begun.

With this new interpretation, there is no more room for the average, or even the wealthy, non-corporation sponsored American in government. It’s just officially been priced out of the everyman’s reach.

The Supreme Court has decided that, for the purpose of buying a country’s enthusiasm, corporations have the same rights as individuals. So let’s see how The Declaration of Independence sounds with this new interpretation:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all CORPORATIONS are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among CORPORATIONS, deriving their just powers from the consent of the CORPORATIONS, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the CORPORATIONS to alter or to abolish it...”

I say if corporations are actually going to be considered citizens, how about we treat them as such, starting with getting rid of all those tax cuts? And what might this mean for those corporations existing beyond our country’s borders? We’re so worried about holding that line between us and Mexico, but what’s going to happen when some other country purchases a candidate? A seat in Congress, or the White House?

Here are some very prescient thoughts about this. The first, from President Obama: "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And here’s a bit of the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

It’s hard to make the right decisions when we’re given only biased information. When we’re led to certain conclusions from which the media purchaser benefits. How will you know who to vote for? How will you know when something is true or false? And what if this logic is applied to all media? What goes next? The sale of the world wide web? Classroom education? There is a terrifying precedent being set here and that is this - your access to unbiased truth has been vastly diminished. And if this theft is allowed, the next theft will be greater and more broad because we have allowed the first. The Supreme Court has pushed us onto that slippery slope. Where we go now is up to each and every one of us. We have to put on the cleats of critical thinking, go out there and kick some cognitive ass.

Our poor Founding Fathers. They must be turning over in their graves.

FREEDOM

For the next few weeks, I'm going to change up formats a bit. As Veracity appears on shelves this coming Tuesday - and there are all sorts of things to be done for that - I'm switching from the written word to the spoken one. So, after a definition of some ubiquitous word from which we've strayed, you'll find a link to a youtube page. That page will contain a five minute radio program called Sound Bite that me and a girlfriend created years ago for local media. Here's a little back story to set the mood.

It was 2004. The Patriot Act had come and passed, taking with it a few of our constitutional rights. I'd just had twin daughters and my friend Christy, a singleton (also a girl). We were tired, frazzled, and feeling the need to do have some kind of immediate effect on the world so we marched down to our local Independent Media Center and learned how to use the recording and editing equipment. We then went out and bought a copy of The Idiot's Guide to the American Government and created seventeen episodes of Sound Bite, a five-minute program designed to inspire educated citizenship. We originally created seventeen but only fourteen Sound Bites made it from Illinois to Virginia. The production quality is grassroots at best and our children often appear on the soundtrack to provide unintentional color. But it's one of my proudest accomplishments and I hope it's something you'll not just learn from, but enjoy.

free·dom

\ˈfrē-dəm\

1 : the quality or state of being free, as in the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.
2: a political right.

(and if I may add a 3...)

3: something you can't safeguard if you're not aware of having.

AGAINST/AGENDA

***OBJECTIVITY ALERT - TODAY’S WORD WATCH IS ABSOLUTELY TARNISHED BY OUTRAGE, DISAPPOINTMENT, AND AN INABILITY TO BELIEVE RECENT EVENTS CAN AND HAVE HAPPENED IN SUPPOSEDLY INFORMED SOCIETIES***

WEIRD WORD USE OF THE WEEK: AGAINST

Today’s Word Watch is a response to the following suggestions levied (largely) at women regarding the health of their bodies, starting with their breasts:

The USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years.

The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).

If this doesn’t shock you, then let me remind you what the word AGAINST means:

a⋅gainst

- in opposition to; contrary to; adverse or hostile to.

Not only do I find the language of these recommendations bizarre (in addition to what they actually say), I find them combative. I mean we’re not talking about pregnant women smoking or people who have bad hearts riding roller coasters. We’re talking

about women (for the most part) who are trying to keep themselves alive by taking preventative measures against the development of breast cancer. Maybe in the next Word Watch, I’ll examine the words MISOGYNY. MALFEASANCE, and NEGLIGENCE. The recommendations put out by the USPSTF actively petition women to be ADVERSE to or HOSTILE towards those preventative actions that have already saved hundreds of thousands of women the world over, myself included.

This reminds me of that study that was done all those years ago where it was determined that mother’s milk was bad for babies. The very first time I heard that, I thought, “How clever are those guys who make formula, to start this kind of smear campaign against the breast.” Clever, but my God. Is there nothing off limits?

WORDS WE SHOULD GET TO KNOW (AGAIN): AGENDA

a⋅gen⋅da

- a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.

WHY WE SHOULD GET TO KNOW THIS WORD (AGAIN)

I’ve been killing myself trying to figure out why in the world any organization would tell women to not take proactive measures that might save them from cancer, and I just can’t figure it out. I imagine we’ll all be seeing the tender shoots of this thing in the weeks or months to come - the stalks that will lead us back to the roots of this campaign. And I charge each and every one of you to keep your critical thinking skills honed as more comes to light on this caustic bunch of hooey. I’m hoping some other, pissed off people begin to do some digging. Maybe then we’ll figure out why women have been advised to avoid even the most simple and (most bizarrely) FREE test of a self-breast exam. Until then, I’m posting below a letter I wrote this week to the National Breast Cancer Coalition. It pains me greatly that this organization has chosen to side with these ludicrous recommendations.

Dear NBCC,

I am shocked and appalled that the NBCC is wiling to side with any measure that would save even one life. Last year, solely because I'd turned 40 (we have no family history, there was no palpable lump), I got my first 'annual mammogram' and found out I didn't just have breast cancer, but in that cancerous growth, there was an aggressive component. Had I waited until I was fifty...well, who knows if I would have have made it that far. Women are scared to death to go in and have mammograms and I suspect this endorsement is going to cause many women who would have been saved by early detection to not make it to their first annual, age-fifty mammogram. What you recommend does matter because some women consider you a good place to go for sage advice on this topic, and because others, quite frankly, will want something with which to push away examinations that might reveal a lump. A tumor. Cancer of whatever sort.

So has the idea that early detection saves lives gone out the window? Or is it just that NOT ENOUGH WOMEN ARE SAVED by the practices of self-exams and mammograms starting a DECADE earlier than the fifty-year mark? I've heard those words, by the way. NOT ENOUGH WOMEN SAVED. Over and over again, from sources that crush me.

I am hurt to the core that your organization has chosen this path. Citing too much pain and confusion to warrant the efforts, too many false positives, too much expense. Too many women who won't benefit from early detection. Too few who will die as a result of waiting an extra ten years, of not doing those self-breast exams.

By siding with these suggestions, you've lost much of the battle you've spent so much time fighting. Have you never heard of 'precedent'? I've heard multiple commentators remarking on your (and others') response to this. I've heard how 'insignificant' a problem this breast cancer issue must be if those who are fighting FOR this cause concede that all those early mammograms, all those self-exams were not necessary; I've heard that this has given huge advantage to insurance companies clamoring for a way to deny mammograms to women who don't have a family history (like 75% of those who will get breast cancer); I've even heard insinuations as to where else this might lead. What other early prevention methodologies are bogus? What other loopholes might there be through which can be thrown other costly early prevention tests? And most of all, I believe that you've just lost your fight to get legislation passed that will help determine WHY so many women in America are getting breast cancer, and why three-quarters of all new cases have no family history. I can tell you what they'll say next time you bring it to congress: Why would we divert funds to find a cause when it doesn't seem like even you folks think it's worth doing self-breast exams or earlier mammograms?

You've opened a door here. I believe you will find that most of your credibility has walked right through it.

Maybe the truth of what you're doing, consciously nor no, would be brought home to you if you were to have to explain to your daughters, your mothers, your sisters, your friends why you'd suggest to them to wait a decade to get a mammogram. When one in eight women in America will be diagnosed with breast cancer, when 75% of new cases have no family history - maybe you will see the truth reflected in their eyes when you tell them, "Remember all that we said yesterday about early detection, well forget all that. It's not such a big deal. Turns out, those measures don't save enough lives." So what if it saves just one life? That life could be your mother, your daughter, your sister, your friend.

Not enough women saved. Unreal. I'm one of those women who was saved. And, in part, it was by you. But by the old version of you - the one that said, start annual mammograms at age forty. Do breast exams at home.

Sometimes issues have to be more about people and less about numbers. But I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Very truly saddened,

Laura Bynum

SEDUCE

WEIRD WORD USE OF THE WEEK: SEDUCE

I recorded the film Disclosure last night on my Tivo machine and thought a particular word used in the description was a little odd, given the film’s premise. Tivo’s description: “A computer-firm boss seduces her married co-worker...” and so on and so forth. For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, you may have to skip the Weird Word this week. But for those of you who are savvy about this film, seduce doesn’t seem like quite the right term. Here’s a line from Wikipedia’s description of Disclosure: “The film invites viewers to critically examine topics such as the ease with which allegations of sexual harassment can destroy one's career and whether a double standard exists when such allegations are levied by men or women.”

Sexual harassment. Now that’s heavy stuff. And what did Tivo’s description refer to it as?...Seduction?

Maybe the Tivo descriptor was written up by somebody who just hadn’t seen the film. Or maybe the writer didn’t believe a man could actually be sexually harassed by a female. Or maybe they just didn’t really give a damn. It’s a Tivo description, something I’m happy to have on hand so as not to fill my Tivo inbox with a lot of junk I don’t care about, so I’m not really griped too much by the gaffe here. But there is such a thing as a cumulative effect. Maybe little missteps like this one aren’t such big deals when they occur sporadically, and probably, without malice. But they’re still good to notice along the way, and certainly if they start popping up en masse. And, really, sexual harassment is a big, important deal and should never be referred to as seduction. Even when we’re talking about Demi Moore.

WORDS WE SHOULD GET TO KNOW (AGAIN): SPECULATE/NEWS

speculate

Function: verb

1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject; b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

2 : to assume a business risk in hope of gain; to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

Function: transitive verb

1 : to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

2 : to be curious or doubtful about : wonder

news

Function: noun plural but singular in construction

1 a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information c :

something having a specified influence or effect

2 a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy

3: newscast

WHY WE SHOULD GET TO KNOW THESE WORDS (AGAIN)

I believe that most of what we’re consuming as news nowadays is actually Speculative Entertainment, also referred to as opinion-oriented programming. I prefer the term Speculative Entertainment and would like to offer it up as a labeling suggestion. That way, when we’re watching these kinds of news-ish programs, we know it and can go out and get our bona fide news elsewhere.

According to Bill Carter, (CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks, Media Decoder), real news is becoming old hat. Strictly the facts has given way to speculation, exaltation, evisceration - whatever get the juices flowing. Here’s what Carter says of the October 2009 viewer polls: “The results demonstrate once more the apparent preference of viewers for opinion-oriented shows from the news networks in prime time.” And, “ ...CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage.” Scary when one considers that Speculative Entertainment, or opinion-oriented programming, is not subject to regulation research or truth in reporting. Scarier still when one considers what this says about the American public: we’re becoming hate-aholics. Junkies looking for our next hit of outrage. An Us Versus Them brigade where Them is identified ad hoc and according to the will of whatever media mogul or producer stands to benefit.

I’m pro-voice, so don’t believe Speculative Entertainment needs to be stopped. Hey, everybody’s got to make a living somehow. But we’ve got to become more discriminating about what we put in our heads. We need to recognize hate when we see it and leave it on the plate. We need to develop a taste for the mild-mannered and the polite. For that which hath no agenda, no shouting and no prejudice. For that which leaves no bitter aftertaste.

FACT/OPINION/OBJECTIVE

fact \ˈfakt\

Function: noun

A thing done.

The quality of being actual; something that has actual existence.

A piece of information presented as having objective reality.

opin·ion \ə-ˈpin-yən\

Function: noun

A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter: a generally held view.

ob·jec·tive \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

Function: adjective

Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

My name is Laura Bynum. I’m a writer. I have a couple of degrees in Communications, try to listen to the BBC News or NPR at least three times a week. I love Guinness, watching inappropriately scary movies every Sunday morning with my children, and authenticity. I’m getting the definitions I will list at the beginning of each Word Watch primarily from Websters.com or Dicionary.com and will do my damnedest to be objective and keep my personal opinions and political leanings out of things. That’s all you really need to know about me, and not much of it’s pertinent. But now, for what is - the purpose of this weekly blog.

I created Word Watch because we need to get educated about our language diet. Like reading the ingredients list on a package of junk food, we need to know what we’re consuming. How much invective are we getting with each bite? How much news? How many attempts at persuasion are packed into each delicious morsel? Conversely, we need to know what we’re trying to feed others.

Helping to boost awareness is my intention. Raising the flag for the active ingestion of truth. I invite you to follow me as I search out opinions masquerading as facts and words that have been used not because of what they actually mean but because of how they make us feel, need, hate, crave, and the list goes on. There is a brave new world out there, one in which you, the word eater, can have a say in that which you ingest. Below are a few tools that have helped me down this lesser trod path.

Truth. We take in the world in a linear, time-delimited fashion so the question arises: is truth really an instantly observable thing? Something you can consume all at once? One example is how we consume story. With a book, we have to sit down and begin at page one, then go to page two, and so on. We’re not really, one-hundred percent ready to give a full review of that book until we’re at The End. There have been novels I’ve HATED and then on page 474, some mind-altering, revelatory thing happens and it becomes one of my favorites. Same goes for movies.

Then there are perception issues to consider. We might be three dimensional characters, but we see only in two and let our brains make up the difference. For example, here’s a made-up woman named Judy sitting in front of me. I can’t see the back of Judy’s head but I know it’s there because she’s still breathing and has not gone limp. But ask me what the back of Judy’s head looks like and I’m at a loss.

Opinion. A couple of decades ago, I nearly failed an assignment in a journalism class for using too many adjectives. Terrible, leading adjectives like blonde and wavering. I wonder what that professor must think of news as it’s delivered today.

The insertion of opinion into some of our modern news blows my mind. It’s become the rule instead of the exception - something we’ve allowed to happen. Maybe it’s because we got too lazy to demand a more sober and honorable form of journalism. Or maybe it’s because we’d prefer to cherry-pick truth, honing in on whatever keeps us in our comfort zone.

(Though we really shouldn’t need them...) Here are a few questions to consider while consuming news. 1) Are the commentators rolling their eyes? Crying? Screaming? Generally acting enraged? 2) Have they assigned sides, for example, those who are with them and those who are against them? 3) Is what’s being covered really news?

Objective. Right after I had my twin daughters, I decided I needed to know more about what I espoused myself to be. So I read the tomes that defined these descriptors, including The Idiot’s Guide to the American Government and The Bible. Then I went one step further and did research into world religions and political issues. For the first time in my life, I felt able to have an objective discussion about my religious preferences and at least a few political issues. If something smelled of hate or tasted like agenda, I got online and did some research. If I realized I was needing to hear good or bad about some person, place, or thing, I realized I’d fallen off the wagon. Remaining objective, for me, is a constant but important battle.

To sum, complex situations and events can never be fully or rationally described in a ten-second sound bite or a byline but these are the byproducts of living in such a fast-paced, globalized world. Very rarely are we word eaters ever getting the whole enchilada. Opinions are being formed from other opinions. Facts are the products of long observation and voluminous research and, frankly, take a long damned time to get to. So can they ever be communicated effectively or objectively? Probably not. And, even if we decided to put more money into the research components of news organizations, would we take the time to appreciate it? I don’t know. Some day, I like to think so. Until then, what do we do?

I say go ahead and commit to the idea that, yes, Judy does indeed have a back part of her head. But if people start telling you she’s shaved a gang sign into her bob, get up out of your chair and go see for yourself.