The Thing that disturbs me
This morning on the radio I heard the following, each on different stations:
"It’s not a Democrat thing, it’s not a Republican thing—it’s a government thing."
"You’ve heard about that supply-and-demand thing."
The first was from a man raging about the national budget deficit; the second was from a man talking about oil. This language is imprecise and ineffective. Now, I don’t sit around with an arrogant spoon up my ass, intending to critique the way people use language. (And I know I'm not a perfect speaker either, ok.) I just happened to notice this, particularly because the two instances came one after another as I was turning the radio dial. It’s no wonder many people don’t understand politics, economics, etc., of the nation, of the world in any substantial detail.
What, precisely, is not a Democrat thing? What is this thing? Is it something to be worried about? Is it something to rejoice about? Is it a way of dress, an emotional outpouring? And this supply-and-demand thing—is it a problem, an accomplishment, or just a situation without direction of any sort attached to it?
Perhaps these speakers know, perhaps they don’t. Probably someone at the head of the line has some idea, but how is a newcomer supposed to have any idea what kind of thing this thing is? And how are the children of the newcomers supposed to come to understand these "things" within any clear framework? It’s one thing to reconfigure a language for layman, or to explain a thing to kids, but just plain dumbing it down into vague generality brings everyone down. The clear specific thing behind the general thing dissolves. There is an unfortunate ignorance pervasive among young people, ignorance rooted in this sort of generalization of terms, which seeps exponentially down the lines. I witnessed at least a sample of it when I was teaching freshman composition at a community college.
"It’s not a Democrat thing, it’s not a Republican thing—it’s a government thing."
"You’ve heard about that supply-and-demand thing."
The first was from a man raging about the national budget deficit; the second was from a man talking about oil. This language is imprecise and ineffective. Now, I don’t sit around with an arrogant spoon up my ass, intending to critique the way people use language. (And I know I'm not a perfect speaker either, ok.) I just happened to notice this, particularly because the two instances came one after another as I was turning the radio dial. It’s no wonder many people don’t understand politics, economics, etc., of the nation, of the world in any substantial detail.
What, precisely, is not a Democrat thing? What is this thing? Is it something to be worried about? Is it something to rejoice about? Is it a way of dress, an emotional outpouring? And this supply-and-demand thing—is it a problem, an accomplishment, or just a situation without direction of any sort attached to it?
Perhaps these speakers know, perhaps they don’t. Probably someone at the head of the line has some idea, but how is a newcomer supposed to have any idea what kind of thing this thing is? And how are the children of the newcomers supposed to come to understand these "things" within any clear framework? It’s one thing to reconfigure a language for layman, or to explain a thing to kids, but just plain dumbing it down into vague generality brings everyone down. The clear specific thing behind the general thing dissolves. There is an unfortunate ignorance pervasive among young people, ignorance rooted in this sort of generalization of terms, which seeps exponentially down the lines. I witnessed at least a sample of it when I was teaching freshman composition at a community college.
2 Comments:
Right. Fairy tale ideology. Now I'm really pissed. Where's my bow and arrow?
Name-brand schools like Yale don't impress much; the hardest part is getting in, right? Especially now after BUSH managed ok there. Most radio hosts preach to the converted and their vagueness flies because the audience knows what will be said anyway. The hosts know and exploit this; there are never more than 3 or 4 main points reiterated ad nauseum in one program. The call-in listeners are often on the loopy side though. Scary since these are the "respected" members of society, all the finance/business/ass-kissing types. Whew, where's my stress-ball??
Post a Comment
<< Home