![]() Someone in government who was "fired" was actually being "selected out." If there was a need to give money to someone, it was better to "disburse to an individual." What might otherwise be called a "half-truth" was actually a "limited hang-out." "Hush money" was better described as "increments in the form of currency." Even "casing the joint" was justified as a "vulnerability and feasibility study." A "cover-up" was a way of "containing the situation." A death was renamed "terminal event." "Destroying evidence" was considered a "shredding activity." The term "break-in" was referred to in the Senate Watergate hearings as an "entry operation," and the term "burglary" was a "surreptitious entry." Using terms that have not already acquired a connotation in society makes it possible for the government to justify those activities, maybe on "national security" grounds.Īnother gangster-type word like "alibi" was renamed "deniability," and it suddenly sounded neutral. Some of them can now be applied to the Iran-Contra problem. Looking at the Watergate vocabularly tells us just how many of these insidious words and phrases have been adopted permanently. By the time the average Joe gets the bill, he will not be able to remember which politician is responsible.So the obscurity of speech performs a hidden service. Instead, he outlines various programs of "revenue enhancement." The hope is that this will go over the head of the average guy, who will not realize what is happening until he gets the bill, and the politician, who is trying to be realistic about his job, will not see his political career go down the drain. No politician in his right mind ever talks about taxes anymore, especially if he wants to raise them. If I mention a common term of recent vintage, you may get the message. Whatever else you think about the colossal corruption of Watergate, it taught us how to obscure our speech effectively. share it and wanting to feel like your work means something to others is natural and normal one time when i was feeling down about my lack of engagement on my work at the time somebody (a more popular artist i might add) suggested therapy as though those feelings are wrong so it's been really hard to not feel selfish for wanting people to pay attention to things i do and like.The other night I was watching a television biography of Richard Nixon, and it reminded me of how much he contributed to our political vocabulary. ![]() wanted like my contributions have some importance to someone out there and the number of times i've tried to express this and been told that 'you should create for yourself!' and my counter to this is that if the purpose of creating is purely for oneself then artists and musicians and writers etc etc would just make stuff and be content to lock it away but no we all share shit because we WANT to. ![]() i have spent years YEARS of my life feeling guilty for wanting the work i put into my stuff to be seen to feel. This was hard.” The drive and ambition disappears, then so does the work. When there’s nobody to look at your work and say, “You did a good job. ![]() If you think that way it’s not only toxic as hell it’s killing creators.Ĭreating isn’t easy. I’m not sure when we all got to the point where wanting validation for something you worked hard at is seen as a bad thing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |