To follow up on Bill's point.  (There is a political point only if you
care to read my observations in a political way.)

I really like the expression "socialized medicine" with regard to this
debate.  

By any measure of what that means, medicare is socialized medicine.  It
sure is fascinating that, in the debate in the States that we are now
living through, no one seems to be proposing the abolition of access to
this type of "socialized medicine".

Bill, seems to be onto something.  In the States, "socialized" seems to
have become a term to put in front of programs that a person considers
"unAmerican."  I wonder why no one has observed that public libraries
are clearly a socialist institution par excellence:  We are all taxed to
buy books that the community owns; those books are then available to
every member of the community FOR FREE; and everyone pays this tax
whether he or she borrows a single book or not.  No one, to my
knowledge, has proposed eliminating "socialized libraries" (or is that
"socialized reading"?).

I could do the same analysis for public/socialized education.  Many on
this list work in PUBLIC institutions of higher education.  These are
socialist institutions, too.

Oh, well.  For some, "sociialized" is a negative term for only some
kinds of programs/institutions, but not all. This was Bill's point about
language choice.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri (a public/socialized
institution of higher education)


>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 08/23/09 3:44 PM >>>
I would agree that the thread was off-topic (although I find the
potential tie-in with Hawking’s synth-voice intriguing from an academic
perspective). 

 

I think there is, however, room to talk about word-choices on this list,
*if* we can manage to do so without too much political loading. I’ve
long found it curious that, as English-teachers, we feel comfortable
marking off on papers when students confuse “imply” and “infer” (to pick
a common example), but we don’t (or at least, usually don’t) feel the
same freedom to remark on doublespeak. I would view “pre-owned” for
“used” to be at least as bad as “imply” for “infer,” and potentially
worse, since it’s designed to manipulate the audience in a manner I
consider unethical. Since *all* political groups, regardless of
position, tend to use doublespeak, politics is a constant source of
examples.  

 

I’d like to think that students who become highly aware of word choice
will be in a better position to push back against doublespeak when it’s
used on them, regardless of who’s using it, so I try to include units on
it in my classes. I also try to collect examples from a range of
political positions, though, so no one will feel his/her position is
being unduly targeted. No matter who writes the bill, if it’s called
“The Happiness and Peace Act,” it’s probably horrific. 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University
 
 
Scott wrote:

While I support free speech and abhor Socialized medicine, I see no 
reason to debate what I like or dislike in a site devoted to Teachers 
of English Grammar beyond discussing the language used. I oppose 
Obama and his politics. So what? I make my comments on sites related 
to politics--not to grammar. An objection to the term 'death panel' 
does not justify a long excursion into Socialist politics or Libertarian

counterpoints. I will not reply to Professor Wright or defend Professor 
Yates because this venue is inappropriate for such a discussion. 

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD 
Professor Emeritus 
history & languages 

 
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:41:57 +0100 
From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> 
Subject: Re: Bob Yates remarks about the NHS 

> Colleagues, 

I don't know whether I am the only British contributor, but I feel I
have to 
respond to Bob Yates's comment about our National Health Service. I hope

you will excuse me making such a response in this milieu but I wshow Bob, as a pro-Obama citizen, that things are not as bad as Fox News
may 
have led him to fear. 

These opponents of a health service have probably got their gothic
accounts 
of a 'death panel' from the existence of the committee which judges on 
whether the latest drugs can be made available to all hospitals. It is 
obvious that some new, specialized, and hideously expensive drug cannot
be 
immediately made freely available to all hospitals because that would
mean 
that money for other patients would be unfairly restricted. Over here we

are prepared to recognize that, under a free service which ministers to
all 
as British citizens irrespective of their economic status, a measure of 
justice must prevail. To describe this committee as a 'death panel' is a

gross insult, one which ignores the underlying patriotic fairness of its

purpose. Remember that we do not have 46 million people without
insurance! 
No one is going to become bankrupt -- or even die -- here because they
have 
a chronic disease and have exhausted their private insurance. Yes, it
may 
be true that over here some one does die six months earlier than they
might 
have done had they had the hideously expensive drug, but a hundred other

patients would have suffered as a result. There is a moral issue here, a

real problem, that this Foxy propaganda is encouraging you to ignore. 

As Bob suggests, it seems a great deal of mischievous misinformation is 
being peddled over there about our NHS in an endeavour to frighten
voters 
off. I have had on a number of occasions to call upon the help of our 
health service, and all of them have been prompt, excellent, and, of
course, 
utterly free, both at the level of visits to the local doctor and to the

Addenbrooke's Hospital at Cambridge (which has an international
reputation 
-- and is now hugely expanding its cancer research facility). I had a
touch 
of food poisoning lately (having kept something in the freezer too
long!) 
and was treated (with rapid results) within an hour when I turned up 
unannounced at the hospital's Accident and Emergency department. Ten
years 
ago, my wife was treated at this hospital for her terminal cancer, and 
received close and concerned attention throughout. Since then, I have
been 
supporting the Oncology department and the Palliative Care department --
I 
include the latter because the people in that department gave her
unstinting 
care and sympathy. Charitable assistance is still given to this national

institution! I am off to a lecture, banquet and entertainment evening
next 
month arranged for supporters of the hospital -- Sir David Frost is the 
speaker. 

Yours, 

Edmond 

Dr. Edmond Wright 
3 Boathouse Court 
Trafalgar Road 
Cambridge 
CB4 1DU 
England 

Email: [log in to unmask] 
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ 
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 




 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/