The recent huge amount of snows, all across the U.S., has led people to again question global warming, according to this article by Clarence Page.

However, what I found interesting is that he says experts increasingly prefer the term climate change to the "politically loaded" term global warming. I agree that global warming is a loaded term, and it makes people think that climate change is the same as weather change. If you have one cold day or a huge snow storm, people say, "I wonder what happened to 'global warming'."

I wonder how long it takes to change terms like that. I remember a long time ago when people against abortion for anyone, in any circumstance, held "anti-abortion" beliefs; those who favored women making the choice about their bodies held "pro-abortion" beliefs. Of course, the latter phrase was soon dumped for "pro-choice" because it gave the impression that people actually wanted abortions. However, it took awhile, and there are still some neo-conservatives who call them "pro-abortion" believers. What other terms that have been changed to be more politically correct?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Liberal has been framed as being lunatic fringe by the radio blowhards; Conservative has been framed as being Pro-god, guns, and unbridled environmental and financial rape, though they put it in terms of "individual freedom and patriotism." The "conserve" part has been swept away in a tide of meaning manipulation.

Those who control the vocabulary of the argument (framing in George Lakoff's terminology) to some extent have already won the argument. Even the Tea Baggers have had to change their name to Tea Partiers. Political correctness, a term that originated on the left, has now been co-opted by the right. Ah, well.

I surely don't remember our (the U.S.) being so politically dichotomous as we are now, but you are right, Geoff about the framing of liberals and conservatives. And it just doesn't make sense. We all have different views, depending on our individual perspectives. I, for example, had kids in a school where a lunatic came in and shot second graders. Therefore, I am anti-gun, which does hold for the liberals. On the other hand, I sent one of my kids to a private high school because that was the best choice for him. Therefore, I am very much pro-vouchers for schools and therefore could be framed as a conservative. Because of life experiences, everyone has his/her individual views, and we can't be categorized as one way or the other, politically. But we are.

I surely don't remember our (the U.S.) being so politically dichotomous as we are now

I realize it's before your time, but you should read about the Federalists and the Democrats during the first few presidencies n the USA. also, how the newly formed Republican party caused the Civil War in 1860. But seriously, this dichotomy is built into our system of using an electoral college rather than a direct vote.

Of course, I meant my experiences during my lifetime. However, you surely are right about the Civil War times. The dichotomy there was even worse, I am sure...and there are remnants of it still today. Recently I was talking to someone from Texas, and she said her son's teacher taught them that the Civil War was brought on by "Northern aggression." That also shows how history can be translated in different ways in school (or, alternatively, in books).

It depends who writes the history books. Since it's usually the victors then it's their point of view that usually prevails.

Maybe the very much better facilities for communication and record that we are now afforded will change this - but that will be for future generations to discover.

Here at least is one town that won't be PC.

quote:

It depends who writes the history books.

My point exactly...and not just about wars.

quote:

I surely don't remember our (the U.S.) being so politically dichotomous as we are now

There are some interesting articles about this in Time magazine this week. It took me a while to understand some parts of them since the authors kept referring to the "GOP" without anywhere having explained the acronym. I eventually found out that it was slang meaning, amongst other things, the Republican Party - which seems to be the most likely application.

Anyway, one of the conclusions made was that, whilst the American populace are not so divided as they have been at some times in the past, the political parties are. Which means that the opposition spend most of their time ensuring that legislation is not passed, regardless of its merits - which are discussed only in emotive terms. I was amazed to learn that, in 2009, 80% of legislative proposals were delayed by Republican filibustering, which technique was once used only as a tool of last resort.

It can't be good for any country for its rulers to be so much at loggerheads that nothing ever gets done. Just about every piece of legislation ever proposed will have its pros and cons, but it is the job of legislatures to debate and agree, not to use every device at their disposal to ensure that "the opposition's" legislative proposals can never be enacted.

Interestingly, one suggestion made by the authors that would help with this kind of political log-jam was for the establishment of a powerful third political party - although they commented that the Tea Baggers did not presently seem to be candidates for that role, since they are simply anti-Goverment, rather than pro-anything.

As you are probably all aware we are in the run up to our election here in the UK. One thing that I find endlessly amusing, in a sad and cynical kind of way, is that here, though our parties bleat on endlessly about how different they are, in fact they are really quite similar nowadays. That's not the most amusing part. After the election, whoever wins they become implacable enemies. Whatever the incumbent Government does the Opposition will tear it to shreds on every conceivable grounds, even if it is exactly the same policy that they themselves proposed during the election campaign.
It seems to be an iron clad rule that the Opposition must criticise the Government no matter what they do.

OK. I'll go take off my Cynics'R'Us T-shirt now.

GOP stands for Grand Old Party, the Republicans.

quote:

It seems to be an iron clad rule that the Opposition must criticise the Government no matter what they do

Unless they're taking the country into a pointless, expensive and unwinnable war, of course.

To their credit, several MPs from all three main parties have spoken against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the official party lines were, as you indicate, alarmingly similar.

quote:

One thing that I find endlessly amusing, in a sad and cynical kind of way, is that here, though our parties bleat on endlessly about how different they are, in fact they are really quite similar nowadays. That's not the most amusing part. After the election, whoever wins they become implacable enemies. Whatever the incumbent Government does the Opposition will tear it to shreds on every conceivable grounds, even if it is exactly the same policy that they themselves proposed during the election campaign.
It seems to be an iron clad rule that the Opposition must criticise the Government no matter what they do.

Bob, are you sure you don't live in the U.S.?

I suspect that it's a universal trait of modern democracy.