Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Word is Ringmaster

   This word “ringmaster” is defined as a noun: *the person in charge of performances in a circus ring, or, one in charge of the performances (as of horses) within the ring in a circus. Also referenced: “Ringmaster is the name of two characters in Marvel Comics—*The best known Ringmaster in the Marvel Universe is Maynard Tiboldt who debuted in Hulk #3).”
   “Ringmaster” sets the “circus” pace.
   The tone of “ringmaster” embodies “in charge control”  of the “circus” ring.
   An audience is at the circus for the “performance.”
   This “circus” rolled out by POSTER “ringmasters” has great opposition from “minor performers” chasing STAR status.

The most volatile centuries produced explosive POTUS ringmasters.

   **Andrew Jackson seventh President of the United States from 1829 to 1837 sought to act as direct representative for the common man. ***Some claim seventh POTUS “a rich man who bragged and invited scorn.” Yet seventh POTUS elected for specific performance set the fast pace for change.  Beginning with the Inauguration the “common man” held sway at the White House. Detractors of seventh POTUS cited: trashed premises of the nation’s house: a POTUS out of control.
   Teddy Roosevelt multi-faceted soldier and adventurer on the cusp of the two centuries 18th and 19th cooperated with Hearst “yellow journalist” inspired Spanish American war—the entranced public turned adventurer/soldier to beloved POTUS 24 reformer. And “Hearst” used “fake news” versus Teddy’s  public good reforms.
   In an era replete with diamonds and glitter plus Zigfield’s luscious follies came POTUS 32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt elected by Hearst newspapers.  The dizzying 200 days of POTUS 32 directives turned  ****Hearst” into opposition party” 4-year nemesis aligned with balk turned Congress—spur for furious 32 POTUS “packing” SCOTUS for change result: temporary defeat of 32 POTUS to make change.

In 2017 45th POTUS “ringmaster” embodies all aspects of the noun, and some say include all aspects of a “Marvel” created universe. 

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Corrupted words

What corrupts a word, can a word be corrupted in some sense?

   Corrupted words are used in advertising to micro manage people’s minds in ways that encourage product consumption.
   In politics, words are corrupted all the time, for instance,  the 1964 Johnson’s “Great Society” ushered in a catchy campaign slogan with a political agenda, and did catapult one political party into prominence with certain voters who wanted parity without viable income.

   The chaos of a 21st century in semi-war state elevated the use of corrupted words by journalists who turned political commentary into a cash cow when newspaper circulation plummeted and technology introduced the possibility of a digital answer to mass circulation. 
   Other forms of media needed experienced members of the press to spout on television corrupting words casting innuendo.
   The corrupted words became a subjective description citing the ethical and unethical.

   The words “fair and balanced” illustrate how corrupted words can attach an onus to a certain kind of news.
   How the "word" corruption progressed to the next stage is indicated  by the meaning of the word “fair,” used  as an adjective, *in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate: the adverb, without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage, but the "word" corruption extends if combined with “balanced” is an adjective defined:
1.    keeping or showing a balance; arranged in good proportions
2.    taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented
   The synonyms for “balanced”: fair, equitable, just, unprejudiced, can add more description for negative news stories and articles.
    The same “fair” and “balanced” corrupted words become something much more, as aptly illustrated by a website using the words “Fair and Balanced,” to describe in derogatory terms the cable channel for news and political commentary, versus the political view of the website:
    ** Sep 09, 2015 · "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of Fox "Faux" News. It means that their overall quality is at best fair, and that their "news" is balanced with a strong ... dose of commentary, to make sure the viewer gets the talking points clearly. In reality, Fox News is about as "balanced" as Conservapedia  is "trustworthy".

   Another 21st century word meaning and use evolution: reformatted as adapted negative or positive "corrupted word"—let’s call it an enhancement of the advertising goal:  to better sell the advertiser’s product.

   And there is something else: "negative" word corrupted subjectively.
   In 2016 the powerful journalist press use their freedom from libel: 1st amendment free press clause—with the aim of electing the presidential candidate of their choice, "negative" words “unfit” and “dangerous” are co-opted by the press and TV media for political persuasion.

   All of the above “word corruption” possibilities are from the plethora “word” slant and cast 20th century “yellow press,” now to become a 21st century “corrupted words” arsenal for the powerful journalist press, with freedom from libel to destroy a newly elected POTUS they don’t like.

* and ** see the following links:

Monday, December 26, 2016

Interpreting words in 2017

   Interpreting words is now the 2017 subjective of words, by those who know better, therefore, only the better informed than me can attribute the true meaning.

   Just a few days ago, I was flummoxed into word interpreting when I read an article on the front page of the prestigious The New York Times.
   How could it be that the meaning of what our EPOTUS says has to be interpreted by a reporter? 
   I asked myself why this reporter believes I cannot understand the words used by our EPOTUS.      
   Could it be this reporter assumes I am not one of the some 60 million voters who elected a candidate, knowing full well what he meant with commonly accepted words, placed in the kind of sound bites not accepted by one and all of the media.

   Yet the media continues to boil down what they cannot understand, but I am supposed to place the believe of their editors as transmitted by a reporter who identifies as a journalist who knows facts. 
   Those who know better than me, the editors and journalists of The New York Times  tell me what should be said by anyone who is elected to the highest office in the land, but if the EPOTUS who becomes POTUS on January 20 uses words that some 60 million voters did understand when they voted for him, I am not capable of understanding because?
   The loser candidate won the popular vote in the bi-coastal states, but the winner of the Electoral College speaks in sound bites and campaigned according to the rules—whether I voted for him or not, I should have the opportunity to seek my own meanings in these words that are simple, but certainly to the point. 

   Could it be that words can have the effect of making me question what has been said in the past?