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?

CHOKE, CHOKED: a 21st century version

   

   Call this 21 ^st century a century of words perversion.

   

   For instance, a simple meaning for choke means "to become unable to breathe usually because something gets stuck in your throat."

   Also the word, choke, has another entirely different meaning as a part of the automobile that regulates the fuel of an automobile.

   The synonyms for this noun are: gag, retch, cough

   The word choke becomes the "choked" version in the 21^st century, is a transitive verb.

   For instance, "to grip (as a baseball bat) some distance from the end of the handle —usually used with up."

   Closest in the political sense, the word choked, was popularized by the plain spoken POTUS-elect of 2016 in a derogative description of the 2012 Republican candidate.  The same word was used by Hillary Clinton during a contentious debate with the now POTUS-elect.

   All in all, the perversion of words in this 21^st century reference use of words for other than simple meanings for words converted to any situation not considered in another era.

   For instance, in the case of the POTUS-elect, according to a recent TV special the sport of baseball was played well enough to be considered by a scout for a major baseball team.

   The progressive of words and meanings becomes a 21^st century fact as the world becomes less predictable, and like everything else, change of meanings of words is all we can count on.  

Corruption = slaughterhouse beef = farm raised fish?

    The word CORRUPTION has a 21^st century meaning that isn't the twentieth century label of shame *dishonest or fraudulent conduct" by those in power typically involving bribery. 

     

    In this 21st century of double entendre and convoluted  words and meanings, "corruption" can be in the eye of the beholder.

   "Corruption" thus becomes *the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded  as erroneous or debased. Synonyms: alteration, bastardization, debasement, adulteration.

    To build on my hypothesis.

    21^st century "corruption" is like eating a fat thick steak via a slaughterhouse of slaughtered cattle herded into place for the coup de grace when the slaughterhouse turns into a farm where fish is raised. 

    In my continuing reexamination of words and meanings in this 21^st century, it is a different dishonesty assigned to "corruption" based on public acceptance of new social norms, as authorized by higher "authorities" who determine the "right" and "wrong" of 21^st century behavior.

    Can "corruption" be assigned to a deliberate "adulteration"? 

    Like pretending slaughterhouse beef is really farm raised fish tastes like steak and can't damage the environment, but is a farm raised fish bastardization of steak?         

*Online powered by Oxford Dictionaries

The subjective 21st century=social acceptance

      It is pertinent to this blog to begin an ongoing reexamination of "word meanings" in the 21^st century.

     SUBJECTIVE, as defined by online powered by Oxford Dictionaries, is based on, or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.  The synonyms are the essence of the 21st century cultural scene, where the personal, individual, instinctive, intuitive are endlessly explored in columns devoted to the "self" examination that sells 21st century selfie sticks like hotcakes with lots of addictive sugary syrup and doesn't put on pounds, but cultivates the "me" of the  21st century psyche. 

     LIE is according to http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie a noun.  Also a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood, something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood. Yet a LIE in the 21st century is also defined within a legal context when it has to do with public figures in government accused of wrongdoing.  The synonyms are prevarication, falsification and the antonym is truth, which in the 21st century applies to the media's latest task of "fact checking" that can be parsed in a "subjective" slant depending on the intent of the intent of the media management.
   

In the 21st Century does word definition now depend on social acceptance?

     The next Oxford English Dictionary (OED) will account for words with more than one meaning, nevertheless, a "subjective 21^st century" demands proof whenever the lie identifies an action or statement as defined by the legality of the current laws, which may vary state to state, and differs from the federal.

     Can the prosecution of a lie can take place without proof in the subjective 21^st century? If we examine the current political theatrical scene, the prosecution by the media is not legally binding, but each voter has to make a subjective decision in the voting booth, or perhaps not vote at all.

   

does the noun Emperor have a special significance?

check out the links to my other blogs:
http://www.thinkingoutloudan.blogspot.com
http://www.nomorenotcomfortablehotels.blogspot.com

I started this blog about words and meanings to illustrate how words are used to signify meanings that take on a political or social context.

According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, an Emperor is the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire—and that is a meaningful definition in a societal sense.

The Board of Directors of the most powerful global corporations are still male dominated.  And despite the advances of women in the marketplace, women still "fetch the water." To keep their position at the top of the glass ceiling, women willingly perform the task of visible representation to become the spokesperson for their male dominated Board of Directors.

Insofar as the use of "the Emperor has no clothes" figurative illusion, the sovereign or supreme male monarch doesn't need any clothes to mandate what he wants.

And politics being what they are in this election cycle, the Emperor is code for the power structure that wants no change, and those who are powerful in both political parties are determined that the Emperor gets his way in spite of the will of the people.

Will the powerful win?  Or will the people finally triumph?