by Josh pater

`Pedantic semantics'

What's in a name?

Take, for example, ``The Typewriter Monkey.'' I doubt any readers gave the title much thought when it first appeared last week. In fact, most would be surprised to learn how long I deliberated with friends over the name. It was more of a Seinfeldian tongue-in-cheek dialogue than anything else, but the debate got me thinking about how we use words. (For the record, the title was not my first choice. But one must not be petty about such things.)

In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay, ``Politics and the English Language.'' Sort of a requiem for intelligent and meaningful political discussion, it pointed out a two-way causal relationship between bad writing and bad thinking. A person may start drinking because they feel like a failure, and then fail all the more for being drunk, Orwell says. So too does the English language degenerate: ``It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.''

Orwell's essay came to mind when I heard that our military had come up with the code name ``Operation Infinite Justice'' for its mobilization. According to the news reports, the name was changed to ``Operation Enduring Freedom'' after Islamic scholars complained that infinite justice only comes from Allah. (I hope it wasn't only Muslims; Christians too should be wary of a government making such promises.)

In his better moments, President Bush exudes a wise cautiousness regarding our reaction to the attacks. Who would've thought that a Republican with somewhat hawkish advisors would have held off with military strikes for so long? At other times, though, his comments have suggested a more visceral response. Was his ``Wanted: dead or alive'' comment about bin Laden just a Texan turn of phrase, or a hint of Bush's true instincts?

Back to Orwell: ``In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.'' I'll leave the Christian pacifism to Andrew for now (see his article on this page), but I wonder if Orwell's statement is true today.

The last time the United States had its sensibilities so awakened was when we administered a beating to the Iraqis ten years ago. It was a clean operation with a clear objective, and we more or less pulled out right afterwards, leaving only a few planes to bomb the occasional Iraqi radar system. But, if it is true that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have since needlessly died, has our defiant rhetoric in the interim been a defense of the indefensible? Have we learned the necessary lessons to make sure that we not do it again? And why is nobody talking about this?