Monthly Archive for January, 2012

Page 2 of 2

Grammar And Changing Norms

“By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.” -George Carlin

Last weekend, I texted a friend to ask how his weekend was and he replied that it wasn’t going very well because a close friend of his parents was dying and “will have euthanasia soon.” This text message sparked a discussion about the term “euthanasia” and how it is used in speech.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 1995, and seems to be fairly accepted in practice. According to Wikipedia, there were 3,136 instances of euthanasia in 2010. In the US, it is only legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana and there was only about 600 instances in 2010. As such, there is a lack of language to describe this event.

Which noun do you use? Is the act euthanasia? Suicide? Physician-assisted suicide? Assisted suicide? We’re so uncomfortable with the discussion, we use all these euphemisms for euthanasia among animals, such “put to sleep” or “put down.”

The terms “physician-assisted suicide” or just “assisted suicide” sound pejorative to me. Much like the term “date rape,” they imply that this suicide is different than other suicide. Date rape implies that this instance of rape is somehow less bad than plain old rape, whereas physician-assisted suicide and assisted suicide imply that these instances are less bad than those other suicides.

And, once you select a noun, which verb do you use? When we describe “regular” suicide, we say that someone “committed” suicide and that verb draws controversy. While some writing organizations advocate continued use of “committed,” a number of suicide prevention organizations advocate using “completed suicide” or “died by suicide.”

If you opt for the term “euthanasia,” then do you say “had” euthanasia? Received? Experienced? Got? Different verbs imply a different level of participation. If you plan to receive euthanasia, then it sounds as though something is being done to you. While true, it also seems to imply a lack of consent.

It’s a weird place to be in, when something changes culturally but the language has yet to catch up. Presuming that the use of euthanasia continues to increase, the language will have to develop around it. Personally, I prefer “chose euthanasia” as in “I’ve chosen to have euthanasia in November.”


Book Club Reminder – Eats, Shoots and Leaves

Just a reminder that we’re talking about Lynne Truss’s “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” on January 27th. If you’re a grammar snob or just wanna chat about the validity of grammar snobbery, come discuss.

Getting It All Wrong

My latest OkCupid message:

“My new years resolution is to become more active to find a nice and sweet girl. So I checked out some profiles and came to the conclusion that you are the nicest, sweetest and most beautiful girl, propably of the whole planet.

So how can I ever convince you to mail with me and to meet me later on? No idea, that’s why I try it in this very naive and direct way: Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Have a nice day!

[name redacted]

If this guy thinks I’m the nicest and the sweetest, I need to edit my profile.


I Prefer Beagles To Cavity Searches

“Search others for their virtue, and yourself for your vices.”  -R. Buckminster Fuller

BeagleAmanda Marcotte discussed a post by Sebastian over at Obsidian Wings, which discussed the use of drug sniffing dogs. According to new research, drug dogs are a bit racist, and some researchers have concluded that the dogs are picking up on subtle clues from the handlers, rather than on scents. (I guess that makes the handlers racist.)

Marcotte argues:

“But in the more immediate future, we must demand an immediate end to all use of drug dogs, certainly until it can be demonstrated in double blind studies run by experts that the dogs are detecting drugs and not reacting to subconscious signals sent by police.”

I don’t disbelieve Marcotte and Sebastian. I’m not surprised that the dogs are responding to their owners (likely subconscious) racism. I also agree with Marcotte about the absurdity of the “War on Drugs.” However, I wonder about the use of drug sniffing dogs in other situations.

My experiences with drug sniffing dogs have been limited to airports. Three or four times, as I’ve been waiting for my checked baggage, I’ve witnessed dogs and their handlers walking through the baggage area. Twice that I can recall, the handler was instructing the dog to sniff every single bag people had in their possession (mostly carry-on bags people were holding while waiting for their checked bags to appear). I would guess that the dogs weren’t only looking for drugs but also for agricultural products or animals or other things people aren’t supposed to be bringing into a country.

I’m not an expert in dogs, but Mythbusters did seem to the confirm that dogs can find stuff pretty much anywhere. Assuming dogs can actually detect the things are trained to find, I think their use is warranted in some instances. The problem with the situation that Marcotte and Sebastian are describing is the policy of using the dog’s “signal” as an excuse to search someone. Since race (or religion or whatever) isn’t declared on a suitcase, you could employ dogs to sniff checked luggage, buildings, etc. without concerns about profiling.

I would also be interested in studies about the success of dogs search for other items, like agricultural products. Do these handlers of these dogs also have the same track record?

Perhaps the TSA process would be easier if we were all sniffed by dogs handled by blindfolded handlers rather than having to take off our shoes and walk through a metal detector. I’d much rather see an army of beagles at security than most TSA agents.




Need More?Like What You See Here?Copyright
E-Mail
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Google Plus
Powered By Wordpress
Need More By Social Media Widget
Social Media Icons Are Magic Marker
Twitter Feed By Xhanch
TwitPics By My Pictures Widget
Share Bar By Sexy Bookmarks
© 2008 - 2012 Neamhspleachas.Com
All Rights Reserved