Word Play

As I settle into the cantankerous, contrary and curmudgeonly second

half of my life the following words or phrases make me smile - or

wince. You hear them all the time by serious, well meaning and awfully

earnest people.

"Fair Trade"

Isn't trade fair by definition unless there is a monopoly or cartel in

operation which should be dealt with? What they really mean is

preferential or even unfair trade to benefit an individual or group

that can't otherwise compete in an open market. It might be for very

good reasons and greatly benefit deserving recipients but the

implication of the phrase is that simple "Trade" is something bad.

"Social Justice"

Implies that simple "Justice" isn't good enough and that she should

lift her blindfold and tilt the outcome in favor a particular and

favored group - which is really tending towards injustice. If there is

something wrong with "justice" it should be fixed and not supplemented

with a prefixed variant.

And I heard "Environmental Justice" the other day too.

"Sustainable"

Why would any sane individual not want the results of their actions be

sustainable? What they really mean is static or unchanging - as in why

aren't we all still sitting in the mouth of our cave watching the

world go by. Amazingly these same Luddites seem to favor economically

unsustainable proposals and programs.

"Organic"

I must have been eating "inorganic" food all my life up until now. OK

that one is a bit facetious - and besides who would deny hard up

farmers and small holders the opportunity of charging more for their

tomatoes and corn while keeping a straight face and getting away with

it.

All things "Green" - economy - jobs - energy - monsters, etc - well

perhaps not monsters :)

Green is a nice color. It makes us feel good but it is also one of

nature's danger signs - as in green eggs and other green things

lurking in the back of the fridge.

I had the good fortune to visit the Farnborough and Paris air shows

during the past two summers as part of my job. They are the premier

trade shows for the global aerospace industry and the big engine

manufacturers had their latest and greatest on display. Millions of

market driven man hours of science and creativity all aimed at

squeezing the most passenger miles out of a gallon of fuel for their

customers benefit - and therefore with as little waste and pollution

as thermodynamically possible. They were objects of great power,

beauty and the most elegant efficiency possible to date - OK I'm an

engineer - but much to my amusement the marketers had literally turfed

the display booths and mounting pedestals to emphasize their "green"

credentials. Stainless steel is so passe.

As part of the trip I traveled on Easy Jet, a low cost UK airline and

was asked if I wanted to pay extra to offset the "carbon footprint" of

my flight from Glasgow to Paris. Apparently the money would go towards

planting a tree by someone, somewhere, eventually - yeah sure! I

politely declined saying that I lived in the middle of giant forest

and grew a vegetable garden every year - the poor girl must have

though that I was a demented overgrown Hobbit dressed in a coat an tie

and let out for the day. Soon however such "indulgencies" might not be

an option. They did stick me for 5 quid for a checked bag but that's

their business model and the basic flight only cost around $30 thanks

to these wonderful engines made efficient - and therefore clean - by

the economic demands of the market.

People don't use resources for the hell of it as some imply. They do

so for benefits such as staying warm in the winter and expanding their

experience through travel and leisure pursuits. They always want to do

so as cheaply and therefore as efficiently as possible. If scarcity

increases the price of the benefit they will cut back until eventually

someone finds a cheaper and therefore more efficient way of providing

it - and I hope that when they do it is purple, or orange or puce -

anything but !@#$, worn out, knackered green:)

"Hate Crime" - sounds too much like Orwell's Thought Crime - a crime

is a crime, is a crime. Categorizing a "hate" version is really meant

to elevate, reinforce or otherwise legitimize a particular class of

victim and by definition demote everyone else. So much for equality

under the law.

"Laws Named after Victims" - good law shouldn't play on ephemeral

emotions tied to a particular victim.

And I'm not too sure about "allergies". I don't remember lots of

people dropping dead from exposure to peanuts when I was growing up -

mind you we only seemed to eat them at Halloween in Scotland :)

Just musing on some pet peeves and how language influences the debate.

Perhaps you can think of others.

Jim Sharkey