What is the power of a word?

Leftist. Liberal. Liberty. Libertarian. Lack. Lust. Love. Libel. Liberate. Liberation. Lift. Live. Life. Lie. Lied. Lying. Left. Longing. Licentious. Laughing. Listing. Lists. Listening. Lullaby. Lingering. Languishing. Lecture. Letyourimaginationgo. Letyourboundariesexplode. Well, rant rant rant. I'm tired. I hate this thing they call "debate" when really it feels like a show. It IS a show. A chance for you to think exactly what some commentator hopes you'll think and some speechwriter gets paid to convince you of. I want to know though what is the power of a word?
Why is it that we have words that are not in themselves bad but become such forces of detachment within our society and within our individual and group consciousness? Think about "good" and "evil" or "us" and "them" or even "you" and "I," "left" or "right." I thought a lot today about the idea and ideal of nonconformity and how do you truly nonconform? How free are you to truly nonconform when most people even in the most outrageous costume, discussion and situations still often conform to some level of what others perceive to be deviant behavior. Take the punk scene for example: how do we even know what "punk" represents or stands against/apart from/or is reacting to, if not be the reaction of others within the dominant group and within the punk scene itself. The mere fact that punk became fashionable (rather than simply "reprehensible" is telling of just how much you can deviate without being co-opted and controlled. This brings me back to my original rant about the power of a word. Who gives the word "liberal" such a negative meaning? Why does either extreme hold the power of definition in such a way that they can shape the public perception of a single word to mean everything from anything resembling communism to anything a hair left of center. Why? I hate it. I hate the fact that the manipulation of certain words (such as liberal but also "tough" "terrorism" and "leadership") shape this sideshow circus someone misnamed "debate" into something that prohibits true dialogue on very critical issues. Instead we are encouraged to think critically only about the gestures one candidate makes or the way his wife is dressed. Who gives a shit about the way his wife is dressed? I'm sorry, how does that relate to foreign or domestic policy exactly? It just amazes me that there is more energy spent in trying to create public myopia and channel it into a collapsed, consumption orbit where we are far too busy being entertained to stop and question where the actor stops and the real world begins. It irritates me that the "strong women" in these "candidates" lives are reduced to spectators for the sport of sedating minds. After all, it is far more important apparently, that we, the American public know that one of the Hilton sisters has just opened a new fashion line and may be in the process of annulling her marriage, than it is we see the reality of life in Palestine or even in Israel or in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more relevant to know (apparently) that parents are to "blame for childhood heart disease" than it is to question the pervasive media attention given to fast food industry AND prescription drug ads. It is far more worthy of our attention to contemplate the "justice" served on shows such as COPS and the political debate of FOX "news" than it is for the American public to be made aware of how teachers feel about "no child left behind" and just how "effective" these policies are that Bush has implemented and that Kerry has supported. I have a word that is in dire need of contemplation: reality.

Peace!


"You can say what you want propaganda television
But all bombing is terrorism"
--Michael Franti/Spearhead "Bomb the world" (Armageddon version)