Part-Time Pundit

Swearing in the Historical Context

Two things have brought this subject to mine. The first, was a thread on a mailing list about the use of a particular offensive expression, how it was particularly ungentlemanly like to use where women would read, and so on. The second is a song I hear on the radio from time to time that uses the phrase G.D. (Use your imagination). The interesting thing is the radio does censor it, but only one word. It silences the God part, not the damn part. Apparently it is more offensive to say “God” on the air, than “damn” (which is a swear word in and of itself). Not surprising, considering our society, the ACLU, and recent Supreme Court decisions.

However, the history of swearing is interesting. Until somewhat recently historically, swearing was blasphemy pure and simple. There were no “swear words” per se, but it was various iterations of sacrilege against the name of Jesus, Mary, saints, or various holy things. Today, this has largely been replaced by what is the most popular (and apparently the most versatile word in the English language) curse word, the omnipresent f-bomb.

That word is commonly understood as a reference to sex, not usually of the most pure variety. It’s an interesting development, that swearing went from blasphemous religious expressions to involving sex. Considering our society, one could say that sex has become a religion in and of itself anyway. Perhaps the change in swearing only demonstrates how that statement might be true.

The convention has been to use religion as swearing. The question is, has the convention changed, or simply the underlying religion?

June 27th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Random | no comments

An Insurgency in it’s “Last Throes”

Belmont Club has a some of the transcript between Sen. Levin and Gen. Abizaid about Dick Cheney’s comments about the “last throes” of the insurgency. Skipping past trying to corner a military officer into criticizing the Vice-President (an illegal act), soemthing important gets missed. “JOHN ABIZAID: In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.”

From M-W.com the defintion of insurgent is:

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party

The problem is in characterizing foreign fighters as insurgents. They aren’t insurgents, they are invaders. It isn’t their government they are fighting for and they aren’t rebeling against the civil authority to which they are subject (their home countries). These people are invading with either the complicity of their home states or their home states are turning a blind eye.

If the “insurgency” has the same strength, but the number of foreign fighters is increasing then it is obvious the Iraqis are getting less interesting in fighting the US. I would say that an insurgency that can’t recruit locals and has to find people from other countries is an insurgency in its “last throes”. I would also say that this is less an insurgency and more becoming international armed conflict.

June 27th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Military / War | no comments