And the next four are taken from
AlterNet, which gleaned from diverse sources:
- Why the powers-that-be have been trying to discredit Noam Chomsky.
- Economic inequality may be permanent.
- Speculation on the "reasons" the neo-conservatives and G. Bush attacked Iraq.
- Cross-purposes:
This might be seen in the situation described above like this: divergent speech that emphasises social distance is the language of conflict - specifically, in this case, class conflict: upper vs all the rest (but portrayed as middle vs under). This is what's used the moment any talk of raising taxes is involved. Convergant speech is dispassionate wonk talk, relatively drained of emotion - as well as inconvenient facts. The perversity of the situation is that conflictual language is used to exclude the interests and priorities of the large majority of the American people, while the dispassionate wonk talk is used to create a bipartisan elite concensus that fundamentally excludes just those interests and priorities. That's how you create an "expert" discourse of very serious people who are utterly out of touch with the world they are guiding to catastrophe.
What goes on in Congress.
Y'know, if all they wanted to do was dance, I'd feel a hell of a lot
safer.
No comments:
Post a Comment