Politicians Ignoring Questions

Today in class we began to discuss last night's presidential debate. I have one quick question regarding the debate that I actually came up with while watching.

As many of us noticed, at various times, the two presidential candidates in last night's debate did what most politicians seem to be good at: NOT answering the question asked by the moderator. One example of this was the following question: "What will be your highest priority; health care, entitlements, or energy?" Although Barack Obama stated that the number one priority is energy, John McCain simply stated that "we can do all three of these at once." As I watched this part of the debate, I thought to myself, did the question not ask what will be the HIGHEST priority? As more and more questions were not answered, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated throughout the debate, as I'm sure many of you did as well.

My question to you is the following: how is it that politicians can "get away with" such blatant ignorance of the questions being asked of them?

I understand that, during such a debate, politicians have a few major points that they plan to get across. I also know that the higher they stay on the Abstraction Ladder, the more likely it is that the audience will agree with them (as we've discussed before). However, I do not understand what drives us as members of this governmental society to allow these politicians to leave us empty-handed in terms of straight facts and direct answers to our questions. Doesn't nearly everyone become frustrated watching a debate between two candidates that introduces no new information and simply repeats the same abstract things over and over?

Clarification and thoughts are greatly appreciated. :)

(Janet Lee)

I was watching The Colbert Report and happened to come in on a part where Steven Colbert was mocking the presidential debate. He basically pretended to be a presidential candidate and answer questions from the audience. This one lady asked a question concerning home mortgages and what he was going to do about it. Colbert said that he was going to answer her question directly, but then went off to talk about something completely different.

There was also this other guy who asked (I'm paraphrasing a bit), "Why is religion being made such a big deal? Who decides whose reverend is right?"

Colbert answered, "You said the word reverend, right?"

"Right, reverend,"

"Reverend, right?"

This conversation went on for a while, only to end in Colbert saying, "This topic is completely out of the question."

This is my question now: If there are people who are able to see the flaws in these candidates speeches, like Colbert, why do they continue to talk like that? Why do these candidates insist on avoiding questions if viewers can see that they do and look down on them for that?

(Mary Quien)

Absolute Truth?

I know that this might not be directly on topic, but the idea of E-Prime has really raised some questions for me. Primarily, I'm concerned with absolute truth. If something cannot be true one hundred percent of the time, then how do you explain something like unconditional love? For example, my parents love me. They love me now and I am fully convinced that they will love me forever. Even if I go off and destroy me life. Yes, they would be deeply concerned about me, probably angry and confused, as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they love me. Would it be wrong to say that the love my parents have for me is an absolute truth? This is just an example, but I am very curious to hear what my classmates have to say about this and absolute truth, in general.

(Emily T.)

Would E-Prime Change the way we think?

Hayakawa states in Language that taking away the word doesn't take away the thing. That is to say, that a 1984-like situation could never truly exists because the idea of freedom, and the idea of liberty would still exist even if it could not be voiced in the same way. If this is true, would E-Prime do anything at all? If taking away the word doesn't take away the thing how could removing "to be" eliminate the false notion that the symbol is the thing symbolized? Wouldn't people still innately feel that there was a connection between an extentional stapler and the word 'stapler' without saying it IS a stapler? I'm interested in comments - could a lingustic change eliminate that false thought process?
(Molly Dunbar)

E-Prime and Argumentation

I realize that E-Prime is completely impractical, but there is one thing that I'm wondering about regarding E-Prime that relates to what Janet said about qualifiers in a comment. My question: if every single thing we say has some sort of a qualifier in it (as E-Prime would require), doesn't that completely eliminate the possibility of getting someone to adopt your viewpoint? I mean, if everything you say admits that you could be wrong, doesn't that undermine the essence of argument (that you are completely convinced of what you are supporting)?

Any thoughts on these two questions would be greatly appreciated. I am very interested to hear what others have to say about this.

(Emily T.)

Language and trends

We discussed briefly in class today about how certain words or even some languages become forgotten for a period of time or even dead. (i.e. some slangs and dead languages found in history books)
As I was going over what we did in our class today, I encountered some questions.

What makes a word go out of style?
Why do people just stop using that word that they have been using so often?
What/who decides the 'in-thing' in the world of words?
Is there a trend setter or a merchant in terms of language? (Thought of Paris Hilton and her frequent usage "That's hot" came across my mind right here...)
Who determines the trend in the fashion of words?

I know I just put a series of questions here but they are all related and somewhat interchangeable.
So...does anyone have some thoughts on these questions?

(Jennifer Park)

E-Prime and Hayakawa

One of the first things to catchy my eye upon my reading of "Toward Understanding E-Prime" was Alfred Korzybski's involvement in the development of E-Prime. His 1933 book on semantics, Science and Sanity, depicted the downfalls involved with the usages of the verb "to be". In fact, Korzybski concluded these factors to be so problematic that he has encouraged student training in the field of semantics to avoid "logical error, emotional distortion, and demonological thinking" (Wilson).

The irony, however, is that Hayakawa also quoted Alfred Korzybski in Language in Thought and Action. "Man's achievements rest on the use of symbols. -Alfred Korzybski" (Hayakawa 13).

If Korzybski feels the use of symbols to be such an art, why is he willing to delete two of them?

The second section of the packet also brought to light something of interest. The army's new slogan, "Be an Army of One," appeals to both the tastes of the individual in favor of independence and the individual in favor of togetherness. This ties in quite nicely with the "you device" and "we device" discussed in class today.

Just some thoughts. What are yours? (..So much for the usage of E-Prime.)

(Sam Maliha)