Euphemisms in politics essays

Euphemisms in politics essays Word choice in politics is always a contentious issue. In the case similar to prop 209, proposition a proponents of the bill are accused of using loaded and misleading terminology according to some harsh critics. I do not happen to side with the opponents of this bill in this situation. I adamantly oppose affirmative action and believe people should be promoted and hired based on experience and performance not some predetermined racially equal composition. In Houston it only applies to publicly funded organizations and institutions yet it still perpetuates the wrong message. That message is that we treat different races with different sets of rules. Affirmative action in certain circumstances has left the recipients of the jobs feeling a sense of charity and a certain undermining of the legitimacy of the position. In fact proposition 209 was drafted by an African American who shared similar sentiments toward the issue. The word choice utilized by the authors of this proposition poses no ambiguity or confusion to me. Propositions surrounding such an issue are heavily covered in mass media and any competent and informed voter should be able to decipher the objective of the proposition. A more detailed description alluding to the elimination of the employment for minority classes may be a bit more truthful but like Orwell said euphemisms just sound better in politics. Politicians generally do not cater to the apathetic masses because they infrequently vote. But when they vote they do deserve the right to not be confused throughout the process. This is a tricky debate but I have to side with the initial authors of the proposition in their word choice because in actuality that is the state of equality that Houston will return to in the event that affirmative action policies are repealed. If voters are too complacent to make that connection then that is there tough luck. Euphemis ...

Answers to Questions About Referring to Death

Answers to Questions About Referring to Death Answers to Questions About Referring to Death Answers to Questions About Referring to Death By Mark Nichol Here are three questions about how to treat references to people who have died, and my responses. 1. For how long after someone’s death is it necessary and/or appropriate to use â€Å"the late† to describe them? I know we don’t say â€Å"the late Ludwig van Beethoven,† but what about a board chairman who died twelve years ago? There’s no standard rule, but in objective, dispassionate content, late should generally be used only a few years after someone’s death. (A widow or widower referring to a deceased spouse, however, gets a lifetime pass.) 2. If I refer to someone’s having died in 2001, do I refer to the person in the same sentence as â€Å"the late John Smith,† for example, or is that redundant? Late is redundant to an explicit reference to a person’s death, and the objective reference is preferable to late. For example, â€Å"The project was funded by a bequest from the late John Smith, who died in 2001† is redundant, and â€Å"The project was funded by a bequest from John Smith, who died in 2001† is preferable to â€Å"The project was funded by a bequest from the late John Smith,† because the former sentence is more specific. 3. Is it objectionable in formal writing for the general public to refer explicitly to death i.e., are euphemisms like â€Å"passed away† truly preferable to died? On the contrary: Died is preferable to euphemisms like â€Å"passed away.† In informative text, use straightforward language; readers appreciate clear, specific wording and don’t need to be coddled with tiptoeing generalities. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the General category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:10 Rules for Writing Numbers and NumeralsGrammar Quiz #21: Restrictive and Nonrestrictive ClausesA "Diploma" is not a "Degree"