I had my first encounter with “wyngz”, the chicken-wing shaped nugget, in the supermarket the other day. I had heard about them a while ago, but coming face-to-face with the most stupidly named grown-up food since “Joose” (alcohol for idiots) really made me wonder how dumb we are.
Apparently the UDSA has rules against calling a food product something it is not. In the case of “wyngz”, the wing-shaped chicken nuggets didn’t actually have any wing meat in them, so they had to be called something else. Using the word “wyngz” is a pretty complicated matter, as seen in this notice from the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The Federal Government requires food makers to correctly label things to keep confusion as to what people are actually eating to a minimum. I think it should go one further and also put the same constraints on political speech so people know what politicians actually mean when they’re talking.
Here are a few examples of where words can get confusing.
Even morans know illegal immigrant labor and working for Wal-Mart part time at $7 doesn’t actually count as a job, so why do politicians keep trying to tell us they do? Just like USDA requirements that certain ingredients must go in food for it to actually be given a proper name, so should certain ingredients be included in a job before it can actually be called a job. I would say at least $10 an hour at 40 hours per week should suffice. Anything else should be required to be called a “jorb“, or the word most people already use for such work, “McJob“.
Hiding money from the IRS to avoid being taxed is called tax evasion, so why is it reported as putting money in a “tax haven” when large corporations do it? It sounds better, and people don’t feel so bad about letting the IRS look the other way when Fukko Co. shirks billions of dollars worth of tax responsibilities every year. We don’t need a new word for this, we’ve already got one.
I hear this word a lot, and I always think back to grade school civics and learning about the laissez-faire system of government. It is pretty much the same thing, but when you attach the word “free” or “freedom” to anything, Americans will defend it, even to their own detriment. Lets be honest, when politicians talk about unshackling the “free market” what they’re really pushing for is, laissez-faire capitalism.
I always hear politicians talk about what “Americans” want or what “Americans” are tired of. If everybody in America is so galvanized, how did things turn out so unfavorable for them, then? I think the confusion comes from the use of the word “Americans”, which in political speech, actually means “constituents“. There is a huge difference.
Another common phrase in today’s political speech, though nobody has yet to actually define what it means. I’ll go ahead and do that; it means whatever government program or regulation the politician speaking doesn’t like. If it is detrimental to party plans or big-money supporters, it is big government overreaching. I’m not sure what we could change “big government” to in order to signify it’s real meaning; perhaps “poopy regulations” or “government meanies“.
Whether or not you agree with our current military actions in Iraq, this is a tough distinction to make. It is technically a war by dictionary definition, but our actions in Iraq also meet the definition of occupation. I would think since we’ve already got control of the country, are not fighting a state-sponsored army and are basically telling the Iraqis what to do with their sh*t, the latter should be considered the proper term. I suppose, since politicians know better than us, if they call it a war, they’re probably right.