creators home
creators.com lifestyle web

Recently

Farewell Dear Larry: You are the sanest man in America! I look forward to your columns because I ALWAYS agree with your answers. Great work! Thanks for speaking the simple truth about all issues — racial, political, parental, common sense, etc. I often …Read more. Hate Groups Dear Larry: I want to forget for a moment that it is their constitutional right, because I detest the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and all other groups that preach hate. A long time ago, they came into cities across America without any protest. Now …Read more. Troubles With Raising Teenage Son Dear Larry: I am African-American and a single mother with three children, ages 15, 10 and 8. All of them are boys. I am having a lot of problems with them, especially the eldest. He argues with me about almost everything. He thinks he is the man/…Read more. How To Get Race Relations Back on Track Dear Larry: So many of my friends are upset with the way things are going, especially race relations. They are not saying anything openly, but among themselves there is constant complaining and fear. There is something simmering and brewing that …Read more.
more articles

Political Doublespeak

Share Comment

Dear Larry: I am dismayed at the number of people who hear something repeated and just go for it.

Your reader Linda said President Barack Obama is in favor of building a mosque near ground zero. That is not at all what he said. He said he believes in the freedom we all have to express our religious beliefs, which includes the right to build a place of worship. He also confirmed that he was not expressing his personal thought about the building of the mosque at that location.

I really wish people would listen to him. I do believe he is the first truly honest man we have had as president for many years, and I uphold him. Thanks. — Betty

Dear Betty: I agree with you that we need to listen, but when it comes to politicians, it is hard to know exactly what they are really saying. It is very common for them to speak in a way that different people will hear different messages from the same words.

The president did not actually say whether he believes building the mosque is a good idea or not. He was using doublespeak trying to avoid taking a position. One who uses this type of communication is not a good example of an honest politician.

The president actually said: "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances." Honest people can reach a conclusion that the president is in favor of building the mosque at ground zero. If you favor the president but disagree with building the mosque, it is also understandable how you could reach the opposite conclusion.

A good example of doublespeak comes from a liberal politician who currently is running for office. He once said, "My aged grandmother can no longer walk the streets and feel safe." He later bragged, "This was a perfect statement because all the 'gun nuts' heard me take the position I am tough on crime, but I didn't say any such thing. My liberal friends can't get mad at me, because I didn't say anything."

I am sorry I do not share your opinion that this president is honest.

I find him a driven politician who is determined to implement his policies and who will say anything to gain the necessary support.

Dear Larry: On a Sunday morning a few years ago, I was in a convenience store paying for gas. An obviously inebriated black man and a teenage black girl were having an argument. The F-word and the N-word were flying through the air like mosquitoes at a campground! The clerk, the other four customers and I were all white.

I finally had enough of the filthy language and spoke up. I said: "You people make me sick spouting all this filth in a public place, especially on a Sunday morning. If you can't talk decently, then you need to take it somewhere else. Nobody here wants to listen to it."

Well, the man thought I was being a racist because I said "you people." What was I supposed to say, "you animals"? I meant him and the young girl. I didn't give a darn about their color, but he took it that way and threw the race card at me.

The young girl left, but the man continued to blast me, so I told the clerk to call the police. That did it. The man left quickly. The young female clerk thanked me for intervening, and I told her that she needs to call the police any time something like that happens in the store.

My kids and my husband were shocked that I had stood up to the man like that, but I would do it again if necessary, and it makes no difference to me what color a person is or where he comes from. No one has the right to pollute the air with foul language or quarrel like that in public.

When the man labeled me a racist, I felt that he was using his race to take advantage of me.

Larry, I have friends of all races, creeds, cultures, nationalities and genders, and we celebrate our differences rather than denigrate them. When are people going to grow up? No one should be afraid to stand up to a bully who takes advantage like this, but I agree that most people are scared to speak up. — Roni

Dear Roni: Thanks for taking a stand. The only way some of these things will change is if America stands up in defiance and says "enough."

To find out more about Larry G. Meeks and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

19 Comments | Post Comment
Yeah, we get it Larry. You hate everything Barack Obama stands for. You repeat it, over and over and OVER. Your conservative beliefs DO NOT make President Obama a dishonest person. Are you truly that blind to your own bias?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Johanna
Fri Sep 3, 2010 9:41 PM
I used to like reading Larry Meeks. He had some good points, for example, that the mentality of victimhood does one no good, that voting for a politician because of his/her ethnic background rather than political views is unintelligent, etc. But I am getting more and more disappointed because now he leans so conservatively that he seems to be blinded to facts. Fine, he didn't vote for Obama and he doesn't like some of the current policies (well, all of them, I guess), but it seems like Obama can do no right for Mr. Meeks. What if the man neither opposes nor supports the construction of an Islamic center, which would have a worship facility on one of its floors? What if he couldn't care less personally, but as President, believes that all people in the U.S. have the right to practice their religion?

LW2 - So, why did you say "you, people"? Why not "you" or "you two"? "You people" clearly sounds to me as referring to the whole ethnic group.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Ariana
Fri Sep 3, 2010 10:49 PM

Ariana -- "You people" sounds like a referral to an ethic group because the media made a big stink about Ross Perot using the phrase at an NAACP speech back in the 80s/early 90s. I recall the dinner-table arguments with my father about this topic....he said it wasn't racist, I said it sounded racist.
My dad won the argument when he dragged out a very, VERY old home movie of my brother and I fighting over a toy when we were about 8/10 years old. I yanked the toy so hard a lamp crashed to the floor, then my brother kicked the toy out of my hands. In came dad, yelling "You people have had it!" and sent us both to our rooms. The memories flooded back -- Dad used the expression all the time! To his generation (born in 1935) it was just like "you guys" or "you two" until the media caught a white guy saying it to non-white people. It's been tinged ever since.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Johanna
Fri Sep 3, 2010 11:04 PM
Thank you, Johanna. Ariana obviously misunderstood the point of my letter. I wrote the letter about the two people arguing--and that is what they are--people--not "dogs" as I have heard some people refer to one another, nor "homies", nor anything else other than human beings--or "people", and certainly nothing derrogatory. Homo Sapiens, to be exact--regardless of their color or any other distinguishing factor. As I said, I have no bias, and if it had been two white people arguing and throwing around filthy language, I would have said the exact same thing. The point I was trying to make was that I was verbally attacked and bullied by a man who threw a racist accusation at me. Enough IS enough, as Larry says, and we should ALL make a stand against anyone who uses derrogatory or vile language toward anyone under any circumstances! Not to do so makes us all cowards.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Roni Mendez
Sat Sep 4, 2010 1:22 AM
Meeks doesn't have a "hatred of everything Barack Obama stands for." What he hates is dishonesty and doublespeak. (I have trouble understanding why certain individuals keep coming back here again and again if they find Meeks' advice and observations to be so worthless. Frankly, I wish you left-wingers would get lost and quit polluting the comment threads. I'm as tired of your childish griping as you are of Meeks' supposed bias.) The president is guilty of that in this instance as well as in dozens of others over the past 18 months - the "Professor Gates" incident, the healthcare bill, Cash for Clunkers, the pork-u-lus, Crap N Trade, the offshore drilling ban, and so on. Each time, he not only makes the wrong decision, he manages to tick off a lot of people and usually winds up misleading a bunch more to boot. He reminds me a lot of the last time we had a Democratic president...Clinton also did a lot of double-talking that allowed people to take his words one of two ways. Likewise, John Kerry spent a lot of time on the 2004 campaign trail talking about "values," while never specifying which ones he meant. Obama should have kept quiet on the issue; as it is, he ended up taking a position that's opposed by 70% of the American people...who clearly believe that Ground Zero is sacred, not to be marked by a 13-story "victory mosque" (which is what "cordoba" means) dedicated to the religion of those who caused so much death and suffering on that spot. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment and the president knows it...as evidenced by his lack of concern for the Greek Orthodox church which was actually destroyed on 9/11 and can't get permits to rebuild. Obama has just dug himself in even deeper with his foolhardy comments on the mosque. Clinton was at least a shrewd politician; Obama by contrast doesn't seem to have a lick of sense on when to keep his mouth shut. Even his own party is turning on him. Meeks just calls it like he sees it; he's a man who favors personal responsibility, honesty, and truth. Naturally that leads him to oppose most of what Obama says and does.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Matt
Sat Sep 4, 2010 1:51 AM
LMAO, Matt. Your hypocrisy is beyond hysterical. Can you not see it? How is that possible? Are you a satirist like Stephen Colbert? If so, you deserve an Emmy, too.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Johanna
Sat Sep 4, 2010 2:22 AM
I don't care much for Obama, but I do think he is one of the few honest politicians we've had in a long time. The flip side is, he never has a clear plan or strategy. In all his campaign speeches, he talked about "change" but never said exactly what "change" he had in mind.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Roger
Sat Sep 4, 2010 1:29 PM
I'm getting a little weary of Larry's attacks on Obama... quoting him out of context, interpreting his words, twisting his words. What Obama said about the mosque was just common sense, and was the plain truth. What Larry Meeks wrote about Obama's words was twisted and distorted.

I agree with the reader who said that Meeks's column used to be good. He still has some moments when he'll say something thoughtful. But 90 percent of the these days he bashes all things progressive, and tows the Fox News line. And I'm sorry, Matt, but you are incorrect. You are wrong in saying that he is not biased. You simply agree with his bias, making you blind to it.
Comment: #8
Posted by: sarah morrow
Sat Sep 4, 2010 7:51 PM
I think Obama's statements on the mosque are exceedingly clear. He supports their right to build a mosque on private property because that's their legal right. He then refused to comment on the wisdom of doing so, thereby pointing out that it's legal but still probably not a good idea. I believe that reflects his thinking on the subject, not some attempt to deceive.

In any case, the ground zero mosque is a manufactured issue. The shadowing figure "with ties to terrorism" that Fox News has said is funding the mosque also happens to own 7% of the firm that owns Fox News. Just months ago (before the issue was manufactured), no less a figure than Laura Ingram approved of the idea. The mosque isn't even very close to ground zero. It's two blocks away. It's actually far closer to one of New York City's largest strip clubs.

When conservatives manufacture an issue, they always try to turn it into a black and white (not racial in this case) issue so that attempts to force the opposition into taking an extreme position. If a progressive refuses to take the bait and provides a nuanced and thoughtful response that transcends the false dialectic (look it up, Matt!), the conservatives accuse the person of doublespeak.

The fact that Obama refused to address the manufactured problem in terms that were clearly crafted to help his political enemies is yet another sign that he's a thoughtful, intelligent president, worlds away from the "go for the gut" lamebrains like Bush and Palin.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Geoffrey James
Sun Sep 5, 2010 8:53 AM
Johanna and Roni,

I understand what you are saying, but words and phrases sometimes do assume new, often loaded, meanings with time. In the early 20th century, "gay" used to mean "cheerful" or "fun," and "queer" used to mean "strange, odd"; "making love" used to refer to gallantly wooing a lady, not having sex; and "intercourse" used to mean "interaction, communication" - and it still does (just check the dictionary), but is not used that way in most situations. In the 1960s, the PC way of referring to African Americans was "Negro," not "Black." These days, the situation is reversed. When Dr. Down identified a particular genetic disorder as a distinct form of mental disability, he called the children "Mongoloid." To use the term today to refer to a person with Down Syndrome is extremely offensive.

Maybe "you people" did begin to acquire a negative connotation because of the media hoopla over Ross Perot's use of the phrase, and maybe the shift in meaning is recent, but these days it is frequently perceived as a pejorative reference to a whole group (ethnic, religious, gender, etc.) I understand that Roni didn't mean it that way, but it sounded racist. Sorry.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Ariana
Sun Sep 5, 2010 11:52 AM
Ariana, you justified what I said about being bullied. I'm really tired of the misuse of this "politically correct" business. If everyone takes offense at every innocent thing that one says, we won't be able to talk to each other anymore. Derrogatory terms are one thing, plainspeak is another. What is the alternative of "people"? Non-people, of course! If someone is going to take offense at the term "people", then they are extremely ignorant, and deservedly so. I will continue to say, "you people" when standing up to anyone who is guilty of public rudeness, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. And, by the way, this incident happened long before Ross Perot used the phrase, so that wasn't even an issue. The man was just a bully, not only to me, but to the young girl he was arguing with, the young clerk and everyone who was forced to listen to his foul language on a Sunday morning after church. When I brought his rudeness to his attention he rabidly turned on me, using what I said as an excuse to berate me. If he had said "you people" to me, he would not have been criticized, but because I said it to him, I am in the wrong? Rubbish! It's the old double standard played over again, and it is time to get rid of it, right along with befouling the air with profanity and excusing it as "free speech".
Comment: #11
Posted by: Roni Mendez
Sun Sep 5, 2010 6:52 PM
Re: Roni Mendez
Roni, I understood what you meant. Perhaps next time, "You Morons" would be considered less racist, and probably more accurate.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Kyla Jones
Sun Sep 5, 2010 7:37 PM
I understand Roni's point, and I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she did not intend anything bigoted by saying "you people." She was not wrong to address the people who were being crude and offensive in public. I also understand why some people would have an adverse reaction to "you people." Part of the recent incident with Dr. Laura included her blithely dismissing the caller for taking issue with people saying things like, "You people sure do like to do this!" One can't argue that the intent of the people the caller spoke of was to treat her views and behavior as interchangeable with all black people. In that sense, it's understandable to me that if one hears that phrase often enough, they would be inclined to take it as "you black people are all the same", and take offense.

I will disagree agree with Roni that there was only one way she could have addressed them. She also could have said "You two make me sick", or "you make me sick", or "you're being very offensive right now." She was obviously addressing them directly, so it's not as if they would be confused and think she was speaking of the people standing down the aisle or outside. But I also get that in the context of the situation that emotions were running high, and people say what they feel. I still don't believe Roni was being bigoted. I'm just offering alternatives.

Understand that I'm not defending the behavior of the people who were being offensive. I'm just saying that there are layers in both what people say and how others might react. I'm a fan of considering where both side are coming from as things aren't always so black and white (no pun intended). I know Larry Meeks isn't big on nuance, but I like to put it out there.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Jon
Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:39 PM
Well, I'm old enough to know that "you people" has been a problematic phrase for a long time. I did a quick search for some discussion of it somewhere and found this 1992 interview with Alex Haley:
http://www.alex-haley.com/alex_haley_scott_ross_interview.htm
Comment: #14
Posted by: Van Wickle
Mon Sep 6, 2010 2:05 PM
There's a such thing as an honest politician???? I thought they were all a myth! ;)
Comment: #15
Posted by: LibraryKat
Mon Sep 6, 2010 4:31 PM
I find Obama to be honest, but also very guarded with his speech (considering everything he says will be played and analyzed ad nauseum it isn't a big surprise. Sure, he's made some verbal gaffes and changed his mind a few times, but I actually believe he is saying what he actually believes. Yes, they have the right, should they? That's not a question he thinks is his role as president to answer (and he's right! That is the courts' decision, if anyone's). I think that is what frustrates people, he won't tell you what he personally thinks when the decision of the president isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in the outcome.
I found Bush II to be the exact opposite - very open, but not exactly honest. He'd tell you everything on his mind at the moment, but when he changed his mind, it wasn't "hey, I've rethough it" it was "well this is what I meant all along." He felt the role of president was far more than what it is, I think he truly felt that what he thought had precedent over the courts and the legislature and that is not the role of the American president. The fouunders were very clear in setting up that role that it would not ever be granted the power of a king and I appreciate presidents that understand that.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Mich
Tue Sep 7, 2010 11:11 AM
1) Even if Roni had thought to say "you two" instead of "you people" (which was an unfortunate choice of words even though I absolutely believe she didn't intend to be racist), I'm willing to bet the man who accused her of racism still would have reacted negatively to her stepping into this at all. He was never going to be OK with somebody -- regardless of that person's race, sex, etc. -- interfering with him and his argument. He pulled the race card because it was easy, he might even have pulled the race card even if she'd said "you two" instead of "you people." Roni -- you were brave to step up to the plate, and I applaud you. I am sorry to say I probably would have been too scared that someone that angry and that heedless of the people around him would have attacked me physically (and by the way, I'd be scared regardless of the race -- when people are in heated arguments, screaming and cussing at each other, they are not likely to take kindly to someone telling them to stop).

2) I could point to just as many double-talking Republicans as Democrats (though it just so happens that my all-time favorite does happen to be a Democrat -- Bill Clinton famously suggesting that interpreting something said depended on what your definition of "is" is). I'm not ready to call Obama "honest" and certainly not "more honest" than other politicians. But I'm also not prepared to condemn him for the doublespeak, since it is rampant in politics. On the other hand, I will say this, if you're going to campaign on "change" then perhaps you should expect to be held to a changed standard. In other words, if you say you're going to be different from the other politicians, then you need to actually BE different, and that would include not resorting to doublespeak.

3) If you're still not sure, I am NOT a fan of Obama's -- but, I, too, have been disapointed with Larry Meeks of late, but not because of what he has said about Obama. My disappointment stems from his non-response to some of the letters he gets. He's essentially allowed the people who write in to him to hijack his column. There's nothing wrong with using the letters he receives to make some points for him, but in some cases, he's hardly even weighed in on a topic, or when he does weigh in, he's missed an opportunity to weigh in with something useful or thoughtful. So, why do I keep coming back? Because I know he is capable of offering truly thoughtful, thought-provoking writing, and I keep hoping to see it the next time I come back. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Lisa
Tue Sep 7, 2010 3:21 PM
WHAT LIBERAL INGNORANCE!!!! I'm shocked by how many people have said they think President Obama is honest. Are you kidding me? To say that about ANY POLITICIAN in the current times is absurd!! "You people" need to start forming unbiased opinions. The mainstream media is manipulating those in this country who don't really pay attention to facts. Seriously, if your only source is the regular nighly news (ABC, NBC, CBS), then you are only hearing one side of a very polarized arguement. More and more, people repeat the "spin" they hear on a daily basis, assuming it must be right. Peolple...the prudent thing to do is pay attention to both sides, then form an opinion. You quickly find that both sides are spinning and maipulating. Unless you do, you will quickly become a puppet for whichever side.
I challenge anyone to compare the "promises" of the campaign to the "actions" of this administration...and if you still feel that Obama is honest, then you're being dishonest and/or ignorant.
I will also say that Liberals have become very agressive in the larger metropolitan areas. In fact, there is quite a bit of social pressure to be Liberal or Democrat in these area. Individuals are even persecuted for
Comment: #18
Posted by: RyanOnCue
Thu Sep 9, 2010 6:55 AM
cont'd...
Individuals are even persecuted for any dissension from Liberal ideology. How about the entertainment industry? How about Union members? Celebs & Unions have become a powerful political forces...and virtually entirely for Democrats. I have faimly members in unions, and every one of them vote Democrat...no matter what. Most metropolitan areas are having major economic problems. The politiacians blame Bush for everything, but "wake up people", those areas are governed by almost entirely democratic politicians. And those politicians keep telling you (and you keep believing) that they're the ones who will fix it. And we wonder why things don't change.
Potential economic collapse of this country is an issue that we should not be taking lightly. Instead, the media easily distracts us with so many other issues. Why isn't anyone talking about our massive mountain on Debt. Seriously, China practically owns the USA. That is a very, very scary thought.
AMERICANS HAVE TO WAKE UP!!! Our country is not invincable.
Comment: #19
Posted by: RyanOnCue
Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:13 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Larry Meeks
Mar. `11
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month