That word? I do not think it means, what you think it means...

 "Oh those RINOs and NEO-CONS won't do anything... we have to purge the party of these spineless unprincipled traitors"

It's kinda funny... I generally find most who use the terms neo-con or RINO, except ironically or as a joke, to be unable to define either in a meaningful way.

Much as George Orwell wrote about the term "fascism" in "Politics and the English Language",   for almost everyone using the terms, "RINO" and "NEO-CON", are just signifiers for "things and people I don't like".

Thing is... The only current Republican members of congress (both house and senate) who can fairly be called "RINO", are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Brian Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, John Katko, and Jeff VanDrew (who actually was a democrat until last year).

Everyone else, is absolutely within the "normal spread" of positions for Republicans... That includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and most of the other congresscritters (not on the RINO list above) that voted to impeach Trump.

In fact, several of those that voted for impeachment, are notably far MORE conservative than Trump... The first couple I mentioned above have lifetime ratings over 90%  from the American conservative union, and almost always vote with the party (they're available online from  http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/ )

The first major mistake many make, is in thinking that loyalty to, or agreement with, Donald Trump; is any kind of criteria for being a Republican, or a conservative... Since Trump was and is, neither of those things. Trump is an ACTUAL Republican in name only, and always has been... He was officially a democrat, until he needed to be a Republican, at which point he officially signed up to be a republican... but he never actually changed anything other than the initial beside his name. 

The second, and fundamental mistake however, is in thinking the republican party is actually conservative, or in fact has EVER been conservative, by any meaningful definition of the term (except perhaps, relative to the actual left). 

The Republican party is, and since reconstruction mostly has been, a moderate centrist party about MOST things... Generally averse to change and risk, and generally collegial in reality, regardless of the rhetoric fed to the base for fundraising purposes. 

Even Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY conservative... He talked a good game, but in reality, he was as much a "neo-con" as Bill Kristol.

Barry Goldwater was the closest thing to an actual conservative in the post war Republican party... and he was really more libertarian than conservative by modern sensibilities (though he of course considered himself to be conservative, and was mostly thought of as such in his time). Before Goldwater, you need to go back to Coolidge to get an actual conservative.... and before that... Ummm... 

.... Yeah... Look at the history... The Republican party is NOT conservative, and never really has been. 

Historically speaking, post reconstruction, the majority of the republican party, has been in the mold of Bush the elder, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover... RELATIVELY conservative compared to "progressive" leftists in the democratic party, they're still for Big Government, just not AS big as Democrats. They're still just as paternalist as Dems, only about different things in different ways. They're in favor of plenty of control, intervention, and regulation, on both social and economic issues... because everyone has their "special" cases, and those "special pleadings" add up. 

Reagan was a near literal revolution in the party, and he wasn't even actually that conservative... He was RHETORICALLY conservative, but in fact he governed as what most who identify as "conservative" today (who, mostly, are very definitely NOT conservative in any meaningful way), would call a RINO... Or if they actually knew what the term means, pretty close to a neo-con. He was a free spending, massive debt accumulating, heavily interventionist in domestic affairs, heavily interventionist in foreign affairs, massively intrusive, NON-conservative; by anything like a reasonable definition of the term. He just TALKED about being otherwise... and how that was better.

... Which it IS... but he didn't even try to actually govern that way...

In fact, the Reagan administration and Republican congressional leadership, essentially made what some might consider a "corrupt bargain" with the Democratic senate majority leader Robert Byrd (for the first and last years of his term... the Republicans had a narrow senate majority for 6 of Reagans 8 years) and Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency Tip O'neil (all but the last few months anyway); wherein the Republicans got most of THEIR spending priorities passed through congress and signed by the president, and in exchange, so did the Democrats... and both knew that was happening, so they were able to freely posture, to raise money off "fighting for their constituency", while in reality, there was always a deal to be made.

Which ACTUALLY meant that the government was doing FAR MORE than it had ever done since WW2... And not coincidentally SPENDING far more than it had since WW2, and accumulating FAR MORE DEBT than it had since WW2. 

The fact is, Goldwater and Coolidge were major outliers, and exceptions to the general run of Republican candidates and presidents... and were largely unpopular within the party because of it. 

For that matter, Reagan was also unpopular within the party, until he placated the southern religious social conservatives after his brokered convention loss in '76 (which happened in the first place, because he offended said southern religious social conservatives, in an attempt to gain broad centrist appeal, by selecting a more liberal Republican running mate, and saying a few things the leaders of that block didn't care for...   Had he not pissed off the southern faction of the leadership, Reagan would have won the nomination in '76... but probably lost the presidency).

The social conservatives have never actually been a majority in the party... Only a plurality... A little less than 40% at peak... but they're a very LOUD plurality minority... and those opposed to them are very LOUD too, about how big and bad the social conservatives are; making them seem like they were and are much more powerful and consequential than they actually are... or for that matter, much more conservative, and much more principled and consistent than they actually are. 

... But every national candidate in the Republican party has to make the southern religious social conservatives at least tolerate them, because said southern social conservatives have enough power and mass to BLOCK someone. They can't actually MAKE the king... as I said, they're less than 40%... but they can keep someone from being crowned, and no other single block is able to do so, because no other single block is more than about 25% of the party... Nor is any other single block motivated and organized enough to do so. 

But that doesn't make the party actually conservative, or actually socially conservative, at the national level (local is an entirely different story... State and local level politics are a totally different beast). 

One other thing the party has very firmly NOT been, along with "actually conservative" is POPULIST... In fact, they've GENERALLY been rather the opposite, at least when it comes to national and international issues and policies (local is a different matter entirely). 

Until Trump that is... 

Or at least the Republican party hasn't been populist since the FIRST Roosevelt... who was VERY firmly a populist progressive (Hoover wasn't a populist by nature, but he took some seemingly populist... and quite harmful... actions based on some truly epically bad advice from his cabinet and congressional caucus)... 

Actually, TR would have been a quite "progressive" democrat in the post WW2 period up through the late 60s or so, and he had a disturbing tendency towards fascism (seems to have run in the family).

Hell... TR could easily have been LBJ, or his cousin Franklin...

...He wanted strong social safety nets set up and paid for by government, with socialized pensions and healthcare. He was for strong protectionist tariffs and strongly against free trade. He was pro-union and anti-corporation to a shocking degree, and he was pro-government regulation of almost everything. Read "The New Nationalism", and it's like postwar democrats fantasy platform...

...except that TR was personally moral and ethical, unlike the thoroughly unethical, amoral, and frankly evil, racist rapist that LBJ was.

So... if you're an actual conservative or libertarian or "conservatarian", guess what... YOU are the one who is a Republican in name only.

If you're one of those who is using RINO as an insult to describe Republican party members who aren't at all conservative, you've got the perspective reversed, because THEY ARE THE PARTY; not the conservatives and libertarians, who generally VOTE republican, because they are less awful than the realistic alternatives.

... If you think about what the party actually is, as opposed to what you think it SHOULD BE... Well... RINO... isn't an insult, or at least it shouldn't be. It's kinda like that line "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer". 

Y'all Dudes Are Culturally Appropriated and Stuff

I am a native New Englander, born in south Boston, and grew up split between New Hampshire and the southern suburbs of Boston.

I don't have a Boston or New England accent... I pronounce the letter R just fine... Though I do use the words "sure" and "ayup" for "yes" reflexively... something of a New England stereotype.

I am not a southerner, or Texan... though I have lived nearly half my life in the southeast, Texas, and the southwest... and I use "y'all" many times a day. Because it is a very useful word.

I am not a Californian... though I did live in NorCal for several years... but I use "dude" many times a day... because it is a very useful word.

I have culturally appropriated these good and useful words from the south and California, because they were good and useful words, and I am absolutely not sorry about that.

But they can't admit it...

"I think people are stupid and gullible and irresponsible and bad, and they will be swayed by other bad people, and they will do bad things... Not me because I'm better and smarter than those other people and I won't be swayed, so I should be able to make decisions for those other people, because otherwise bad people will, and I want them to be forced by men with guns to do what I think they should do, because I am good and right and my thoughts and preferences and decisions are good and right"

-- Everyone who wants the government to restrict rights... but they can't admit it

Say what you mean, and mean what you say... Definitions MATTER

If you mean "it's to be expected that X happened" or "it's unsurprising that X happened", say so.. Don't say its "Understandable that X happened"...

Understandable means that you empathize with the action, or sympathize with it, or can find it reasonable, or excusable, or justifiable... or at least understand and find reasonable that others might.. If that's what you mean, then OK... that's what you mean. But if it isn't, then use the right words and constructions to convey the right meaning.

This isn't just meaningless wonkery... it's a very important distinction.

Definitions matter. Words matter. Communication depends on these things. Misunderstanding and conflict are generated and perpetuated based on getting them wrong.

Meaning and Understanding

In order to communicate usefully and meaningfully (is anything less really communication?), one must be able to understand what others say, and they must be able to understand what you say.

More importantly, you absolutely must understand what they MEAN.

Obvious yes?

So then why are so many people attempting to make it so hard for others to understand them?

In order to communicate with someone, you must have shared meaning with them.

You must have shared definitions, shared context, shared points of reference; or you must be able to create these things, in your interactions with them.

You must be able to relate things in your own life and experience, to similar things in theirs, and be able to explain the differences (you must be able to share idiom and to analogize).

Further, you have to know where you have shared meaning, and where you don't. Otherwise you might say one thing, and they'll understand (or misunderstand), something else entirely.

It's a case of not being able to ask the right questions, because you don't know, what you don't know.

I am a member of several different subcultures, where individuality, the "unusual", the extreme, the outliers... are "common", even celebrated.

However, these are also subcultures which tend to infinitesimalize relatively small differences. To create terminology for them. To inhabit them, wrap identities around them, and unfortunately too often factionalize around them (look up "the narcissism of small differences")

For all these reasons, and many more, it is especially important that we be able to communicate clearly. That when we say things of significance, we are operating with a set of shared definitions and assumptions. That we have shared meaning, around our actions and interactions.

The potential for hurt or harm is so great, the need for clarity is all the greater.

The difficulty is, often, our cultural assumptions are transparent to us; and utterly alien to others outside of our culture (or subculture).

In most subcultures, "Good morning" is a friendly greeting, and "Hey, fuck you" is a horrible insult.

MOST subcultures, but not all...

"Hey, fuck you", IS a warm friendly greeting, in some subcultures...

The military, commercial kitchens, athletic fields, construction sites... Really anyplace where people (mostly guys) "busting each others balls" is part of the culture of comradeship and respect.

It's when the guys DON'T insult you, screw with you, bust your balls etc... that they are expressing their dislike or lack of respect for you. It means they don't care enough to bother, don't respect you enough, or don't think you can take it.

You wouldn't BELIEVE some of the insults my friends and I have for each other... never mind the dynamic between older and younger brothers...

But... knowing that, and being able to deal with that, depends on shared cultural understanding, and therefore having shared meaning and context.

If you're a polite upper middle class American woman, and you're suddenly dropped into a world, where people express respect and affection for each other by calling each other "bitch", "whore", "faggot" (certain gay subcultures for example)... You're probably going to be appalled, you will likely be offended, and you're certainly going to have a hard time understanding what is being communicated, and communicating in return.

Until you develop shared meaning and context.

This is something that an unfortunate number of folks in "alternative lifestyle communities" seem to miss... (and others as well, I'm just using this as a convenient and obvious example).

They seem to carry around the assumption that somehow, everyone is supposed to understand their exact individual and specific meaning for something, which may mean something entirely different to someone else... and they get offended when you don't.

There are these terms, that they make up entirely, or use differently from everyone else; and yet they seem to believe they have the right to be offended when others don't understand or "respect", their personal meaning or usage... and to force other people to use it while attempting to communicate with them (or worse, to refuse to attempt to communicate with anyone, unless the other party already understands their preferred usage).

Then of course there are those who, in reaction to the type of person I describe above, and in the attempt to not give offense; account for EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION, COMBINATION, OR VARIANT, IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY...

Can you tell that irritates me...

It's a terrific irritation, and waste of time, and just plain destructive to real communication and understanding.

This is one of the problems I have with people who keep trying to find infinitely small divisions of categorization for their "identity", or their gender, or their sexuality, or their ideology or any other damn thing; particularly those who get offended if you don't use, or don't understand, their preferred term for their self identification.

Fine, you may want to call yourself "queer oriented transgenderflexiblequestioning blondie"...

...but unless someone has direct personal knowledge of the multiple subcultures I drew those descriptions from, and the tiny shades of difference between multiple terms, no-one is going to have the slightest clue what you are on about. You're just going to irritate them, and make communication with them more difficult.

And sorry, no, everyone does not have an obligation to "respect your choices and preferences".

Neither your mere existence, nor your particular preferences, create any obligation for me to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, except not trespass on your fundamental rights. Everything else is optional, and a matter of cultural practice and social convention.

If you are explicitly and deliberately using language, terminology, and definitions, outside of cultural practice and social convention... How exactly is anyone supposed to know what to do, how to treat you, what to call you etc... ?

One shouldn't need to be an Oxford don of linguistics and semiotics, to understand what it is you wish to be called, what your interests and hobbies and preferences are, what you don't like etc...

How about this...

Those of you who are so concerned about others getting your "label" wrong?

Is your own sense of self worth, and identity, so weak, that it cannot tolerate others not uniquely and specifically acknowledging and reinforcing it?

How about you like yourself, respect yourself, and respect others enough; to not give a damn about labels and terminology, except as a way of facilitating meaningful communication and understanding?

How about you try not getting offended, and instead try to help other people understand you better... and try to understand them better?

Labels CAN be important, to facilitate communication, to speed things up, and to reduce the potential for misunderstanding... but you know what's more important? Shared meaning, shared context, and shared understanding.

In that same vein, definitions ARE important. Critical in fact.

The potential for harm inherent in misunderstandings in this world... It's just too great, to make the risks even higher through miscommunication and misunderstanding.

If you don't know the definition of an important point, clearly and completely, it's absolutely critical you ask.

If the meaning of an important point is ambiguous, or there are multiple equally valid meanings... particularly if they are contradictory; it is critical to reach shared understanding and clarity.

When the meaning of a word, phrase, term etc... is well understood in a particular subculture; it's incumbent on you to understand and use that definition, when dealing with members of that subculture, in their "own house". When dealing with those outside your particular subculture, you cannot expect them to automatically know and use your own specific definitions and meanings, which are different from their own.

Or is that just too hard?

Significant Precision

Lawyers believe that they are trained to speak and write extremely precisely, particularly while in a deposition or courtroom.

It is pounded into their heads over and over again in Law School how important it is to communicate precisely. The law can be a very technical subject, hinging on very fine distinctions. They are shown example after example of the results of imprecise communication, and how it can be exploited.

Compared to "normal" people, they DO communicate precisely. After all, imprecision in a lawyers speech can lead to their clients losing a great deal of money, or going to jail.

They don't come within shouting distance, of the precision of communication required and regularly practiced, by either doctors or engineers.

When you internalize the notion that imprecision in your communication can kill someone... or lots of people... particularly after watching it happen... That changes things entirely.

At the same time, both engineers and doctors can be MADDENINGLY vague about anything they consider unimportant, irrelevant, uninteresting, or so basic as to be understood by them as unnecessary to explain.

Even... perhaps especially... when that is exactly what you are asking about, or need to know.

This can make for some... interesting... problems.

Boys and Men

There’s a mistake I keep making.

I keep seeing 19 and 20 year olds coming back from their first tour… and I keep calling them boys and thinking of them as kids.

No man who has volunteered to serve in combat deserves to be called a boy. If nothing else, they’ve earned the right to be called men.

Expressions that irritate me.

There are certain words and phrases that just REALLY irritate me. They're used all the time, and every time I hear them I just want to smack the speaker

"Irregardless" : A conflation of irrespective and regardless. Common in the northeast, especially Boston, it's not a word, but if it were it would MEAN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAY!!!!!!

"I could care less" : No..... you COULDN'T care less genius, if you COULD care less, that means you actually care MORE.

"Needless to Say" : Needless to say? ... So DON'T FUCKING SAY IT!!! (honestly, 'm guilty of this one too).

"Accuracy Vs. Precision" : Most people think they are the sme thing, and use them interchangeably... NOT EVEN CLOSE

Accuracy is the tendency for something to be correct, or to perform to a minimum deviation from the desired result.

In gun terms (where it is most frequently mis-used), accuracy is the ability of the gun to put the bullets where the sights say they are going to go. If the sights are lined up with the X, the bullet hits the X.

Precision is another ball of wax entirely. Precision is the measure of consistency; the ability to preform the same action in the same way every time.

In gun terms precision is the ability of a weapon to group well.

What we want are Accurate shooters, and Precise guns.

An accurate weapon is a nice plus, but that's what adjsutable sights, or kentucky windage are for. The accuracy of the weapon itself isn't all that necessary to good maksmanship if the shooter is well trained and accurate. Precision (both that of the weapon, and the shooter) on the other hand is critical to good marksmanship. If a weapon doesn't put the bullet in the same place if you shoot it at the same place, it doesn't matter how well trained you are, you will not shoot well with that gun.

And finally...

"Proactive" : This is the ultimate no-no to me. It's become such a buzzword, and people have NO ACTUAL IDEA WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

It's not a word. It's a prefix and a suffix with no root. People assume the root is act, or active, but in the definition used here, active is actually a suffix. If active WERE the root, the prefix pro would make the statement redundant, making the meaning active-active.

Proactive is a pseudo word that people take to mean the oppostive of reactive, but this isn't the case; the opposite of reactive is ACTIVE.

What people really MEAN to say is active , preventative, or pre-emptive, which means acting on existing information or supposition to prevent forseeable undesireable outcomes, or to ensure desireable outcomes.

Whenever someone says "proactive" to me, I know they are full of shit (at least on whatever they are talking about).

UPDATE: One more thing; I despise the current usage of multiple sentences where multiple clauses are more appropriate. Apparently; the proper use of the comma, the semicolon, and the parenthetical expression, have been forgotten by most.

Some have accused me of writing run-on sentences; but this is unjustified. I write sentences that use proper clause structure, and correct punctuation. The semi-colon is the proper punctuation mark for the separation of clauses; commas are the proper punctuation marks for separating phrases or subclauses within a clause; and the parenthtical expression is the proper punctuation set for digressions from, or asides to the main text (as well as annotation of abbreviation, or for references when a document is not footnoted).

(Yes, I deliberately wrote that paragraph so as to use many semicolons and commas as a demonstration)

In colloquial writing (as I most often use), this division is made relatively clear by the length of the pauses that would properly be used in speaking the text (and the parenthicals of course would be used for the asides). Colons are used for ordered lists, or to terminate the preface of lengthly external quotations; semicolons are used for long pauses, and to separate multiple clauses that have comma separated subclauses (if you could substitue " ,and ", or " ,but " , you should probably use a semicolon); commas are used for short pauses, and to separate subclauses within a clause. There are many cases where there is ambiguity in proper punctuation for a sentence, or a clause; and in such situations it is generally accepted (in colloquial writing) that the less formal mark should be used.

I may be dyslexic as all hell; and I think formal grammar is silly, as is the formal and stilted clause structure it enforces ; but I know my vocabulary and punctuation damnit. Formal punctiation serves a useful purpose; it allows you to read aloud in your head as the author intended; and it should be properly observed.