Vocabulary

I made a telephone call today to a store and, because I was speaking to their answering service and wanted a response, I told them that I would not be available between 12 and 1500 but what I really said was "I would be out of pocket" for that time period. My wife was concerned that they would not understand the phrase. Note that the term "12 to 1500" did not concern her. To me it illuminates one of the more interesting factors involved in carrying on a conversation with anyone and that is the size of what I shall call ones "working vocabulary."

We all tend to believe that a word is "unfamiliar" and therefore possibly not correct because it is not familiar to us. Given two people, each having a working vocabulary of, say, 9000 words, a close examination would show that each would have 250 to 300 words they know and use but that the other does not. The result is that when one uses a word out of that "personal" vocabulary the other considers him to be a snob and the reverse holds true. Each is convinced that the other is effete and trying to show off. Yet such is not the case at all.

When you are talking within your own group your vocabularies tend to be the same. In fact "in-jokes" can be summoned by simply mentioning a word or phrase. But to say the same thing outside of the group is to receive blank stares at best.

In a previous assignment 25 years ago my wife and I had to become fluent in the Indonesian language. It has now been over 20 years since we spoke it and most has been lost through lack of use. But we still have four or five words we use on almost a daily basis. They are very meaningful to us and save many additional words. To use them in front of anyone else would be considered snobbery of the highest order.

Who has not seen the stock British Colonel in an english farce who uses foreign words when ordering a drink or summoning servants, etc. An example comes to mind: E.F. Benton wrote a series of books some of which were developed into a TV comedy entitled "Mapp and Lucia." Set in the twenties, they have a Major who is constantly using the words "chota peg". He is the butt of the joke but is oblivious to it.

So when someone uses a word with which you are not familiar, don't take offense, take an interest. Say "I do not know that word, what does it mean" and learn something new.

Iraq and who started the war

I am concerned about the apparent disappearance of the will to go to war with Iraq. After 9/11 there was a great deal of discussion as to what caused it and what we should do. Let me present a fact: a New York Times poll in March of 2003 showed that 74 percent of Americans approved of military action against Iraq. If memory serves sometime in October of 2002 Congress overwhelmingly voted to authorize war by a bipartisan 77 percent margin in the Senate and an almost 3-1 margin in the House.

We find now that the usual assertion as to why we went to war was based on the grounds that war was necessary neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Allow me to expand upon the facts; House resolution 114, which authorized war against Iraq, listed more than 20 reasons for going to war; destroying Iraq's WMDs was only one of the many reasons stated in the resolution.

Here's one that really frosts this fighter pilot's behind: Bush "lied" in referring to intelligence that Iraq possessed WMDs. Lets review: The Intelligence Services of every country represented on the U.N. Security Council, including Russia, China, and France found evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. This was shown in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

We went to war for the best of reasons: safety of our citizens, threatened by a a Mid-eastern tyrant determined to become the leader of a pan-arab Muslim society. The fact that he made us think he had WMDs and that he wanted to use them is his choice. To destroy him was our choice. And the correct choice it was.

Democracies always find it difficult to maintain a war. In later posts I will discuss the problems faced by the Greeks as they built the governmental outlook we now enjoy but that story is different from our present impatience with wars only in a slight degree.

But I quote Sun Tzu: "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not a lengthy campaign." We are paying the price that all democracies face for letting this war drag on.

Premier Issue

Good day to you. This is my first of what I hope is many more blogs. Let me introduce myself, over and beyond what you see in the sidebar. I attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated before there was an Air Force Academy and they were asking for volunteers. Having watched my father spend 20 years at sea during 30 years of service it seemed to me that the Air Force's offer of becoming a fighter pilot for them was a wise choice. But even so, for me military service was not a job, not a profession, but a calling. Joining the Air Force (or any branch) was akin to becoming a priest but, thank goodness without the vow of celibacy but, in the early 50's, certainly included poverty! But on to other things.

I am fascinated by the election process this year. We treasure free speech and yet we hear about how terrible what is being said by various folks. But a quick review of history reveals that such sentiments are not new in the slightest. Almost every election is preceded by strong words and factional speech. It is really simply that we are far more aware of it thanks to such things as Blogs!

As you would expect I am not charmed by either Clinton or Obama. Clinton for her cheesy ethics and sense of entitlement, Obama for his very limited experience (He has voted "present" so many times on difficult questions that there is no there there as far as his positions are concerned.)

McCain is going to be my choice but I am not heartily in his camp even though we are USNA classmates. He has risen high but I remember what he was like back when we knew we knew all the answers but could barely contain our jejune approach to life. I do believe that he is the correct leader for us at this time. Please bear in mind that a President leads but cannot fully control the process. In other words, when the economy is great the President gets the credit, incorrectly, and when it goes bad he gets the credit too, again incorrectly. The same applies to foreign policy. But the President must voice the direction we are to follow, gather us together and make us aware of what must be done. I turn to my mentor Sun Tzu: "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."

I look forward to your comments.