Eu*phe*mism (n) An inoffensive term substituted for one considered offensively explicit.--American Heritage Dictionary, Paperback edition, 1969, Peter Davies, Editor. Based on the hardcover edition, William Morris, Editor.

There are all sorts of euphemisms that one runs across in day to day life. They are employed for many different purposes. Let's deconstruct a few examples and see what we can learn from the exercise.

One of my very favorite euphemisms is "Gentleman's Club." A Gentleman's Club is, of course, a strip club (or "Titty Bar," to use the vernacular), an establishment where customers, primarily but not exclusively male, pay to watch women dance and disrobe. Why, of course. What could better epitomize gentlemanly behavior than going to a bar, getting liquored up, watching a woman take off her clothes & dance sugestively and then stick monetary currency into her garter or panties?

This particular expression jibes very, very well with the definition cited above. The proprietors and promoters of Gentleman's Clubs substitute the respectable word Gentleman for other words that, though they might be more descriptive of the activity taking place on the premises, are more offensive to gentlepersons of certain sensibilities. To take it a little further than the American Heritage Dictionary cares or is even chartered to do, we shall note, perhaps arguably, that this practice is undertaken for primarily economic reasons. The intent is not so much to deceive people about the type of activity that goes on in these types of places as it is to lend a patina of respectability to them.

Some euphemisms, I submit, have other, more sinister purposes (unless you are a Radical Feminist, in which case you would find the above pretty sinister. I am not, and therefore don't.). A good example of this is cited by George Orwell in his landmark essay "Politics and the English Language," still the definitive text on the subject. Orwell cleverly and correctly notes that when the United States government changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense, it clearly signaled that the US was going to adopt a more war-like and imperialist military posture. That the cold war and current multi-front policies of the US military establishment have borne him out is both proof positive of his genius and a poor tribute to his memory.

In any event, what we see here is a clear attempt to use language to deceive the populace. What possible threat to the sovereignty and general welfare of the United States is or has ever been posed by, say Libya or Iraq? Or by any of the recent insurgencies in Latin America? Defense of what, I say. Capital and the title of neighborhood bully, both of which come closer to the meaning of the word War rather than Defense in any reasonable, non-Orwellian way.

Another term that bugs me is "Pro-Life." Now, while this is used because it is less offensive and controversial than "Anti-Abortion," I think it also a tacit admission that nobody is really "Pro-Abortion." Many people, myself included, feel that reproductive decisions are highly personal and not something that the government should be in the business of regulating, and that there are unfortunate instances where abortion is the best of a dismal set of choices for a woman or a couple to decide upon. Abortion, however, is not a desirable outcome for the involved person(s), though it may be one relative to the other options available, and I know of no individual or organization that endorses women to embark upon an unwanted pregnancy for the purpose of terminating it with an abortion.

Further, let me clarify something about the politics of many of these so-called "Pro-Lifers." Many (although not all, a point which I will return to) people who claim the title of Pro-Life because they are Anti-Abortion are, in fact Anti-Life in many other instances. They oppose abortion, but endorse capital punishment, which, unlike abortion, is BEYOND ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING A RATIONAL ARGUEMENT TO THE CONTRARY a legal means of ending a fully human life. They oppose abortion, but support deadly--even genocidal--imperialist wars in Iraq, Colombia, Israel and elsewhere. And, despite professing a belief in the Judeo-Christian God that, according to the mythology they claim to believe and live by, gave humans free-will, they not only oppose abortion, but also more prophylactic and less traumatic means of birth control. This is because they are also (or, in some cases, ultimately) Anti-Erotic.

This last point is salient. Such people as described above need to be separated from people whose politics really are life-affirming in all the above instances and are also morally opposed to abortion. That is at least a consistently Pro-Life position that I can respect as such, even though I don't agree with the notion that a fetus is alive. But the politicians and activists out there who oppose abortion & birth control while simultaneously endorsing capital punishment & the carpet bombing of third world countries that fail to say "Simon Says" loudly enough to Corporate America are not "Pro-Life." Not only that, since that crowd led the charge to "End Welfare as we know it," and since Welfare was a program that, for all it's shortcomings and flaws, enhanced the LIFE of poor mothers and children, it is only fair to conclude that these people are not "Pro-Life" at all. Rather, they are "Pro-Birth."

Think about it. They endorse many pollicies, such as war and execution, that end life prematurely. They reject birth control, which prevents unwanted and unhappy lives from occuring. They reject social spending that enhances the well-being of the most unfortunate members of society. In what way is this approach life-promoting? It what way do they respect life? And I haven't even started in on the way so many people in this society are keen on incarcerating our troubled youth and insuring that their lives are wasted before they really begin.

No, these policies do not promote life. They promote birth. Once the fetus has developed into and been successfully delivered as a human being, these paragons of piety could give a $#!+. Until everyone who claims they are "Pro-Life" can claim that they promote life for even the most flawed actual humans and not just for innocent and theoretical humans I propose that these folks come clean and refer to themselves as "Pro-Birth."

A word to the wise guy. Be careful what you hear and what you read. While a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, the inverse is true of a turd.