THE RUNDOWN ON THE RUN-UP ——- by Steve Nadis
Maybe it’s just me, but it drives me crazy every time a TV or radio journalist mentions the prelude to the Iraq war, because they invariably (inexorably, inevitably) say: “the run-up to the war in Iraq.” Until a few years ago, no one used the term in this country. Now it’s become mandatory, even though the term is ill-defined and possibly even vague. I realize that the powers that be at NPR and network news don’t always do what I say, but I’m still offering the following suggestion: Maybe these journalists, in the privacy of their own homes (perhaps in the bathroom, with the door closed and exhaust fan running) could try to describe our mad rush to war in other ways, just to see if it’s possible. Who knows? They just might find another way of putting it–for variety’s sake, if for no other reason. These terms go in and out of fashion and eventually “run-up” will fall out of favor. Remember back in the 90s when everyone in the media was using the word “parse,” nonstop, after Clinton denied having sex with “that woman” and also raised one of the greatest philosophical questions ever uttered by a living president (as opposed to a dead president): “What do you mean by ‘is’?” Most of us had never parsed before, and suddenly we were parsing everything. Well parse had its 15 minutes and maybe more, but now, thankfully, it’s all over. One day, run-up too will run down, and it can’t come soon enough for me.
Posted by
at
14:47:38
This is well reasoned, but to what end?
To no end (does that make it endless?), which is exactly the point.
Hey Snake,
I think the real quote was "That depends on what your definition of is is."
Just wanted to make your excellent thoughts historically accurate. (Part of my "run-up to the truth"–which is going to be a very long run-up as long as Bush is in office.)
Thank you Gatemouth for that most excellent clarification. Youre setting a fine example for the kind of "participatory" involvement (see "S.O.S.") Ive been asking for.