Communicating ... with aliens!

The link in the title is not about language in the traditional Liquid Ridiculous sense, but rather about communication. Would you know how to greet an alien who didn't speak English, who maybe didn't speak at all? If everything from your backgrounds were as different as they are likely to be, on what basis would or could you interact?

Anyone who has read Contact by Carl Sagan or seen the movie based thereon has been exposed to the the concept that we will be largely unable to communicate with extraterrestrials if we encounter them. Ratcheting up the nerd factor, an excellent episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled Darmok addresses similar ideas. Here's a commonsense guide to keep in your pocket in case you should ever find yourself face-to-face (if it has a face) with E.T. (should you be lucky enough to meet a bipedal and carbon-based -- let alone Reese's Pieces-eating -- alien).

Words as Weapons

I saw this in yesterday's New York Times.  It raises important questions about the power of words to define our reality and, therefore, to determine our political and social responses to that reality.

One meta-political question it raises implicitly: Does the word "terrorism" have a cogent definition, or does it mean different things to different people (possibly dependent on different agendas)?  

Here are a few excerpts; click above for the full article.

• WASHINGTON — Words can be weapons, too. So after nearly every new report of political violence, whether merely plotted or actually carried out, there is a vocabulary debate: Should it be labeled “terrorism”?
...
But more is at stake here than semantics or petty point-scoring in the blogosphere. Political violence has two elements: the act, and the meaning attached to it. Long after the smoke of an explosion has cleared, the battle over language goes on, as contending sides seek to aggrandize the act or dismiss it, portray it as noble or denounce it as vile.
...

From the debate over word choice came the adage that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” a cliché already by the 1980s.

“That’s a catchy phrase, but also misleading,” President Ronald Reagan said in a 1986 radio address. “Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people.”
...
Thinking of ends and not means, Mr. Reagan praised the Nicaraguan contra rebels, who had a bloody record fighting the Communist Sandinistas, as “the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.” In the cold war contest with the Soviet Union, he armed and embraced the Afghan “freedom fighters” and their Arab allies, some of whom evolved into the terrorists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That long-ago radio address sounds naïve in retrospect in another respect, too. “History is likely to record that 1986 was the year when the world, at long last, came to grips with the plague of terrorism,” President Reagan declared. President Obama is unlikely to venture a similar prediction anytime soon.