Word Warriors

   "I'm not a lawyer, but I know what words mean." -- Pug Mahoney
   "My words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
   "How can you make words mean so many different things?" -- Alice
   "The question is, which is to be master, that's all." -- Humpty Dumpty
   "Therefore, you won't know what his words mean until he tells you what they mean." -- Pug Mahoney

   Lawyers argue the meanings of words and, like Humpty Dumpty, claim they alone are the masters and others -- non-lawyers -- cannot know the meanings until and unless a lawyer explains them.
   But others do know the meanings of words. They are teachers, writers, journalists, linguists, lexicographers and everyone else who is fluent in a given language. Especially educated native speakers.
   For example, you don't need a college diploma to know that lying is wrong.
   We see a classic example these days of legalistic maneuvering and debate as defenders of the current president argue to the Senate that even if he did do some or all of the things he is accused of in the articles of impeachment, such things are done all the time, and therefore they do not meet the standard of a high crime or some other misdemeanor.
   In an odd way, the lawyers are not denying that the president may in fact have perpetrated some of the things he is accused of doing, but if he did, they are covered by "executive privilege" and therefore are not crimes, and even if they are, he does not have to talk about them and that's why he's withholding documentary evidence and forbidding his aides to testify about them.
   Moreover, that's not obstruction, that's executive privilege.
   Around and around it goes. Can you say "circular logic"? I knew you could.
   It goes like this: It's true because I say it's true, so that resolves the debate and ends the discussion. Therefore we don't need evidence or testimony because my word is enough.
   In New Jersey, that's called BS -- Blowing Smoke.