Taking a Courageous Stand … Where Nobody Can See Me

 

I have a few loveable little quirks that drive my staff crazy. For example, I get millions of forms to sign for all sorts of reasons every day. There’s always a stack on my desk, and a list on my computer. So I dutifully sign them all, like I’m supposed to. Unless one of them, under the signature line, says “Provider.” On paper, I scratch out “Provider” and write in “Physician.”

I don’t know how to do that on the computer, so my staff has to print it out, make the change, have me sign it, scan it back in, then return it electronically. All because I refuse to sign my name as a “Provider.” They occasionally complain about what they call unnecessary work. I don’t listen. I’m not signing it until they fix it. And today I just learned that I’m not being as unreasonable as my staff thinks I am. From last week’s American Journal of Medicine:

…here is the irony of “providers.” The term was first introduced by the Nazis in the 1930s when trying to debase German physicians of Jewish descent. There were 1253 pediatricians in Hitler’s Reich, and almost half were considered Jewish by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. When the Nazis ascended to power in 1933, the German Society of Pediatrics asked these physicians to resign. By 1938 the government simply revoked their licenses, so that instead of being called “Arzt” (ie, “doctors”) they were demoted to “Krankenbehandler,” that is, mere “practitioners” or “health care providers.” The term “Krankenbehandler” ultimately was applied to all German physicians of Jewish descent. Not only did they have to put it on their prescription pads, letterheads, and practice signs, but they also had to display it with a Star of David and the specification that they could only treat Jews. Soon after, mass deportations began. Words have societal implications.

Of course, Nazi propaganda went beyond medicine. The Third Reich was a master at mobilizing the German language for political gains. To better equivocate and confuse the public, it created an entire Lingua Tertii Imperii, wherein deportation was turned into “evacuation,” torture into “intensified interrogation,” and executions into “special treatment.” Orwell discussed these issues in “Politics and the English Language” and then further expanded them into the “Newspeak” of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Needless to say, doublespeak is alive and well; consider “collateral damage,” “friendly fire,” and “downsizing.”

Leftists, like the National Socialists of Nazi Germany, the leaders of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, and modern American socialists don’t like reality, and hope to build Heaven on Earth. You may say they’re a dreamer, but they’re not the only one. And dreamers excel in molding language to fit their fantasies. So leftists are really good at this sort of thing — think of “social justice” (which is treating some groups differently than others based on their race), “anti-racism” (which is treating some people differently than others based on their race), and other terms the left uses to describe the way they wish things were, rather than the way things are.

Conservatives, who tend to be more aware of the existence of reality, struggle to understand (much less to actually use) such terminology. Most conservatives think of words as ways to describe reality, not ways to create a new reality.

So I don’t intend to sign my name as a “Provider.” If that earns me a Star 0f David next to my name on my Medicare forms like in the example above, I’ll be proud.

Is this a defiant clash of ideological violence? No, not really. It matters to me, but it probably doesn’t matter to most other people. It’s just one of many little things that bother me.

We need to stand up to the little things. We should start there.

But if we don’t stand up to the little things, then big things will follow. As surely as night follows day.

This is probably insufficient to impress Susan with her recent post, asking conservatives to stop just going along with leftism. But right now, that’s all I got. I should protest more loudly. I really should. After all, leftists are always talking about how Americans have a right to free speech, and protesting is a form of Constitutionally protected speech. After all, Black Lives Matter burned down cities across the country with no repercussions, and the Jan. 6 protestors walked through the Capitol with no repercussions — after all, they’re speaking truth to power. That’s what we do here, right?

Why not? It’s time for me to stand up for myself! Speak truth to power, just like Hillary Clinton says! Yeah! After all, the Constitution protects my right to free speech! Even if it is in the form of protest! Especially then, according to Democrats! That’s why Democrats are protecting the protestors from BLM and Jan 6! Thanks to the sacrifices of these Democrats, I’m now free to speak my mind! So I should speak out for what I believe in! Right?

Eh — maybe not. Maybe I’ll stick to scratching out words I don’t like on medical forms. I’m such a rebel…

Signed,
Dr. Bastiat

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Let me lend support for the conclusions of DOCTOR Bastiat.  I have a PA.  He’s excellent.  But when I went to see him recently the MA referred to him at least 6 times in sixty seconds as “Doctor”.  I must have said, He’s a PA, right?  Or just looked wrong at her.  But the last time she said “doctor” with emphasis.

    I’ve seen this too. It’s making me absurdly angry. 

    • #31
  2. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    People who want to know what words really mean should procure, from a rare book seller probably, a copy of the 1982 edition (or an earlier edition) of the American Heritage Dictionary.

    The editors at Houghton Mifflin Company in Boston were getting increasingly disturbed by the liberal editors at Merriam-Webster’s in Springfield. A war did not break out, although there were rumors, :-), but the Houghton Mifflin editors decided to write their own dictionary. I don’t recognize modern editions of the American Heritage Dictionary. But the editions published between 1969 and 1982 are definitely accurate and trustworthy.

    The funny thing about language is that we think it changes much more than it really does. It’s actually easier to add to it than to change what already exists.

    The whole PC movement was really an editorial movement. I think their 1970s’ success went to their head and they have been trying to shape culture by changing our language style and substance ever since. We need to hold the line.

    And people really need to be careful with Webster’s. It is the standard in publishing now, but it’s a monopoly with computing power. I was really stunned years ago to hear a Harvard Law School graduate, Barack Obama, use “beg the question” in the sense “to raise the question.” If anyone on this planet should know the meaning of that logic term, it would be an HLS graduate. But no worries. Within a week or so (I know because I checked) Webster’s fixed the definition to make it okay.  They quickly found a couple of nincompoops to quote to make it all right:

    to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response

    <After all, the rules of the Senate make it practically impossible to push any measure through a closely divided chamber without compromise. Which begs the question, is it Lott that conservatives hate so much? Or is it the role of Senate majority leader itself? — Noam Scheiber, The New Republic, 30 Dec. 2002>

    <All this buzz begs the question: Will Twitter be the next Facebook or another Friendster-style fizzle? — Adam Markovitz, Entertainment Weekly, 13 Mar. 2009>

    • #32
  3. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    MarciN (View Comment):

    People who want to know what words really mean should procure, from a rare book seller probably, a copy of the 1982 (or an earlier edition) of the American Heritage Dictionary.

    The editors at Houghton Mifflin Company in Boston were getting increasingly disturbed by the liberal editors at Merriam-Webster’s in Springfield. A war did not break out, although there were rumors, :-), but the Houghton Mifflin editors decided to write their own dictionary. I don’t recognize modern editions of the American Heritage Dictionary. But the editions published between 1969 and 1982 are definitely accurate and trustworthy.

    The funny thing about language is that we think it changes much more than it really does. It’s actually easier to add to it than to change what already exists.

    The whole PC movement was really an editorial movement, and I think their 1970s’ success went to their head and they have been trying to shape culture by changing our language style and substance ever since. We need to the hold the line.

    And people really need to be careful with Webster’s. It is the standard in publishing now, but it’s a monopoly with computing power. I was really stunned years ago to hear a Harvard Law School graduate, Barack Obama, use “beg the question” in the sense “to raise the question.” If anyone on this planet should know the meaning of that logic term, it would be an HLS graduate. But no worries. Within a week or so (I know because I checked) Webster’s fixed the definition to make it okay. They quickly found a couple of nincompoops to quote to make it all right:

    to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response

    <After all, the rules of the Senate make it practically impossible to push any measure through a closely divided chamber without compromise. Which begs the question, is it Lott that conservatives hate so much? Or is it the role of Senate majority leader itself? — Noam Scheiber, The New Republic, 30 Dec. 2002>

    <All this buzz begs the question: Will Twitter be the next Facebook or another Friendster-style fizzle? — Adam Markovitz, Entertainment Weekly, 13 Mar. 2009>

    Yes, omigosh, yes!  The misuse of begs (or begging) the question makes me crazy.  I also only use old dictionaries as the new ones are utterly corrupt (in the old meaning of the world, but perhaps, on second thought, the other one, too).  It also bugs me when TV characters who are supposed to be smart or sophisticated say “John and I” in a context where it should be “John and me.”  They’ll use “John and me” said by a “lower” class person to show their supposedly lower status, but never recognize the foolishness in the other direction.  Grumble….  Another one that bugs me is using presently to mean currently instead of soon, but I think I may be fighting a losing battle there.  I still insist on using it properly!  Then again, I’m thoroughly confused by “partner.”  But never, never, never “partner with.”  Aaarrrggghh!

    • #33
  4. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Stad (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: I scratch out “Provider” and write in “Physician.

    For forms that ask for my sexual identity, I put “Manly Stud.” For personal pronouns, it’s “Lord Stad, Master of the Universe” . . .

    Sometimes that is what you have to do, mock their conventions at every turn. 

    • #34
  5. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: I scratch out “Provider” and write in “Physician.

    For forms that ask for my sexual identity, I put “Manly Stud.” For personal pronouns, it’s “Lord Stad, Master of the Universe” . . .

    Sometimes that is what you have to do, mock their conventions at every turn.

    Mockery is one of our greatest weapons, especially against their efforts to own the language.

    • #35
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.