The expression whistle blower has been printed and voiced often in the last few months. When I first started being made aware of it I thought it was a colloquialism, a metaphoric expression that people use to poetically draw attention to something untoward happening in the work place, like the image of someone blowing a police whistle to get help in an emergency.
I still am not used to it. It doesn’t exist in my 1991 Oxford Dictionary, where whistle for and whistle-stop are the only expressions included after the main entry for whistle.
I did a search for its legal definition online to learn that it does seem to have a legal justification. All that I recall is that the whistle blower law seemed to be made to draw attention to anyone dishonestly adding to government expenses. Before that I used to think a whistle blower simply snitched on someone in any workplace and had the right to do so without retribution, but I always felt that there must have been a more legally accurate formal term to express the notion embodied in whistle blower.
And recently, maybe today even, because I haven’t heard that the whistle blower is drawing attention to unnecessary government or even business spending, she/ he seems like a researcher providing research to the political opponents of his employer.
Watergate, once an office complex burglarized by Republicans spying on their Democrat opponents and covered up by President Nixon, has become a metonymy for spying on ones political adversaries.
One of these words conflicts with two others. Who would not favour rights and freedoms over laws. For rights and freedoms imply without restriction or encumbering; law implies restricting ones actions in accordance with some legal or moral prohibition.
For the past 20 years or so whenever I walk onto my front porch I’m being watched by a neighbour’s techno device. And when I tread the pavement across the road a few doors down, lights flash on like a scene from a jail break movie. Whenever I stand in a Toronto subway exit I’m informed that I’m being watched in accordance with a province of Ontario law. And not too many years ago media informed that police were given video recorders. I remember little more than 2 years ago someone got shot in front of their residence and a video camera showed several people hurrying away which made me think they were the likely shooters. And those cameras that were supposed to be trained on Mr. Epstein’s cell weren’t facing the right way.
This morning Toronto’s mayor and Ontario’s premier were on television talking about gangs and gun violence and how the premiere would be contributing three million dollars worth of video cameras to combat the problem.
The idea of taxing the income of the wealthy is what they who call themselves socialists prescribe to produce social justice. But income tax provides opportunities for them with capital to purchase experts to protect their money from taxes. The “flat tax” was thought to be the solution by them who did not profess socialism, for a flat tax would eliminate the loop holes that experts use to protect the money of the wealthy.
Today’s socialists include individuals of great wealth. Russia and China are socialist states where individuals of great wealth are given notoriety and honour because they are wealthy. The phrase Russian oligarch acknowledges that there are a number of wealthy Russians who are members of that cast , that oligarchy . China is still called Communist China, yet it gives power to its citizens of great wealth. And though he fancies himself to be a wealthy capitalist whose friends are also wealthy, President Trump socialist-like presents himself as the spokesman for the less than wealthy struggling majority who are not among his friends. In a sense income tax has been a gift to the wealthy because their wealth has supported the political and legal experts who’ve designed the income tax laws that protect their income.
Today February 8, 2019 there is still no journalist interest evident in my online searches for expert comments about the Bruce MacArthur sentencing after day 1 of 3 days of hearings. Since day 1, Monday, February 4, 2019 I’ve seen only identical text copies reporting the sadistic aftermath of MacArthur’s murder of eight human beings, six of whom were immigrants without connections and no one of consequence to speak on their behalf. Only one person is reported to have been disappointed enough to complain about Mr. MacArthur’s 25 year sentence, in theory, the penalty for killing just one poor human being and not eight, with no penalty for having inhumanly degraded them. And she appeared in an online video without journalistic comment or compassion .
Livy in his history of early Rome says community and true patriotism are ” founded upon respect for the family and love of the soil.” But that was then; now the national soil and constitutions are being replaced by corporate fealty and respect for global rights.