Skip to main content

le mot injuste

this may not be the time to start picking apart people’s grammar. after all, with the threat of imminent disaster looming (more distinctly than it has recently), people are concerned about their families, their homes, the things that are truly important to them. world leaders have to think about more than finding the exact right phrasing for their public addresses, right?

not exactly.

the volume and intricacy of human communication is one of the hallmarks of our species. unlike animals, who identify each other by smell or intuition, or even like our ancestors, who operated by sight, our methods of knowing and understanding each other are increasingly based on our communication. words that are spoken and the body language that accompanies them, take on an exaggerated importance when they come from the mouths of leaders in times of crisis.

so today, i was a little disturbed (although not terribly surprised) when I read the following comment by john reid, british home secretary, that the planned bombings would have caused casualties on an “unprecedented scale”. sure about that, john?

now, i know what he was trying to say. he meant that the scale would have been greater than other terrorist attacks. but that isn’t what he said. he said casualties on an unprecedented scale. and to a western audience, like me, who know what he means, the statement is fairly harmless. but what does it sound like to someone in iraq? or lebanon? or somalia? it sounds like the british home secretary is saying that the casualties that matter are ones where their own people are killed. it serves the interests of organisations like hezbollah, who promise to protect citizens from the westerners (and israelis) who at best believe their lives and deaths mean nothing.

to be clear, i don’t think that reid meant to imply callousness. but as the media influence becomes all-pervasive and people everywhere rely more and more on the words and actions of political leaders as keys to deciphering meaning, it matters less what’s in your head and more what comes out of your mouth. you don’t diffuse a mine field by running into it blindfolded. dangerous, delicate situations call for extreme caution.

(not to be outdone, george w bush made a boneheaded statement of his own this afternoon, one that he has made before. he referred to terrorist groups as “islamic fascists”. george, i don’t know how your grades were in school, i’m guessing not great, but history is one of the things that you’re supposed to understand when you’re a world leader. the term fascist is not just an epithet or a synonym for political evil, to be applied liberally in discussions of groups you don’t like. it is a political term with a specific meaning, one that happens to be completely inappropriate in the context you gave it. i don’t know why you decided to use the term to describe terrorists, who don’t even run a government, so they can’t represent an authoritarian state, but i suspect it’s because you lack imagination and any sense of historical perspective and used the first political-sounding term that came into your head as equivalent to “nasty”. you aren’t helping. you aren’t making a valid point. what you are doing is reinforcing the belief held by most people that you aren’t up to the job you have. my advice (not that you asked)? you aren’t running for re-election, so you have nothing to lose. why not save the rest of the world a lot of trouble and take a vow of silence for the next two years? your friends will benefit more than anyone.)

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …