Moving Forward, Clichés Remain

 | 

On August 8, Fox News reported on the Obamacare-avoidance strategy of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). Since Shaheen is running for reelection, she never mentions the great legislative achievement of the supreme leader of her party; Obamacare is just too unpopular to be named. Accordingly, in an interview played by Fox, Shaheen answered questions about the program by noting that she didn’t write the Obamacare law. She didn’t say whether this was because she opposed its provisions (although she voted for them) or because she can’t write. She did observe that “hindsight is always 20/20.”

She said this with great satisfaction, as if she were proud of her creative use of words.

Odd. But come to think of it, everyone who uses this cliché projects the same morbid pride. A similar cock-eyed vanity accompanies the use of “wake-up call,” “deck chairs on the Titanic,” “it’s a case of he said, she said,” “last time I checked,” “abundance of caution,” “shocks the conscience,” “got your back,” and, of course, “tone-deaf.” I don’t know why people who obviously care so deeply about the words they choose can’t see that their prize expressions have been in everyone’s mouth (ugly thought, isn’t it?) for many, many years. Maybe that’s a lack of hindsight.

It’s funky in the ordinary way of words that are used by government officials accustomed to extending their power by subterfuge.

But what about foresight? On the same day on which Fox was ventilating Sen. Shaheen’s inanities, the network’s B-list anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle said this about Iraq: “Questions remain about President Obama’s strategy, moving forward.” She said this as if it meant something. Well, I have some questions too, as I move forward in my own life. Don’t questions always remain, about anything? Then why bother to say so? If, however, she meant “doubt” or “skepticism,” why didn’t she say that? And isn’t strategy always about what you’re going to do in the future? If so, what is moving forward doing in that sentence? And what’s the grammar of the sentence, anyway? What is it that’s “moving”? Is it “strategy”? Is the president’s strategy moving? Or is it “questions” that are executing a peculiar forward motion? Yet the questions are supposed to remain. Tell me, Ms. Guilfoyle. But maybe someone else can tell me why moving forward has become such a popular cliché? Is it, like many other redundant expressions, just a way for insecure speakers to nail down their meaning — in this instance, to nail down the idea that, yes, I am talking about the future, OK, not the past? Y’know?

There are clichés, and then there are mistakes — continually repeated mistakes. The mistake of writing whacko when you mean wacko. The mistake of calling in the calvary. The mistake of using disinterested to mean uninterested. And, as I’ve told you before, there is the rising tide of squash.

I mean the confusion of that word, which normally evokes absurd images of fat things being flattened, with quash, which is naturally attached to no particular image but does mean something specific: to stop or repress. The judge quashed the indictment. The teacher quashed the question. The dictator quashed all debate. Try to picture indictments, questions, and debates being squashed. You can’t, and the harder you try, the sillier the incipient images become.

I would expect conservatives to conserve the quash-squash distinction. But they have become almost as good at moving forward as the progressives. In the conservative Daily Caller, July 21, we find this headline: “Top Kerry Aide Tries to Squash Claim of Anti-Fox News Bias by Lying to the Daily Caller.” The story is interesting, but the headline is bad by any standard except that of “Dog Bites Man.” One is supposed to picture a “Kerry aide” — an aide of the secretary of state, John Kerry — rushing over to a claim of bias, stomping on it, jumping on it, sitting on it, and finally lying about it, in a futile attempt to squash the thing. Yet the Daily Caller did not intend to be satirical. Or self-satirical.

Surely, there is a larger, more rotund way of putting it. Surely, there is a fatter phrase.

Neither did Attorney General Holder, in solemn remarks (he is always solemn) that announced his insertion of the federal government into the matter of a young man shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Missouri. Evidently this is the kind of thing that can be handled only by the intrepid intellect of the attorney general, and of the 40 FBI agents he dispatched to a little Midwestern town. But here is the LA Times report (August 11) on the terms in which Holder announced his intervention:

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement that he believed the shooting in Ferguson “deserves fulsome review,” and he wanted the federal inquiry to “supplement, not supplant” the investigation by police in Missouri.

“Supplement, not supplant”: nothing wrong with that verbiage. “Review” is a little funky — funky in the ordinary way of words that are used by government officials accustomed to extending their power by subterfuge. Citizens were meant to understand that what Holder had in mind wasn’t an investigation, a legal proceeding, a crackdown, an inquisition, a Court of Star Chamber. No, it was merely a review, albeit a “fulsome” one. We’re used to this kind of guff. But where did fulsome come from? The only possible source is the attorney general’s feeling that a full review would be lacking somehow in fullness. Surely, there is a larger, more rotund way of putting it. Surely, there is a fatter phrase. So, as pompous people extend use into utilize, road into roadway, and famous into infamous, Holder put a new deck on the back of the house, and full was transformed into fulsome.

The problem is that fulsome does not mean full (any more than infamous means famous). Fulsome sometimes means “large” (as opposed to “full”), but its ordinary meaning is less predictable by people who want to use big words they don’t understand. One dictionary lists the synonyms of fulsome as “excessive, extravagant, overdone, immoderate, inordinate, unctuous, cloying . . . ” Granted, we can expect an investigation commissioned by the attorney general to be worthy of all these adjectives, because he himself is worthy. But that’s not what he meant to say. Critical self-examination is not his forte.

Nobody thought it was. Yet there is always a rumor that modern liberals, such as the people who write speeches for Holder and checks for Obama campaigns, are highly educated. From Plato’s Republic to this day, specialized education has been considered the qualification and justification for rulers in dirigiste systems of government — all of them instituted, of course, by allegedly intelligent and well-educated (as opposed to actually intelligent and well educated) people. The linguistic spoors left by President Obama and his crew make the credentials of the ruling class look less genuine than ever before.

Almost everyone is glad to see the haughty administrators of Law subjected to the treatment they mete out to others, and making fools of themselves in process.

Moral fulsomeness is sometimes hard to distinguish from mere demagoguery. I don’t think I can make that distinction in the case of Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. He it was who followed Holder’s lead by making a television address in which he repeatedly demanded vigorous “prosecution” of the cop involved in the Ferguson affair, a cop who hasn’t been charged with any offense. Nixon’s office later explained that by “prosecution” he really meant “investigation” (a distinction without a difference, from the demagogue or the tyrant’s point of view) but maintained that Nixon had no reason to retract anything in his statements.

I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,
Said cunning old Fury:
I’ll try the whole cause
And condemn you to death.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

But speaking of public morals: I’m not one of those people who are addicted to the notion that “our country’s moral fabric is being eroded” — if only because that’s a mixed metaphor as well as a cliché. But I did get a kick out of the videos of Travis County Texas District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg (and that’s a mouthful right there) experiencing the aftermath of an arrest for driving with her blood alcohol considerably over the legal limit. . . If nothing else, the videos give new life to the old expression “drunk as the lord.” (Drunk as the lord of the manor, you understand, not drunk as the Lord God, despite the fact that Judges 9:13 refers to wine as something that “cheereth God and man.”) All right, all right: I admit it: I’m not in favor of laws against drunk driving, unless it results in damage. And I know I’m in a small minority on that. But almost everyone is glad to see the haughty administrators of Law subjected to the treatment they mete out to others, and making fools of themselves in process.

Even Gov. Rick Perry — he of the slack jaw and wandery eye — was acute enough to reflect on the fact that Lehmberg was the person charged with administering an agency concerned with ethics. So Perry threatened to veto the agency’s appropriation unless she resigned; when she didn’t, he carried out his threat and vetoed the bill. His reward was to be indicted by a grand jury for “abuse of office.” Believe me, I hate to defend Rick Perry, but the prosecutor seems challenged by the rudimentary distinction between use of office and abuse of office.

Nor is grotesque abuse of words simply a Texas problem. No one in the national administration appears capable of finding the right phrase. Secretary of Defense Charles Timothy (“Chuck”) Hagel has been reprimanded by this column before, but he has not learned his lesson. This month, he babbled about the attempt to rescue martyred journalist Jim Foley from his crazed jihadi captors, calling it a “flawless operation” that had only one problem: it failed. When the rescuers came, Foley was in some other place. Hagel’s exact words were: “This operation, by the way, was a flawless operation but the hostages were not there. We will do everything we need to do, that the American people would expect from their leaders, to continue to do everything we can to get our hostages back.”

But “everything” must not mean everything — in light of the administration’s stout refusal, in respect to the Foley case, to negotiate with terrorists or pay ransom to terrorists. That is what unanimous administration spokesmen declined to endorse. But tell me, if you can, where is Bowe Bergdahl today, and where are the five jihadis with whose freedom Bergdahl was not-ransomed on May 31? And tell me, while you’re at it, is Hagel still conducting an investigation about whether Bergdahl left his post or deserted it? Once more, there’s a problem of words, the distinctions between words, the meanings of words . . . Perhaps it’s a conceptual problem. Perhaps it’s important!

Oh, here’s an item. Bergdahl’s attorney has now told Reuters that Bergdahl “is ready to move on to the next chapter of his life.” Maybe the president should make another speech congratulating Bergdahl on moving forward. Certainly it’s nice to hear that the young man is making plans for his life, not merely wandering around battle zones in Afghanistan. Somehow, though, I just can’t repress my feeling that it should be Jim Foley who’s moving on to the next chapter of his life. He was entitled to, if anyone was.

It’s as if words — silly, arrogant, ignorant, shrill, classbound, hateful, obnoxious words — had created her, instead of the other way around.

But perhaps Mr. Hagel was having trouble coming to grips, linguistically, with his own emotions. Many people at the apex of power suffer in this way. There is, for example, the president’s confusion of the word heartbroken with such words as having fun figuring out how to bat little white balls into little tin cups. “We are all heartbroken,” Obama said on August 20, in a tense little speech about Foley’s murder. But those words must not have been quite right. Eight minutes later the broken hearted chief executive was giggling with his buddies on the golf course. You have to admire his powers of recuperation. I would giggle myself, at the absurdity of it all, if I could get the scene of Foley’s beheading out of my mind. The president must have greater strength of character than I have.

The most absurd episode of the month — again, linguistically — was a series of events in Montana, in which sitting Senator John Walsh (Dem.) was found to have plagiarized a 14-page so-called paper submitted as part of a credentialing process in a two-bit graduate program. Walsh and his friends justified his stupidity in many ways: by claiming that he had done nothing wrong (he had used 96 footnotes!); by noting that he wasn’t, by nature, an academic; by claiming that his “mistake” was “unintentional”; by saying that he had served in Iraq, that one of his colleagues in Iraq had killed himself, that he (Walsh) had not killed himself but had been the victim of hundreds of enemy attacks (later reduced to one attack); by suggesting that he had post-traumatic stress disorder, though whatever he had was never diagnosed in exactly that way . . . While at school, Walsh, like his president, was known for his devotion to golf.

Finally the senator surrendered his candidacy, and the Democrats came up with another nominee, one Amanda Curtis, probably their worst possible choice. I felt comfortable analyzing Walsh, a lantern-jawed jock who drifted from one official position to another. His mishaps with words practically analyzed themselves. Curtis is different. It’s as if words — silly, arrogant, ignorant, shrill, classbound, hateful, obnoxious words — had created her, instead of the other way around. Walsh’s supposed thesis paper was a tissue of mild, mainstream clichés, many of them plagiarized. Curtis’s genuine video blog is an exhibit of left-“liberal” thought, unfiltered and unembarrassed. But what is its cause or referent in the real world? That remains unknown. She might as well be reacting to the climate on Mars.

To return to the subject of the educated classes: Can you guess this candidate’s occupation? You’ve got it: she’s a teacher.




Share This


Arrested Metamorphosis

 | 

Over a year ago, in two articles titled “A Living Wage?” and “The Metamorphosis” in the December 2011 and March 2012 issues of Liberty, I reported on the proposed and partially implemented economic reforms of the Castro regime in Cuba. Included was an analysis of their impact by Luis R. Luis, former director, Latin America Department, of the Institute of International Finance and chief economist at the Organization of American States (OAS). Luis and The Economist have recently provided an update, which I think only fair to pass on.

The reforms allowed more small private businesses, shifting labor from the state to the private sector, thereby freeing selected retail prices and improving management of state enterprises. They also permitted the purchase and sale of residential housing and cars among private parties. Additionally, enabling legislation was passed to encourage joint development ventures with foreign investors.

A couple of years back The Economist reported that Cuba’s internet speed was the second slowest in the world, behind the island of Mayotte, a French territory of around 200,000 people.

One notable reform passed since the original proposals purports to allow Cubans to travel abroad. In practice however, it’s an Enganche-22 for perfectly logical albeit unreasonable reasons. Since the Cuban government provides everyone with a “free” education, it claims a lien on the benefits of that education. Graduates’ expertise and earnings are subject to strict state controls. Travel abroad is regulated according to how essential the state deems one’s job to the economy. As you might guess, with the Cuban economy treading water, most jobs are considered essential. The perverse result of this policy is that those fortunate enough to be able to afford and desire foreign travel, are unlikely to benefit from the new freedoms; while those who can’t afford to travel and are unlikely to apply for a visa are the main beneficiaries. Now you know why Orlando’s Disney World’s queues haven’t been lengthened by Cuban tourists.

As of June 4, those denied actual visas will have unlimited access to virtual travel. The Christian Science Monitor reports the opening of 118 public internet providers across the island. However, the $4.50 per hour cost might prove prohibitive. The average salary in Cuba is $15 per month. Service speed is another impediment. A couple of years back The Economist reported that Cuba’s internet speed was the second slowest in the world, behind the island of Mayotte, a French territory of around 200,000 people just northwest of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Facebook is not bracing for a slew of new Cuban accounts.

Nearly all the other reforms include such self-correcting provisions. In Gauging Cuba’s Economic Reforms (May 2013), Luis R. Luis gives us an update. He uses the Transition Indicators of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to measure progress on the road to a full-blown market economy. But he demurs that his approach is inappropriate because official government policy firmly states that Cuba is not pursuing a “transition” to a market economy. As Raul Castro famously declared in 2009, “I was not elected to restore capitalism to Cuba.” Luis justifies his approach stating that, “Nonetheless, it is quite useful to make an analysis of the present state of Cuban reform as if it were on the road to establish a market economy and to provide a comparison with transition economies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Near East as measured by the EBRD indicators.”

So how does Cuba score? The EBRD rating scale is calibrated from 1 (little to no change) to 4+ (for fully liberalized market economies). Luis gauges progress in six policy areas.

  1. Large scale privatization: Cuba scores 1.
  2. Competition policy: Cuba scores 1 — no competition legislation and institutions.
  3. Trade and foreign exchange system: Cuba scores 1.2, meaning that there are widespread import and/or export controls.
  4. Small scale privatization: Cuba scores 1.5
  5. Governance and enterprise restructuring: Cuba scores 1.7. A score of 2 is moderately tight credit and subsidy policy; weak enforcement of bankruptcy laws; and little action to strengthen competition and corporate governance (Luis warns that his grade in this area is probably generous).
  6. Price liberalization: Cuba scores 2 — some lifting of price controls, but with substantial state procurement at controlled prices. Still, more progress has been made in this area than in any other, especially on retail pricing by private farmers and the self- employed.

For a grand total of 8.4 — below any of the 34 transition countries where indicators have been calculated using the EBRD methodology. For comparison, the next lowest ranking is achieved by Turkmenistan with a 10.7, followed by Belarus at 13, and Uzbekistan at 13.7.

Comparing price liberalization with all the other items, a cynic might conclude that the only benefits of the reforms to the Cuban man-on-the-street are price hikes. Luis summarizes that, “The pity is that Cuban policy as stated appears to aim at maintaining a low score.”

In spite of Fidel Castro’s declaration that golf was a “bourgeois” hobby unsuitable for communists, the government has just given the go-ahead to a new $350 million golf resort.

And what about the proposed and existing foreign joint ventures? I’d previously reported that several foreign businessmen had been arrested for engaging in corrupt practices: paying wages and bonuses to employees above the legal limit. The Economist drolly reports some progress in the status of the jailed managers: “Now, in a move which could be a precursor to their release, they are about to go on trial.”

As to the real estate tourism developments, not many shovels have broken ground. But that’s no impediment to forging ahead with more plans. In spite of Fidel Castro’s declaration after he took power that golf was a “bourgeois” hobby unsuitable for communists, and building upon most of the island’s existing courses, the government has just given the go-ahead to a new $350 million golf resort near Varadero. It’s “the start of a whole new policy to increase the presence of golf in Cuba,” declared a spokesman. Fidel’s son Antonio, garbed in a comandante’s olive green fatigues and sporting a full beard, even posed for a photo putting on a green. Antonio Castro then went on to win a promotional golf tournament staged by Esencia, the British joint venture company developing the Carbonera Club. The resort will also include residential properties available for purchase by foreigners.

Plans to increase shipping and storage capacity at ports have inched forward. Brazil, through its Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), has provided credits of over $800 million for the expansion of the port of Mariel and related infrastructure. “This seems generous and it involves the well-connected Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht,” according to Luis. The government has also approved construction of a 1,300-berth marina near Varadero, which — if developed — would be the largest in the Caribbean. Finally,The Economist reports that the BNDES is also providing funds to upgrade the island’s airports.

We see that the Cuban government treats its people as if they were a dog in training, giving them tiny tasty tidbits accompanied by lavish verbiage. One Cuban housewife told a radio station, “something is better than nothing,” adding “the majority is not going to stop eating just to connect to the internet.”




Share This


The Hypocrisy of High Office

 | 

The president’s boundless hypocrisy is always a source of wonderment to me. This is one of his most salient traits, along with narcissism, arrogance, and contempt for all who disagree with him.

His hypocrisy was apparent from the first. The moment he took office, he killed the voucher program that gave an opportunity to 2,500 poor minority children to escape the wretched school system of the District of Columbia. He did this at the very moment when he and his wife were putting their own kids in the swankiest, spendiest private school in the city.

Then there has been his endless bashing of the rich — while he and his wife were collecting millions from rich donors, many of whom got prominent roles in the administration, or taxpayer-subsidized loans and grants from it.

The latest illustrations are equally . . . rich. The first is the news that Obama, even while campaigning strenuously to limit everyone else’s gun rights, has just signed into law a bill that will give him Secret Service protection for life — that is, protection by armed guards, furnished by the government. He thus reversed a law from the 1990s that put a 10-year limit on the coverage.

Yes, even while the administration is ghoulishly exploiting dead children in its calls for an assault weapons ban, making all federal buildings “gun-free” zones, and limiting the size of bullet clips, Obama himself will be protected in perpetuity by men carrying those evil guns.

In this respect, it must be noted, Obama simply joined the ranks of other famous people who oppose guns for everybody but themselves or their bodyguards. It upsets me to do so, but I think of Rosie O’Donnell, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, and Michael Moore, all of whom have sought or employed armed guards or have their own conceal-carry permits, while waging war against the Second Amendment.

None of them, however, can manifest hypocrisy on such a grand scale as we have seen in the Great Obama Sequester Scare. Honestly, I cannot fathom how anybody could be silly enough to think that a 2% cut in the budget — which is slated to grow by an even greater amount than that, so that net spending by the federal government will in fact go up, but by a slightly smaller amount than planned — will cause catastrophic consequences. Yet Obama, ever the demagogue, used every scare tactic in the book to arouse opposition to the plan that he himself devised, suggesting that planes would crash, thousands (or was it millions?) of teachers would lose their jobs, billions of people would die from eating uninspected food, floods of biblical proportion would ravage the landscape, and all manner of other hysterical hoohah.

For once the Republicans called his bluff. They allowed the sequester to happen. So Obama is now cutting expenditures in ways that are clearly intended to punish both Republican politicians and all taxpayers vicious enough to support any schemes of fiscal restraint. His most daring attempt to curb expenditures (so far, at least) has been to stop White House tours — right about Spring Break time. The intent is obviously to make the vacationing little ones cry out to their parents, who will then be filled with outrage against the enemies of government spending. The savings from these omitted tours? A gargantuan $18,000 a week. For larger savings, the administration released a horde of alleged lawbreakers, formerly held for deportation proceedings. Undoubtedly, these people will report to the proper authorities, whenever requested to do so. No security problems there.

But where security really matters, the administration is careful not to cut at all. For example, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet (“Big Sister”) Napolitano announced that while the Secret Service’s budget will be cut, the president’s own security team won’t be reduced a penny. And don’t worry — there are apparently no plans to cut the White House calligraphers, who (as noted by Kimberley Strassel) collectively earn $277,000 a year. They’re worth as much as four months of White House tours — and apparently cheap at the price. Otherwise, I’m sure, they would have been laid off.

It’s too bad that the president doesn’t have more time to stay at home and watch them do their work. He has golfed more than any other president, and when he isn’t golfing (with those horrid rich people, by the way), he is usually on vacation. (I’m counting his speaking tours as vacation time, because after all, listening to his own voice is one of the president’s most valued forms of recreation.) But this stuff can get pricey. As Strassel observes, cutting the White House tours created savings equal to about two hours of Air Force One flying time.

I won’t even mention Michelle Obama’s upcoming 50th birthday bash, with Adele and Beyonce performing. That should cost about a thousand weeks of White House tours.

Faced with the necessity, the grim, unnatural, and wholly unforeseen necessity of cutting any government expenditures whatever, Obama will always do his best to make the cuts hurt the ordinary people whom he purports to champion, while maintaining his own life among the rich and special, spending freely on himself and friends.

What a guy!




Share This


Eight Million Regulations

 | 

There is a classic film noir called The Naked City (1948). The film’s plot is the investigation of a murder, and the story takes place in New York City. At the end of the flick, a narrator intones a famous line: “There are eight million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them.”

Reading a recent report on the latest regulations laid down by the Justice Department for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, I thought of a new take on that line: “There are eight million regulations in the Obama state. This is just another flock of them.”

In an effort to ensure perfect “fairness” for all the “disabled,” the feds now dictate the following.

  • Amusement parks must provide at least one seat for the wheelchair-bound on any new or altered ride.
  • Miniature golf courses must make at least half of the holes “accessible,” defined as having a surrounding ground space that is “48 inches minimum by 60 inches minimum with slopes not steeper than 1:48 at the start of play.”
  • Regular golf courses must now have “an accessible route to connect all accessible elements within the boundary,” and must also “connect golf cart rental areas, bag drop areas, teeing grounds, putting greens, and weather shelters.”
  • Gyms must now position at least one of each type of exercise machine so that it is accessible to the wheelchair-bound.
  • Saunas must now provide accessible turning spaces and an accessible bench.
  • Shooting ranges must now provide accessible turning spaces “for each different type of firing position.”

My favorite is this one: all public accommodations must allow miniature horses as guide animals, because some handicapped people have moral or religious problems with dogs.

The good news is that the feds rule out full-size horses. Why, I don’t know — couldn’t some handicapped people have moral or religious problems with both dogs and miniature horses?

The miniature horse rule brings to mind another line I remember from the past: Frank Zappa’s song about Montana — “Just me and the pygmy pony, over the dental floss bush.”




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.