Страница 16 из 54
Those are big activities in Washington: proceeding and taking action. But you may have noticed that, as they proceed, they don’t always take action; sometimes they simply move forward. Moving forward is another one of their big activities.
“We’re moving forward. . . with respect to Social Security.” With respect to is lawyer talk; it makes things sound more important and complicated. So they’re not moving forward on Social Security, they’re moving forward with respect to Social Security. But at least they’re moving forward. To help visualize this forward motion, you may wish to picture the blistering pace of the land tortoise.
Now, sometimes when they themselves are not moving forward, they’re moving something else forward. Namely, the process: “We’re moving the process forward so we can implement the provisions of the initiative.n Implement means put into effect, and an initiative is similar to a proposal. It’s not quite a measure yet, but there’s a possibility it may become a resolution.
Now, one may ask, “Why do we need all these initiatives, proposals, measures and resolutions?’ Well, folks, it should be obvious by now: We need them in order to meet todays challenges. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, our country no longer has problems; instead we face challenges. We’re always facing challenges. That’s why we need people who can make the tough decisions. Tough decisions like: “How much money can I raise in exchange for my integrity, so I can be reelected and continue to work in government?
Of course, no self-respecting politician would ever admit to working in government; they prefer to think of themselves as serving the nation. This is one
of the more grotesque distortions to come out of Washington. They say, l”I’m serving the nation,” 2^.6. they characterize their work as public service.
To help visualize this service they provide, you may wish to picture the activities that take place on a stud farm.
POLITICIAN TALK #2: Trouble on the Hill
Continuing our review of the language of the elected, it seems that, linguistically, politicians hit their truest stride when they find themselves in trouble. At times like these, the explanations typically begin with a single word: miscommunication.
“How do you answer these felony charges, Senator?”
“The whole thing was a miscommunication.”
“But what about the tapes?”
“They took them out of context. They twisted my words. “Nice touch. A person who routinely spends his time bending and torturing the English language telling us that someone has twisted his words.
But as the problem gets worse, and his troubles increase, he’s forced to take his explanation in a new direction. He now tells us that “The whole thing has been blown out of proportion.” And by the way, have you noticed with these blown-out-of-proportion people that it’s always “the whole thing”? Apparently, no one has ever claimed that a only a small part of something has been blown out of proportion.
But as time passes and the evidence continues to accumulate, our hero suddenly changes direction and begins using public-relations jujitsu. He says, “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this. “We. Suddenly, he’s on the side of the
law. “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this, so we can get the facts out to the American people.” Nice. The American people. Always try to throw them in; it makes it sound as if you actually care.
As the stakes continue to rise, our hero now makes a subtle shift and says, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people. “Clearly, he’s trying to tell us something: that there may just be a little fire causing all the smoke. But notice he’s still at the I-have-nothing-to-hide stage.
But then, slowly, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people” progresses to “There is no credible evidence,” and before long, we’re hearing the very telling, “No one has proven a thing. “
Now, if things are on track in this drama, and the standard linguistic path of the guilty is being followed faithfully, “No one has proven a thing” will precede the stage when our hero begins to employ that particularly a
“Did I show poor judgment? Yes. Was there inappropriate behavior? Yes. Do I wish this never happened? Of course. But did I break the law? That’s not the issue.”
The calendar is marching, however, and it soon becomes clear that our friend is most likely quite guilty, indeed. We know this, because he now shifts into that sublime use of the passive voice: mistakes were made. The beauty of mistakes were made is that it doesn’t really identify who made them. You’re invited to think what you wish. Bad advice? Poor staff work? Voodoo curse?
But it’s too late. Mistakes were made quickly becomes eventually I will be exonerated, which then morphs into 1 have faith in the American judicial system, and the progression ends with that plaintive cry, whatever happened to i
Eventually, in full retreat (and federal custody), he shuffles off in his attractive orange jumpsuit, and can be heard muttering that most modern of
mea culpas: “Ijust want to put this thing behind me and get on with my life. “And to emphasize how sincere he is, he a
Whenever I hear that sort of thing on the news, I always want to ask one of these I’m-taking-responsibility-for-my-actions people whether or not they’d be willing to take responsibility for my actions. You know, gambling debts, paternity suits, outstanding warrants. Can you help me out here, pal?
Regarding this whole put-this-thing-behind-me idea in general, here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to put this I-wanttoputthisthingbehindmeandgetonwithmy-life thing behind me and get on with my life. May I repeat that for you? I’d like to put this I-wanttoputthisthingbehindmeandgetonwithmy-life thing behind me and get on with my life.
I think one of the problems in this country is that too many people are screwing things up, committing crimes and then getting on with their lives. What is really needed for public officials who shame themselves is ritual suicide. Hara-kiri. Like those Japanese business executives who mismanage corporations into bankruptcy. Never mind the lawyers and the public relations and the press conferences, get that big knife out of the kitchen drawer and do the right thing.
POLITICIAN TALK #3: Senator Patriot Speaks
To take up a thread from an earlier section of this politico-lingo trilogy, we noted at the time the fact that most politicians operate under the delusion that what they’re is doing is serving the nation. Of course, if they really feel this way, they’re more than simply misinformed, they’re obviously not playing with a full bag of jacks.
So, citizens; a question. Do you think it’s at all possible that these politicians whose judgment is so faulty that they actually believe they’re serving the nation might be expected to indulge occasionally in some, oh, I don’t know, exaggerated patriotism? Hah? Whaddya think? Maybe? Hah?
Well, fans, it’s not just possible, it’s downright inevitable. And should they be so indulging themselves on the Fourth of July, you’ll want to be sure to have hip boots and shovels handy, because brown stuff is going to be piling up at an alarming rate. And I suggest you shovel fast, because your elected heroes will be squeezing every last ounce of counterfeit patriotism out of their blood-starved brains.
And so, as you see them rushing madly across the landscape, pushing all the buttons marked red, white and blue, be on the alert for phrases such as Old Glory; Main Street; the stars and stripes; the heartland; all across this great land of ours; from Maine to California; and, of course, on American soil. And don’t forget all those freedom-loving people around the world who look to us as a beacon of hope. Those, I assume, would be the ones we haven’t bombed lately. And you’d also better be ready to be reminded, over and over, that you live in a country that somehow fancies itself leader of the free world. Got that? Leader of the free world. I don’t know when we’re going to retire that stupid shit, but personally, I’ve heard it quite long enough.