What's More Important: What You Call It, or What You Want It to Do?

RANT ALERT! 

You've been warned ...

Instead of advancing an agenda that actually addresses the problems of everyday Americans, Der Furor - master of misdirection and diversion that he is - has resorted to the language of fear to spin up his followers, who generally lack the knowledge to understand that they're being played. Specifically, Der Furor invokes the terrifying specters of communism and socialism in an attempt to equate his liberal opposition to  discredited economic systems. American liberals, on the other hand, fed up with the inability of the traditional Democratic party to address their concerns and turned off by the rage and incipient fascism of the GOP, play into Der Furor's tiny linguistic hands by embracing something called democratic socialism.

Oh, for gawd's sake, people, stop using scary labels! Don't talk about what you want to call your system of government - think about what you want it to do. Think about what you want your government to spend your hard-earned money on, not about what some clueless blowhard with an agenda wants you to think.

For my part, this is what I think a good government that actually cares about its citizens would do:

1. Provide for the common defense. Just like it says in the preamble to the Constitution. It's a hard world and we need powerful armed forces to protect us from external threats. But these forces shouldn't be used to attack other countries that do not pose a direct threat to us (Venezuela and Iran) or threaten allies that don't give us what we want (Greenland belongs to Denmark, and Canada is a proud and independent nation and a good friend). We need a competent Department of Defense again, run by someone who knows what he (or she) is doing.

2. Promote the general welfare. Once again, just like it says in the preamble to the Constitution. In my opinion, "promoting the general welfare" means things like:

a. Taxpayer-funded, single-payer medical care for all citizens. The United States has some of the finest medical facilities and personnel in the world ... and most of it is beyond the ability of most people to pay. I believe that a single-payer, taxpayer-funded national system, buttressed by strong safeguards against fraud and abuse, is the only rational alternative to the bizarre hodgepodge of profit-based, insurance-driven providers too many of us can't afford. Keep supplemental plans for those who want to pay extra for them, but make sure that everyone is covered without the extra expense.

b. Taxpayer-funded free public education through attendance at a trade school or two years of college. Our educational system was once the model to which other nations aspired ... no longer.

3. Restore faith and confidence in an honest, competent, transparent government based on free and fair elections and a professional civil service independent of the whims of an individual leader or party. Don't you think it's odd that we never had a problem with our elections until Der Furor couldn't accept that he lost one? At a minimum ...

a. Stop the wealthy from buying government offices and processes. The Supreme Court has, with a long series of decisions not based on reality or fairness, made our government offices at all levels available not to the best candidates, but to those willing and able to spend enough money to buy them. The amount of money spent by parties, political action committees, special interest groups, and individual candidates for office is utterly obscene, and would be far better spent on health care, public education, infrastructure, and any number of other beneficial things.

 

b. Reinstate all Inspectors General at Federal Agencies and let them do their jobs. Der Furor fired many of them for various reasons; bring them back and let them find the fraud, waste, and abuse we're told exists everywhere.

c. Enforce ethical standards for all Federal employees, including the President and Supreme Court justices. I thought that in this country, nobody was above the law*. Silly me.

 

d. Conduct a full audit of the Department of Defense (not War). We spend uncounted billions of dollars on our military, at the expense of many other valuable programs, and yet DoD has failed comprehensive audits of its programs for eight years in a row. We deserve to know that our tax dollars are being wisely and legally spent**.

 

e. Get rid of the abominable "Schedule F" designation that undermines the professional Civil Service. Our Civil Service is meant to be a professional, merit-based system that serves the best interests of the American people, not the whims of the administration of the moment.

4. Ensure civil liberties and provide equal justice under the law for every citizen, regardless of wealth or station. Our dream of "equal justice under law" is a joke - the quality of justice one gets is dependent upon one's ability to afford the best lawyers ... and is greatly affected by one's skin color.

a. Guarantee the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Constitution: speech, press, assembly, redress of grievances, religious belief (or not). Today's Justice Department no longer deserves its name, being interested not in equal justice, but in ensuring that Der Furor's enemies suffer his vengeance for real or imagined slights. Civil rights are not protected, only favored speech is considered worthy of protection, and the "Christian" religion is preferred and protected over all others, contrary to the clear wording of the Constitution.

5. Have a taxation system that looks like it was designed on purpose.

a. Ensure every individual and business is required to pay appropriate taxes, and that those taxes are based based on the ability to pay. It's hardly fair that a teacher, a housekeeper, or a trash collector pays more in taxes (proportionally) than a billionaire or a gigantic corporation.

 

b. Use taxes to pay for government operations and services to the American people - not as a vehicle for social engineering, political favors, or helping businesses be more profitable. 

6. Have a rational immigration policy that balances our tradition of welcoming immigrants with the needs of employers and legitimate national security concerns.

a. We need a professional, legally sound, dependable, and competent Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Ban the wearing of masks, insist on uniforms and proper identification, get rid of the heavy, military-style weapons, and weed out violent and incompetent personnel.

 

That'll do for a start. What do you think? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. More rants thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Except, of course, Der Furor and his family and businesses, who get a freedom from taxation that you will never see.

** This does not include testosterone screening, changing the department's name without Congressional approval, and silly, AI-generated advertising videos.

Talismanic Incantations, Updated Yet Again

You may recall that I've written two posts on the topic of "talismanic incantations" - words and phrases that, when used in legal and political discussions, are the equivalent of the magic words invoked by witches and wizards. The title of the post came from a marvelous line in the 9th Circuit Court's 2017 decision in the case "State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson," which struck down Der Furor's proposed ban on travel to the US from six majority Muslim nations:

"National Security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power under §1182(f)."

As we know, Der Furor and his acolytes are fond of using talismanic incantations to magically deflect attention from unpleasant truths and to demean and insult those of whom they do not approve. You can review my earlier posts on the topic here and here, and today I add the latest talismanic incantations to the ever-growing list:

"radical left lunatic," "domestic terrorist," and "narco-terrorist" - these incantations invoke clouds of suspicion and mistrust around those who demonstrate against administration policies, fail to believe the questionable pronouncements of administration spokespersons, or have the temerity to operate small boats near Venezuela;

"low-IQ" - a spell cast to imply that a person more intelligent and thoughtful than the spell-caster is actually less intelligent, believable and honest; 

"anti-American" - used to cast aspersions on those who believe in traditional American values of restrained representative democracy under a lawful and competent government, it is often combined with other incantations such as "radical left lunatic" in an attempt to multiply its deceptive power;

"believe me" - an incantation intended to invoke the illusion of sincerity and honesty, it is commonly used to invoke blatant gaslighting in defense of an obvious falsehood (frequently invoked by Der Furor);

"absolute immunity" - invokes the power of the state to defend clearly illegal actions on the part of the president and, in particular, law enforcement or immigration authorities;

"highly respected" and "brilliant" - invoked to imply the excellence of judges who rule in Der Furor's favor, as opposed to "radical" and "lunatic," which imply the stupidity and incompetence of those who rule against him; and ,

"Russia, Russia, Russia" - an incantation, limited to use by Der Furor, which defines any thorough, evidence-based investigation with results damning for him, as illegitimate.

You should note that any of these may, at the option of the caster, be combined with other talismanic incantations to cascade their obfuscatory power.

Have a good day. Watch out for those talismanic incantations the administration uses in lieu of honesty.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Lost in Translation

As a person who loves language, I'm always fascinated by the ways in which we use words to convey, clarify, or obfuscate information. The way in which language is contorted by the spokespersons for Der Furor and his extreme MAGA supporters makes one wish for more reasonable and personable mouthpiece. I understand this guy is looking for a job ...

Which brings me to this meme that was posted by my friend Kathy yesterday - 

If you follow it back to the original post (the one Kathy re-posted), you can read a large number of snarky, juvenile comments, a great many of them of the "oh, yeah, so are you, lib" variety that there's no sense in responding to.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in this list. There's a lot of deliberate misrepresentation of the Democrats' stance on most issues, much of it resting on cherry-picking statements or pointing to Democratic votes on poison pill issues designed to create opportunities for outrage, and virtually none of it robustly countered by the news media ... or, unfortunately, by the Democrats themselves.

Some commenters wondered if there were a meme that worked in the other direction, with snarky Democratic takes on MAGA Republican positions. I haven't seen one, but given the dismissive, angry, and often violent language of Der Furor and of the Millers, Voughts, Patels, Bondis, and Leavitts of the Right, it's hard to see how it might be sweetened into something reasonable. If this is the gawdawful radical left agenda ...

... you should ask yourself what the equivalent is on the right. And vote accordingly.

Have a good day. Look beyond the snark and see who offers the message that once made America the most admired and respected nation.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The 21st Century Golem

You may recall my post from a few weeks ago on "talismanic incantations," the modern-day political, social, and religious magic words we use to invoke the outcomes for which we hope. Naturally, after I wrote that post, I saw this very interesting video from the PBS series "Otherwords" titled "The Linguistic Origins of Magic Words."

It gives a very interesting and understandable (for us linguists, especially) look at the history and use of "magic words," and reminded me of a cautionary tale I'd long forgotten about - the story of the golem.

Not to be confused with "Gollum," the tragic figure from J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings," the golem is a creature formed from a lifeless substance (often mud) brought to life by a human creator using ritual incantations and sequences of Hebrew letters to be a helper, a companion, or the rescuer of an imperiled Jewish community. Many golem stories are cautionary tales of the unintended consequences of evoking mystical powers, as the creature spins out of control and becomes a threat to its creator.

A golem menaces the heroine (of course) in a 1915 film.

There are differing versions of how the magic words are used to bring the golem to life. Some say that the clay figure comes to life when the magic words (called the shem) are written on a slip of paper and placed in the golem's mouth, while others claim that the words must be inscribed in the clay of the monster's forehead; no matter which version, the golem can only be stopped when the magic words are removed - by pulling the shem from the golem's mouth or erasing it from its forehead ... either action being, of course, potentially fatal to the one attempting the removal.

Why am I thinking about golems at this moment, you ask? Well, it occurs to me that we have the 21st-century equivalent of a golem, created from sh ... uh ... mud and animated by a talismanic incantation inscribed on its forehead, that has spun out of control and become a threat to its creators and supporters as well as its foes ...

If only we could save ourselves simply by removing the inscription-bearing hat.

Have a good day. Don't vote for golems ... it never ends well.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Superlatives Needed!

While numerous military experts have expressed concern about possible shortages of weapons for US forces as a result of huge quantities of supplies and equipment provided to Israel and Ukraine, little attention has been paid to an equally serious shortage key to the functioning of our government. I refer, of course, to the looming shortfall in superlative adjectives.

It’s certainly no secret that Der Furor responds to lavishly-applied flattery. You will no doubt remember the famous Cabinet meeting at which, with the news cameras rolling, then-Vice President Pence and every member of the Cabinet (with the notable exception of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis) heaped obsequious flattery on their boss. The tradition of servile bootlicking continues in the second reign administration of Der Furor, as Cabinet meetings continue to include lavish praise of the king president. The bombing of Iran by B-2 bombers using the world's largest non-nuclear bomb is "a spectacular military success" and a "courageous" and "bold" action that "no other president had the guts to take."

The problem, of course, is that there are only so many superlative adjectives available for use and so many times they can be used before they become linguistically shopworn and lose their impact. If you’re the last Cabinet member to speak at the meeting, your fellow secretaries have already used all the best superlatives, leaving you either to simply repeat the flattery they’ve already shoveled or try to jazz it up with modifiers like “historic,” “dynamic,” “world-changing,” "bold," "courageous," or simply, “very (insert adjective).” If you're White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt*, you need a larger staff and ever-frequent use of a thesaurus to mine new and more Fox News-worthy superlatives. Our government no longer has a staff of Daniel Websters, William Jennings Bryans, or even Ciceros to keep up with the need for fawning oratory to praise the surpassing brilliance of the king president.

It's up to you, America - your king president needs you to help replenish the National Strategic Superlatives Reserve (NSSR)! As past generations stepped up in war drives to contribute scrap iron, rubber, glass, and other used items needed to support the war effort, it's your turn to do your part by contributing newer, fresher superlative adjectives to keep your king president properly praised and uplifted in the eyes of his followers and the world. Don't let lesser strutting potentates like Kim Jong-un gain a strategic linguistic advantage - let the world know of the surpassing excellence of Der Furor in all things by contributing your fawning superlatives to The White House Press Office, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20500, calling the White House switchboard at 202-456-1111, or sending an email to president@whitehouse.gov. 

As Melania would urge you, help your king president "be best," if only adjectivally.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The On-Crack Ass Clown for May, 2025.

Mandated Vocabulary

 

I recently read an interesting article* in Mental Floss titled 8 Extraordinary Examples of Constrained Writing. "Constrained writing" refers to a set of writing techniques that impose specific rules on word usage and style. The article examines eight different techniques and all are fascinating, but one stuck out for me: Mandated Vocabulary.

When using mandated vocabulary, the writer may be prohibited from using certain words, allowed to use only certain words, limited only to a certain number of words, or permitted to use only words that fit within a particular set of guidelines.

Mandated vocabulary has had a long and interesting history during my lifetime, such as the push to use gender-neutral terms (think mail carrier for mailman** or flight attendant for stewardess), all-purpose pronouns (they for he or she or theirs for his or hers), and the execrable Latinx for Latino or Latina. But mandated vocabulary has reached new heights under the reign of Der Furor, where every government database and library is being scrubbed of words considered objectionable by hard-right conservatives and their radical evangelical followers, and non-objectionable words are turned on their semantic heads to meet the needs of the political moment. As an example of the latter, consider the term patriot applied (with a straight face) to the violent rioters of January 6th, 2021.

Pen America has compiled an ever-growing list of words banned by various federal government agencies. The list contains more than 350 words and phrases, including such linguistic horrors as:

abortion;

affordable housing;

bias;

carbon footprint;

cultural sensitivity;

diversity;

disparity;

gender;

green;

hate speech;

indigenous;

marginalized;

pollution;

privilege;

racism;

science-based;

trauma;

underrepresented;

water quality; and, of course,

white privilege

Mandated vocabulary is similar in a political context to the famous Newspeak invented by George Orwell for his classic novel 1984. Newspeak was developed to help the government of Big Brother*** control people's minds by simplifying the language to channel conversation in approved directions and discourage free thought. In Newspeak, all the banned words on the government's pre-approved list would be considered doubleplus ungood. 

Constrained writing is not necessarily a bad thing but, as with just about anything, it can be used for ill purposes. Be on the linguistic lookout.

Have a good day and don't let the constrained thought of the MAGA movement limit your expression. Big Brother does not have your best interests at heart.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Interesting to a guy with a degree in Linguistics, anyhow.

** A classic example of the push for gender-neutral language was the joke about the very politically correct mother who told her child to "go out to the personbox and see if the personperson has left us any person."

** The 1984 version of Der Furor.

The Semantics of Tyranny

One day, many years ago, I was complaining to one of my lawyer friends* about the convoluted wording of a particular document, and I wondered why lawyers couldn't just speak and write in plain English. He explained that lawyers write in this way because every word and phrase they use has a precise, legally-understood-and-agreed-upon meaning that has been settled through decades of litigation and court rulings; thus, I should be happy for the semantic protection that judicial Sanskrit provides through precise definition of terms. 

That was then, this is now.

The legal profession has hardly covered itself in glory as it tries to deal with the challenge of a president and an administration willing (and eager) to push the boundaries of what can be considered ethical, moral, legal, and Constitutional ... it's Left-Cheek Ass Clown Award last Friday was richly deserved, and there's no need to plow that field again. Today, I want to talk about its torture of the language ... about the semantics of tyranny.

Der Furor's Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security are fighting bitterly to keep from having to repatriate Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a man they admit was mistakenly arrested and deported to a prison in El Salvador. 

The State Department relies on the language of diplomacy to claim helplessness because Mr Abrego Garcia is "in the custody of a sovereign nation," unwilling to say "we're paying a tinpot dictator six million dollars to warehouse people we don't like." 

The Justice Department quibbles over the meanings of "facilitate" and "effectuate" as it semantically fences with courts unable to simply say, "you admit you effed up, so bring the unjustly imprisoned man home RIGHT NOW." 

Deputy Assistant to the President and "Counterterrorism Czar" Sebastian Gorka says anyone advocating for due process for Mr. Abrego Garcia could be viewed as "aiding and abetting a terrorist" and be federally charged. 

The "Department of Government Efficiency" boasts of eliminating billions of dollars in fraud and waste, but is unable to provide documentary evidence of anything remotely close to that number. It advertises the termination of wasteful contracts, but does not define why they were wasteful.

The Department of Health and Human Services claims to be making America Healthy again, while pursuing policies that actively undermine public health. 

Der Furor and the Department of State have defined the word person as used in the Constitution to mean "United States Citizen." Curiously, the original text of the Constitution (as signed in 1789) does not include the word citizen. That word does not appear until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And your government is now attempting to remove that guarantee of birthright citizenship.

I love language and words. But I draw the line at the weaponization of words - the semantics of tyranny - as an increasingly authoritarian government tortures the language until it confesses a message that runs counter to everything our country used to stand for. This marvelously framed photo of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt - a lady wholly unencumbered by honesty and accuracy - pretty much sums things up. 

Have a good day, and remember that words matter. When this administration speaks, listen for what it's really saying.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* There are one or two that I still respect, despite my general detestation of lawyers.

Everything's Dynamic

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dynamic as "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change; energetic, forceful." It's a very useful word for our our current political-economic situation.

In the realm of economics, dynamic pricing is the practice of adjusting prices in real-time* based on factors like supply, demand, customer behavior, and market conditions, so as to optimize revenue and maximize profit.

The word dynamic is derived from the Greek word dynamis, meaning "powerful," which also gives us the word dynamite. This is, of course appropriate, because dynamic pricing blows large holes in your budget by sneakily bumping up the prices of things from minute to minute.

You can easily tell which stores are using dynamic pricing to fleece you by looking at the price labels on their shelves - if they're digital rather than traditional clip-ons, they're intended to facilitate those dynamic changes in the price of the things you buy. And you know in your heart that those prices never go down.

In the realm of politics, I think that the word dynamic - indicating the ability to change rapidly - is also useful for apologists in need of a weasel word to describe Der Furor's economic policies (such as they are), as dynamic sounds so much better than chaotic or slapdash. It's also very useful for the Department of Justice, administration lawyers, and the Orange Airhorn's mouthpieces as they dynamically revise the meaning of the Constitution, the law, and what we have previously understood to be our Constitutionally-guaranteed personal freedoms.

The word of the day is dynamic. That's all. Be wary of people using it.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Not to be confused with "House-of-Representatives-Time," which uses a very flexible definition of "day."

What "Weaponization of Government" Actually Looks Like

During the first of Der Furor's stints in the presidency, and throughout the administration of Joe Biden, the endlessly-repeated fever dream of the GOP and the farthest-right orbits of the conservative world was that the federal government had been "weaponized" against them ... that the Biden Justice Department was constantly seeking every possible opportunity to bring down the full weight of the government on the heads of innocent Americans guilty only of opposing the "radical left lunatics" ... as opposed to, say, innocently storming and damaging the Capitol Building and killing several people in the process. 

When they regained power, the Republicans promptly established the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, under the leadership of firebrand Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, to drill down and prove that the perfidious Democrats had "weaponized" the government against them. By the time the subcommittee was disbanded at the end of the the Congressional session, it had published a report that was long on innuendo and woefully innocent of actual evidence of the alleged weaponization. Proving "weaponization" of the government against conservatives was also a prime focus of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee (also known as the Oversight and Government Reform Committee) under Kentucky Representative James Comer, which relentlessly - if fruitlessly - tried to find evidence of wrongdoing by the Biden administration.

When Der Furor returned to the presidency, one of his first acts was to revitalize the search for the weaponization not found earlier. On his first day in office, Der Furor issued Royal Decree Executive Order 14147, Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government*. He would, by gawd, find the evidence no one had found before.

What has happened since then has shone a light on the actual weaponization of the power of government against opponents and critics.

Consider the following royal decrees executive orders (EOs) cast down from Olympus by Der Furor**:

EO 14250: Addressing Risks From WilmerHale - accusing the law firm (among other things) of "engag(ing) in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, support(ing) efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, back(ing) the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and further(ing) the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote."

 

EO 14246: Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "engag(ing) in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, support(ing) attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and back(ing) the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders."

 

EO 14237: Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "hir(ing) unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney's office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution."

 

EO 14230: Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, [and] racially discriminat(ing) against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants."

President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks Associated with Miles Taylor - in which Der Furor accuses Mr Taylor of being "a bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his government position, prioritizing his own ambition, personal notoriety, and monetary gain over fidelity to his constitutional oath."

 

President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Chris Krebs and Government Censorship - which accuses Mr Krebs by name of being "a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his government authority" through his leadership of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

 

Let's look at this for just a moment, shall we?

 

The President of the United States has issued royal decrees executive orders specifically targeting law firms and individuals against which he has a personal grudge, the EO targeting Paul Weiss being the most obviously blatant ("solely to manufacture a prosecution against me," "unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me"). Mr Krebs' offense was to deny Der Furor's insistence that the 2020 presidential election had been rigged, while Mr Taylor is accused of spreading "falsehoods" and "false narratives" about Der Furor through his writings.

If you're looking for evidence of the "weaponization" of government power against individuals, you now have some spectacularly clear examples. The President of the United States has unilaterally directed specific punitive actions against specific individuals and against law firms guilty of representing clients who have angered Der Furor. Worse, some of the targeted law firms have caved to the pressure, agreeing (in the very definition of "a deal with the devil") to provide millions of dollars of pro bono work on issues near and dear to Der Furor's heart (assuming that a "heart" can actually be found). 

There are dozens of other examples of instances where Der Furor has stripped security clearances from individuals who have angered him, denied White House press access to the Associated Press because it has not wholeheartedly embraced his rebranding of the "Gulf of America," and taken other petulant actions which advance his petty grievances ... while his rudderless mismanagement of the economy threatens both the livelihood of Americans and the entire international economy.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that Republican members of Congress in positions of responsibility (I'm looking at you, Jim Jordan and James Comer) have turned a willfully blind eye to this outrageous, blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral abuse of the power of government. Today's GOP observes the Wizard of Id's version of the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

If you are a full-throated supporter of Der Furor's frighteningly un-American, self-serving actions, there's another quote you should note, this often-cited one from long-form history podcaster Dan Carlin: Imagine all that power in the hands of someone you loathe. When the President of the United States gets around to turning his sights on you, your America won't seem quite so great.

Have a good day. Hope the most powerful person in America doesn't decide to turn the whole weight of the federal government against you and yours.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* In the words of the royal decree executive order, "The American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents, weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other related actions. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives. Many of these activities appear to be inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the laws of the United States ..." Sounds to me exactly like what we're seeing now.

** A complete list of royal decrees executive orders published in the Federal Register can be found here. The whole list of Der Furor's fulminations, including those not yet on the Federal Register, can be found here. Don't read unless you want to be depressed and disgusted.

Semantic Bleaching

I ran across an interesting linguistic term the other day that I hadn’t heard in a long time: semantic bleaching. In brief, it refers to the decrease in intensity of the meaning of a word over time.

For instance, when you say that somethng is awesome, as many people do in today’s usage, you mean that it’s wonderful or especially desireable. But the original, literal meaning of awesome means “inspiring dread, fear, or terror.” Over time, awesome has been semantically bleached into a far less intense term.

It occurs to me that Der Furor and his minions have semantically bleached a great many important words in today’s political and social communication. For instance:

Legal once meant “permitted by law.” As semantically bleached by the current administration, it means “permitted because we say it’s permitted.” 

Constitutional used to mean “conducted in accordance with the principles of the Constitution,” whereas it has been semantically bleached to mean, “conducted in accordance with the principles of the Constitution as interpreted to meet the evolving requirements of the administration.” 

Presidential once meant, “having a bearing or demeanor befitting a president; dignified and confident; demonstrating gravitas and reassuring competence.” After semantic bleaching, it means, “pompous and overbearing; delighting in the exercise of unchallenged power and the ability to harm opponents without consequence.”

Evidence was once defined as, “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” Semantically bleached to meet the needs of Der Furor and his followers, it means, “something we don’t need to show because if you had any intelligence at all, you’d know we were right.”

Anti-Semitism originally meant, “hatred or prejudice toward or discrimination against Jews.” In the semantically-bleached form commonly used by the current administration, it means, “(1) failure to unquestioningly support the actions of the current government of Israel” or “(2) a convenient excuse to limit free speech rights on college campuses and deport undesirable persons from the United States.” 

And finally, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion once meant, “a set of organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimnination based on identity or disability.” When semantic bleaching is applied, it means, “discrimination against white men.”

George Orwell created “Newspeak” as the official language of the world of “1984.” Der Furor didn’t need to create a new language for his world of 2025 … all he had to do was engage in semantic bleaching to twist the language to meet his needs.

Have a good day. Use the right words, but understand the hidden meanings.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Hostile Punctuation

I read an interesting Time Magazine article the other day titled "Are You a Hostile Punctuator?" With a title like that, I just had to read on.

Author Angela Haupt wrote in a concise, one-word summary, "As digital communication has evolved, punctuation’s job description has gotten more demanding." 

E-mails, texts, tweets, and other forms of digital communication can deliver the basics of the message we want to get across, but they lack the social context, verbal cues, and body language that provide the subtle (or not so subtle) additional layers of meaning we may wish to convey. As Dr. Anne Curzan, a professor of English, linguistics, and education at the University of Michigan quoted in the article explains,

“'You don't have facial expressions, you don't have tone, you don't have the shared context of a physical space and gestures.' Is the person you’re talking to happy? Are they joking? Are they angry? Are they drop-dead serious? If you were face-to-face, 'You’d have all of this context to be able to figure it out, [but] in texting, you have very little—so what young people in particular have done is repurpose punctuation.'”

Modern digital communicators have replaced visual and tonal cues with that "repurposed punctuation." As an example, when you're preparing to leave for a dinner engagement, you might send a text message to your partner asking, "Are you ready yet?", but if you write the same message as "Are you ready yet???", the use of multiple question marks implies a degree of impatience the words alone don't give. 

The use of multiple exclamation points can likewise be used to imply anger or disbelief, as in "You've got to be kidding me!!!"

A third example is the presence, absence, or strategic use of the period. In ordinary usage, it symbolizes the end of a sentence, but when used after every word of a sentence, it can indicate an angry or threatening response, as in "You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me."

These are all examples of what is sometimes called hostile punctuation.

Emojis enter the mix, too. There are now thousands of emojis out there which convey various shades of meaning, to most of which I am clueless. A few years ago, we watched a report on the German TV show Galileo in which a pair of the show's reporters tried to guess the meaning of a series of emojis that were all variations on the classic "smiley face," but which represented a wide range of subtle differences of meaning. Neither of them accurately interpreted the meanings. So, what happens when you respond with an emoji that carries a meaning you didn't intend? Are you Hostile emoji-ing?

And, moving beyond punctuation and emojis, using excessive capitalization in digital communication is the equivalent of shouting or attempting to dominate the conversation. When combined with multiple punctuation marks or serial periods, it can emphasize anger and threats. Der Furor is, of course, a master of this, using capitalization as a form of alpha male verbal chest thumping, as in this "Truth Social" post (shared on Twitter/X) about his massive tariff broadside:

"THE OPERATION IS OVER! THE PATIENT LIVED, AND IS HEALING. THE PROGNOSIS IS THAT THE PATIENT WILL BE FAR STRONGER, BIGGER, BETTER, AND MORE RESILIENT THAN EVER BEFORE. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"

One of the funniest (and completely clean!) comedy pieces ever belongs to the wonderful Danish comic Victor Borge and his routine on "Phonetic Punctuation." If you haven't seen it, it's worth your while to take a few minutes and watch ...

So the lesson, if there is one in all this, is to be careful with your punctuation, capitalization, and use of emojis in digital communications. It's a whole new digital world out there, and we're not always speaking the same language.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Newspeak, Wordsmithing, and the Semantics of Security

If you've read George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984 (do it now, if you haven't), you know the concept of "Newspeak," the language imposed by the government to manipulate its version of both history and current events and to prevent independent thought.

Newspeak is alive and well in 2025 in the service of President Musk, PINO Der Furor, and the organs of their administration. Examples:

The deadly riot and storming of the Capitol on January 6th, in which five people were killed and millions of dollars in damage done to the Capitol Building was a "normal tourist day," and a "day of love."

Tesla Swasticars Cybertrucks tend to shed pieces of themselves on the highway as a result of "environmental embrittlement," rather than, "use of cheap glue instead of actual structural connectors."

SpaceX rocket boosters are lost not because of fiery explosions, but as a result of "rapid unscheduled disassembly."

An election won by 2,300,000 votes - 77,303,000 to 75,018,000 -  is an "historic," "powerful," and "unprecedented" mandate."

It is also alive and well as a bevy of administration officials who ought to have known better twist themselves into semantic knots to explain away their incompetence and stupidity in discussing an upcoming military strike in a commercial communications system known to be vulnerable to compromise. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. It's not classified, and if it is classified it's not important and anyways, Hillary Clinton's e-mails were far more dangerous than the possible loss of our military personnel conducting a strike whose secrecy had been compromised. And oh, by the way, the reporter is a sleazebag who contributes to Democrats.

White House Press Secretary Katherine Leavitt dismissed the incident with her usual huff of contempt

“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans' ... This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”

Her boss, Der Furor himself, characterized what was widely recognized by experts as an extraordinary security breach as a "minor transgression," and that the outrage over it constituted a "witch hunt." The Orange Airhorn's decades of deep experience with military operations, intelligence, and security evidently empower him to make such dismissive judgements.

But as military veteran and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a post on Bluesky,

"They're not going to get out of this by playing semantics ... Sending detailed information about an upcoming military strike on unclassified channels (and even to the wrong guy) is wrong, reckless, and obviously a threat to American troops."

Yes, Dear Readers, Newspeak is alive and well in Der Furor's America, and even some of the most die-hard conservative commentators can't stomach it ... right-wing shouting head Tomi Lahren wrote on X, 

“Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse. It was bad. And I’m honestly getting sick of the whatabout isms from my own side. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Admit the F up and move on.”

Well, yes ... but don't move on. Demand the accountability that Der Furor and his minions always demand of others. You won't ever see it, but you'll feel better for at least having asked.

Have a good day. Don't use Newspeak if you can help it, and don't let your elected reprehensibles use it, either.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Lavatory Oratory

This past Tuesday evening the Orange Airhorn delivered the first speech of his second reign to a joint session of Congress. It was the longest such speech in modern history (clocking in at almost 100 minutes*), and the sort of speech we've come to expect from him: short on facts and long on self-congratulation, distortions, insults, and threats. I didn't bother watching because I assumed he wouldn't say anything worth listening to, plus I can't stand the sound of his voice and the style of his delivery.

He's a terrible public speaker, but - perversely - he's a very effective one. 

Back in January I wrote a post about The Decline of Public Speaking, in which I compared the oratorical style of Der Furor with that of Adolf Hitler. I noted at the time that 

Whatever else he may have been, Adolf Hitler was a spellbinding orator with a brilliant ability to match his preparation and delivery to the audience. Der Furor, on the other hand, is a terrible speaker - his speeches are not the focused, compelling addresses of an educated statesman speaking with the gravitas of office, but stream-of-consciousness monologs, full of bizarre claims, childish insults, gross misrepresentations, rambling non sequiturs, and self-indulgent blather.

All of that's true, but I realized after discussing it with my wife and my daughter that it really doesn't matter. Der Furor isn't crafting memorable oratory for the ages - he's talking straight to the audience he wants to reach in the words and style they want to hear. As I wrote in that earlier post, his delivery

appeals to less-educated audiences with short attention spans, who want to be entertained rather than informed or persuaded.

He's practicing what I call lavatory oratory.

People who love this president don't want to hear grand plans and lofty visions for the future ... they want to have their biases and their suspicions confirmed, to know that the radical left lunatics responsible for all their ills are finally getting their comeuppance. They're listening for the confirmation that their favorite president is leading them into a future so fantastic that it can be expressed only in the language of superlatives, never mind that there's no evidence of an actual plan to get there. He says it, so it must be true.

This weekend, I'll be judging a high school debate competition in which earnest young people attempt to sway my opinion their way. I'll judge them on how well they weave facts into compelling arguments, deliver them with conviction, and successfully rebut the facts and arguments presented by their opponents. The winner will win on the basis of facts well presented and arguments well defended; they will most certainly not win if they mimic the lavatory oratory of their president.

Have a good day. Expect better of your elected leaders.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The previous record holder was President Bill Clinton, who spoke for just shy of 89 minutes in 2000.

English as the National Language

Last week, Der Furor took time out from his busy schedule of bullying allies, enriching President Musk, breaking the government, and playing golf (at Mar-a-Lago, at your expense) to issue yet another royal decree executive order, this one titled "Designating English as the Official Language of The United States." Unlike most of the Orange Airhorn's other royal decrees executive orders, I could actually ... sort of ... support this one.

Section 1 (Purpose and Policy) of the order contains this justification:

"A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language"

As one of the few people you probably know who actually has a degree in Linguistics (Penn State, 1973) and fluently speaks a second language, I have a lot of thoughts and opinions on the topic of language, and I completely agree that a common language is a unifying asset for a nation. To that extent, I agree with Der Furor's decree order. One of the things that enabled the United States to become a powerhouse nation was the early adoption of an common language - English - that allowed people of all races and national backgrounds to communicate with each other. Immigrants from dozens of countries speaking scores of languages were streaming into the new country, and the availability and widespread use of a common tongue helped them assimilate and work together to build the nation we know today.

I believe the fact that it was an unofficial common language was important - it fit in with the American idea of a government "by the people" who voluntarily used a common tongue because it was convenient and useful, not because it was mandated by a powerful ruler who commanded its use as a tool to enforce the rule of a dominant group.

But when members of a subculture insist on using their own language, rather than the unofficial common tongue, they drive a linguistic wedge between themselves and their fellow citizens, and make life difficult for both. Years ago, when my wife worked as a member service representative at a local credit union, she often had a lot of trouble helping members who spoke no English - mostly only Spanish or various African languages. This particularly irked her because she is herself German, and prides herself on her ability to read and write English better than many Americans*. How are these people able to function here? she would often ask rhetorically. 

So yes, I think there's a value in having a common national language, but I don't agree that establishing it by royal fiat is the way to go about it. Mandating rather than encouraging the use of English is an example of - gasp! - government overreach and encroachment on personal freedoms (hear that, GOP? Libertarians?), and accomplishes nothing that generations of new arrivals haven't figure out soon enough on their own.

All that said, I'm pleased that the Orange Airhorn has mandated English as the national language of the United States. It will make it easier for us to understand each other as we compare notes on his failures.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Including the sitting president. She was always amazed that her native-born American coworkers often asked her to review things they'd written to make sure they were correct.

The Decline of Public Speaking

Unlike many people, I enjoy public speaking. I've been a member of several Toastmasters International clubs over the years, and have won prizes in public speaking contests. I've spoken in front of audiences as small as two and as large as more than a thousand, and often serve as a master of ceremonies for various events. I also judge high school speech and debate competitions (having been originally volunteered by my granddaughter, whose debate team needs to provide judges to participate in competitions). And while I enjoy public speaking, I also enjoy listening to a well-crafted, well-delivered speech that combines good preparation with skill of delivery appropriate to the subject and the occasion.

I've been thinking a lot about public speaking lately, because there isn't much of it that's very good any more. As Hansell Duckett once noted, "What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to."

I'm currently reading "Hitler: Ascent (1889-1939)," book one of a two-volume biography by Volker Ullrich. It's common nowadays to compare Der Furor to Hitler, and - as this detailed, thoroughly researched, and very readable biography demonstrates - comparisons of their personalities, methods, actions, and general behavior are very much on the mark ... with one major exception, as my friend Trang pointed out in her comment on my Facebook post recommending the book:

"There's one big difference between Hitler with his oratory skills and der Furor whose lack of eloquence is astounding. The man can't ever seem to utter a complete sentence that makes sense."

Trang's comment was spot-on. Whatever else he may have been, Adolf Hitler was a spellbinding orator with a brilliant ability to match his preparation and delivery to the audience. Der Furor, on the other hand, is a terrible speaker - his speeches are not the focused, compelling addresses of an educated statesman speaking with the gravitas of office, but stream-of-consciousness monologs, full of bizarre claims, childish insults, gross misrepresentations, rambling non sequiturs, and self-indulgent blather. It's a style he likes to call "the weave" as if it were some profoundly brilliant oratorical technique only he can master, and one that appeals to less-educated audiences with short attention spans, who want to be entertained rather than informed or persuaded. If Der Furor were to compete in any high school speech contest I was judging, I'd have to seek the organizer's permission to give him a low enough score.

Now consider last week's funeral of former president Jimmy Carter. Speaker after speaker gave heartfelt, excellent eulogies ... not an easy type of presentation to write or deliver. Each eulogy brilliantly mixed love, respect, and humor in memory of a man remembered less as a great president than as a decent and humble human being. I cannot imagine that Der Furor could have risen to the challenge of the moment, and I cringe* to think of what will happen if we need to have a state funeral while he is in office. In July of 2022 I wrote a blog post reimagining the Gettysburg Address as Der Furor would have  delivered it that can serve as an example of the sort of soaring presidential rhetoric we can expect again in the next four years.

A few years ago, drama and theater critic Peter Marks wrote, “... if you’ve ever listened to some of the desultory rhetoric from the well of the Senate, you know that American politics has not exactly built an assembly line of Ciceros.” We live in a time when attention spans are short and good public speaking is insufficiently valued. It's a time when crude tweets that sow hatred and division carry more weight than soaring oration that inspires and motivates. 

And that's sad.

Have a good day, and support your local school's speech and debate clubs.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Yes, I know it's on the banished words list for this year, but it just seemed right.

The Banished Words List for 2025

In going through my old posts, I found one from back in January of 2010 (15 years ago, yikes!) titled "Banned Words List," in which I visited a list published by the faculty and staff of Lake Superior State University, the official name of which is "Words Banished for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness."

I'd long forgotten about LSSU's Banished Words list* until I rediscovered that old post, and was delighted to look it up and find that it's still going strong. Here is the list for 2025, which contains some words and expressions I've not heard ... I guess I move in the wrong circles:

1. Cringe. It's apparently become cringe-worthy through overuse.

2. Game Changer. It seems that since almost every new idea or product is a game changer, the expression no longer means anything. 

3. Era. Apparently, everything popular is enjoying its "era." Who knew? I think the only worthwhile recent use of the word was to name Taylor Swift's phenomenally successful multi-year tour.

4. Dropped. Books, music, and all kinds of unnecessary things are currently being dropped rather than published, released, or offered for sale. This is dumb. I think it should also disappear in its alter ego of "mic drop" to indicate an emphatic conclusion to something. 

5. IYKYK (If You Know, You Know). I agree that this is a useless, irritating, and nonsensical phrase that means nothing. Good riddance.

6. Sorry Not Sorry. A disingenuous, half-hearted apology pretending to be honest.

7. Skibidi. I'd never heard this word before, so I had to look it up. As near as I can tell, it seems to be a meaningless word used to initiate meaningless conversations which lead eventually to brain rot.

8. 100%. This is another expression I hadn't heard much recently, but which has apparently been overused as a term indicating full agreement. The last time I recall hearing it was in the Dr Seuss story "Horton Hatches the Egg," in which Horton the elephant explains why he keeps sitting on the egg by saying, "I meant what I said and I said what I meant - an elephant's faithful, one hundred percent."

9. Utilize. I've hated this one for years. Real People say "use" ... people who want to sound important say "utilize." Please don't say it to me ... I worked in the Pentagon long enough to learn to despise it.

10. Period. It's been used to death to emphasize finality of argument ("I've done all I can, period!").

There are other words and expressions I'd banish, given the power. These include:

- Mandate**. This is constantly used by Republicans to claim that a narrow plurality of the popular vote constitutes justification for proceeding with a radical agenda most people wouldn't support if it was honestly presented. The word is often used not by itself, but with the dishonest adjectives historic, resounding, or decisive.

And,

- MAGA***. If ever a term has been overused, it's this one. Let's just drive a stake in it.  

How about you, Dear Readers? What are the words or expressions you would ban if you had the power? Leave a comment and let the rest of us know.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Which has been published every year since 1976 - 49 years!

** I'm shocked that self-styled GOP "alpha males" would use a term like "mandate," given that it might be interpreted as something horrifyingly gay.

*** Of course, there are a lot of really great take-offs on MAGA, the best of which include "Make Attorneys Get Attorneys" and "My Ass Got Arrested." These can stay.

Learning a New Language at 73

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while may recall that my undergraduate major in college was Linguistics, with a specialization in foreign languages, which required me to minor in one language and study another to the "intermediate" level. My minor language was German, in which I'm conversationally fluent; my "intermediate" language was Russian, in which I can, sadly, no longer claim anything like fluency. Nevertheless, I remain fascinated by the subject of languages and enjoy studying them, if not always learning to speak them fluently.

Back in July, Agnes and I went on a cruise vacation from Boston up the New England coast to Québec, and in preparation for our planned stay in that francophone city, we decided to learn some French* ...

I signed us up for an online French course with Babbel, which we gamely struggled through for a few weeks before deciding we were not learning very much other than such useful expressions as Il y a vache dans le jardin (there's a cow in the garden), je veux travailler dans une usine de chocolat (I want to work in a chocolate factory), and votre poulet est sur mon pied (your chicken is on my foot)**. On the advice of our daughter Yasmin, we decided to switch over to Duolingo.

We found Duolingo to be superior to Babbel for the way we learn, although Agnes had a bit of a head start on me, having studied French many years ago. We thus arrived in Canada armed with a few weeks of survival French ... only to learn that pretty much everybody in the touristy areas spoke better English than we did. Agnes got several positive comments on her accent, and I thought my accent wasn't bad either, although I was reminded of my long-suffering college Russian teacher's comment that I spoke a perfect accent without a trace of Russian.

Once back from our trip to Quebec, we decided that since we'd paid good money for the Duolingo program, we should keep up with it. Agnes has continued with French, although I decided to switch to Spanish, which seems to be more useful in present-day America***.

I think I'm making reasonable strides in basic Spanish, although there are a few things that are giving me fits:

- The grammatical gender of nouns^† is not always the same in Spanish as it is in German, which can be confusing. On the plus side, Spanish only has two grammatical genders, while German has three.

- Spanish is spoken at a rate of 570,000,000 words per minute, making it a bit difficult for a beginner to follow. Of course, German is spoken rapidly, too, but I've had a lot more years to learn to follow it.

- As in pretty much all languages, the verb to be is irregular. But Spanish gives it a twist by making you learn two different verbs which both mean to be: ser and estar. The basic rule of which one to use is this: your first guess is always wrong^††.

So ...

Yo hablo alemán, y necesito estudiar mucho, porque español es muy difícil.

If that's wrong, I'll just check with my granddaughter Leya, who is patiently trying to help me out. After all, it's commonly known that it's a lot harder to learn a language when you're 73 than when you're 17.

Schön Tag noch! Weitere Meinungen folgen.

Bilbo

* I remembered the hysterically funny essay "French for Americans" by Robert Benchley, in which I learned (among other things) that French has five vowels - a, e, i, o, and u, pronounced ong, ong, ong, ong, and ong. You can read a summary of the whole essay in this Futility Closet post.

** In fairness to Babbel, the last one was helpfully offered by our friend Kathy.

*** Much to the horror of most conservative voters.

† I have a degree in linguistics and I still have no idea why nouns need a grammatical gender ... in German, for example, you eat your meals with a knife (das Messer, neuter), fork (die Gabel, feminine), and spoon (der Löffel, masculine). Whyzat?

†† Making ser and estar the linguistic equivalent of USB connectors.