Short and sweet. Krauthammer's column from 2004...

In Defense of the F-Word

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 2, 2004; Page A15

I am sure there is a special place in heaven reserved for those who have never used the F-word. I will never get near that place. Nor, apparently, will Dick Cheney.

Washington is abuzz with the latest political contretemps. Cheney, taking offense at Sen. Pat Leahy's imputation of improper vice presidential conduct regarding Halliburton contracts in Iraq, let the senator know as much during a picture-taking ceremony on the floor of the Senate. The F-word was used. Washington is scandalized.

The newspapers were full of it. Lamentations were heard about the decline of civility. The Post gave special gravitas to the occasion, spelling out the full four letters (something that it had done only three times previously). Democrats, feeling darned outraged, demanded apologies. The vice president remained defiant, offering but the coyest concession -- that he "probably" cursed -- coupled with satisfaction: "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it."

The Federal Communications Commission just last year decreed that the F-word could be used as an adjective, but not as a verb. Alas, this Solomonic verdict, fodder for a dozen PhD dissertations, was recently overturned. It would not get Cheney off the hook anyway. By all accounts, he deployed the pungent verb form, in effect a suggestion as to how the good senator from Vermont might amuse himself.

Flood-the-zone coverage by investigative reporters has not, however, quite resolved the issue of which of the two preferred forms passed Cheney's lips: the priceless two-worder -- "[verb] you" -- or the more expansive three-worder, a directive that begins with "go."

Though I myself am partial to the longer version, I admit that each formulation has its virtues. The deuce is the preferred usage when time is short and concision is of the essence. Enjoying the benefits of economy, it is especially useful in emergencies. This is why it is a favorite of major league managers going nose to nose with umpires. They know that they have only a few seconds before getting tossed out of the game, and as a result television viewers have for years delighted in the moment the two-worder is hurled, right on camera. No need for sound. The deuce was made for lip reading.

Which makes it excellent for drive-by information conveyance. When some jerk tailgater rides my bumper in heavy traffic, honking his horn before passing and cutting me off, I do a turn-to-the-left, eyeball-to-eyeball, through-the-driver's-window two-worder -- mouthed slowly and with exaggerated lip movements. No interlocutor has yet missed my meaning.

Nonetheless, while the two-worder has the directness of the dagger, the three-worder has the elegance of the wide-arced saber slice. It is more musical and, being more clearly spelled out, more comprehensible to the non-English speaker (a boon in major urban areas). It consists of a straightforward directive containing both a subject and an object -- charmingly, the same person.

According to The Post, the local authority on such matters, Cheney went for a variant of the short form, employing the more formal "yourself." And given the location, the floor of the Senate, it seems a reasonable choice: Time was short, and he undoubtedly reserves the right to revise and extend his remarks.

Ah, but the earnest chin-pullers are not amused. Cheney's demonstration of earthy authenticity in a chamber in which authenticity of any kind is to be valued has occasioned anguished meditations on the loss of civility in American politics. Liberals in particular have expressed deep concern about this breach of decorum.

Odd. The day before first reports of Cheney's alleged indiscretion, his Democratic predecessor, Al Gore, delivered a public speech in which he spoke of the administration's establishing a "Bush gulag" around the world and using "digital brown shirts" to intimidate the media. The former vice president of the United States compared the current president to both Hitler and Stalin in the same speech -- a first not just in hyperbole but in calumny -- and nary a complaint is heard about a breach of civility.

If you suspect that this selective indignation may be partisan, you guessed right. But here's an even more important question. In the face of Gore's real breach of civil political discourse, which of the following is the right corrective: (a) offer a reasoned refutation of the charge that George Bush is both Stalinist and Hitlerian; (b) suggest an increase in Gore's medication; or (c) do a Cheney.

The correct answer is "C." And given the circumstances, go for the deuce.

i have deep concern about this breach of decorum

Pale Fire

comical send up of literary criticism by a deposed king

I mentioned earlier that I was starting into "Wealth, Poverty, and Politics" by Thomas Sowell. I finished it a while back, and thought it was a great book. It gives lots of examples of things that don't ordinarily come to mind, for factors that shape how societies evolve. The part about Africa's rivers historically limiting trade and transportation because the elevation drops sharply just before reaching the coast, as compared to the more gently sloped rivers of North America and Europe, stood out in my mind. Similar discussions about what helped the Incas to thrive were fascinating. Other parts discuss how societies or groups that were backward at one place or time (the British Isles during Roman times; the Scottish before the ~18th Century) have thrived after conditions changed a bit and a "missing ingredient" was introduced, or how certain immigrant groups over-perform in their new surroundings, or isolated groups in mountainous areas tend to lag behind societies in the valleys. There are some links to baseball, with the success of Irish-American players (Tip O'Neill, King Kelly, etc) in the late 19th century and Southern American players (Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, etc) in the early 20th century being noted during eras when those groups tended not to have good educations or human capitol that supported lots of success outside sports and entertainment. The racial makeup of MLB stolen base leaders is one of many of examples that it is silly to expect equal (or proportional) representation by all groups among any set of outcomes.

Soon after finishing that book, I saw Sowell's newest book "Discrimination and Disparities" on sale, so I bought it. I probably would have liked it a lot if I had not already read some of Sowell's other books. "Discrimination and Disparities" is fine as a short, stand-alone book, but it contains very little new material. It mainly seems like a re-packaging of selected topics from "Wealth, Poverty, and Politics", with some of Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions" and "Basic Economics" included. I do like all those books, but they are longer. Sowell has authored so many books, I have to wonder which ones contain substantial new material, and which ones are mostly re-packaging of his previous ideas. There is nothing wrong with repeating a few key concepts, but that was almost the entirety of "Discrimination and Disparities".

the dream of scipio

so much about poetry, no poetry in it

ignore his lack of art

go with the warp and the woof

Sadly for me I've taken on a new role at work and it has radically cut down the amount of reading I'm capable of doing right now. Maybe it'll get better once I'm acclimated to the new thing but for right now I feel like my brain is so fried from all the new stuff I'm trying to pick up that I can't focus at all anything long enough to get anywhere.

Stuka pilot

The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters--Robert Lewis Taylor

Taylor's realistic novel—despite the Tom-Sawyer-like protagonist and narrator, it is aimed at an adult audience and contains episodes that would have kept it off any school list at the time—was published in 1958 and won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction the following year. In it, the young Jaimie (spelled with two "i"s) accompanies a wagon train headed from St. Louis, Missouri, to California after the 1849 Gold Rush.

The novel alternates between Jaimie describing his journey by wagon train with commentary by his father, a Scottish doctor with an effervescent personality whose judgment is often clouded by his weakness for gambling and strong drink.

The novel contains, in graphic detail, some intense Native American customs, especially rite of passage.

for anyone interested i set up a what are you listening to thread in non - sports.

Patrick O'Brian



it ain Forester and it ain Melville but it boxes the compass

Dave Ramsey's Complete Guide to Money

Glass Cell (1964) by Patricia Highsmith. Okay effort from the “dimestore Dostoyevsky” but not up there with her best work.

Kafka in 90 Minutes (2004) Paul Strathern. Very good summary of Kafka’s life, work and milieu, but I didn’t like the choices for the excerpts (very few of them, and not Kafka’s best).

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) by Lewis Carroll. “Reeling and Writhing and then the different branches of Arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision.” People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.

The Wine-Dark Sea (1988, new intro/afterword 2014) by Robert Aickman. More strange tales. Similar, but superior, to previously reviewed Compulsory Games. Best story was “Trains.” Highly recommended.

Reuben, Reuben (1964) by Peter De Vries. Overly long comic novel divided into three sections focusing on different characters, with only the first section truly interesting. I prefer De Vries' shorter fiction.

David Copperfield (1850) by Charles Dickens. I hadn't read a Dickens novel since I was in school and I didn't like him then. Thought I'd give him another shot. This one (somewhat autobiographical, and the author's own professed favorite) is well-written, but pretty slow slogging. Lots of memorable characters, although they're more a collection of comic tics than fully-rounded people. I'm glad I read it, but I don't think I've got it in me to read any more Dickens. Life's too short!

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) by Lewis Carroll. “Reeling and Writhing and then the different branches of Arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision.” People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.

sequel:

Quarterback - John Feinstein

Graphic novels aren't my cup of tea but I'd read a couple of rave reviews for Sabrina (2018) by Nick Drnaso so I gave it a shot. The author's themes are topical and ambitious (loneliness and alienation in the age of social media, alt-right conspiracy mongering, Internet trolls, etc.) but the writing and especially the artwork just didn't engage me. Bland drawings and too many characters who looked so much alike I couldn't tell them apart. Big thumbs down from me.