US Vice President Cheney minced no words recently when he vulgarly proposed that Senator Patrick Leahy do something impossible to himself. Most US newspaper editors, however, wary of offending public sensibilities, chose not to repeat his verb and called it instead "the F-word." By so doing, they called attention to their vigilance against dirty words and also to a word weed spreading through the language like dandelions.
The -- word: This usage probably began as a coy way to avoid obscenities and delete expletives. Garry Trudeau described the main ones in a Doonesbury comic strip last month in which a Cheney voice announces that "I not only intend to use the F-word from now on, I'm also using the S-word, the C-word, the P-word and the J-word," leaving readers to wonder what curse the J-word might euphemize.
This usage -- I call it letteracy -- is hardly limited to dirty words. It has effloresced since 1988, when the usual proprietor of this space commented on three geopolitical examples: "the D-word" for detente; T for taxes; and U for unemployment. "This vogue will probably peter out in a few years," he wrote, "after we go through the alphabet and begin to get confused about what a given letter is supposed to signify."
William Safire was half-prescient. We have, indeed, gone through the alphabet, and what a given letter signifies is often confusing. Yet there is no sign that letteracy is petering out. Here's a glossary of examples.
A -- This may be the granddaddy of letteracy, the Scarlet Letter for adultery. B -- Budget. Biodiversity. C -- Cancer. Cellulite. Class. D -- Detente. Dinosaur. Deficit. E -- Elite. New York Times columnist Barbara Ehrenreich commented on conservatives' promoting the idea of "a sinister, pseudocompassionate liberal elite. ... Note how richly the E-word embellishes the screeds of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and their co-ideologues." Also: Euphemism. Electronic.
F -- The Cheney F-word episode recalls a moment in 1976 when the New York Times Magazine published a campaign profile of Jimmy Carter by Norman Mailer. Carter had just created a stir by acknowledging that, hardly perfect, he had experienced lust in his heart. Explaining himself, Carter disclaimed making moral judgments about others, saying, "I don't care if people say -- ." In his manuscript, Mailer insisted on spelling out the F-word. After some discussion, here is how he agreed to finish the sentence: "... and he actually said the famous four-letter word that the Times has not printed in the 125 years of its publishing life."
G -- God. Genocide. H -- Horror. Husband. Hostages. Halliburton.
J -- Jews. K -- Kashmir. L -- After Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 election, "the L-word" was widely and sarcastically used to signify liberal. Today the term is known as the title of Showtime's television drama about lesbians. Also: Landslide. M -- Marriage, as in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision last February enabling single-sex unions. In her dissent, Justice Martha Sosman described the controversy as "a pitched battle over who gets to use the `M' word." Also: Math. Malaise.
N -- By far the most common usage of the N-word is to avoid repeating the hateful corruption of the word "Negro" when used by non-blacks. O -- Oil. Organic. Orphanages. P -- Posture. Productivity. Process. Q -- Quagmire. Quality. Quiet. R -- Recession. Revolution. S -- Sustainability. Socialism. Socialization. T -- Terrorism. Torture. U -- Unions. Unilateralism. Uranium.
V -- Values. As the 2004 campaign ripened, this became the buzzword of both the Bush and the Kerry campaigns, so much so that in July the New York Times reported that "Mr. Kerry used the V-word no fewer than eight times in a 36-minute speech." Also: Vouchers. Volunteers. Vagina. W -- Welfare. Wedding. Wilderness.
All told, that's 54 examples of letteracy, encompassing 22 letters of the alphabet, and there are surely many more. No matter how many, by now they all boil down to a single C-word: cliche.
SEE THE DOG
With the Republicans gathering in New York to formally nominate their candidates this week, political speculation next turns to potential Cabinet appointees. Before filling the Cabinet jobs, however, the first requirement is to remember them all
For decades, a brief mnemonic described the departments, and followed their order of creation: St. Wapniacl. That is, State, Treasury, War, Post Office, Navy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Labor. In the last half-century, however, the roster of Cabinet departments has been transformed with the combination of War and Navy into Defense, the transmutation of the Post Office into the Postal Service and the addition of three departments whose names start with H, two with E, plus a T and a V.
The present Cabinet consists of 15 departments, plus other officials designated from time to time by one president but not necessarily another, like the US representative to the UN, or the US trade representative. In order of creation: 1789, State, Treasury, War, Attorney General (the Department of Justice was created in 1870), Post Office. 1798, Navy. 1849, Interior. 1862, Agriculture. 1913, Commerce, Labor. 1949, Defense (merging War and Navy and adding Air Force). 1953, Health, Education and Welfare (becoming Health and Human Services when the Department of Education was created in 1979). 1965, Housing and Urban Development. 1966, Transportation. 1970, Post Office Department converted to independent Postal Service. 1977, Energy. 1979, Education. 1988, Veterans Affairs. 2003, Homeland Security.
The addition of the Department of Homeland Security makes a new mnemonic all the more necessary. Here's one first proposed on the New York Times editorial page in 1988 and later revised: See The Dog Jump In A Circle; Leave Her House To Entertain Educated Veterans' Homes.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
RSS