Letting It All Hang Out
Words! What are they good for? Absolutely nothing, if the events that comprised my weekend are any indication. Last Sunday night, after traveling downtown in the midst of another thunderstorm, I settled into a comfy couch at Baltimore's Sonar Lounge, where my son and his buddy were anxious to hear the indecipherable lyrics of The Liars, and muscled through much of Peter Beinart's manifesto, The Good Fight. It's a pretty good book, though some of the ideas of The New Republic's face of "modern liberalism" didn't make much sense. That's OK, though, since Beinart's research is thorough and his writing is more intelligible than say, the ethically challenged Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos notoriety.
Beinart makes the entirely sensible point that anti-Bush zealots have shed the word "liberal" in favor of "progressive." It's his contention that this outspoken group of millions does the Democratic party, and themselves, a disservice by ignoring what he considers the noble "liberal" ideals that were nurtured by FDR, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John F. Kennedy.
Here's a sentence, however, that just makes my eyes roll. He writes: "Today's political environment is more like the one that stretched from the late 1940s through the late 1980s, when debates about America were interwoven with debates about America's role in the world. And in this environment, conservatives have a crucial advantage: they have a usable past. Ask any junior-level conservative activist about the cold war, and she can recite the catechism: how liberals lost their nerve in Vietnam and America sank into self-doubt until Ronald Reagan restored America's confidence and overthrew the evil empire."
Sounds on-target to me, actually, but what in the world is Beinart trying to express when he says, "she can recite the catechism?" That seems to be fairly progressive to me, a gratuitous nod to feminism rather than using "he or she." Was he afraid of getting the Ozzie Guillen treatment from this week's arbiter of acceptable left-wing vocabulary?
Meanwhile, I glanced occasionally at the stage where the less than capacity crowd was roaring approval at Katrina Ford, lead singer of opening act Celebration when she declared near the end of their set, "Here's a song that I wish I didn't have to fucking write. It's called 'War.'" It was impossible to hear the lyrics but you don't need to click Google to get confirmation of the sentiment.
That reminded me of a June 25 Washington Post op-ed by Joel Achenbach called "Dropping the F-Bomb," a meditation of just how coarse, and ultimately meaningless, the 21st century notion of "dirty words" has evolved over the years. Achenbach derides the Federal Communications Commission, abetted by President Bush, for escalating the dollar amount of fines levied against "indecency" committed by conventional television and radio stations. He finds this bout of morality more than slightly ridiculous-who doesn't?-but recalls a time not so long ago when it was almost a scandal when a celebrity used the word "fuck" onscreen or at a public gathering.
It's a generational tic, of course. Growing up in the 60s, I never once heard my father swear, not even a "hell" or "damn"; my mother was the same, although in '83, after a chemotherapy treatment, when all inhibitions go out the window, she did say that she "felt like shit." I was mildly surprised.
Unlike my 13-year-old, who, out of the earshot of my wife, can use language that once was considered the sole property of sailors, lowlife drunks, soldiers in combat and Norman Mailer, my two older brothers still don't swear to this day, quaintly considering it an example of laziness. As a teen, it wasn't until I was 15 that I actually used the words "shit" and "fuck" even in conversation with my friends. It seems odd, considering that I'd been smoking pot and cigarettes a year earlier. [Note to my sons: dope was Mexican back then and not as strong as today's, and tobacco's a fearsome addiction even if a cig dangling out of your mouth looks really cool.] Once that divide was crossed, there was no turning back, and like two of my other brothers, my language wasn't fit for mixed company or in church.
Back to White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, one of baseball's most entertaining and, currently, most successful managers. He was in the news last week because he called Jay Mariotti, a sports columnist for Chicago's Sun-Times, a "fag," for what reason I'm not sure except that he was pissed at the writer's negative stories about the Pale Hose. MLB commissioner Bud Selig ordered Guillen to undergo "sensitivity training," which is about as stupid an idea since he similarly condemned onetime Braves reliever John Rocker to the same fate.
There are two interesting aspects to this controversy. One, no matter what you think about Guillen's deplorable manners, why is Selig getting involved? If it's that's big a stain on reputation of the White Sox-and Guillen, who gabs non-stop, has committed worse offenses-why not let the team's management levy a suspension or fine on the skipper.
Two, it was curious to see how dailies handled Guillen's slur: a few, like USA Today, printed the word "fag," but that paper was in the minority. More typical, naturally, was The New York Times. On June 26, Jack Curry, in a belated roundup of the flap, wrote, "Guillen called [Mariotti] a derogatory term used to describe someone's sexual orientation."