(This is, of course, an exercise in make-believe).

–

Dear Sir or Madame,

In response to your inquiry, we at The Trusty Guide to Pol-Speak would like to help. Unfortunately, we cannot at this time due to the high volume of requests.

Sincerely,
The Editors

—

Dear Sir,

We apologize most sincerely for not having seen more promptly to your initial inquiry. You understand that not all applicants would actually be better off with our help, and we apologize for not better heeding the credentials you included in your previous letter. Someone of your rank, of course, deserves our most humble and immediate attention. Please find enclosed the file you have requested from our database at the Pol-Speak Bureau.

Humbly and sincerely,
The Editors

—

FILE ENTRY: “Tolerate”
STATUS: 75% Improved
ARCHAIC MEANING: to put up with something one does not agree with (i.e., “Fred tolerated the annoying flies.”)
IMPROVED MEANING: to embrace and accept what someone else may not agree with (i.e., “Susan is a very tolerant person.”)

PROGRESS NOTES:
Re-Def is still ongoing, but Re-Usage has established a strong duality in the meaning of the word. That is, a person may say in one sentence that he can tolerate summer mosquitoes and, in the next,  in speaking of his progressive social views, that he is proudly tolerant of all races. Few people recognize the complete inanity of this usage. In the first case, after all, he is saying he can put up with something he does not like, while in the second that he likes what some other people can’t put up with.

Duality (that is, “contradiction”) is always a dangerous stage in the Re-Def process, because it is always possible that this complete absurdity of meanings may come to light. Adoption of the duality, however, is stable.

CAUSE FOR RE-DEF
The need for this redefinition has been clear from the beginning of the New Understanding. Any community organized on the basis of consensus must agree about what is good. And I do not need to tell you that it has been obvious to all clear thinkers of our time what the good is: it is the good of us all, or of “humanity,” if you like.

Since it is the Good, we must always maintain the Consensus, perhaps even at the expense of consent. This is the paradox of political necessity. The Re-Def program, I’m sure you’ll agree, has been far more successful at maintaining consensus than some of the other, more drastic solutions which were attempted to the problem of dissent in the past.

“Tolerance” has always been a difficulty, because it implies that disagreement about what is Good is acceptable in the community. But disagreement is the enemy of Consensus, and the enemy of the New Understanding. Disagreement is backward thinking and would drastically slow the process of establishing the fully Good Community, which is, the community for the good of us all.

Thus, the concept of “tolerance” needed to be changed. Instead of meaning personal disagreement, the Pol-Speak Bureau determined to change the meaning to personal agreement, and thus do away with the whole problem. The appropriate Re-Def procedure was initiated and progress has been stunning, if we may say.

Before, “tolerance” implied patience; now, it implies enlightenment. Before, “tolerance” meant living with the intolerant; now, the intolerant are precisely those with whom one cannot live. This is because those who do not share the vision of the Good Community are necessarily enemies of it. ”Tolerance,” thanks to our work, now requires total conformity to the ideals of the Good Community. The old concept of free disagreement has, in effect, nearly been destroyed.

This will not seem strange to you, Sir, since you know that it is politically necessary for the wise to appear to depend on the many, when the truth must be quite the opposite.

You have inquired into several other words still in the “Duality” phase of Re-Def. How is it, you ask, that  ”independence” now means “dependence”?  That is one of our best pieces of work, and perhaps the easiest. The file is currently being updated, but we will forward it as soon as we are able.

Imagine a color you’ve never seen before. Now double it. BAM!!

That year–a cold year, the year 4730 by galactic reckoning–there was no warmth or plenty anywhere on Blarg. The pretty purple planet straggling along on the out rim of the solar system felt lonelier than ever. The sky was gray for months, food was scarce, and even “hanging out” became too expensive. Mostly people just lay on the floor conserving energy. No one turned out to vote in the planetary elections that year, because they were so pessimistic. Then along came Zerg, who wanted to be famous.

His first problem was how to get elected. “How do you make people promises when you have nothing to give?” Zerg wondered, because he was honest at first, and he was stumped for a little while. Then he had it–and it was brilliant. What would he do? He would make people feel good about having nothing!

So Zerg began to think of slogans and speeches. “The best man I ever knew,” he was soon telling ten-thousand strong crowds of hungry Blargians, “was a poor man who would never give up!” Of course, none of his stories were about rich people who never gave up, because that would be unpopular.

And so Zerg was elected. Unfortunately, good feelings need food too, and within three months Zerg found out that Blargians were getting tired of empty praise. They still needed to eat, and if his “zero cost feel good” plan stopped working then he, Zerg of Blarg, would be kicked out of office and out of history, and since this was the definition of failure in his third edition of “Words and Usage for Effective Politicking,” he got to thinking.

Very suddenly it occurred to him. Zerg had one big problem–how to keep ruling  Blarg (“for the good of Blarg and for me too!” he said). He had figured out pretty quickly after becoming ruler of Blarg that he couldn’t do a whole lot to make the rain fall or the crops grow. Even worse, his polls had plummeted the week he’d gone on TV to give a heartfelt, step-by-step demonstration on belt-tightening.

But as for staying the ruler of Blarg? He needed to convince people that they needed him and his rule, and so he hatched a plan.

The next time he looked at his calendar and saw it was a lucky day–he would need a lucky day–Zerg went on Blarg TV to address the planet. He kept his fingers crossed behind his back the whole time, because this would be a little tricky.

“I want to paint a mental picture for you,” he gushed, “of freedom! We all on Blarg are pretty free, but you know what this past year has been like? Pretty slavish! We’ve all been working really hard for very little, and why? Because we’re afraid that the ends won’t meet! And you know what I say? That’s not really being free! You’re not free until you’re free from fear and the way to freedom from fear–” he was really crossing his fingers here “–is to have someone to help with your needs!“

He let this thought sink in for a few moments and the quiet around the planet Blarg was electric. And then he said, “So I want to tell you about my plan to free you from the slavery of need.” And the crowded planet went wild.

This did in fact make Zerg fantastically popular and he was re-elected without much trouble in the next few elections. In truth, of course, there was very little that Zerg could do about meeting people’s needs. What little he could do that really helped had absolutely nothing to do with his speech. Practically, his speech was a waste of time that did no one any good at all–no one, that is, except for Zerg.

But that speech was a bit of craftsmanship which–if Zerg said so himself, which he never did, because it would ruin everything–which had convinced people that being free didn’t mean being independent, but that it meant being dependent. In a clever sleight of hand, Zerg had switched one need for another, and now “freedom from want” meant needing Zerg.

Zerg kept at it, of course, and soon the Blargians began to find it very difficult to imagine freedom without Zerg’s help. The very concept had winked out of existence, as it were, and soon lots of Blargians were repeating it without even being told, which Zerg loved. And that’s all that Zerg wanted–for now.

My name would be Sour Cream. Tami thinks that’s pretty stupid, but I think it would nicely express both my (presumably) rebellious reaction to society’s rigid conventions and also my (presumable and tacit) ambivalence toward my own whitey-whiteness. So I think it’s perfect. If you have a 90s rap name, this is a safe and affirming place to share–no one will criticize you. (Tami says, “Because no one will read it.”)

For a long time now I’ve been debating whether gravity or irony is stronger. (Maybe you never cared about this before, but rest assured, you probably won’t care any more after this). Here’s the breakdown: gravity gets you every time, and you have to get to outer space to stretch away from its clutches, which is really hard. Thus, some people say gravity is stronger.

On the other hand, irony can get you even in outer space. And even though it’s hard to predict, that makes it almost stronger–irony will get you when you don’t expect it to.

Example: I ordered a book on half.com, saving $70. The shipper sent it late and it wasn’t coming in the mail, and I was sure it would ironically come the day after we left. Then, last minute we changed our plans and stayed a day later! I remember consciously thinking that I’d beat irony. Well, the book didn’t come, we left for Texas, and the next day it arrived. Irony won AGAIN.

In my book, I have to say that irony is stronger than gravity, without a doubt. The real question is how to rank love, stupidity, radiation, and (of course) mojo.

The last thing you want to hear going into winter, when you’ve all already lost a few hours of sunlight, is that the owner of the sun might decide to shut it down completely if you don’t pay her tax. Well, earthlings, get with the “lame,” because it just landed and it wants your leader.

Apparently this Spanish woman visited her local notary public a little while ago and claimed ownership of the sun.

There is an international agreement which states that no country may claim ownership of a planet or star, but it says nothing about individuals, [Duran] added.

“There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first.”

You know that an idea is true genius when it spawns many mutated children. After about a minute of thinking hard, I realized that it’s unlikely anyone has actually legally claimed the center of the Earth (and the surrounding territories) because they are too busy looking at the stars (thank you Star Trek). Well, guess what, earthlings? I’m going to start collecting my gravity tax next week.

There’s the killer whale-sized problem that I can actually shut off gravity if people don’t pay, though. Maybe Ms. Duran has got this figured out, because she already knows what she’ll do with the money:

Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 percent to the nation’s pension fund.

She would dedicate another 10 percent to research, another 10 percent to ending world hunger — and would keep the remaining 10 percent herself.

“It is time to start doing things the right way, if there is an idea for how to generate income and improve the economy and people’s wellbeing, why not do it?” she asked.

This, of course, smacks of desperation. Why would she give fifty percent to the Spanish government, except that she needs someone to help her collect or she gets nothing? Avast, the problem. The uncomfortable fact behind government authority is coercive power, but it has to be used delicately, and a sun tax just isn’t delicate enough. I doubt Spanish tax collectors will be going around with their lockboxes anytime soon. There are easier things to tax.

Well, bummer, Ms. Duran. Bummer.

After two days of snorting constantly like a piggy, we figured out that Laeth had a booger the size of Texas rumbling around his sinuses. For a moment we wondered whether he was learning to snort instead of to coo, which would’ve made things hard for him later in life. Thankfully, no longer.

This way old post on why cigarette companies are actually behind the ban on cigarette advertising is like a story I heard last night.

A number of years ago, automatic garage doors were manufactured by several different companies. One of them, though, had the lion’s share at 70% of the market. Today this company has 100% of the market. How did that happen?

This one company’s lobbyists urged lawmakers to pass new safety standards for all garage doors because, every now and then, someone gets a splinter using them (or–okay, okay–killed in stupid accidents). But the safety standards were so stringent that only a large company running on an economy of scale–say, one with 70% of the market share–could possibly afford the R&D and implementation costs.

So now this company owns the whole market, because lobbyists have such a significant influence over legislators.

And why do lobbyists have such influence? Because “good government” in our system no longer means the promise of equality under impartial legislation, as it did until about 1900, but instead it means the expert guidance of government officials trying to rationalize the system to maximize the economic and personal potential of citizens. And to do that, these experts need the discretion to make legislation partial to one industry or business over others.

That doesn’t sound so bad, until we see who takes the most advantage of the partiality of legislation, and it’s definitely not the enlightened experts. The system, unfortunately, has become especially effective at playing favorites.

Apparently MSNBC has suspended Keith Olbermann because he gave money to three political campaigns during the last election. One of NBC’s network rules, apparently, is that TV show hosts can’t make political contributions without special permission from the network. Their justification, of course, is that TV show hosts should be non-partisan, because otherwise how could you trust their opinions?

Of course, just because they look non-partisan doesn’t mean they’re non-ideological. It’s just a clever way of covering it up.

I have a different idea. NBC should actually require every news anchor or talk show host to donate at least $5000 to political campaigns. My guess is that the donations would overall be fairly predictable, but why pretend they wouldn’t be?

I’m admittedly one of those who’s a bit skeptical of FoxNews (and the others), but I appreciate that the most they claim is to be “Fair and Balanced,” and not “impartial,” which is how many others try to cast themselves. That’s a joke. To be impartial means to have no part in something, to have no vested interests, to be making no argument for what’s good ultimately. I don’t think that describes any network or show, now or ever.

So, free Keith Olbermann!

I didn’t think we’d acclimate this quickly. The temperature’s dropped down to 70F and I’m cold enough to put on a sweater. I like sweaters a lot.