cosset; fungible

A two-fer! Two words I don’t know in the same article. Wow. I must be slipping…

Definition of cosset:
“v. To treat with indulgence and pamper, often overtender care: baby, cater, coddle, indulge, mollycoddle, overindulge, spoil.” (answers.com).

Definition of fungible:
“adj. 1. Law. Returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain. 2. Interchangeable.

n.Something that is exchangeable or substitutable. Often used in the plural.” (answers.com).

Where I ran across them:
6/25/08 NYT op-ed article by Maureen Dowd, “More Phony Myths,”

“…Conservatives love playing this little game, acting as if the “elite” Democratic candidates are not in touch with people like themselves, even though the guys doing the attacking — like Rove, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity — are wealthy and cosseted.…For some of Obama’s critics, it’s a breathtaking bit of fungible principles, as though Gandhi suddenly donned a Dolce & Gabbana, or Dolce & Mahatma, loincloth.…”

My two cents:
Three cheers for Maureen Dowd! I love this woman’s attitude, her writing style, and her vocabulary. Sorry I can’t say the same for Karl Rove and company, the subject of her spunky, observant NYT op-ed piece concerning the cheap verbal shots coming at Obama of late from various vitriolic Republican folks like Rove, some of whom really ought not to be throwing stones. I mean seriously, what about that whole karmic, glass-house thing?

Some folks have more insurance, I guess…

polyandry

Learn somethin’ new every day!

Definition of polyandry:
“A practice in which women have two or more husbands at the same time. A rare form of polygamy, polyandry is practiced by only a few cultures.” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
Maureen Dowd’s 6/22/08 NYT op-ed piece, “The Carla Effect,” about Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the new wife of French President Sarkozy.

“…If an American first lady, or would-be first lady, described herself as a “tamer of men” and had a “man-eating” past filled with naked pictures, Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton, sultry prone CD covers, breaking up marriages, bragging that she believes in polygamy and polyandry rather than monogamy, and having a son with a married philosopher whose father she had had an affair with, it would take more than an appearance on “The View” to sweeten her image.…”

My two cents:
I’ll admit it. I lead a sheltered life. Never occurred to me that polygamy would have a specialized subset.

Pretty fun are Maureen Dowd’s clever observations of the free-wheeling French and how they not only accept, but champion their President's new wife and her off-beat, personal proclivities.

And despite the fact that proper Americans would call her bio outrageously politically incorrect, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is sharp, intelligent, and capable -- traits she skillfully demonstrated recently, “sitting next to the American president and keeping him entertained with a spirited conversation in English, one of her three languages and sort of his one language.”

Gotta love it. Vive la France.

réseau

News to me. Obviously my 4 years of high school French did not prepare me, or I was absent that day.

Definition of réseau: (rā-zō')
“1. A net or mesh foundation for lace. 2. A network of fine lines used by astronomers as a reference for measurements on star photographs. 3. A mosaic screen of fine lines of three colors, used in color photography.” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
6/17/08 NYT article remembering technology visionary, Paul Otlet, “The Web Time Forgot,” by Alex Wright.

“…He described how people would use the devices to send messages to one another, share files and even congregate in online social networks. He called the whole thing a “réseau,” which might be translated as “network” — or arguably, “web.” …”

My two cents:
Now here’s an absolutely fascinating article about a pre-computer age guy from Belgium who envisioned it all – in 1934. Paul Otlet had the world-wide-réseau in his head “more than half a century before Tim Berners-Lee released the first Web browser in 1991. Otlet (pronounced ot-LAY) described a networked world where ‘anyone in his armchair would be able to contemplate the whole of creation.’”

Go. Read. You’ll be edified and amazed.

Take that, Al Gore.

redaction

I know this word. But I never use it, although I certainly engage in it enough!

Definition of word:
“Putting something (as a literary work or a legislative bill) into acceptable form. Synonym: editing.” (answers.com)

Where I ran across it:
6/16/08 NYT article “The Secret to Success in Publishing: Bash Bush, With Nods to a Classic,” By Joanne Kaufman, about a brilliant, new political parody of the children’s classic, “Goodnight Moon.”

“…For example, the mouse that flits about the pages of “Goodnight Moon” has been replaced by a tiny scurrying Osama Bin Laden. At the beginning of the book, a pristine Constitution hangs on a wall; by book’s end, it is full of crayoned redactions.…”

My two cents:
Mixed feelings, here. I adore a good chuckle over a clever parody. And “W” is always ripe for the pickings, deserving of every skewering he gets. But mess with the all-time children’s classic, “Goodnight Moon???” I don’t know… is nothing sacred? I guess I should reserve judgment until I take a look. Judging by Joanne Kaufman’s review, the new book is hands-down genius. For that alone I may have to loosen up and give it its due. But let’s keep it on the adult bookshelf, away from the children, shall we?

Pardon my being overly sensitive, but, oddly, painfully, this has hit a nerve. I'll admit, the parody is funny, but my protective and thoroughly nostalgic inner parent/grandparent longs not to sully the tender content of the original. When I was reading “Goodnight Moon” to my own children in the late 70’s and 80’s, it was a precious part of a sacred bedtime ritual in which we parents left the adult realities of our scary political messes and worldly worries outside the door, and we did our best to create a warm, safe, magical moment for our children to fall asleep to.

OK, we basically lied.

The reality is, we had Nixon, Watergate, Abscam, and Reagan back then. And the political scandals and dirty tricks simply continue; only the names have changed – and the stakes are always rising. While all of it does, indeed, make great fodder for comic relief, sometimes I’m just not amused.

There’s a time and a place for everything. There’s a time for reality, and a time for suspension of it, for just a little while. I’ll soon be reading “Good Night Moon” to my sweet, innocent, 6-month old grandson. I hope it’s a long time before he has to hear about the harsh realities of stupid adults who screw up the world.

So sue me, but until then, I guess I'm just the quiet old lady who is whispering, "hush."

casus belli

another new Latin term for me

Definition of casus belli:
“An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war.” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
6/1/08 NYT op-ed column, “Cult of Deception,” by Maureen Dowd.

“…It was not the fake casus belli that made Colin Powell’s blood boil. What really got Powell disgusted was that W. and Dick Cheney used him, tapping into his credibility to sell their trumped-up war; that George Tenet failed to help him scrub his U.N. speech of all Cheney’s garbage; and that W. showed him the door so the more malleable Condi could have his job. …”

My two cents:
Maureen Dowd’s op-ed column concerns the new exposé, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception," by ex-Bush insider, Scott McClellan. The truth is scarier than fiction, as they say. Yikes, this is a real horror story.

McClellan's tales of the dirty, dishonest politics of the Bush administration are disturbing, and disheartening, but sadly, not unique. That Washington is a shark tank should not be big news. I would like to believe, however, that there are those noble few in Washington who manage to remain honest and retain their integrity. Jimmy Carter, like him or not, was one of those good souls. Maybe he's not best remembered for his efficacy as a president, but more for his diplomacy, his kindness, his truthfulness, and his unwavering integrity, both in and out of office. But Washington eats guys like that for lunch. I'm guessing Obama, the new, wide-eyed idealist on the block, has the hungry sharks circling.

What is it that makes politicians want to do what they do, and why does anyone want to be president, anyway? To lead? To make a difference? To take a power trip? To get gray hair and a case of nerves? To prove to Mom and Dad they aren’t really a screw-up? Oops, “W.” is still working on that last one. It sure isn't for the money. Granted, there's a lifetime of post-service perks and plenty of prestige, but for all his trouble, the president's salary is only $400,000 a year. Compare that to the salaries just recently negotiated by the main actors who voice "The Simpsons": $400,000 per episode! Doh! (I am now restraining myself from the wicked temptation to compare George Bush to Homer Simpson. Let's leave it at that. You're welcome.)

Being President is hard on a person. If (and now most likely, when) Hillary loses the nomination she should at least take comfort in the fact that she won’t be aging exponentially (read: presidentially) in the next four years. If Obama loses the election he’s young enough he can bounce back to try again after a few more years in the senate where he will become more jaded and lose his boyish innocence bit by bit. Come to think of it, he stands to become more jaded and lose his boyish innocence either way, win or lose. Old-timer McCain is a seasoned politico who may be spry now, but winning this election could be really bad for his health. As for McCain’s mind, it’s set on supporting George Bush’s hawkish political rationales, and that really disturbs me.

My mother used to wag her finger and warn her children about making healthy career choices; that politics is a dirty business -- right below show business and prostitution -- and I think Momma was right. Moreover, based on Scott McClellan's revelations of Bush's White House, there’s not much difference between Washington politics and the other two things on Momma’s list, is there?

kaizen

zen I know, but kaizen??

Definition of kaizen:
“Japanese management term referring to continuous improvement. A philosophy that sees improvement in productivity as a gradual and methodical process. Kaizen is a Japanese term meaning "change for the better".” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
5/4/08 NYT article, “Can You Become a Creature of New Habits,” by Janet Rae-Dupree.

“…She recommends practicing a Japanese technique called kaizen, which calls for tiny, continuous improvements.…”

My two cents:
This is your brain: stuck in a habit-rut. This is your brain on kaizen: free from the pithy bonds of rutdom, and given wings and permission to change for the better.

Eureka, what a find.

Is kaizen a miracle drug? Nope, it’s a philosophical technique, and the insanely successful business model for Toyota. (Calling all Dilberts. There’s hope. Who knew?) Apparently, it’s also a technique that can be employed on a personal level by any miserable schlub like me who feels hopelessly enslaved by a bad habit – or two, or three.

According to M.J. Ryan, who wrote the book, “This Year I Will,” kaizen’s secret to successfully changing habits is in not scaring your brain into overload so that it drops what it’s doing and runs away like a cat in a thunderstorm. “Whenever we initiate change, even a positive one, we activate fear in our emotional brain,” Ms. Ryan notes in her book. “If the fear is big enough, the fight-or-flight response will go off and we’ll run from what we’re trying to do. The small steps in kaizen don’t set off fight or flight, but rather keep us in the thinking brain, where we have access to our creativity and playfulness.”

Don’t worry. Be happy. Embrace kaizen.

OK, here I go. I think I’ll make tiny, continuous improvements in my weight. I will lose a pound – just one tiny little pound.

Fifty times.

calumny

very familiar word; but I need a refresher

Definition of calumny:
“A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation.The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
Frank Rich’s NYT Op-Ed column, “The All White Elephant in the Room,” dated May 4, 2008.

“…Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.…”

My two cents:
What a great word, calumny. Reminds me of calamity and alum – ok it’s dumb, but I can’t help my subconscious. Just thought I’d share.

We all know the “wise old saying” that warns about discussing politics and religion. It’s a wise old saying for a reason. It’s true. People are passionate. They have their beliefs – lots of different ones. When it comes to politics and religion, either one can make for a volatile conversation – even among friends. Together, they are capable of creating an explosive tête-à-tête that would make Oppenheimer proud.

The question is: how do we move forward and prosper as a civilization that grows together in understanding, forgiveness, unity, and strength if we don’t talk about these things and try to address them with intelligence, compassion and grace? The reality is: not everybody wants that goal. And it’s just darned hard to unite and find common ground with wackos. Witness: the Rev. J. Wright and the Rev. J. Hagee. What a Terrible Twosome. They are polar opposites, however they do share common ground. Both pious, and destructive, each one is a hot zone, a living, breathing exothermic reaction, a veritable, one-man nuclear explosion spewing hateful, toxic fallout that is spiritually and morally lethal. But hey, I’m not judging…

See, now I’ve foolishly gone and ignored the wise old saying already. It's a wise old saying for a reason.

Frank Rich’s article ignores the wise old saying, too, thankfully. Rich takes a “what’s good for the goose” approach as he wags a finger at both of these clowns of the cloth, but also at posturing politicians, the biased press, and the fickle public, concerning what gets attention and what (or who) doesn’t. Pretty darned interesting, and thought-provoking. But you should decide for yourself.

Go read. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Good luck.

And God bless.