"They all have suggested lately that when it comes to running the country, they have what it takes. And they do: malignant narcissism," said Bill Maher on his show Friday night:
"The last four years was a warning, not an inspiration. You were supposed to see that and think, 'I guess high-level government jobs should go to people who have trained for it and know what they're doing.'..."
The problem with that is that we don't think people in politics know what they are doing.
"Let me put it bluntly to you and all of these show biz candidates. You're not good enough, you're not smart enough, and, doggone it, it completely doesn't matter that people like you. They like you now because you're an entertainer and thus largely uncontroversial. Governing is the opposite. If you think you can unite the country, you're delusional."
I didn't personally transcribe that. I relied on the transcription at The Hill, but I made one correction: "doggone it." The Hill has "dog on it," which made me laugh... then made me wonder what "doggone it" represents. Are we supposed to see the word "gone"? It's not as though "dog gone it" makes sense.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says “doggone” is an “alteration of the Scots dagone,” which is in turn an “alteration of goddamn.” And the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, citing the Scottish National Dictionary, offers published references for “dog on it” dating to 1826 and 1828....
The OED‘s first print references for “dog-gone” are from a book by the Irish-American novelist Thomas Mayne Reid called The Scalp-Hunters: Or, Romantic Adventures in Northern Mexico (1851). Here are the OED citations: “‘I’m dog-gone, Jim’, replied the hunter.” … “Dog-gone it, man! make haste then!” For most of the 19th century, the expression was found as both “dog gone” and “dog on” (with and without hyphens). An appearance in about 1860 in Southern Sketches has the “dog on” version: “No, says I, I won’t do no sich dog on thing.” Edward Eggleston’s novel The Hoosier School-Master (1871) has this: “She was so dog-on stuck up.” Other versions appeared as well: “If there’s a dog-goned abolitionist aboard this boat, I should like to see him” (about 1860); “He looks the dogondest cuss” (1868); “I’ll be dog-oned” (1872, Eggleston again); “I’ll be dog-goned” (1879); and even “dagont” (1893). In 1892 a writer in The Nation had this opinion: “I think ‘Dog gone it’ is simply ‘Dog on it.’”
So I can't rightly laugh at The Hill. I think the "Goddamn" theory is most likely, but once people got to saying "dog," the dog took on a life of its own. We love dogs, and bringing up dogs, even pointlessly, means something. There's so much difference between having a dog on something — which might even be pleasant — and condemning it to eternity in Hell, but euphemisms are euphemisms.
And, of course, the reason why Bill Maher — who loves to use the noneuphemisms — was saying "doggone it" was that his lines were a parody of the famous Al Franken/Stuart Smalley routine:
पोस्ट्स
४ टिप्पण्या:
MikeR writes:
t is pretty funny. Politicians are the most qualified people for the job? They are experts in snowing a large number of people. Their skill set may be not that different from celebrities.
Ronald Reagan?
And, "the last four years"? Does he realize that roughly half of America thinks that the last four years were a sweet spot in the middle of a lifetime of politicians doing bad things to us and pretending that they had our best interests at heart? Problems, yes, bad problems, but I'd take those problems any time over what's happening right now.
Steven writes:
Given the Emmy-winning performance of Andrew "Put COVID Patients in
Nursing Homes" Cuomo, I'd suggest that if Bill Maher had actually
learned anything from "the last four years", he'd be much more afraid
of governors who are trying to be celebrities than celebrities who are
trying to govern.
Alex writes:
You wrote, "The problem with that is that we don't think people in politics know what they are doing."
Exactly. Buckley once said he'd rather be governed by the first 300 names from the Boston phone book rather than the Harvard faculty. The current politico-corporate class are those faculty, along with their students. They slimed their way up through family connections, "good" schools, and ever-increasing credentialism until they were in charge across the West, both in government and in business. We've had forty-odd years of government by these front-row kids, who always did the homework and sucked up to the teacher, and it's been a disaster. These folks are very good at gaming the system to get ahead, but don't know how to do any more than regurgitate whatever theories are in vogue with the teacher, follow instructions, and stab rivals in the back. Americans were sick and tired of it, so they gambled that a loud-mouthed businessman from New York would be better.
LA_Bob writes:
"The problem with that is that we don't think people in politics know what they are doing."
Speaking of learning how to use a gun (next post). That line was a bullseye.
Not to elaborate too much, but my general feeling is that for many, many decades the country has simply been too big to govern effectively. And government has been too involved in too much of our lives. So, Maher is right about celebrity politicians. But the problem is "systemic complexity". "Better" people won't cure it.
It's more than a bit amusing to call Joe Biden a "professional" and think it a compliment.
Also, I too have always thought "doggone" was just a toned-down "goddam" (just like "goshdarn" and "dadburn" are), but, yes, you can have some fun with it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा