"Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year for 2023 is authentic.... A high-volume lookup most years, authentic saw a substantial increase in 2023..."

"... driven by stories and conversations about AI, celebrity culture, identity, and social media.... Although clearly a desirable quality, authentic is hard to define and subject to debate—two reasons it sends many people to the dictionary."

Announces Merriam-Webster.

They call attention to a headline I hadn't noticed and don't feel I even need to understand: "Three Ways To Tap Into Taylor Swift’s Authenticity And Build An Eras-Like Workplace."

That article came out a month ago in Forbes, which tells us: "Swift’s events brim with energy, carried by the thunderous voices – some melodious, others less in tune – of thousands: the opposite of how work feels today. According to recent data, 60% of employees are emotionally detached, and one in five is miserable."

Why would anyone want the workplace to feel like a pop concert? Why would the answer involve the concept of "authenticity"?

Take Hannah Shirley, a 23-year-old tech worker who recently went viral for pointing out that her job was “like a full-time acting gig.” She tik-toked one consequence of this: feeling “drained — especially mentally, sometimes even physically — from the character that …we play at work.”...

A Taylor Swift lyric is quoted: “Did you hear my covert narcissism I disguise as altruism? Like some kind of congressman?”

Forbes goes on:

What happens during an Eras event that makes it so engaging? There is realness, empathy, kindness, listening, a narrative (or journey-like) space big enough for all to partake and feel whole with oneself and others. The whole experience is devoid of pretension. Take this recipe and break it into three precepts – avoid alienation, increase authentic living and balance external pressure – and you have a roadmap for creating an Eras-like workplace culture....

I don't see how merger with a huge crowd is a feeling that you could — or would want — to take into the workplace. Even if I did, I wouldn't think of it as "authenticity." 

***

I've written about the word "authentic" many times on this blog. A few examples.... (and the first thing I see, strangely enough, has Taylor Swift in it):

On March 20, 2010, I quoted John Hinderaker saying "Much as Bob Dylan was the most authentic spokesman for his generation, Taylor Swift is the most authentic spokesman for hers." I say: "that's a trick assertion, since Bob Dylan was never about authenticity." I quoted Sean Wilentz:

During the first half of the concert, after singing "Gates of Eden," Dylan got into a little riff about how the song shouldn't scare anybody, that it was only Halloween, and that he had his Bob Dylan mask on. "I'm masquerading!" he joked, elongating the second word into a laugh. The joke was serious. Bob Dylan, né Zimmerman, brilliantly cultivated his celebrity, but he was really an artist and entertainer, a man behind a mask, a great entertainer, maybe, but basically just that—someone who threw words together, astounding as they were. The burden of being something else — a guru, a political theorist, "the voice of a generation," as he facetiously put it in an interview a few years ago — was too much to ask of anyone.

On June 17, 2015, I talked about a Slate writer's advice to Hillary Clinton that she should "offer voters her authentic, geeky self. I said "We've been seeing the word 'authentic' a lot lately — what with Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal. There's this idea we seem to like that everyone has a real identity inside and that if we've got an inconsistent outward presentation of ourselves it would be wonderful for the inner being to cast off that phony shell. But 'authenticity' can be another phony shell...."

On December 19, 2017, I wrote about Facebook's purported goal of "authentic engagement." I said:

Facebook wants you to engage... with Facebook. They want the direct interface with the authentic person, not for some other operation to leverage itself through Facebook. And it makes sense to say that the exclusion of these interposers makes the experience better for the authentic people who use Facebook.... 

On a more metaphysical level: What is authentic anymore? What is the authentic/artificial distinction that Facebook claims — authentically/artificially — to be the police of? Is there an authentic authentic/artificial distinction or is the authentic/artificial distinction artificial?

AND: I'm reading a book that I think has a lot to say about the authentic/artificial distinction. You can tell by the title: "Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself" (Subtitle: "A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace"). But the word "authentic" never appears in the book, and the word "artificial" only appears in the context of "artificial spit" ("it’s called Zero-Lube. It’s an actual pharmaceutical product").

On March 9, 2018, I blogged about something Nancy Pelosi said about "RuPaul's Drag Race." According to The Hollywood Reporter, she "suggested that politicians could learn a thing or two from Ru's girls: 'Authenticity. Taking pride in who you are. Knowing your power....'" Reading the comments on my post, I added:

Everyone jumps on that word "authenticity." "I mean, I'm all for people doing what they want -- except for misusing words like 'authenticity'" (fivewheels); "Authenticity? A man dressed as an over-the-top woman is authentic?" (Annie C); and the inevitable "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" (Ignorance is Bliss). Yeah? Well, when a person putting on a show is in costume and makeup, you could say he's an authentic showperson. And, anyway, what makes you think you're so authentic? 

My mind drifted back to this 1967 song by Jake Holmes, "Genuine Imitation Life": 

chameleons changing colors while a crocodile cries
people rubbing elbows but never touching eyes
taking off their masks revealing still another guise
genuine imitation life
people buying happiness and manufactured fun
everybody doing everybody done
people count on people who can only count to one
genuine imitation life

"Ann, I need your assessment. I thought Dershowitz was excellent but I’m not a lawyer nor a law professor. You are. Give him a grade, Professor."

Wrote M. Jordan in the comments to my post, "I will now give you a list of presidents who in our history have been accused of abusing their power, who would be subject to impeachment under the House Manager’s view of the Constitution," which quotes from the transcript of Alan Dershowitz speaking to the Senate last night.

That comment thread got off to an acrimonious start, with Annie C. saying: "Rats. When I saw your post in the cafe, I thought you were going to write what you thought about his presentation." In last night's café, people were talking about Dershowitz, and I said I'd watched and "Will write about it in the morning."

Am I writing about it if all I do is choose a passage and boldface 3 sentences of it? My answer to Annie C. — at 6:27 AM — was: "Push me to be useful and I will be even less useful."

I put up 3 more posts and went out for my sunrise run. Sunrise came at 7:18 this morning, and whatever I've said I will do "in the morning," the sunrise time is locked in. Unlike constitutional law interpretation, but sunrise is very precise.

Alan Dershowitz was concerned about precision and vagueness. He said "precisely" 5 times and  "precise" once. ("Another constitutional rule of construction is that when words can be interpreted in an unconstitutionally vague manner or in a constitutionally precise manner, the latter must be chosen.") He said "vague" or "vagueness" 20 times. Example:

Instead of answering my arguments... on their merits and possible demerits, they have simply been rejected with negative epithets. I urge the senators to ignore these epithets and to consider the arguments and counter arguments on their merits, especially those directed against the unconstitutional vagueness of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I now offer a criteria for evaluating conflicting arguments. The criteria that I offer, I have long called the shoe on the other foot test...

In the last night's café, rhhardin said "Dershowitz thinks criteria is singular in number."

Out on my run, I thought about what Dershowitz said, and when I got back, I added to this morning's comments thread: "For the record, I was not convinced by D's argument and on reflection, I disagree with him. It would take some trouble to explain why, and I may do that later."

Precisely as I was writing that, M. Jordan was asking his question, the question you see in the post title above. It's easy for me to get started answering that question, hence this new post.

Here's how I graded when I graded students. I gave a question, and I judged them based on how they answered the question asked. I gave zero points for anything not responsive to my question, and then I converted the points to letter grades by following a required curve. So letter grades didn't mean too much to me. It was all comparative. But the points meant a lot, and you only got points for understanding the question and giving me material that got at the question.

I didn't give Dershowitz a question. To think in my lawprofessorly way about grades, I would have to infer a question that I might have asked.

I think that question should be: Restate the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" into a workable standard that the House and the Senate can and should use today and in the future in all cases of presidential impeachment. Explain your choice using all of the methodologies of constitutional interpretation that you deem appropriate (and explain why you are deciding this approach to interpretation is appropriate).

Do you think he did that? Read the transcript.

"What I can't figure out and what really interests me is why today feels different."

Wrote Annie C in the comments to my post, earlier this morning, "Today, I will reveal something that I have kept secret for 3 years — who got my vote for President, here in swing-state Wisconsin, in 2016." I'd said, "I've had my reasons for keeping my vote secret, but this morning, I woke up with the thought that I now have a very good reason to reveal it, because I have something specific to say, and I want to recommend something, and knowing how I voted will reinforce my recommendation."

What's different today is that yesterday Nancy Pelosi announced that there will be a vote in the House on Thursday on whether to "affirm" the impeachment inquiry. As you may be able to tell from my post on the subject — "Maybe they hope it will be voted down! Suddenly, House Democrats want a formal vote on impeachment" — I would very much like to see a "no" vote. As I've said many times on this blog, I think election results deserve respect, Democrats have failed to accept that they lost an election and that those who won deserve their victory and that those who were disappointed should be focusing on winning the next election, not undoing the results of the election they lost.

Democrats need to turn back from the precipice. They need to give up the drama and hysteria about Trump and show that they are more stable and responsible than Trump. A "no" vote on the impeachment proceedings will only happen if Democrats — some of them — have the sense to say "no."

I don't normally try to persuade anyone of anything here on this blog. I'm a distanced observer, a natural-born inhabitant of political territory I call Cruel Neutrality. I'm averse to politics, but I like to write about the political scene in my homeland, America — Wisconsin, America. The big swing state that might determine the outcome of the next election. And I might be the biggest blogger here. I once was. Who even keeps track now? Blogging is past its prime, or so they say. But there could be a renaissance of blogging. Blogging is independent and personal — blogging that is real blogging. Which is what I do.

So if anyone wants to listen to me, I have one thing I want to add, as I choose to attempt to persuade Democrats to vote "no" on the affirmation of impeachment inquiry. I want to tell what I have held secret for 3 years: I voted for Hillary Clinton.

I could not stand Hillary Clinton. I didn't want to disclose my vote because I hated having to vote for her. I didn't want to say it even though I endure heavy social consequences here in Madison, Wisconsin for not dispelling the possibility that I voted for Donald Trump. Hillary did not deserve my vote, and I did not want to show any public support for her. She did not earn my vote. She got it by default, because I could not vote for Donald Trump.

I could not vote for Donald Trump because the whole idea was completely weird and chaotic. That can't happen. You've seen that video montage of all the celebrities and politicians saying, "Donald Trump is not going to be President"...



That's how my brain felt on election day: No freaking way!!!

I like when things feel normal and practical and realistic. Remember "no drama Obama"? That's what I'd like to see from the government. Stability. Good sense. Regularity.

Could you just do that, Democrats? Is that too easy for you?! Do you admire Donald Trump? Are you trying to beat him at his game? Chaos. Weirdness. You pathetic imitators! His chaotic weirdness should have kept him from getting elected in the first place, but what happened happened. And now he is President, so he's inherently less weird and chaotic. There's the continuing strangeness of his being President. I still fall into a reverie now and then: How the hell did that happen? On perhaps 6 occasions, I have watched video of the election night coverage — the real-time recording that goes on for hours — as if to drive it home into my resistant brain that it really did happen. It wasn't just a crazy dream.

The people who voted for Trump are real. They are not despicable or "deplorable." They are voters in a democracy, and democracy — crazy though it is — is our beloved system here in the United States of America. We're wedded to it, for better or worse, and I'm trying to make the best of it. There's some wild excitement and there's some serious work to be done. I don't want any more chaos than is needed to claw through the days to the next election. Let's have an election, not a kooky congressional extravaganza. I need Pelosi and Schiff and these various Congress critters to shrink back into their place and let the presidential candidates have the stage. Let's be normal.

I am not a Trump fan. I voted against the guy. I have voted in 12 presidential elections, and in 9 of them, I voted for the Democrat. In the 21st century, there have been 5 presidential elections, and I've voted for the Democrat in 3 of them. There have been 2 Presidents in the 21st century who have won twice and neither of them did I vote for twice. I am a true swing voter (in a swing state). All I want is a very competent, reliable, sensible, good person who can handle the presidency. I don't want your ugliness and hysteria. I don't want to see my fellow citizens cranked up into a frenzy. The very reasons I voted against Trump are getting cooked up into reasons to vote for him — by you, you idiots.

But this week, you have a chance to turn back from your crazy ways. It won't take all of you. Just some of you. Please, House Democrats, please vote "no." Stand down and let us get back to the 2020 presidential campaign. Surely, some of you still believe that elections matter and elections must be the norm in America. The rest of you seem as though you've already given up and ceded the 2020 election to Donald Trump. That's how I will interpret a "yes" vote on the impeachment, a disclosure of your consciousness of 2020 loserdom.

Told ya.

"Acosta Resigns as Labor Secretary over Epstein Plea Deal" (NYT)("Mr. Trump made the announcement as he left the White House for travel to Milwaukee and Cleveland").

ADDED: Where did I tell you? On July 10th, with lots of pushback in the comments, I said:

... I do think Acosta should resign. When it mattered most, the cries of a wealthy man overwhelmed those of ordinary people. That's not what belongs in the Labor Department.

That was early in the morning of the 10th. Later that afternoon, Acosta did a press conference (reportedly because Trump "instructed" him to), and I wrote:

If Trump forced Acosta to do this press conference, presumably Trump is watching and judging. If you're watching, how do you think Acosta is doing? I tend to accept a calm explanation, so I'm not a good test of how well Acosta is doing. Trying to look at him the way I think other people do, I suspect he sounds too flat and matter-of-fact. Too mechanical. Not enough empathy. So I'm going to guess Trump isn't seeing what he wants.

So I told you so. It's because of all the pushback in the comments that I have to gloat.

IN THE COMMENTS: Annie C. says:

Good. Now get Scott Walker in there.

Annie C. was also there in the first July 10th thread (and, unlike most commenters, agreeing with me):

And yes, Althouse, these attempts to get Acosta off the hook don't work for me either. Just reporting what I read.

Personally, I think he should resign and Trump should appoint Scott Walker as Labor Secretary.

Did you see Nancy Pelosi on "RuPaul's Drag Race" last night?

I did. (I watch the show because Tom & Lorenzo talk about it on their podcast, and I like listening to them.)

Here's the Newsweek article:

"Nancy Pelosi? I'm dying. I just want to say thank you to her, I want to hug her, I wanna be like, 'Kick their ass.' [She] is spear-heading the way through," Morgan McMichaels, the drag persona of Thomas White, said.

"For 30 years, she's been a champion for LGBT rights," RuPaul added, and Pelosi raised a fist to reveal a rainbow bracelet on her wrist. Pelosi also got a customary "Halleloo!" greeting from Shangela.

But the queen most enamored with her appearance was Trixie Mattel, who visibly teared up while the politician was speaking. "Every time you get into drag, you make a political statement," Trixie explained in her confessional segment. "We live in a world where a high power politician will walk in the workroom, and it makes me feel hopeful."

"The workroom" = a set on the show.

Pelosi, for her part, told The Hollywood Reporter that she admires queens like Trixie deeply. She even suggested that politicians could learn a thing or two from Ru's girls: "Authenticity. Taking pride in who you are. Knowing your power—that’s what I talk about on my brief segment on the show."

IN THE COMMENTS: Everyone jumps on that word "authenticity." "I mean, I'm all for people doing what they want -- except for misusing words like "authenticity'" (fivewheels); "Authenticity? A man dressed as an over-the-top woman is authentic?" (Annie C); and the inevitable "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" (Ignorance is Bliss). Yeah? Well, when a person putting on a show is in costume and makeup, you could say he's an authentic showperson. And, anyway, what makes you think you're so authentic?

My mind drifted back to this 1967 song by Jake Holmes, "Genuine Imitation Life."

chameleons changing colors while a crocodile cries
people rubbing elbows but never touching eyes
taking off their masks revealing still another guise
genuine imitation life
people buying happiness and manufactured fun
everybody doing everybody done
people count on people who can only count to one
genuine imitation life

Covered by Frankie Valli and the 4 Seasons — listen here.

"As I listened to that song, I kept thinking about the Texas church shooter, Dylan Roof, Las Vegas."

Wrote Annie C in the comments to the first post of the day, which was about Roy Moore but ended by taking an off ramp into the old Doors song "People Are Strange."



I had a similar response. Jim Morrison experienced intense love from his fans. He was perhaps the most sexually attractive man on earth as you see him in that old video. But the words were the words of the complete social outcast, utterly unsuccessful with women and taking his loserdom to a dark place.

There's the repeated line that resonates with today's sexual harassment stories: "Women seem wicked when you're unwanted...."

By the way, I've never been a Doors fan, but I've always liked that one song, "People Are Strange."

Here's the Echo & the Bunnyman version that was used in the 1987 movie "The Lost Boys":



Speaking of today's sexual harassment stories, did you notice Corey Haim and Corey Feldman in that "Lost Boys" footage?

Stephen Tucker, a 27-year-old farmer in Tennessee, poses with world-record antlers — 47 points.

(Photo by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.)

"When the full rack was scored, the total was 312 ⅜ inches. That made it the highest-scoring buck ever shot by a hunter."

The previous record, 307 ⅝, was set in Iowa in 2003 by 15-year-old Tony Lovstuen, also with a muzzleloader. The biggest rack ever measured was 333 ⅞ on a deer in Missouri, but that was a pickup, or found deer, not one shot by a hunter.

IN THE COMMENTS: Annie C said:

Frankendeer. I hate them. Too many land managers using boosted feed.

Here's a Humane Society article on the subject.