Hillary.

Interesting that you stumbled upon David Warren. He was for many years a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen, and one of the relatively few "conservative" voices in the Canadian press. He had an oblique way of writing about politics, a stylistic trait that is even more pronounced on his blog.

I confess I didn't pay a great deal of attention to our election this time around. The upshot is that our Progressive Conservative party was ousted and the Liberal party takes the wheel. Our new Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau -- not to be confused with Justin Bieber. He is the son of Pierre Trudeau, one of the most beloved (or reviled, depending on what part of the country you live in) Prime Ministers in Canadian history. So now we have a political dynasty just like our American friends.

Justin Trudeau commenced his leadership of the Liberal party by declaring that pro-lifers would no longer be admitted as candidates. Among his election promises are to legalize (not just decriminalize) the sale of marijuana. He wants to set up a national subsidized daycare system (which, naturally, stay-at-home parents will pay for but not use). It's going to be a long four years -- or more.

I had run across things by Warren occasionally before now. This one was a link in a comment on this post at Neo-neocon.

Congratulations on catching up with us (though I know you've long been ahead in some ways). Those old Anglo-American ideals of ordered liberty and self-governance are being discarded. A majority of the citizenry just don't care about those things anymore.

I don't subscribe to FT. Not even sure I can get it in one of the libraries around here, the way they've been cutting back on print subscriptions.

Craig,

Are you referring to a reader's objections to someone's use of the word "bullshit" in an article and then the writer's reply? If so, that exchange is in the October issue, and I was able to access the electronic version of it through the local university library.

Would it be copyright infringement if I did a copy & paste of the text here?

Well, that's online here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/10/letters

AMDG

I have a defiantly old-fashioned, even consciously reactionary, attitude about words like "bullshit." Sticking with the old taboos is my little act of defiance toward a sick culture. But that word in particular is a problem, because I don't know of any precise equivalent for it. "Drivel" isn't truly a synonym, although there's certainly plenty of that around, or at least I don't think of them as meaning exactly the same thing. "Jive" is closer. I think of "drivel" as being mainly just stupid, while "bullshit" is a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth, but less straightforward than an outright lie. As Warren says, one component of it is a deep indifference toward truth and falsehood. Is it possible that bullshit is a modern phenomenon?

A similarly problematic word: "asshole", as in "He's just an asshole." I would be grateful if anyone can supply with an alternative that carries the same connotation of deliberate and defiant unpleasantness.

Heh. I noticed something similar when we were watching The Wire.

I think people's body parts are sacred, and should not be used as cuss words. The sexual act is sacred and should not be used as a cuss word. Bullshit is not sacred. There's nothing wrong with using it, though the notre dame professor in question is clearly not a lady!

If you have been to Mass today, you heard Paul say his past life was 'rubbish' or some such (Philippians 3). One translation of the Greek word is 'dung'. Years ago I heard a postmodernist professor at a conference expressing sharp annoyance about the fact that Paul referred to the Jewish law as 'shit'. Her word, but its not a complete mistranslation, necessarily.

I've read David Warren intermittently for some time (IIRC, he use to publish in Crisis) and respect his writings.

The advent of figures as vapid as Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau are indicative of an essential unseriousness in North American electorates, in a way the popularity of Donald Trump is not. Trump is obnoxious and vulgar - but also capable and accomplished. Obama and Trudeau are dilettentes.

What David Warren wrote made me think of the conservation Obama had with Marilynne Robinson a month or so ago. In the course of the conversation, he said two astonishing things -- astonishing to me because I've followed his presidency pretty closely; here they are:

"I’m always trying to push a little more optimism."

"...part of my connection to your books, I think, is an appreciation for—without romanticizing Middle America or small-town America—that sense of homespun virtues. And that comes out in your writing. And it sometimes seems really foreign to popular culture today, which is all about celebrity and being loud and bragging and—..."

The full conservation is here.

"The Triumph of Drivel" - well that just says it all.

I'm thinking about Weston in Perelandra. It was the fact that he indulged in drivel that was so nerve-wracking for Ransom.

AMDG

"I think people's body parts are sacred, and should not be used as cuss words. The sexual act is sacred and should not be used as a cuss word. Bullshit is not sacred."

I like that, Grumpy.

I didn't, either.

Someone posted that Obama-Robinson piece on Facebook the other day and I couldn't bring myself to read it.

From Obama's point of view, the optimism remark makes sense. He's had pretty good success at marginalizing the reactionaries. But the small-town America stuff...oh come on...this is the "bitter clingers" guy.

But then again it's not that unusual for liberals to be sentimental about an imaginary small-town America while despising the actual one.

It is ok for you to publish the quotation from the ft letters

It is ok for you to publish the quotation from the ft letters

Thanks. Here's the complaining letter:

I am writing to express my shock and disappointment at the profanity in the article "Freedom Within the Disciplines" (June/July). The word "bullshit" appears multiple times. I have encountered this word and its ilk in the New Yorker, Fast Company, and The Economist, but I didn't expect to see you sink to such a community. I expect First Things to be a magazine of piety and civility, a publication I don't mind our children and grandchildren leafing through. Now I find that I must read quickly through your issues to see if you are promoting language that is offensive to me and my family.

I can't understand the attitude toward your readers this article conveys. I can only promise that if you send me another issue including a profanity-laced article, I will immediately cancel my subscription and terminate all financial support.

I am very sorry to have shocked [the complainer's] sensibility. I believe, however, that he is taking my language too literally. The word "bullshit" is used both literally and metaphorically. It should be noted that in this article I am using the word metaphorically and not literally. Following Harry Frankfurt's seminal monograph On Bullshit, I was using the word "bullshit" to refer to speech that is used without concern for truth. The metaphorical meaning draws from the literal meaning in that "shit" has no nutritional value.

Metaphorical "shit," as in, "Are you shitting me?" is empty speech.

It should be noted that neither the literal word "bullshit," referring to the feces produced by a bull, nor the metaphorical term "bullshit" is a profanity. Profanity could only be said to occur when "shit" or "bullshit" is used as an expletive or expression of anger or anguish. "Bullshit" is not a profane term in and of itself. Its meaning varies depending on the context and the intention of the speaker. Only if used as an expletive, that is, used to express anguish or anger, could it be termed a profanity.

Even in such a context, it is still debatable whether "bullshit" is a profanity per se or rather a vulgarity. It is vulgar to refer to the feces of bulls. But is it profane? The profane is the opposite of the sacred: Profanity is irreverence. One utters profanities when one speaks of sacred things with lack of reverence, for instance by the inappropriate use of words designating the marital act. Such words have religious connotations, because the object they designate is sacred. It desecrates the marital act to abuse the words for it. On the other hand, the feces of bulls is not sacred, and for that reason the use of the word for it as an expletive strikes me as vulgar rather than profane. Bullshit is commonly an object of disgust, and thus, to use the term as an expletive is to utter an obscenity. Its use as an expletive does not "profane" or desecrate anything of value. I respect Frechtling's judgment and I apologize unequivocally for offending him or any of his family members.

I don't know about Trudeau, but I can't see Trump as a more serious candidate than Obama. It's true that he has accomplishments outside politics, but he demonstrates his political superficiality (to be kind) almost every time he opens his mouth.

Trudeau is a sometime high school drama teacher with a pair of unfinished degrees. He never held public office until about 7 years ago and has never held an executive position of any kind. His most salient issue is legalizing grass (which will cut down on the arrests of his mother). He's about as lightweight as it gets.

As for Trump, I would not mistake his bluster for something with semantic content. There is no telling what he'll do; he's signalling attitudes.

Ditto regarding the images, though in my usual second-guessing of myself I always wonder if I'm just being stuffy or something.

I meant to express agreement with Grumpy's father about the use of "damn" etc. One of the most memorable bouts of real cursing I ever heard came from my wife. This happened many years ago. She was making waffles and the batter kept sticking to this waffle iron she had that had never worked very well. After much frustration she kind of took a step back, glared at it, and let loose, quietly but very intensely, a string of words that clearly were intended as deadly force. You can't do that if you use those words constantly.

Exactly. I had meant to say something about that and I've probably said it before. F*** used to be a really great, satisfying word to use about one a year when you were REALLY mad upset and maybe wanted someone else to know it. Now it is utterly useless. It has been completely drained of it's force by people using it 3 or 4 times in the same sentence to say absolutely nothing.

Another thing I've noticed about those words is that they are used constantly in movies in a way that is supposed to be funny and maybe shocking--but it's not--it's just boring. And I think the overuse of words like that in comedy may be related to the inability to be humorous about absolutely anything for fear of upsetting someone.

AMDG

One reason this blog is the most civilized corner of the internet is the stuffiness and priggishness of the participants.

My husband knows a philosopher who will walk away of a four-letter word is used in her presence. I would like to do the same, but I'm happy to say I hardly ever get the chance.

"Another thing I've noticed about those words is that they are used constantly in movies in a way that is supposed to be funny and maybe shocking--but it's not--it's just boring."

Yes, it generally is. But there was this one great scene in the Australian movie "The Castle" which I would love to recommend to you (but can't because it contains blasphemy) in which a lawyer is struggling with a photocopier and swears profusely. Only because of the context, I found this hilarious the first time.

As for stuffy and priggish, well, I grew up with mild swearing, so a small amount doesn't bother me, but I do understand that it bothers others and I definitely don't like it in any real quantity. As you've all said, it ruins the effect anyhow. But the thing is, I've decided to embrace my inner "prude" for similar reasons. I don't know how a real prude would cope in our society, so I just accept that people will see me as a prude for wanting a slightly better standard of dress and conduct than we now see. So, yes, I agree with Janet: embrace your inner priggishness and inner stuffiness.

"I haven't foresworn movies with bad language."

Nor have I, but I am especially allergic to the F-bomb, esp. if it is sprinkled throughout.

"Though I guess there's a feedback loop where the more people hear it in entertainment the more they use it in ordinary conversation."

That seems right. Children didn't hear such language in public when I was a kid. Now it is heard all over no matter who is present.

Even football players use it.

LOL! *foresworn