SO, HOW'S YOUR GRAVITAS, WHAT'S YOUR NARRATIVE: ARE YOU GOING FORWARD, OR WHAT . . . ?

   

                                            DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER the word "gravitas" and its exhaustive political use a few years back? Yes? No? Well, how about the word "narrative," also widely employed a couple of years ago in a political sense, and still hanging in there to quite a degree? Surely it rings a bell.
      Perhaps it's impossible to pinpoint exactly who first employed those words in the political events of yesteryear. But, originally, they somehow became vogue words in the U.S., particularly among hosts and panelists on public affairs TV shows, as well as among political observers in newspapers and magazines.
      And since American political terminology has a tendency to sneak across the border and somehow filter into the minds of our own Canadian commentators and politicians, both "gravitas" and "narrative" did indeed make that trip.
      You could scarcely turn on any one of those programs without hearing an "analyst" or commentator say something like, "Well, (candidate) Jones seems to be a nice fellow, but he just lacks gravitas, and that will be a big drawback for him with voters."
                                                                 
                                                                  ------

                                           ALSO, WHEN IT CAME TO TALKING about political campaigns, their issues and controversies, and the prospects for the contending parties and candidates, the viewer and reader would come across such phrases as "the narrative has taken an unexpected turn" for X or Z party or candidate.
      My impression is that "gravitas" (very much a pomposity word) did not last long in Canada. I think this was because most people were suspicious of it, its meaning not being terribly clear, politically speaking. Readers and viewers would note that it was usually meant in a negative way -- "he lacks gravitas" -- since they would never hear any commentator or politician use it in positive verbal formations, such as "say, that candidate has a lot of gravitas."
      The voting public would, I think, prefer clearer terms like, "that candidate is a lightweight" (or heavyweight).
                                                                 ------
     
                                          AS FAR AS "NARRATIVE" is concerned, my view is that the word is pretentious when used by reporters or commentators to cover the way a political event or situation is developing: the clearer word in its place is the plain and basic "story." But then, maybe I'm old-fashioned and too appreciative of the ancient City Desk admonition to "keep it simple, stupid."
      By the way, I have consulted a number of word sources and am able to inform the reader that "gravitas" is from the latin, and comes to us through Spanish. It apparently is applicable to people of high seriousness, or those who show authority and expertise, and have intellectual weightiness.
      Does anybody know of, do I know of, a politician today of such description? Hmmm . . . let me think . . . Uh, well, it's a subject that might need further consideration and contemplation . . . will get back to you . . .

                                                                ------

                                          AND FINALLY, let me deal with one of the worst phrase forms ever dreamed up by the twisted and fevered minds of word-disadvantaged business people, political people and, yes, even of a few (quite a few) media people.
      Its use must occur millions of times daily among the English-speaking peoples of the world, in both oral and printed ways -- and it's use should be banned, outlawed, condemned, eliminated, scourged, blown up (you name it); anything to get rid of it.
      The term of which I speak is going forward. Let me repeat that so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding. We must destroy GOING FORWARD.  We must kill Going Forward. We must devise jail terms and worse as penalties to be meted out to those public figures and writers and scribblers who continue to use the term "going forward." Because what's usually in the minds of those who use it is a great deal of directional confusion.  And it doesn't mean a damn thing, anyway.
      So, in the interests of promoting (in my own small way), intellectual clarity in public discourse, I hereby offer myself as a Charter Volunteer and Supporter of any organization that might bear a name like "The Holy Crusade to Condemn To Everlasting Hell And Perdition The Term  'Going Forward'  (or, THCTCTEHAPTTGF)."

                                                 _________________________              
                 

BOUNCING OFF THOSE CRAZY AND SOMETIMES VERY OMINOUS HEADLINES

      

      JUST WHEN WE WERE BEGINNING to think that a degree of calmness was moderating tensions in the Middle East, along comes our federal government with a decision to send an indeterminate number of additional forces to Iraq. We are, it seems, piling into a new war -- the one against Islamic State militants.
      Many Canadians will be wondering what on earth our government is doing. Our citizens will be forgiven for having thought that that war was over, and for believing that if the various Muslim groups in Iraq wish to continue battling it out amongst themselves, fine, it's their business. But no, we have to keep sticking our nose into other people's affairs, more or less copying the good old U.S.A.
      What, we must ask, is this all about? Could we be in a war of Christianity vs. Islam? Quite a few Muslims do ask that question. They will not find the answer to be a religious one. No, it's much simpler: It's about the oil, stupid, it's still about the oil. As a number of others have observed, there'd be much less fuss centred on the Middle East if the area happened to be the world's biggest supplier of Swiss chard, rather than of oil.

      ONE OF THE ODDEST HEADLINES of recent days was the following (from The Vancouver Sun of Sept. 11):  B.C. school shutdown has China 'concerned'.  At least, I found that headline odd. But, on reflection, I have to note that B.C. has, long since, opened its schools to other nations, taking non-Canadian students because they, or their parents, can pay big bucks for the privilege of obtaining Canadian learning.
      To which I can only respond: It's not all about learning for our kids, stupid, it's about marketing. Of course, it also does say something positive about the quality of our schooling.

      'MIXED FEELINGS' would have to be my answer if someone asked me for my view on the report that Canada, along with Germany, has balked at the demand by NATO (dominated by the U.S.) that member nations commit two per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to "defense" spending. I put the word defense in quotes, because it really isn't for defense, it's for war-making; I mean, who are we defending against? Is Russia going to attack us? Well, that's a pretty far-fetched notion . . . except that . . . what?
      My mixed feelings come from the fact that in balking at the proposed NATO commitment, Canada's Conservative government has my support. That's hard for me to say, though, because I'm not in favor of much else that the Tories stand for when it comes to "defense".
       Canada is currently spending (according to Postmedia News, Sept. 3, 2014) approximately $19 billion per year on the military (a paltry 1.3 per cent of GDP, says the U.S.). Which means outlays on great supplies of guns, bombs, aircraft, fliers, soldiers, sailors -- all expenditures that Canadians have to cough up in taxes. I'm sure such spending creates joy in the hearts of the people who own and run the international arms industry, but for me, well, it just turns my stomach.
      What worries me is that history has shown any nation spending this kind of money on armaments will be more inclined to use the force so purchased.

      BUT WAR CLOUDS DO SEEM TO BE FORMING "over there," in what seems a serious way.  What other interpretation can one place on the growing hostility being shown against Russia by "the west"? The European Union and NATO (which basically, I repeat, is the U.S.), applying "sanctions" against Russia does bring back certain precursors to war that the world has seen in the past.
      Does anyone remember the economic conflict between the U.S. and Japan that preceded the Second World War. I was around then and one thing I remember is disputation, before Japan went to war against the U.S., concerning scrap metal -- which Japan was buying up in a big way, from wherever it could find it. Some Americans said things like "they're building up a war machine."
      There was also the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity scheme Japan was promoting within its economic orbit, and which also upset American competitors.
      And so, again, today, we have economic events of a kind we've seen before. Are they forerunners to war? Stay tuned, folks, stay tuned. In such matters, things can get out of hand very quickly indeed.

                                                                ---------------