Making Political Discourse Even More Confusing

I'm an Internet political junkie. I follow commentary on the presidential campaign from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc. and even occasionally dip in the roiling Alt Right pro-Trump waters of Breitbart.com (Get a feel for its politics with these headlines from the tenure of Stephen Bannon, who is now the Trump campaign CEO: http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467.) I also watch those shouting panels of pundits, partisans and journalists on television news programs. So I just have to address several language issues that are driving me crazy. The new favorite word of TV panelists is "relitigate," as in "I don't want to relitigate the issue." Now "litigate" means "to contest at law," which makes no sense for a bunch of TV talking heads. But "dispute" is an archaic meaning of "litigate," and "dispute again" is what I think these folks are trying to say. Guys, please, just admit you want to stop arguing and move on; you may actually win points in the "court of public opinion." Another term bandied about in this year's uncivil political discourse is "bigot." A bigot is someone "who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices and opinions," per Merriam-Webster. So, Donald Trump, it makes no sense to label Hillary Clinton as a bigot with an explanation that equates failure to deliver effective minority policies with prejudice. Of course, Donald's imprecise wording stirs constant debate, both important and trivial; there were arguments over whether he was saying "bigly" or "big league" in speeches, for example. Meanwhile, everyone yammers about "dog whistles" this year. For the mystified, a political dog whistle means messaging that has a general interpretation but also another intended meaning for a target group. An example would be using the president's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, while talking about Islamic terror policy to tap into those who suspect he's really Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. "Talking point" is another term that I find popping up in media discourse this year, often with an accusatory tone. Pay attention when someone calls out a "talking point," however, because it may be spotlighting political propaganda. A talking point is a succinct, persuasive statement of one side of an issue, purposefully developed by politicos and then launched through media personalities and sympathizers' responses so that media repetition eventually frames the debate and turns the favored argument into accepted fact. That's why so many TV panel discussions degenerate into shouted "talking points." For a quick primer on more political jargon, read https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/american-political-jargon

Making Political Discourse Even More Confusing

I'm an Internet political junkie. I follow commentary on the presidential campaign from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc. and even occasionally dip in the roiling Alt Right pro-Trump waters of Breitbart.com (Get a feel for its politics with these headlines from the tenure of Stephen Bannon, who is now the Trump campaign CEO: http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467.) I also watch those shouting panels of pundits, partisans and journalists on television news programs. So I just have to address several language issues that are driving me crazy. The new favorite word of TV panelists is "relitigate," as in "I don't want to relitigate the issue." Now "litigate" means "to contest at law," which makes no sense for a bunch of TV talking heads. But "dispute" is an archaic meaning of "litigate," and "dispute again" is what I think these folks are trying to say. Guys, please, just admit you want to stop arguing and move on; you may actually win points in the "court of public opinion." Another term bandied about in this year's uncivil political discourse is "bigot." A bigot is someone "who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices and opinions," per Merriam-Webster. So, Donald Trump, it makes no sense to label Hillary Clinton as a bigot with an explanation that equates failure to deliver effective minority policies with prejudice. Of course, Donald's imprecise wording stirs constant debate, both important and trivial; there were arguments over whether he was saying "bigly" or "big league" in speeches, for example. Meanwhile, everyone yammers about "dog whistles" this year. For the mystified, a political dog whistle means messaging that has a general interpretation but also another intended meaning for a target group. An example would be using the president's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, while talking about Islamic terror policy to tap into those who suspect he's really Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. "Talking point" is another term that I find popping up in media discourse this year, often with an accusatory tone. Pay attention when someone calls out a "talking point," however, because it may be spotlighting political propaganda. A talking point is a succinct, persuasive statement of one side of an issue, purposefully developed by politicos and then launched through media personalities and sympathizers' responses so that media repetition eventually frames the debate and turns the favored argument into accepted fact. That's why so many TV panel discussions degenerate into shouted "talking points." For a quick primer on more political jargon, read https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/american-political-jargon

Intriguing Mystery Plot Twists, Fictional and Real

Mystery lovers, by their nature, are lovers of the plot twist. Just a few of my favorites with surprise twists include Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins, Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield, In the Woods by Tana French, Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane, The Secret Keeper by Kate Morton, and We Were Liars by E. Lockhart. Of course, the great Agatha Christie has multiple entries, such as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, And Then There Were None, Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express. Notice how often the "unreliable narrator" is key to the surprise twist, by the way. Sometimes fact is even more astounding than fiction, however. Just check out Listverse.com's post about 10 real-life mysteries solved by incredible plot twists. For example, there's seven-year-old Maria Ridulph's 1957 murder solved by a "murder will out" twist 54 years later. Although 17-year-old neighbor John Tessier was suspected of Ridulph's murder at the time, he had an iron-clad alibi: He had taken a train trip on the day the child disappeared. The police reopened the case in 1994 after a deathbed statement by Tessier's mother, but the alibi had them stumped--until one of Tessier's ex-girlfriends helpfully provided an old framed photograph. Investigators found the 1957 train ticket hidden inside, unstamped because Tessier had never used it to take the trip. Tessier was finally charged with murder in 2011. Science, not luck, played the key role in another seemingly insoluble murder. After a 13-year-old girl was found stabbed to death in 2011 in Italy, police took 15,000 DNA tests to compare with DNA samples found at the murder scene. One man's near-match led to testing of his family, including a long-dead uncle and the uncle's children--without an exact match. Police then learned the dead uncle had been a very active womanizer, and 500 women were investigated. Police finally found a married woman whose twins turned out to be the secret offspring of the dead uncle. One of the twins was a match for the killer's DNA, and he was charged with murder in 2014. For more real-life twists, read http://listverse.com/2015/03/25/10-mysteries-resolved-by-unbelievable-surprise-twists/.

Narcissists in Headlines and Fiction

The current presidential race has spawned numerous articles, by real and amateur psychologists, about whether a particular candidate (guess which one) is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. People with this disorder have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, uniqueness and superiority. They engage in grandiose exaggeration of achievements and talents, have an insatiable need for admiration and attention, and express a sense of entitlement, expecting favors and unquestioning compliance. They are preoccupied with a self image of success, brilliance, power and attractiveness. They can be superficially charming but are also manipulative, arrogant, thin-skinned and lacking in empathy--unable or unwilling to recognize the needs and feeling of others. If they are criticized or fail to receive the special treatment/attention they feel is their due, they react with rage, contempt and belittling of others. Needless to say, these are favorite personality traits for fictional villains, ranging from selfish vanity to full-blown psychopathy (when narcissism is ramped up by antisocial aggression and sadism, you get someone really scary). Some well-known fictional narcissists include Miranda Priestly in Lauren Weisberger's The Devil Wears Prada, Ingrid Magnussen in Janet Fitch's White Oleander, and Dorian Gray in Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. Since this post refers to speculative articles inspired by the presidential race, it is also somewhat interesting that one of GOP candidate Donald Trump's favorite films, per multiple interviews, is "Citizen Kane," the story of a wealthy and powerful narcissist. For more details, including Trump comments, read the Politico article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/donald-trump-2016-citizen-kane-213943. And for more fictional narcissists in novels and films, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Narcissism_in_fiction

Crime Fighters With Across-the-Border Roots

When the political landscape is heated by rhetoric about immigrant crime and border walls, it may be time to remember that mystery fiction has a tradition of sleuths and crime fighters with south-of-the-border heritage. For example, there's Rex Burns' Gabriel Wager, a hard-drinking Mexican-American detective with the Denver police force, introduced in The Alvarez Journal, the Edgar Award-winning first novel of the series. Dell Shannon (aka Elizabeth Linington) debuted her hero, LAPD Homicide Lieutenant Luis Mendoza, in Case Pending and was nominated for an Edgar with the series' Knave of Hearts. But it is probably more illuminating to check out mystery fiction by truly Chicano/Chicana voices. Start with Rudolfo Anaya, born in a rural New Mexico village and famed for the poetic and mystical Bless Me, Ultima. Anaya also has penned mysteries with his special perspective expressed in Sonny Baca, a part-time rodeo rider turned private eye in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who not only seeks to solve crimes but to understand the meaning of his dreams and cultural roots. On the distaff side, there is Lucha Corpi, a Chicana poet and mystery writer born in Mexico. Her first mystery in 1992, Eulogy for a Brown Angel, introduced Gloria Damasco, a Chicana feminist with extra-sensory awareness. Rolando Hinojosa, born in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, debuted his series about Texan Lieutenant Detective Rafe Buenrostro of the Belken County Homicide Squad with 1972's Partners in Crime. Breaking more than ethnic barriers, Michael Nava is a California attorney and author of a mystery series featuring Henry Rios, an openly gay criminal defense lawyer who struggles to maintain his faith in a sometimes corrupt legal system. Since Rios' debut in The Little Death in 1986, Nava's novels have received multiple Lambda Literary Awards for LGBT literature. Finally, there's Manuel Ramos, another attorney turned author. His mystery series has also won recognition and awards, including an Edgar nomination for The Ballad of Rocky Ruiz, the 1994 introduction of sleuth Luis Montez, a world-weary middle-aged lawyer and former Chicano activist. For more, see http://www.thrillingdetective.com/trivia/triv204.html