In Government Parlance, It Means "Thank You"
My friend, an attorney, is irked by the phrase "based on my training and experience." "BOMTAE," his pet name for it, belongs to a family of legal words and phrases that allow police officers to say in court or do in the field something that is otherwise barred by rules of criminal procedure, statutes, or our constitutions, state or federal. Invoked, they magically whisk away the need for simple common sense. I feel his pain.
I get a little apoplectic (can you get a little apoplectic?) at the sight of "Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government." It's the pat answer given by a government official to justify receipt of a gift from a former power. In some cases, it's probably true, but in every case,...? I don't believe it, and the repetition has robbed the sentence of its meaning. That's what's causing my brain aneurysm to inflate to dangerous proportions, that instead of justification for accepting a diplomatic gift, we're not getting the equivalent of "Supercalifragiliciousexpialadocious."
I mean, would the Royal Highness Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud really be embarrassed if the Bush twins couldn't accept his "Bulgari white gold necklace, ring, and earring set of pearls and diamonds," valued at $8,500? Would it hurt U.S.-Saudi relations? I don't think so.
It's particularly unlikely given the countries and the leaders involved, a Who's Who of the politically shameless. These are not the kind of people who can be cut to the quick by a "No, thank you. I'm good." (I'm looking at you Ra Jong-Yil.)
The fact that their gifts might be influencing policy isn't the issue. I'm not that naive. It's that the stock phrase relieves our government of the responsibility of making real arguments to us.
I want to know how, for instance, our relationships with Italy would go to hell if Chief of Staff Andrew Card couldn't accept a $3,000 Bulgari watch from the president of the Council of Ministers. Some overpaid flack ought to have to convince me that's true.
And while he's at it, he can convince me that our president, George Bush, really gives a damn about the embarrassment turning down a gift from Jacque Chirac would cause France.
Writing the same phrase beside every entry just doesn't cut it.
I get a little apoplectic (can you get a little apoplectic?) at the sight of "Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government." It's the pat answer given by a government official to justify receipt of a gift from a former power. In some cases, it's probably true, but in every case,...? I don't believe it, and the repetition has robbed the sentence of its meaning. That's what's causing my brain aneurysm to inflate to dangerous proportions, that instead of justification for accepting a diplomatic gift, we're not getting the equivalent of "Supercalifragiliciousexpialadocious."
I mean, would the Royal Highness Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud really be embarrassed if the Bush twins couldn't accept his "Bulgari white gold necklace, ring, and earring set of pearls and diamonds," valued at $8,500? Would it hurt U.S.-Saudi relations? I don't think so.
It's particularly unlikely given the countries and the leaders involved, a Who's Who of the politically shameless. These are not the kind of people who can be cut to the quick by a "No, thank you. I'm good." (I'm looking at you Ra Jong-Yil.)
The fact that their gifts might be influencing policy isn't the issue. I'm not that naive. It's that the stock phrase relieves our government of the responsibility of making real arguments to us.
I want to know how, for instance, our relationships with Italy would go to hell if Chief of Staff Andrew Card couldn't accept a $3,000 Bulgari watch from the president of the Council of Ministers. Some overpaid flack ought to have to convince me that's true.
And while he's at it, he can convince me that our president, George Bush, really gives a damn about the embarrassment turning down a gift from Jacque Chirac would cause France.
Writing the same phrase beside every entry just doesn't cut it.
posted by Biff Loman at 6:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home