Type each of those into your “Word” computer program and each will come up with that red squiggly line that tells you that you spelled it incorrectly or that it isn’t a word. Each, though, is among the new words added this month to the trusted Oxford dictionaries. Oh what a tangled web we…

 Most, to me, aren’t real words (well, I was right up until July anyway) and most won’t
be words a year from now, other than because Oxford has deemed them dictionary-worthy, thus real words (did I mentioned what a tangled web we weave?).

All of those, and more, are among the words Oxford says are to be taken “srsly” (that would be “seriously” to you traditionalists, and another new dictionary entrant). By the way “srsly” is an adverb, Oxford says, and has its origins (I’m not making this up) in the late 18th century when it apparently was used in shorthand (which isn’t English, at least last time I looked).

I’m no fuddy-duddy, which comes up with no red squiggly line because it, indeedy (not a word) is a word (or at least a hyphenated word in the Merriman-Webster dictionary, but seriously, folks? Srsly??? Maybe in “texting” (which is in the
Oxford dictionary). Oh the things we learn. I still cringe when I hear “-ize” words. Remember when that was the trend? Everything got “-ized.” And those words found their way into dictionaries too. 

I hate to list all the new words here…that would take away your fun of finding them on your own. But a few I’ll mention but not define: grats, guac, selfie, twerk (Ok, thanks to Miley Cryus we’ve all looked that one up the past few days), flatform, and the list goes on.

One other new addition is squee which is to squeal in delight or excitement.

I’m unsqee-ed about all this. Look for that in the next edition of Oxford.


 

The Republican Party is in the middle of a one-sided battle for its core. One-sided
because “moderates” are not known for their fighting side. That’s why they are
moderates.

The right wing (let’s call them Tea Partiers because they have no resemblance to the Right Wing that was known for folks like Ronald Reagan) seems to have all the fire power. Sure, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie appears to be taking them on, but he’s also protecting the right wing of his backside by making sure he has enough conservative positions to put up a good front in 2016. And, yes, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has called the GOP the “stupid party,” but I’m not sure that weak twist of phrase was the correct one to make his point but it made a headline, which seemed to be his goal.
 
Political parties were never intended to be such polarizing bodies. In fact, I’ve read
that George Washington, who never belonged to a party, didn’t want parties to form because they would lead to, get this, conflict and stagnation. Pretty smart guy. But, those Founding Fathers were a pretty prescient bunch.

Not to pound my chest (but if not me, who?), 20 years ago I wrote an op-ed that the Los Angeles Times ran and headed
“Beware a Party of One.” It was written after I had served as head of communications for four consecutive Republican National Chairmen and had a close up view of where the party was heading. My piece primarily was warning against a
takeover of the party by the Religious Right which was seen as the Wing of No – no minorities, no gays, no abortion, no, well, not much of nothing. It’s 1000 percent worse today. All Republicans have a touch of Libertarian in them, but a
touch, not a philosophy. There is a political party for that – the Libertarian Party. It’s a tempting point of view, but not a governing philosophy.

I’d like say there is a battle for the direction of the party, but I really don’t think there is. There is a scuffle for direction, positioning by potential presidential candidates who want the nomination but who don’t necessarily want the mantle of Tea Partier, except during the primary process.  

I’m for a Republican who wants to truly take on the Tea Party, someone who’s willing to stand up and say, “The goal of governing America is to lead all Americans to a better way of life for all Americans, not a few on the right, or the left.” If
we wanted to rule by majority, we could hire a pollster to run the country.  But that isn’t the way to govern, or lead.

Also, let's have that internal party war and move on not fight it every single day. There are more important things to fight for -- like the economy, or jobs, or true equal rights, or peace.

I know this is pie in the sky, but with the way the culture is going – screaming talking heads from the right and left on cable, web sites that cater to this or that political view but not giving “eyeballs” to all views—someone has to do
something now to stop the extreme slides on both sides. That takes a leader. I don’t see any on the horizon but I’m still
looking.

These are the dog days of summer, but not really. News is happening.  In the past few days:

The President is on Martha’s Vineyard for vacation. I’m not one of those who think the President should never take a vacation so I have no real problem with that. Going to a swanky location -- except in election years --that bugs me as a bit
“convenient,” and hypocritical. What, he thinks no one notices?

Hillary  Clinton is getting campaign–style coverage for getting paid to do speeches. I have no problem with her giving paid speeches. I have no problem with her possibly conditioning the environment for another run at the White House
(clearly, she’d be a great candidate again). And, if that’s not her goal, I have no problem with her using her popularity to get attention on issues she cares about. I do think it’s nuts for the media to be covering her 24/7 and hanging on
every word as a “signal” about 2016. One Washington columnist even opined today that she has “no message.” Uh, really? Do we have to endure this for a couple of years?

In news that matters only to rabid White House Press Briefing Room watchers, new media outlets (like Real Clear Politics and Yahoo News, along with SiriusXM)  have been given seats or shared seats in the briefing room. A significant step up for the new media folks. It wasn’t reported who lost territory to make room.

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, the serial female harasser, completed his intensive two weeks of therapy in one week! He never ceases to amaze! Now, his chief of staff has changed the locks on his office. Doubt that’s enough to make him go away, if that was the goal, but it’s a start.

Anthony Weiner’s campaign for mayor of New York City continues despite an 80 percent unfavorable rating by voters there.  A few more interviews like I've seen, and I think he can get to a 99-and-change unfavorable.  Long as he is favorable, he can't achieve 100 percent.
 
Michelle Obama is releasing a rap album to help promote her “Let’s Move” program. She doesn’t sing on the album. But I haven’t heard singing on a rap album yet – good singing anyway.  

Whitey Bulger was convicted of multiple murders and racketeering in Boston and will be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. He’s 83.Personally, based on his crimes and lies, I wish him a long life.


 

Two stories have captured my attention in the last 72 hours: the sale of The Washington Post to the brain behind Amazon and President Obama cancelling his planned summit with Vladimir Putin.

First, Obama. It took him until his second term to publicly display some frustration with Putin, a former head of the KGB whose M.O. has been to bully and punish his opponents, and stick it to the United States while appearing to try to get
along.  

Obama criticized his predecessor by saying he would push the“reset” button on our relationship with the Russians. Thankfully, the President apparently is rethinking that reset because the Soviets, uh, Russians are doing some things
but not a lot of things in cooperation with the U.S. Two biggies: We’re on opposite sides in Syria and, in the most blatant public poke in the face, they are giving asylum to Edward Snowden. 

We’ve seen what happens to people who truly want to reform Russia – Mikhail Gorbachev, probably the most progressive leader that country will ever see, basically was ousted in a coup led by the apparatchiks who feared his openness. Will
cancelling a summit change the relationship? No. But at least it sends a message that the United States isn’t going to just lie back and take it from Putin.

 Now, the Post sale. Like everyone else in D.C., I rapidly went through the stages of grief when I read the news bulletin about the sale -- shock, sadness, acceptance. The Grahams, one of the greatest names in journalism, unselfishly giving up their crown jewel. They love that paper. They love the journalists, pressmen and others who work daily to put out one of the best papers in the world. They knew, though, that under their ownership, the paper was not going to thrive and maybe not even survive. Before that paper hit the low level of maybe needing to be auctioned off – which would have been a very sad day – they found a buyer who just might be able to take the paper into the Era of the New Media and figure out a way to make money with it, too. Jeffrey Bezos, the soon-to-be-new-owner, is one tough cookie from what I hear. And he’s one successful SOB too.

I read this morning that he all but banned the use of Power Point presentations at Amazon, for example. He did this after reading an essay by Edward Tufte, a computer science professor at Yale, who said the bullet points of a Power Point
presentation encourage lazy thinking. Bezos forces Amazon staff to write narratives of up to six pages to explain an idea – this forces people to think through their idea more deeply and put their ideas into the power of words. I like that. No quick three-word slogan for him.

He also encourages “two-pizza meetings,” under the belief that if you need enough people to eat three pizzas, you have too many people in the room to get anything done. Who among us hasn’t seen that theory proven in their careers? The more people in the room, the less that will get done as indecision, preening and bloated speeches rule the day and nothing is accomplished.

Journalism was a trade, as columnist Kathleen Parker wrote yesterday: “… that attracted my generation of reporters to the field. Back in the day, we really did want to save the world. And, of course, drink.”

That’s when I entered journalism. It paid terribly, but it was the most fun job I’ve ever had. Each paper that dies takes a piece of an old journalist with it. Let’s hope Mr. Bezos can work his magic on the Post.

On the matter of,  should a TV film be made about Hillary Clinton and released prior to the 2016 elections – when she might be a candidate – I fall on the side of – no. These productions should cease and desist. I’m all for freedom of speech, of course, but I think such a film, from either side of the political landscape, is a problem.

The Republicans argue that, since they believe the media and Hollywood are in bed with Democrats, these productions will be tributes to All Things Great and Hillary, thus would tip the election her way. I’m sure the Hillary side privately is worried that any productions would need to include some treatment of her husband’s blue-dress encounter and other such episodes and, while voters of course will not forget, they don’t need to be reminded in such a dramatic way. There also could be inclusion of Benghazi and other controversies still unsettled in the public record. So, why risk a potential presidency on a couple of hours of seeing Diane Lane portray you in a movie?  

From a strict political point of view, no good can come from the movie – either it will give the GOP fodder for crying “foul” or it will put Mrs. Clinton on the defensive for things in the past, and facing a negative campaign from the Republicans will be tough enough without Hollywood putting up another challenge.

Taking a few steps back, Mrs. Clinton certainly has proven herself a very worthy presidential candidate, if she decides to run.  I'm sure her folks would be happy with the financial contributions Hollywood surely will send her way and say no thanks to any big screen "help."

Any Hollywood “treatment” has to be a blend of fact and fiction; such is the world of show business. Her life would be dramatized and fictionalized, as if it hasn't been dramatic enough on its own. Question will be how much of the fiction would voters take as fact?

So  many things seem mind-boggling weird lately. For example:
       

• The first lab-grown beef was cooked and eaten in London. Ever had real beef in London? Maybe the lab-grown stuff will be an improvement. The five-ounce burger patty (which cost more than $330,000 to produce, which means you would get change from your half a million) looked, smelled and nearly tasted like a burger. Then again, if you’ve tried fast-food burger places lately, their products are the same: they look, smell and nearly taste like a burger.  
• Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $270 million. Peanuts for the Post. First blush: Shocking. Stunning. OMG (I learned that from the kids). Second thought: if anyone can take a traditional paper and turn it profitable in this day and age, it has to be someone who understands new media. Bezos is among the leaders in how to do that. And, wisely, he’s not making any immediate changes in senior management at the paper nor signaling layoffs. Both good moves, if for no other reason than settling the shock, stun and OMG news. 
• Anthony Weiner is still running for mayor of New York.
• The government issued travel warnings for Americans who are headed to the Middle East because of intelligence they were picking up similar to just before 9/11 when we didn’t pay attention to the signals. I wasn’t planning a vacation in Baghdad any time soon anyway.   
• New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, the game’s highest paid player, was suspended for 211 games for his involvement with an anti-aging clinic, meaning he used performance-enhancing drugs and also tried to block an investigation into those charges. He is appealing. Uh, his suspension, not that he’s all that appealing anymore.
• A federal appeals court ruled this week that a Pennsylvania school district cannot ban “I (heart) boobies” bracelets rejecting the claim that the slogan (which is aimed at increasing breast cancer awareness among young folks) is lewd. Agreed. How do you promote awareness of breast cancer without saying what you’re doing?   And if you think the bracelets will break the news to the young folks that girls have breasts, I have a bridge for sale.
• Lastly, public  information officers in Seattle have been advised against using the phrase “brown-bag lunch” because it could be offensive to African-Americans since at some point a brown bag was used to determine if someone’s skin was light enough to gain admission to some events. They also were told not to use the word “citizen” because some folks are residents, but not citizens. 

 
You can’t make this stuff up, which is why I didn’t.

There’s a piece in Politco today -- http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/danny-kedem-anthony-weiner-staffer-dilemma-95104.html?hp=t1 – that delves into the issues facing a staff person working for a scandal-plagued candidate or office-holder and where the staffer’s obligation lies. Does he or she remain loyal to principle or blindly loyal to the principal? A fair question. Most staffers who comment for the story say, in effect, “to thine own self be true.” I agree with that.

Ethics – everyone draws the line in a different place. As a campaign or government spokesman, you are faced with such questions often. If it’s a policy debate, often you can put your own views aside because you are not the one who was elected and you signed on to explain your principal's views. Your job is to defend his or her views. On the other hand, when it comes to flat-out lying for your principal, you have to think hard. When it comes to defending a principal who is lying, you have to draw a line.

Ethics, and “the line,” are very personal topics. No one is right or wrong. It’s right for you. Anthony Weiner’s chief of staff resigned after the candidate lied twice about his behavior. One time you can forgive, twice, well that’s where his chief of staff drew the line. The Politico piece also makes the point that many political staffers now worry as much about their “brand” as their boss. Personally, I always worried about my reputation, not my brand (unless you want to say they are one in the same – which I don’t. As an old boss of mine once said, “you can create an image but you have to earn a reputation.”) 
 
As the spokesman for anyone (political, corporate, personal), all you have is your credibility. As soon as your credibility is going on the line, you have to think about how far you’re going to go. At least that’s how I viewed it during my  spokesman years. Once I lost credibility, I lost the ability to do my job. Reporters (whose trust you are seeking when you’re a spokesman, while still protecting your principal) know the difference between a putting the best face on your information and lying. 

It is often a fine line, I know, but knowing the difference is what makes an effective spokesman.