Terms of (Republican) Endearment

Saturday, November 26, 2005 at 04:11 PM

So private e-mails between Republican lobbyists (and soon to be convicts) Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff called their Indian clients "idiots," "losers," "morons" and "monkeys."

And people assume that this is a bad thing, that the two richer-than-rich lobbyists were denigrating the character of their clients.  But lets look at this more closely. Could these simply be terms of endearment?

We're talking about two massively arrogant and celestially unethical people here; these are not your ordinary church circle or little league benefit dinner guys.  Are their linguistic rules the same as ours?

Lets take these terms one at a time:

  1. Idiots.  If I called you that, or you me, it would be an insult.  But Scanlon-Abramoff think EVERYBODY is an idiot except them.  So maybe they just meant "normal folks."

  2. Losers.  Again, if I called you that, or you me, it would be an insult.  But just like with "idiots," don't you really think that Scanlon-Abramoff think that EVERYBODY is a loser except them?  So it could have just been their way of acknowledging that they were talking about other people rather than themselves.

  3. Morons.  See 1 and 2.

  4. Monkeys.  Okay, they probably don't consider everyone but them to be a monkey necessarily, I grant you that.  But lets think about monkeys.  They tend to be grasping, most have long tails that can be used to grab onto things without looking at them, and they've certainly been known to spit at/urinate on people who get too close.  Are you really going to deny that these are characteristics that Scanlon-Abramoff would actually find attractive?

So quit giving these guys unwarranted grief.  Give them the kudos they deserve, and just call Scanlon-Abramoff "idiots," "losers," "morons" and "monkeys."