Complicated statesmen and simple-minded media

From Yahoo / Reuters

A bizarre comment by U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the hunt for Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction has been awarded the "Foot in Mouth" prize by the Plain English Campaign.

Rumsfeld, renowned for his uncompromising tough talking, received the prize for the most baffling comment by a public figure.

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld told a press briefing.

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

I found this funny because, well, I'm not stupid. Rumsfeld is stating a fairly straightforward and obvious idea, but because the audience is comprised of moron journalists whose job it is to take the few basic things they can understand and dumb them down even more, Rumsfeld is described as "bizarre" and "baffling".

The next time you are reading news analysis, remember that journalists find "baffling" ideas that a smart junior high student would find obvious.

They should''ve gone with the runner-up.

From Suzanne Fields

Professor Dutton, in fact, sponsored a ""Bad Writing Contest"" to give the worst material published in scholarly books and journals the attention it deserves. There''s lots of bad material.

As bad as student illiteracy has become, he thinks we pay too little attention to the attempted writing of their professors. He awarded his first prize to a widely admired professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California at Berkeley. He offers an excerpt: ""The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition convergence and rearticulation. ."" (I''ll spare you the rest of it.)

This jargon-laden example of incomprehensibility is neither isolated nor unusual. Poor writing, ideological prejudice and narrow arrogance in academe expose a fault line in the ability to teach how to write, think and reason clearly. It''s fair game to make fun of a president''s spontaneous verbal syntax, and sadder still when academics who suffer jerking knees won''t attempt to deal in a forthright way with the president''s ideas.

Anyone who visits our finest universities, so called, will quickly discover that the most articulate arguments are made by conservatives because they have to try harder to get a persuasive word in, edgewise or otherwise. The politically correct culture of the left is smug in its failure to grapple with political realities, and it dominates the faculty lounges.

"ralcydan" wrote:

""Reports that say something hasn''t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know,"" Rumsfeld told a press briefing.

""We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don''t know we don''t know.""

You can''t be serious right? It''s worded poorly. It makes sense, but really sounds baffling. They''re talking about how he said it, not what he said. It''s bizarre, or do people around you talk like this all the time? There''s confusing confused, unconfusing confused, unconfusing unconfused, and confusing unconfused. Rumsfield is the latter. Or maybe I could''ve just said that he knows what he''s talking about but phrased it in a confusing way.

Though I agree with Rat Boy, Arnold should''ve won. That quote never ceases to crack me up.

I also love the sweeping generalizations you make about journalists simply because you disagree with this one. Or is that just a chip on your shoulder?

It makes sense, but really sounds baffling.

You mean you actually have to pay attention to follow what someone is saying? Sacrilege! All politicians should speak so that no one is confused, ever. They should never use words larger than 2 syllables, they should never talk about science or philosophy, and they should never expect that what they say will only make sense only to those who actually listen and give thought! Mindlessness should no longer have to be its own reward!

I also love the sweeping generalizations you make about journalists simply because you disagree with this one. Or is that just a chip on your shoulder?

I am firmly of the opinion that most journalists couldn''t get analysis right if the story was about themselves, and that most news anchors are just actors too dumb to remember lines. This opinion is the result of years of observation, and I would be surprised if most people didn''t agree with me...

You mean you actually have to pay attention to follow what someone is saying? Sacrilege! All politicians should speak so that no one is confused, ever. They should never use words larger than 2 syllables, they should never talk about science or philosophy, and they should never expect that what they say will only make sense only to those who actually listen and give thought! Mindlessness should no longer have to be its own reward!

I have a better idea. Let''s just say that from now on, if someone in the Republican administrations says anything, we can''t criticize them no matter how silly they worded their statement.

But, if someone from a Democratic administration says anything that could be remotely duplicitous or oddly phrased, we need to rip the hell out of them with a good old roasting hosted by Triumph the Insult Dog.

That work better?

Let''s just say that from now on, if someone in the Republican administrations says anything, we can''t criticize them no matter how silly they worded their statement.

Criticize away. But why do you assume that your (or anyone''s) criticism should be free from comment?

Oh, this is good. You make great arguments...

...

FOR ME TO POOP ON!

Criticize away. But why do you assume that your (or anyone''s) criticism should be free from comment?

Ah, you put the words right into my mouth.

*ahem* Anyway, what my commentary was directed at was the seemingly double standard your comments on here seem to apply regarding statements made by politicians. And by ""here"", I''m not referring to this thread in particular, just a trend I''ve noticed over time.

But regarding the award this thread was talking about, I agree that Schwarzenegger''s (sic, I can''t spell his name) comment is far sillier than Rumsfeld''s tongue-tying trippy talk.

Here''s why Rumsfeld''s comment is pointed out as baffling. Not because he used any of those big words with multiple syllables, like Bush and his words like ""exemplorary"" which have so many syllables I can''t understand them, stupid non-rightie that I am. Maybe if they matched up with the words in my dictionary here when I try to look them up...

But anyway, I digress.

Rumsfeld''s comment that that reporter that that article was written by that you linked to, well... see how silly a sentence can seem when the words are just used to repetitively? Grammatically, that series of that''s is quite understandable, but it would be better to reword my statement if I was vying for clarity here.

FOR ME TO POOP ON!

Awright! Triumph did show up!

Anyway, what my commentary was directed at was the seemingly double standard your comments on here seem to apply regarding statements made by politicians. And by ""here"", I''m not referring to this thread in particular, just a trend I''ve noticed over time.

How about an example of this double-standard?

Rumsfeld''s comment that that reporter that that article was written by that you linked to, well... see how silly a sentence can seem when the words are just used to repetitively?

A couple of things. First of all, the concept of ""known knowns"" vs. ""known unknowns"" or ""unknown unknowns"" isn''t something Rumsfeld came up with. The concepts are widely used in the military, the intelligence community - even in business. Apparently soldiers and salesmen can understand them but reporters and scholars cannot.

And are you really telling me that the describing of a concept which has repetitive terminology isreallythe worst offense of mangled speech they could find last year? Sounds like somebody has a double standard and it isn''t me...

It might not be the worst one from last year, but you have to admit it does come off as horribly convoluted.

Actually, I''d be more interested in finding out what he finds so fascinating about reports that state that ""Nothing Happened!"", and how those mangled words correlate to that. Alas, I''m too lazy to find out for myself.

Also, lol at this bit:

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: ""We think we know what he means. But we don''t know if we really know.""
A couple of things. First of all, the concept of ""known knowns"" vs. ""known unknowns"" or ""unknown unknowns"" isn''t something Rumsfeld came up with. The concepts are widely used in the military, the intelligence community - even in business. Apparently soldiers and salesmen can understand them but reporters and scholars cannot.

Ral, please read our posts. We aren''t saying we don''t understand what he''s saying. Neither do the journalists. They are saying it was a very confusing and bizarre way of putting it. That''s it.

And are you really telling me that the describing of a concept which has repetitive terminology is really the worst offense of mangled speech they could find last year? Sounds like somebody has a double standard and it isn''t me...

You''re putting words in everyone''s mouth again. We both agree that it wasn''t the worst thing said this year, in fact everyone agreed that Arnold''s comment was much worse/funnier.

What''s even worse is that you''re attacking us and journalists everywhere for the selection of Rumsfeld for this award when it''s the Plain English Campaign who selected it. Also, in previous years had as many actors as politicians chosen. Please somehow make that into a double standard.

And you nitpick Rat Boy''s every word like an old married couple. Yet Rumsfeld''s bizarre phrasing is beyond reproach. That''s one example of a double standard.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]And you nitpick Rat Boy''s every word like an old married couple. Yet Rumsfeld''s bizarre phrasing is beyond reproach. That''s one example of a double standard.

I knew it! He''s been seeing Rummy on the side! That does it!

Ral, please read our posts. We aren''t saying we don''t understand what he''s saying. Neither do the journalists. They are saying it was a very confusing and bizarre way of putting it. That''s it.

How is it bizarre? Was he doing a little dance? Is there a chicken reference in the quote I am missing? And how is it ""confusing""? It must not be too confusing, since as you said, everybody understands what he is saying. I''m a little confused by your bizarre definitions of ""bizarre"" and ""confusing"".

He is repetitive, but as I said, the concept is phrased that way. I guess I don''t see how a straightforward and obvious concept is ""confusing"" or ""bizarre"" just because it uses repetitive wording.

You''re putting words in everyone''s mouth again. We both agree that it wasn''t the worst thing said this year, in fact everyone agreed that Arnold''s comment was much worse/funnier.

Farscry likes it when I put words in his mouth (see above).

And you nitpick Rat Boy''s every word like an old married couple. Yet Rumsfeld''s bizarre phrasing is beyond reproach. That''s one example of a double standard.

I would respond to you, but if we keep going back and forth, you''ll start posting about how you and I are like an old married couple, and simultaneously criticizing something while you are doing might get confusing for you

"Rat Boy" wrote:

I knew it! He''s been seeing Rummy on the side! That does it!

What was your first clue? Late at night when you''re *ahem* intimate you hear him scream ""Invade me, Rummy! I''m a dirty, dirty terrorist!"" in the heat of passion?

*edit* I''d just like to apologize for the awful picture I just put in everybody''s head.

Farscry likes it when I put words in his mouth (see above).

Does it say something bad about me that I immediately took this statement and leaped to a joke about it in a sexual nature?

I''ve been participating in that orgasm thread in the Everything Else forum too much... Naughty Farscry! Naughty! *swatting myself with a rolled up newspaper*

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]*edit* I''d just like to apologize for the awful picture I just put in everybody''s head.

Certis? The sword, if you don''t mind...

"ralcydan" wrote:

How is it bizarre? Was he doing a little dance? Is there a chicken reference in the quote I am missing? And how is it ""confusing""? It must not be too confusing, since as you said, everybody understands what he is saying. I''m a little confused by your bizarre definitions of ""bizarre"" and ""confusing"".

He is repetitive, but as I said, the concept is phrased that way. I guess I don''t see how a straightforward and obvious concept is ""confusing"" or ""bizarre"" just because it uses repetitive wording.

It is unnecessarily repetitive. That is confusing - you can try to belittle everyone who finds it confusing all you want but the facts of the matter are that it obfuscates the concept, unecessarily to boot.

"Dictionary.com" wrote:

con·fuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-fyz)
v. con·fused, con·fus·ing, con·fus·es
v. tr
...
2. To make opaque; blur: "The old labels... confuse debate instead of clarifying it" (Christopher Lasch).

It is bizarre because it is not something you hear in everyday conversation. It is odd to hear someone repeat something so often and unnecissarily.

"Dictionary.com" wrote:

bi·zarre ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-zär)
adj.

Strikingly unconventional and far-fetched in style or appearance; odd.

I''m only putting these here to save you the trouble, in case your next post ridicules my interpretations of bizarre and confusing.

I would respond to you, but if we keep going back and forth, you''ll start posting about how you and I are like an old married couple, and simultaneously criticizing something while you are doing might get confusing for you ;)

Cute, however it wasn''t the back and forth that was the part I was calling attention to, but the nitpicking. His choice of wording, grammar, ect. are very often called to attention by you in an argument, yet an unnecissarily repetitive choice of words said by someone you like is beyond reproach.

unnecissarily repetitive choice of words said by someone you like is beyond reproach.

Not unnecessarily. I guess you guys keep missing the point that he was communicating an established concept:

Regarding the economy, this is a time -- like, come to think about it, all other times, regarding everything -- to remember this:""There are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.""That axiom (whose author is unknown) is pertinent to the problem of understanding the economy''s trajectory, or at least not misunderstanding it too harmfully. - George Will
Contingency Reserve: A separately planned quantity used to allow for future situations which may be planned for only in part ""known unknowns""). Contingency reserves are intended to reduce the impact of missing cost or schedule objectives. Contingency reserves are normally included in the project''s cost and schedule baselines. - from ""Project Management - Risk Management""
The view of Year 2000 progress that dominates is a ""high risk"" view and is the greatest source of Year 2000 risk in itself. As I stated in my first Senate testimony, the Year 2000 issue is typified by""known knowns""– the things we know we know about – the""known unknowns""– the thing we know we need to find out about – and the""unknown unknowns""– those things that we don't even know we don't know. - Dr. Howard A. Rubin, Chair, Department of Computer Science, Hunter College of the City University of New York, briefing Congress on Y2K issues
In the 1996 edition of the PMBOK, there is a discussion about the difference between the""known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.""While this is a mouthful, it explains the difference between using a project level contingency pool for unknown events that might occur.These are the unknown unknowns. Theknown unknownsare the risk factors that we can foresee for a particular piece of work. We can create an estimate for theseknown unknownrisk factors should they occur. - From ""Modern Cost Management"", available from allPM.com, the Project Managers webpage

I don''t know what you guys do for a living, but sometimes concepts you use in your work might sound funny, confusing, or bizarre to those outside the profession. Pyro, if you worked with computers you would know this.

""Knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns"" is actually a neat idea, made even more so by the fact that its repetition forces you to think about what it really means. Guess that''s too much work for some people...

Let''s get to the point. Why is this news? First, the statement was said in 2002, so it shouldn''t qualify for a 2003 award. Second, why is this news? It''s news because the liberal media thinks it is ""interesting"".

New sig!!

Isn''t it in the news cause it''s easy to copy/paste? I mean here these people went to all the trouble to look through all of the statements...

And Richard Gere won last year. Isn''t he so far left, he''s kind of wrapped back around and gone left again? So it''s not exactly biased towards right or left, unless they switch off every other year.

It is terribly worded, unclear, and the first sentence doesn''t seem to be linked to the sentiment at all. It speaks volumes to me about anyone who would defend this statement as being clear or well-considered.

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know

I mean really, that strikes anyone as a concise statement? He uses a form of the word know five times in fourteen words. One in every three words is ''know''! That''s miserable English, particularly since ''we'' is repeated three times in tandem. Though I really don''t see what the fuss is about either way, how it makes any sort of difference, but to defend it as being straightforward ... no afraid not.

Though, on the upside, I''m beginning to see how you think Dubya is eloquent. {for clarity''s sake, that last jab is delivered in the spirit of loving and Christmas}

"ralcydan" wrote:

I don''t know what you guys do for a living, but sometimes concepts you use in your work might sound funny, confusing, or bizarre to those outside the profession. Pyro, if you worked with computers you would know this.

That''s why I don''t get up at press conferences and expect reporters to understand jargon describing parameters to the IDE controller module in the linux kernel that control DMA speeds, and the associated hdparm program used to modify these parameters at run-time using the /proc filesystem. If I ever said that to someone who wasn''t familiar with computers and Linux specifically, it would be considered confusing and bizarre. I also don''t consider people simple minded and slow witted simply because they don''t understand what I said.

"ralcydan" wrote:

""Knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns"" is actually a neat idea, made even more so by the fact that its repetition forces you to think about what it really means. Guess that''s too much work for some people...

Again, you belittling anyone who disagrees with you doesn''t make you right. That''s pretty ridiculous to insinuate that the reptition forces you to think about what it really means. It''s like implying that it''s a good idea to speak in pig-latin because it forces you to really think about the words you''re saying. You''re actually proving my point, it was odd enough that you actually have to think about it more than usual in order for it to make sense. This also implies that it''s not clear enough to be understood without having to put more effort than is usually necessary into the sentence. Therefore it''s bizarre and confusing. Thanks for agreeing!

The distinction is that the same idea could have been expressed a lot more naturally and easily in a few thousand different ways. The lines that Ral seems most enamored with are those that actually make the least sense, not because they are some cryptographic menagerie of well worded thought, but because they are filled with repetitious ambiguity and disjunction.

If I ever said that to someone who wasn''t familiar with computers and Linux specifically, it would be considered confusing and bizarre.

Exactly. And if you did try to explain those concepts, do you think you should be attacked as putting your foot in your mouth? Sorry guys - just because the audience (whether the media, the Plain English Society, or you) isn''t familiar with a concept, and the concept requires concentration to follow (I guess you all think math professors are ""confusing and bizarre"") doesn''t mean that the person articulating that concept is the one at fault...

It''s just bad commentary on his part. It''s not a complicated statement he made, it''s just a botched effort on his part.

I really can''t begin to understand why you''d defend it? A) it''s not a big deal and b) it''s so obviously bad that to defend it as being complex and meaningful above the lowly mind of the media is just bizarre.

This is worse than that time Dan Quayle spelled potato with an e. We should all join with Charles Rangel and call for Rumsfeld''s immediate resignation.

From the Economist:

IT PROBABLY troubles him little, but among those who loathe the Bush administration around the world, Donald Rumsfeld is a hate-figure rivalled only by George Bush. And as with the president, a favourite line of attack is his abuse of the English language. Jacob Weisberg, a leftish American journalist, has compiled a couple of books of "Bushisms", casting a patronising look at the everyday verbal glitches of a homespun Texan. More recently "Pieces of Intelligence: the Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld", by Hart Seely, mockingly recasts in blank verse some of the defence secretary''s turns of phrase.

Now the Plain English Campaign, a British group that lobbies for clearer use of language, has given Mr Rumsfeld the "Foot in Mouth Award" for the most baffling comment by a public figure. It was:

there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns"”the ones we don''t know we don''t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

Sorry, but what is so muddled about that? Certainly, it compares favourably with the prize-winning burble of previous years. Of her aptly named film "Clueless", Alicia Silverstone, a film star, said "I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it''s true lightness." Dan Quayle, a future vice-president, once mused: "We offer the party as a big tent. How we do that, with the platform, the preamble to the platform or whatnot, that remains to be seen. But that message will have to be articulated with great clarity." Or consider Bill Clinton''s existential remark (which, alas, never received an award) when he was under questioning about Monica Lewinsky: "It depends on what the meaning of the word "˜is' is."

By contrast, Mr Rumsfeld is a model of clarity and wisdom. The nature of ignorance is a serious philosophical problem; for decision-makers, it is a knotty practical one. For a senior politician to grapple with serious epistemological questions, and to do so publicly, is as commendable as it is rare.

Indeed, no less than the London Guardian, normally known for its withering disdain for those ghastly rednecks across the Atlantic, fired a salvo in his defence. Far from being foolish, it argued, the offending remark was "a complex, almost Kantian, thought", admirably free of jargon and gobbledegook.

Well said. Not that Mr Rumsfeld, sensible fellow, is likely to care.