September 11 -- which is supposed to be a somber commemoration of the lives lost in the World Trade Center attack -- is being targeted for a garish upstaging this Saturday by some crackpot preacher-man in Kentucky (well, Florida actually, but that's close enough), who somehow seems to think it's a good idea to throw an egregious spectacle of reckless hate-speech in the form of an organized burning of numerous copies of The Qur'an, the Muslims' holy scripture.
I have a better idea. How about, on September 10, we engage in a little incendiary ecclesiastical celebration of our own -- a bit of "pious pyromania", if you will? It's time, my brothers and sisters, to join hands in a congregational conflagration of eyebrow-singeing, kerosene-soaked worship that I believe -- I say, I believe! -- will be beneficial to the world community of faith and true to the religious beliefs of all humankind like none have been before! Bring your marshmallows and your weenies (I'm talking about hot dogs, you dirty-minded people) as we raise our matches in praise and ... burn that sorry-ass coop of self-righteous mothercussers to the ground. I'd like to declare September 10, 2010, as "International Burn the Dove World Outreach Center Day"! Here are five reasons why we should burn the Dove World Outreach Center.
1) Because, let's face it, anyone who takes The Bible so literally as to believe the planet Earth and all its plant and animal life sprang into existence fully-formed in less than a week, and that the entire human race descended from two people, clearly needs a reality check. All unbiased genetic science points to the conclusion that, if Adam and Eve's kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids were the incestuous, cousin-lovin' inbreeders the evangelicals suggest they were, about 95% of the Earth's population would have Down Syndrome. Then again, the way we humans have been behaving lately, maybe there's some credence to their argument....
2) Because DWOC's founder, the "reverend" Terry Jones, got kicked out of a church he also formed in Germany, thanks to alleged megalomaniacal proclivities and embezzlement of church funds. But then, the Catholic church has no problem ignoring far worse crimes like child molestation, so ... potāto, potăto. Oh, but did we mention that he was fined by the German court for calling himself a "doctor" because he had an honorary (read: fake) degree from an unaccredited (read: not worth a crap) theology school in California? That guy's just heaping with credibility now, ain't he?
3) Because the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and benevolent, with only a tiny sliver of its radical fringe being responsible for causing 9/11. Not only is this "Burn The Koran Day" a recklessly inaccurate generalization of an entire religious faith, but it's further legitimizing the anti-American sentiment that already permeates the Middle East ... DWOC is effectively painting an even bigger target on the backs of the thousands of brave U.S. troops still stationed there. Besides, this sensationalistic behavior by DWOC is only emphasizing the dangers of misunderstanding an entire faith based on the extreme behavior of a microscopic fraction of its "followers". If DWOC is trying to make a point with irony (and I rather doubt they can even grasp the concept), it's a grossly negligent way of doing so.
4) Because DWOC claims that "all of the Islamic writings ... are confused, contradictory and inconsistent". Well, ain't that The Bible calling The Qur'an "black"? How can any one of the multiple versions and translations of The Bible be the accurate interpretation, especially when each religion's leaders claim theirs is the definitive word of God? And while we're on the subject of inconsistency, let's not forget how many so-called "devoutly" religious people seem to cherry-pick which verses in Leviticus are and are not abominations. Hey, if you prattle on about how gay sex is a no-no, then you'd best not have a tattoo, be trimming your beard, wearing polyester-cotton blend clothing, or eating pork, otherwise I'm gonna have a big problem with you.
5) Because the "reverend" Fred Phelps and his hatemongering Westboro Baptist Church are fully supportive of DWOC and this cockamamie stunt. Hey, far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough right there ... scum by association. Talk about being "damned with praise". Oh, don't get me started on Phelps and his minions, I'll tell you right now. Any religious organization who feels the need to preach their message primarily through hate speech is fully ignorant of the true nature of Christianity and IS NOT RELIGIOUS ... not in the slightest, I don't care what anyone says. No entity calling itself a "church" would have "www.godhatesfags.com" as its URL. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the majority of Phelps' flock are relatives, and that's probably the case with Mr. Jones, too.
Oh, and let's not forget reason number 6) Because no one with a handlebar mustache can possibly be taken seriously as a clergyman, just like no one wearing a cowboy hat can possibly be taken seriously as a lawyer.
Seriously, though, how dare those assholes call their church the "Dove World Outreach Center"? That name is about as full of shit as "The Family Research Council", and they're being allowed to pervert the symbol of the dove -- the animal of peace -- for their own malignant philosophy. And as long as we're burning down the Dove World Outreach Center, let's go ahead and torch the Westboro Baptist Church too, while we're at it. Hey, it's in Kentucky, too (well, actually it's in Kansas, but that's close enough).
Okay, I consider it a crying shame that the art of satire is lost on about 85% of the American population and that I actually have to spell this out here, but here goes: The preceding piece was written primarily in the context of satire, although its sentiment is genuine. The author does not condone or intend for any bodily harm or property damage to be inflicted on the Dove World Outreach Center or the Westboro Baptist Church, or any of its members, and is not responsible for inciting such action ... even though those assholes really do have it coming to them.
Hey ... the DWOC's website is down ... I'm diggin' it.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Happy "90210 Day"!
Yes, today is 9/02/10 ... so what better day to celebrate that most '90s of all '90s TV shows, "Beverly Hills, 90210"! Not the mediocre remake that's running now, mind you (hey, even Jennie Garth had the sense to bail on that one), I'm talking the original, the vintage, the classic! If you're too young to remember that show, you really missed out. Anyway, to celebrate, I thought I'd show you the main title you probably don't remember: the very first main title the show ever had, before the one that we all know and love and was even remixed for the new series. Enjoy...!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Snowclones and Grammar Snobs
Betcha thought I'd never be back, huh? Well, it took me awhile, but sure as the sun keeps rising every morning, I'll sooner or later find something else to complain about. Well, this time I'm revisiting the topic of American English, and our questionable modern usage of it. Are you ready for some more made-up words and improperly used expressions? Here comes part 2 of my pet peeves of modern English!
"Irregardless" isn't a word. I'll prove it to you: the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" mean the same thing, so they cancel each other out. People compulsively tack extra syllables onto words in order to make themselves sound more intelligent than they (evidently) are. Either drop the "ir-" and just use regardless, or use the word irrespective if you feel the need to utter one extra syllable.
Nobody needs a "hot water heater". Okay, most of us are guilty of this little redundancy, including myself, and most of us don't even realize it until we stop to think about it. It's a "water heater", not a "hot water heater". Hot water doesn't need to be heated, 'cause it's already hot! Not very energy-efficient if you ask me ... and unless your house is powered by superheated steam, it's totally unnecessary.
Stupidest. Idea. Ever. Obviously this one has only polluted our language in written form ... you know, the way people dramatically pause to emphasize their superlative declaration, such as "That was the Best. Concert. Ever." Not only would this gross offense against the laws of punctuation propel most high school English teachers into conniptions, but to me it's Really. Really. Annoying. And. Pretentious.
A light-year isn't a year. Maybe it's not fair to have this one on the list, because you'd have to be some amount of a geek (like me) to know that a light-year isn't a measure of time, but is instead a measure of distance. "My mind was light-years away" makes much more sense than "It's light-years ahead of its time." I guess you'll have to just trust me on that one.
I've already vented a little of my frustration about some of our dorky-sounding modern-day portmanteaus, but what's pissing me off is how they're starting to get legitimized by being added to the prestigious Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. (No wonder college students are starting to sound stupid.) Two that really rub me the wrong way: "staycation" (as in a vacation spent at home) -- Are we so pressed for time that we can't just call it an "at-home vacation"? -- and "frenemy" (someone who pretends to be a friend but is really an enemy). What I don't understand is why anyone would use a dweeby-sounding word like "frenemy" when the phrase "two-faced bitch" is so much more colorful.
Now let's talk about snowclones ... while trying to ingore how dumb the word itself sounds. We've all heard them used, though not a lot of people know them by that term (I was one of those people who'd never been exposed to that word until just a few weeks ago). They're those catch-phrase templates that are usually adapted from ones heard in movies, TV shows, or advertising, and used to fit any number of everyday situations or ideas. "Got [x]?" is a good example, originating with the "Got milk?" ad campaign ... oftentimes you'll see a "Got Jesus?" bumper sticker on some religious nut's car.
While some are used cleverly and I can tolerate them, the one I absolutely hate is "[x] is the new [y]". It gets on my nerves mostly because it's used to herald the arrival of new trends in fashion, pop culture, design, and what have you ... and I've never given in to trends. I wear what I want to wear and listen to what I want to listen to, because it's my life and nobody else's. "Red is the new pink." No it's not. Red is red, it's always been red, and it'll always be red. That's why there's a whole separate color already called pink. "Thirty is the new forty." Again, no. Thirty is thirty, and forty is forty. Ask anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics and they'll tell you the same damn thing. Sheesh.
Now, just to show you I'm not completely obsessive about proper English usage, let me say a word about the kind of people I call "grammar snobs". These are the people who make their every sentence grammatically correct to such an extent that they defy the laws of verbal physics (as I like to describe it). You know how the normal everyday way that people talk doesn't necessarily hold hard and fast to every rule of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? I'm perfectly okay with that ... just 'cause you're not, don't get all up in my face about it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
When someone asks me, "How are you?", I always say, "I'm okay. How are you?". If they say, "I'm well", that's when I know they're a grammar snob. When I hear that, it sounds as though they're saying, "I'm GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. How are you?". People who are that linguistically pompous oughta be required to show a bachelor's degree in English, or else just talk like a normal, everyday person.
People aren't getting married anymore. Did you know that? Now they're "being married". Where the hell did this come from? I've seen it in "Dear Abby" (okay, so I read it in the paper ... shut up) several times in the last few weeks, and now I've gotta say something about it. Is it all-of-a-sudden no longer proper to use the phrase "getting married" for some reason? That old song would sound just plain stupid with the lyrics "I'm being married in the morning; ding-dong, the bells are gonna chime." Long as I'm around, people are going to get married when they have a wedding, and once it's over they'll be married. Again, sheesh.
"Irregardless" isn't a word. I'll prove it to you: the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" mean the same thing, so they cancel each other out. People compulsively tack extra syllables onto words in order to make themselves sound more intelligent than they (evidently) are. Either drop the "ir-" and just use regardless, or use the word irrespective if you feel the need to utter one extra syllable.
Nobody needs a "hot water heater". Okay, most of us are guilty of this little redundancy, including myself, and most of us don't even realize it until we stop to think about it. It's a "water heater", not a "hot water heater". Hot water doesn't need to be heated, 'cause it's already hot! Not very energy-efficient if you ask me ... and unless your house is powered by superheated steam, it's totally unnecessary.
Stupidest. Idea. Ever. Obviously this one has only polluted our language in written form ... you know, the way people dramatically pause to emphasize their superlative declaration, such as "That was the Best. Concert. Ever." Not only would this gross offense against the laws of punctuation propel most high school English teachers into conniptions, but to me it's Really. Really. Annoying. And. Pretentious.
A light-year isn't a year. Maybe it's not fair to have this one on the list, because you'd have to be some amount of a geek (like me) to know that a light-year isn't a measure of time, but is instead a measure of distance. "My mind was light-years away" makes much more sense than "It's light-years ahead of its time." I guess you'll have to just trust me on that one.
I've already vented a little of my frustration about some of our dorky-sounding modern-day portmanteaus, but what's pissing me off is how they're starting to get legitimized by being added to the prestigious Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. (No wonder college students are starting to sound stupid.) Two that really rub me the wrong way: "staycation" (as in a vacation spent at home) -- Are we so pressed for time that we can't just call it an "at-home vacation"? -- and "frenemy" (someone who pretends to be a friend but is really an enemy). What I don't understand is why anyone would use a dweeby-sounding word like "frenemy" when the phrase "two-faced bitch" is so much more colorful.
Now let's talk about snowclones ... while trying to ingore how dumb the word itself sounds. We've all heard them used, though not a lot of people know them by that term (I was one of those people who'd never been exposed to that word until just a few weeks ago). They're those catch-phrase templates that are usually adapted from ones heard in movies, TV shows, or advertising, and used to fit any number of everyday situations or ideas. "Got [x]?" is a good example, originating with the "Got milk?" ad campaign ... oftentimes you'll see a "Got Jesus?" bumper sticker on some religious nut's car.
While some are used cleverly and I can tolerate them, the one I absolutely hate is "[x] is the new [y]". It gets on my nerves mostly because it's used to herald the arrival of new trends in fashion, pop culture, design, and what have you ... and I've never given in to trends. I wear what I want to wear and listen to what I want to listen to, because it's my life and nobody else's. "Red is the new pink." No it's not. Red is red, it's always been red, and it'll always be red. That's why there's a whole separate color already called pink. "Thirty is the new forty." Again, no. Thirty is thirty, and forty is forty. Ask anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics and they'll tell you the same damn thing. Sheesh.
Now, just to show you I'm not completely obsessive about proper English usage, let me say a word about the kind of people I call "grammar snobs". These are the people who make their every sentence grammatically correct to such an extent that they defy the laws of verbal physics (as I like to describe it). You know how the normal everyday way that people talk doesn't necessarily hold hard and fast to every rule of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? I'm perfectly okay with that ... just 'cause you're not, don't get all up in my face about it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
When someone asks me, "How are you?", I always say, "I'm okay. How are you?". If they say, "I'm well", that's when I know they're a grammar snob. When I hear that, it sounds as though they're saying, "I'm GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. How are you?". People who are that linguistically pompous oughta be required to show a bachelor's degree in English, or else just talk like a normal, everyday person.
People aren't getting married anymore. Did you know that? Now they're "being married". Where the hell did this come from? I've seen it in "Dear Abby" (okay, so I read it in the paper ... shut up) several times in the last few weeks, and now I've gotta say something about it. Is it all-of-a-sudden no longer proper to use the phrase "getting married" for some reason? That old song would sound just plain stupid with the lyrics "I'm being married in the morning; ding-dong, the bells are gonna chime." Long as I'm around, people are going to get married when they have a wedding, and once it's over they'll be married. Again, sheesh.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Steppin' on Something that Stinks
I'll be taking a trip down to Southern California this summer, and will probably be visiting Hollywood. But unlike last time -- since the Virgin Megastore closed down since my last visit -- I don't expect to tread any sidewalks that are adorned with the stars of the world-famous Hollywood Walk of Fame, since Amoeba Music is a block or two off that studded path (if I recall correctly). And frankly, it's just as well, since the Walk of Fame doesn't hold nearly the glamour and allure now that it used to.
Back in the good old days, you really had to be a celebrity of some importance to earn your very own star on the Walk of Fame. Now the only requirement seems to be paying the $25,000 sponsor fee. And having the right timing doesn't hurt either. Case in point: Shrek. Yes ... Shrek, for the love of crap. Never mind that he's an animated character that doesn't even exist in reality -- that line was crossed when Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny got their stars. What gets me about it is that, by coincidence (yeah, coincidence my ass), he got his star on the Walk just a couple of weeks ago ... yup, right before his latest movie hit the theatres!! Funny that, eh? Don't get me wrong, the first one or two "Shrek" movies were fun, so I have nothing against the ogre ... it's just that the whole situation just makes me want to crap my pants in frustration.
Is there something wrong with a candidate's contribution to entertainment, name recognition, and relative historical significance being used as factors to determine their worthiness to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? There are probably a good number of names on the Walk now that I wouldn't recognize -- but then, I can't know who everyone is, so that's not so troubling -- but the list of people who still haven't been given their rightful stars is downright disturbing. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Sally Field, Diane Keaton, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery all have yet to be so honored? Not to mention -- yes, here it comes -- my own personal pet peeve on that left-outs list: "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Laugh if you will, but think about it: "Weird Al" Yankovic has been making people laugh in a family-friendly way for over 25 years, and he's made his mark not only on music, but also on film (the hilarious "UHF") and television (the short-lived but adorable Saturday morning series "The Weird Al Show") ... plus there's the simple fact that he's known the world over, not just by name but also by his face. This is made all the more aggravating considering that people like Britney Spears, Sean (whatever variation of "Diddy" he's using this week) Combs, and Judge Judy have been given stars long before they deserve them. All I can figure is that a) there must be a lot of free space on the Walk of Fame sidewalks, and b) the city must really need the money from all those sponsorship fees.
Back in the good old days, you really had to be a celebrity of some importance to earn your very own star on the Walk of Fame. Now the only requirement seems to be paying the $25,000 sponsor fee. And having the right timing doesn't hurt either. Case in point: Shrek. Yes ... Shrek, for the love of crap. Never mind that he's an animated character that doesn't even exist in reality -- that line was crossed when Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny got their stars. What gets me about it is that, by coincidence (yeah, coincidence my ass), he got his star on the Walk just a couple of weeks ago ... yup, right before his latest movie hit the theatres!! Funny that, eh? Don't get me wrong, the first one or two "Shrek" movies were fun, so I have nothing against the ogre ... it's just that the whole situation just makes me want to crap my pants in frustration.
Is there something wrong with a candidate's contribution to entertainment, name recognition, and relative historical significance being used as factors to determine their worthiness to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? There are probably a good number of names on the Walk now that I wouldn't recognize -- but then, I can't know who everyone is, so that's not so troubling -- but the list of people who still haven't been given their rightful stars is downright disturbing. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Sally Field, Diane Keaton, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery all have yet to be so honored? Not to mention -- yes, here it comes -- my own personal pet peeve on that left-outs list: "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Laugh if you will, but think about it: "Weird Al" Yankovic has been making people laugh in a family-friendly way for over 25 years, and he's made his mark not only on music, but also on film (the hilarious "UHF") and television (the short-lived but adorable Saturday morning series "The Weird Al Show") ... plus there's the simple fact that he's known the world over, not just by name but also by his face. This is made all the more aggravating considering that people like Britney Spears, Sean (whatever variation of "Diddy" he's using this week) Combs, and Judge Judy have been given stars long before they deserve them. All I can figure is that a) there must be a lot of free space on the Walk of Fame sidewalks, and b) the city must really need the money from all those sponsorship fees.
Monday, June 7, 2010
You're Not a Celebrity, Get the F**k Out of Here
Who's Brett Favre? He's an athlete. Who's Lily Allen? She's a musician. Who's Stephen King? Right, he's a writer. How about Kyra Sedgwick? Yup, an actress. Who's Kim Kardashian? Oh, she's a ... well ... aw, crap, what is she? Oh, and Perez Hilton? Uh, yeah, he's ... hmmm.... By now I'm assuming you see where this is going, and what my peeve is today.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I Axe You to Talk Good American
In an alternate universe, I probably would have become a high-school English teacher. I take pride in my (mostly) proper use of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, partly because it's something that's always come quite naturally to me. So you can probably understand how, in recent years, I've become increasingly annoyed at how our language has begun to decay before my eyes. Misspellings, incorrect usage, poor punctuation -- some of it even showing up in supposedly "professional" media like news and advertising! -- are beginning to make us look stupid. So, I thought I'd do my best to try and help get us back on the right track with a handy-dandy guide to my pet peeves of modern English (part 1):
"Ginormous" is not a word. It never has been and, if I have anything to say about it, it never will be. It's a moronic melding of two legitimate words, gigantic and enormous. Please use one of those words ... they'd appreciate being used, and that's what they're there for. I hate how all these allegedly trendy portmanteaus have insidiously worked their way into the modern lexicon, especially with names, like "Brangelina" and "Zanessa".
Gift is not a verb. This is something that's become popular online, where you have the option to "gift this item". No, you don't "gift" something -- you give it as a gift. For the love of crap, please don't succumb to the dumb of using this word improperly. Consider it a gift to yourself, if it makes you feel any better.
There is no a in definitely. It says so right there ... look it up in the dictionary, I dare you. We need to respect the true spellings of words, people. The same goes for calendar ... remember, one e and two a's. Every home should have a dictionary, and everyone who doesn't want to look like a moron should make use of it.
Their they're is there ... and so is your you're. If you were paying attention in class, you should have been able to nail down the various spellings of these words by about the sixth grade. "Their" and "your" are things that belong to them or you; "they're" and "you're" (the ones with apostrophes) are actions that they or you are about to do; and "there" is where it's at. Got it?
"I could care less" ... no, you couldn't. I cringe whenever people get this expression wrong, which is about 75% of the time. When you "could care less", that's not saying much. It's when you "couldn't care less" that it's worth mentioning, and that's the right way to say the damn thing. I couldn't care less how you spend your free time, as long as you learn to say that expression correctly.
It's nuclear, not nucular. That's another thing that makes me wanna slap people ... mispronouncing the word nuclear. I hated George W. Bush for plenty of reasons, and this was one of the big ones. It can't be that hard to pronounce the word correctly. If remembering that there are no such things as "nucules" doesn't work, then watch the scene in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where Chekov is looking for the "noo-klee-ar wessels" ... or say it as two words: "new clear" ... either of those is better than pronouncing it the wrong way.
Like, stop using, like, the word, like, "like", so much ... like. How did this word come to infest American speech so much? Outside of using it for its proper meaning, using it as an idle word is fine every once in awhile -- kind-of like a verbal punctuation mark is how I think of it -- but please, try and keep it under 27 times in every sentence. Your generation may have become inured to it by now, but to the rest of us it's annoying and it makes you look unintelligent.
Okay, that should be enough helpful hints to get you more sloppy English-speakers started on the path back to appearing intelligent. And believe me, although these are all I could think of for now, rest assured there are probably plenty more things I'll add to this list later on.
"Ginormous" is not a word. It never has been and, if I have anything to say about it, it never will be. It's a moronic melding of two legitimate words, gigantic and enormous. Please use one of those words ... they'd appreciate being used, and that's what they're there for. I hate how all these allegedly trendy portmanteaus have insidiously worked their way into the modern lexicon, especially with names, like "Brangelina" and "Zanessa".
Gift is not a verb. This is something that's become popular online, where you have the option to "gift this item". No, you don't "gift" something -- you give it as a gift. For the love of crap, please don't succumb to the dumb of using this word improperly. Consider it a gift to yourself, if it makes you feel any better.
There is no a in definitely. It says so right there ... look it up in the dictionary, I dare you. We need to respect the true spellings of words, people. The same goes for calendar ... remember, one e and two a's. Every home should have a dictionary, and everyone who doesn't want to look like a moron should make use of it.
Their they're is there ... and so is your you're. If you were paying attention in class, you should have been able to nail down the various spellings of these words by about the sixth grade. "Their" and "your" are things that belong to them or you; "they're" and "you're" (the ones with apostrophes) are actions that they or you are about to do; and "there" is where it's at. Got it?
"I could care less" ... no, you couldn't. I cringe whenever people get this expression wrong, which is about 75% of the time. When you "could care less", that's not saying much. It's when you "couldn't care less" that it's worth mentioning, and that's the right way to say the damn thing. I couldn't care less how you spend your free time, as long as you learn to say that expression correctly.
It's nuclear, not nucular. That's another thing that makes me wanna slap people ... mispronouncing the word nuclear. I hated George W. Bush for plenty of reasons, and this was one of the big ones. It can't be that hard to pronounce the word correctly. If remembering that there are no such things as "nucules" doesn't work, then watch the scene in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where Chekov is looking for the "noo-klee-ar wessels" ... or say it as two words: "new clear" ... either of those is better than pronouncing it the wrong way.
Like, stop using, like, the word, like, "like", so much ... like. How did this word come to infest American speech so much? Outside of using it for its proper meaning, using it as an idle word is fine every once in awhile -- kind-of like a verbal punctuation mark is how I think of it -- but please, try and keep it under 27 times in every sentence. Your generation may have become inured to it by now, but to the rest of us it's annoying and it makes you look unintelligent.
Okay, that should be enough helpful hints to get you more sloppy English-speakers started on the path back to appearing intelligent. And believe me, although these are all I could think of for now, rest assured there are probably plenty more things I'll add to this list later on.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Getting Tea'ed Off
The other evening I watched an episode of the TLC series "Little People, Big World", in which a pair of 19-year-old twin brothers from Oregon, on their first trip by themselves to Europe, decide to take a pause in their sightseeing and partake of some history by visiting the notorious Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany. Needless to say, it was a rather heavy ten minutes of television, particularly when the tour group stood inside one of the crematoria where countless innocent people met their gruesomely methodical ends.
Fast-forward to the next morning: I'm watching the news, and the coverage inevitably turns to one of the latest rallies of the so-called "Tea Party" movement ... and to my incredulity, I see at least one crudely fashioned sign comparing President Barack Obama to none other than German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. I know I'd seen these ludicrous signs before, but seeing such a spectacle so closely juxtaposed to an American teenager's (one whose hometown is in relatively close proximity to mine, in fact) unscripted visit to an actual Nazi concentration camp, you can probably understand how acutely it pissed me off this time.
You don't need to be a world-renowned historian to see that there's a majorly big-ass difference between a ruthless, anti-semitic, megalomaniacal dictator who engages in systematic genocide ... and a democratic president who wants to get decent health care to as many of his citizens as possible. I don't know about y'all, but I'm a big fan of using actual well-researched facts and reasonable comparison and contrast to get a point across. I can't help it, I'm just funny that way. These "Tea Party" twits are getting on my nerves big-time, because their ignorance on every level -- from their tendency to make a statement with what is clearly a minimal grasp of the facts, to the "creative" spelling and grammar on the signs they tote around -- are giving the rest of us Americans a bad name. Their sign-making skills are inept, their analogies are inapt, and their rhetoric is just plain annoying.
Maybe it's the way that American pop-culture has cultivated a distorted perspective of "larger-than-life" people, places, things, and events, that has made even the average blue-collar American feel the need to grotesquely sensationalize and exaggerate damn near everything. People are upset with how grossly inefficient the federal government has become ... I totally get that. But to off-handedly equate someone to the mastermind behind The Holocaust -- especially when their "dastardly deeds" pale in comparison -- is to trivialize the suffering that every one of its victims endured. As much of a pacifist as I am, I find myself wishing that people like that, who would toss names like Hitler around as though they were beach balls, could spend two or three days in Dachau or Auschwitz, just to get an idea of what the name Adolf Hitler really means.
Whether or not you agree with any of President Obama's policies, plans, or reforms is beside the point. We just need to stop crying out "Hitler", "Communist", "Fascist", or any of the other miles-off-target snipes, especially if we haven't yet done our homework about said policies and we don't have any better ideas ourselves. It's reckless, and it only adds to the noise instead of fostering constructive argument. I remember hearing somewhere not too long ago (I think it was during the whole controversy regarding the depiction of Mohammed in a political cartoon) that exercising free speech just because we can is an abuse of that privilege. I couldn't agree more.
And while we're at it, let's please stop blaming Obama for all of America's current ills, 'cause doing so is kind-of like blaming the current CEO of Ford for the condition your 1979 Pinto is in after three decades of wear and tear -- it's pointless, illogical, and dumb. It took decades of abuse and neglect for America to get into the mess it's in now, and it's going to take decades of rethinking and retooling to dig us out. Some of the President's decisions might not make sense, and some of them might possibly hurt more than they help (at least at first), but something's gotta be done. We can't "leave well enough alone", because things aren't "well enough" ... not by a longshot.
But instead of getting more and more upset at those knuckleheads at their "Tea Parties", I just have to laugh at them ... especially when they throw the spotlight on their ignorance with dandy hand-crap-ted signs like these ... enjoy!
Fast-forward to the next morning: I'm watching the news, and the coverage inevitably turns to one of the latest rallies of the so-called "Tea Party" movement ... and to my incredulity, I see at least one crudely fashioned sign comparing President Barack Obama to none other than German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. I know I'd seen these ludicrous signs before, but seeing such a spectacle so closely juxtaposed to an American teenager's (one whose hometown is in relatively close proximity to mine, in fact) unscripted visit to an actual Nazi concentration camp, you can probably understand how acutely it pissed me off this time.
You don't need to be a world-renowned historian to see that there's a majorly big-ass difference between a ruthless, anti-semitic, megalomaniacal dictator who engages in systematic genocide ... and a democratic president who wants to get decent health care to as many of his citizens as possible. I don't know about y'all, but I'm a big fan of using actual well-researched facts and reasonable comparison and contrast to get a point across. I can't help it, I'm just funny that way. These "Tea Party" twits are getting on my nerves big-time, because their ignorance on every level -- from their tendency to make a statement with what is clearly a minimal grasp of the facts, to the "creative" spelling and grammar on the signs they tote around -- are giving the rest of us Americans a bad name. Their sign-making skills are inept, their analogies are inapt, and their rhetoric is just plain annoying.
Maybe it's the way that American pop-culture has cultivated a distorted perspective of "larger-than-life" people, places, things, and events, that has made even the average blue-collar American feel the need to grotesquely sensationalize and exaggerate damn near everything. People are upset with how grossly inefficient the federal government has become ... I totally get that. But to off-handedly equate someone to the mastermind behind The Holocaust -- especially when their "dastardly deeds" pale in comparison -- is to trivialize the suffering that every one of its victims endured. As much of a pacifist as I am, I find myself wishing that people like that, who would toss names like Hitler around as though they were beach balls, could spend two or three days in Dachau or Auschwitz, just to get an idea of what the name Adolf Hitler really means.
Whether or not you agree with any of President Obama's policies, plans, or reforms is beside the point. We just need to stop crying out "Hitler", "Communist", "Fascist", or any of the other miles-off-target snipes, especially if we haven't yet done our homework about said policies and we don't have any better ideas ourselves. It's reckless, and it only adds to the noise instead of fostering constructive argument. I remember hearing somewhere not too long ago (I think it was during the whole controversy regarding the depiction of Mohammed in a political cartoon) that exercising free speech just because we can is an abuse of that privilege. I couldn't agree more.
And while we're at it, let's please stop blaming Obama for all of America's current ills, 'cause doing so is kind-of like blaming the current CEO of Ford for the condition your 1979 Pinto is in after three decades of wear and tear -- it's pointless, illogical, and dumb. It took decades of abuse and neglect for America to get into the mess it's in now, and it's going to take decades of rethinking and retooling to dig us out. Some of the President's decisions might not make sense, and some of them might possibly hurt more than they help (at least at first), but something's gotta be done. We can't "leave well enough alone", because things aren't "well enough" ... not by a longshot.
But instead of getting more and more upset at those knuckleheads at their "Tea Parties", I just have to laugh at them ... especially when they throw the spotlight on their ignorance with dandy hand-crap-ted signs like these ... enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)