SHOVEL-READY

“Apparently, the generally accepted definition of this phrase is to imply that a project has been completely designed and all that is left to do is to implement it…however, when something dies, it, too, is shovel-ready for burial and so I get confused about the meaning. I would suggest that we just say the project is ready to implement.” – Jerry Redington, Keosauqua, Iowa.

“Stick a shovel in it. It’s done.” – Joe Grimm, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

I’d like to take a shovel upside the head of the person who coined this obnoxious phrase.

TRANSPARENT/TRANSPARENCY

“In the lexicon of the political arena, this word is supposed to mean obvious or easily understood. In reality, political transparency is more invisible than obvious!” — Deb Larson, Bellaire, Mich.

Someone throw a blanket over “transparent”.

CZAR

Long used by the media as a metaphor for positions of high authority, including “baseball czar” Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, appointed by team owners as commissioner-for-life in 1919. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson had an “industry czar” during World War I. Lesser-known “czar” roles in government during the last 100 years include: censorship, housing and oil czars in 1941; rubber czar in 1942; patronage czar (1945); clean-up (1952); missile (1954); inflation (1971); e-commerce (1998); bioethics, faith-based and reading czars (2001); bird flu (2004); democracy (2005); abstinence and birth control czars (2006); and weatherization czar (2008).

I thought the Russians took care of “czars” in 1917.

TWEET

And all of its variations…tweetaholic, retweet, twitterhea, twitterature, twittersphere….

Jay Brazier of Williamston, Mich. says she supposes that tweeters might be “twits.”

Personally, I’d go for “twats”, myself.

APP

“Must we b sbjct to yt another abrv? Why does the English language have to fit on a two-inch screen? I hate the sound of it. I think I’ll listen to a symph on the rad.” — Edward R. Bolt, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Put “cr” in front of “app” and you get crapp!

SEXTING

Sending sexually explicit pictures and text messages through the cell phone.

“Any dangerous new trend that also happens to have a clever mash-up of words, involves teens, and gets television talk show hosts interested must be banished.” – Ishmael Daro, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada.

A “word” spoken by those who aren’t getting the real thing.

FRIEND AS A VERB

Came into popularity through social networking websites. You add someone to your network by “friending” them, or remove them by “unfriending” them.

“‘Befriend’ is much more pleasant to the human ear and a perfectly useful word in the dictionary.” – Kevin K., Morris, Okla.

I pretty much hate any noun that is made into a verb and vice versa.

TEACHABLE MOMENT

What might otherwise be known as ‘a lesson.’

“It’s a condescending substitute for ‘opportunity to make a point,’” says Eric Rosenquist of College Station, Tex.

So, portions of time are now capable of being taught, hmm?

IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES….

“Overused and redundant. Aren’t ALL times ‘these economic times’?” — Barb Stutesman, Three Rivers, Mich.

I think this stuffy phrase has outlived its fifteen minutes of overuse.

STIMULUS

“Everything in the news is about the stimulus packages…it is no longer a grant, it’s stimulus money, stimulus checks, etc. I think it is just being over-used.” Teri Heikkila, Rudyard, Mich.

I’ve got your “stimulus package” right here!

TOXIC ASSETS

“Whatever happened to simply ‘bad stocks,’ ‘debts,’ or ‘loans’?” — Monty Heidenreich, Homewood, Ill.

This list wouldn’t be complete without an oxymoron.

TOO BIG TO FAIL

“Just for the record, nothing’s too big to fail unless the government lets it.” Claire Shefchik, Brooklyn, NY.

Tell this to the owners of the Titanic!.

BROMANCE

“I am sick of combined words the media creates to make them sound catchier. Frenemies? Bromances? Blogorrhea? I’m going to scream!” – Kaylynn, Alberta, Canada.

I’ve been lucky to have never heard this one before.

CHILLAXIN’

“Heard everywhere from MTV to ESPN to CNN. A bothersome term that seeks to combine chillin’ with relaxin’ makes me want to be ‘axin’ this word.” – Tammy, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.

What? Does this mean to put an axe into the refrigerator?

OBAMA-prefix or roots?

The LSSU Word Banishment Committee held out hope that folks would want to Obama-ban Obama-structions, but were surprised that no one Obama-nominated any, such as these compiled by the Oxford Dictionary in 2009: Obamanomics, Obamanation, Obamafication, Obamacare, Obamalicious, Obamaland….We say Obamanough already.

Let’s bomb all the Obama coinages.

My personal contribution to this year’s list would be:

FAIL used as a noun.

For example, a football team loses big in a game and it’s dubbed “an epic fail”. This one made me grind my teeth the first time I heard it. It may be an “epic failure”, but it’s NOT an “epic fail”.

Sure enough, I was right. Every person who had posted on the thread put weight loss on their list. I seriously doubt that every person who posts on that large message board is in need of weight loss, hence my rolling of eyes. But no one ever wants to gain weight or just doesn’t care one way (weigh?) or the other how much they weigh. No,everyone resolved to lose weight, even if they were underweight.

And what annoyed me most about this is not so much the desire to lose weight, but rather the ubiquity of this resolution and the total lack of originality in coming up with a list of resolutions, not to mention the ubiquity of New Years’ resolutions themselves.

I got to thinking and I realized that it was ubiquity in general — the ever-present, the predictable, and the typical — that is at the heart of my annoyance. It connotes a lack of original or creative thinking and reeks of a lemming-like ordinariness. Thinking further, I thought of other examples of ubiquity that irritate me.

One example is the fact that nearly every rock band, without question, contains only two types of instruments: guitars and drums. Why do we not see wind instruments on a more regular basis? Why not pianos? There’s nothing wrong with guitars and drums, per se, but the ubiquity of the guitar-and-drums-only bands annoys the crap out of me. I can’t help but think of how much more opportunity for creative music is lost because most rock musicians just stick to the same ol’ thing, instrument wise.

One petty example of ubiquity is that whenever you see a couple sharing a motorcycle, the woman is always the one on the back. What? Is this a freaking law or something? You think they’d want to switch up now and then for a little variety. A funny example of ubiquity is that whenever you are driving behind construction workers in a pickup, they always have a yellow plastic water dispenser with a red lid on top. Never any other colors.

Feel free to list other example of ubiquity in the comment box, particularly the kinds that irritate you..

Taylor Pugh, who attends school in Mesquite, Texas, was given in-school suspension because school officials say that his hair, which  long on the front and sides, covering his earlobes and shirt collar, violates the school district’s dress code policies.   According to the district dress code, boys’ hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt.

On the website of the Mesquite Independent School District, it makes reference to its dress code by saying:

“students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live.”

Oh, really?  The Mesquite school district apparently has no problem with female students who wear long hair and do not believe that long hair on girls is inherently messy or ungroomed, nor does it doom them to being future societal losers.  But it would seem as if they believe that the same hair length on a male student automatically turn the same hair into a dirty mess, not to mention marking such boys as future bums or even criminals.

The school district’s rule about male hair length has nothing to do with hygiene or safety issues, as if it did, the same rules would apply to both boys and girls.  Requiring neat and clean hair for all students  is a reasonable rule — requiring short hair for one sex only is blatant sexism.

So far as hair length determining character and being a “constructive member of society” goes:

You’ll note the ribbon behind his head for his ponytail!

Though a bit thin on top, it’s long in the back!

I don’t think anyone would deny that George Washington or Ben Franklin were contributing members of society, long hair and all.

Likewise, short hair is not an inherent indicator of good character or potential to contribute positively to society:

I’m sure this style would be acceptable to Mesquite schools!

The point is, that male hair length is no reliable indicator of character or potential to contribute to society in a positive manner.   Hair length is simply a matter of personal preference, thus is an invalid thing to regulate when forming dress codes.

I’m not saying that dress codes in and of themselves are invalid, but they must be based on common-sense criteria that is applied equally to everyone and ideally be based on matters of safety and actual hygiene, rather than on matters of fashion.

In 1996, Bill Clinton made the following comment about school uniforms:

“I challenge all our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship. And if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

While I don’t necessarily agree that clothing styles are necessarily linked to character, I do agree that rules pertaining to clothing are valid for employers especially and also for schools to a lesser degree.  The reason I make the distinction between required/banned clothing and that of hair styles is that clothing is something that can be changed at the end of the day when the person is no longer at school/work.  It’s not a permanent change, as people can wear what they prefer on their own time.  And nowadays, rules about clothing are generally applied equally to both men and women, considering that women are now able to wear pants.

But hair length is a different matter.  It’s a 24 hour a day thing.  A male who prefers long hair can’t grow it back at the end of the day after school or work.

In conclusion, schools should have a single standard about students’ hair that applies to both boys and girls: that is be clean and neat, with no reference to length.

Thoughts?

Neither wife had been the wiser until the first wife intercepted a text message for their husband from the second wife.  After texting back to the second wife and determining who she was, the first wife called the police to report him for bigamy.

After an investigation, police arrested him and charged him with bigamy.  The man is now out on bond awaiting trial.

Arresting someone for bigamy boggles my mind.  First of all, I don’t think the government has any business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults, except for cases of domestic violence.  If it were up to me, I’d abolish marriage as a legal category altogether.

Knowing that this isn’t likely to happen any time soon, I think that as long as legal marriage exists, it should not be limited to monogamous couples.

That being said, with the law as it stands now, bigamy should not be a criminal offense.  At the most, it should be a civil matter.  In fact, I’d thought it was something that had been decriminalized — that when discovered, the second marriage would merely be annulled and the offender given a fine.

The police have much more important things to do than being in the business of enforcing monogamy.  They should not be involved in the personal relationships of private citizens if there is an absence of domestic violence.  In my opinion, the first wife should have handled the situation herself, perhaps by contacting a divorce lawyer, rather than calling the police and keeping them from doing more important things.  Sue the guy for breach of contract or some such thing, but don’t put him in jail.

Thoughts.

Because it was Veteran’s Day, he was relating anecdotes with that theme in mind.  He told a story about a man attacked by four muggers in an alley in Milwaukee.  They stripped all his belongings from him, but when the gang’s leader went through his wallet, he found the man’s military ID card.  Seeing this, he told the other muggers to give everything back to the man.  After this had been done, the leader apologized to the man and thanked him for his service before leaving him to go about his business.

I’d thought this was a nice feel-good story — and it was — until Boortz had to open his big mouth at the end and turn it into a political opportunity.

I don’t recall the exact words, but he said something to the effect that wasn’t it something that these criminals had more respect for our troops than most liberals did.

What a fucking moron.   Many liberals may not support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn’t mean we don’t support the people over there putting their lives on the line every day.  Many of us have family members serving in the military and who have previously served or have served themselves at some point in time.  My father served in WWII, as well as several of my uncles.  I had cousins and younger uncles who are Vietnam era veterans.  The fact that I am proud of their service doesn’t make me any less of a liberal, nor does my being a liberal make me any less proud of their service.

I did find it interesting, however,  that on the highlights of November 11th’s show on his website that the reference to this story did not include the crack about liberals that went out over the air.  Instead, it said:

This story caused me to think … to wonder if all of us give our men and women in uniform and our veterans the respect these criminals did. I think that generally we do … I certainly hope I’m right.

If he’d said exactly this on the air, I’d have had no problem with him and I’d not be reporting about it today on my blog.

The difference was that the printed version was inclusive and the broadcast version was divisive.   But Boortz doesn’t gain listeners by simply reminding everyone that our veterans deserve respect; rather, he appeals to the lowest common denominator by appealing to their baser instincts, thus throwing the jab at liberals in so his listeners could project their feelings out onto some group they could be self-righteously against.  He doesn’t inspire people to think, but rather he whips up the amorphous outrage of the masses.

Slightly put out, I waited as the person returned to the cash register.   Again, I gave my order, and again, the person ignored me, still looking around me at some unknown person.  Now completely pissed, I asked him, “Are you going to wait on me or are you going to talk to somebody else?”

Finally, the clueless clerk spoke.  “I was just trying to give him his change!” and showed me three pennies.  First of all, there was no “him” to be seen — the ordering area had been empty of people the entire time I’d been inside the restaurant — and secondly, you don’t get that invisible person’s attention by gesturing silently, however much you stare and wave your arms.

Thoroughly irritated by this time, I said, “Fuck it” and stalked out, getting my meal elsewhere, from a place where I was actually able to get someone to take my order.

This meant that the road was clogged with pausing and slow moving vehicles, which made it very difficult for through traffic to drive down the street.  It also made it more dangerous for drivers like me because it made it harder to see kids on foot, and made it more dangerous for the kids, as it made it harder for them to see through traffic, and because of the unpredictable movements of the minivan parade.

I don’t know why the parents of small children just didn’t park their vehicles and get off their lazy asses and walk with their kids to each house.  And the parents of older children should have been home giving out candy and let the kids travel in groups to trick or treat on their own.

Recently, they hired a new guy at my place of employment, a squeaky-clean, straight arrow kind of person.  I didn’t have a problem with him until he started peddling his religion on me.  He’d heard that I liked music and had some formal musical training, so he used that as a way to start preaching to me.  Starting out innocently enough, he told me that he was the “praise leader” at his church, in charge of providing the music for their services, blah, blah, blah.

After a few moments of this, he got to his point of the entire conversation — he wanted to know where I went to church. All the fundies do this, as they believe it’s their duty to sell their religion to one and all.

Not really caring to discuss my opinion about religion with him, I simply told him that I didn’t go, hoping to leave it at that.

No such luck.

He invited me to attend his church, telling me that I could be an asset to their “praise team” with my musical training.

I nearly choked and laughed myself to death all at the same time.  Hell, talk about barking up the wrong tree!  I’d probably burst into flames if I ever set foot into his smarmy, fundamentalist church.

Still not wanting to discuss religion in a work setting, I merely declined, citing the fact that I’m scheduled to work every Sunday.

Fortunately, at this moment, he had to get back to work, so I was spared being more blunt with him.  But I’m guessing that some time soon, I’ll have to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

This unknown woman had the unpleasant quality of sounding both indignant and nervous at the same time. She sounded quite like she’d consumed an entire pot of coffee singlehandedly just before the broadcast.   You know the sound: voice slightly raised in pitch, a haughy, prim tone, with a hint of a nervous tremor in her voice.   Her voice almost hummed as she engaged in an inner battle as to what emotion would win: (self)righteous indignation or nervousness.

Though her voice was grating, I had to listen until she revealed her identity, as I wanted to hear the name of the woman who almost made Neal Boortz seem reasonable.

It was Monica Crowley, who, oddly enough, is the sister-in-law of Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes.

Anyway, enough background for now; let me get to the point of this post.

When I tuned in, Crowley was in mid-rant about health care reform.   The thrust of her argument was that the Democrats are “lying through their teeth” about how much health care reform will actually cost.  She mentioned tort reform. citing that malpractice insurance that doctors must carry was one of the biggest offenders in the cost of health care.

All right, I’ll grant that this is no doubt a factor affecting the cost of health care in this country, but she completely lost me when she continued her argument.

She went on to say that the Democrats are against malpractice law reform simply because a large number of trial lawyers supported the Democrats in the last election and for no other reason.  Paranoid, much?

If I thought I’d get a fair chance to air my opinion, I’d have called and asked her, “If malpractice laws are abolished, what do you propose be done to protect patients who are the victims of genuine malpractice and gross medical negligence?”

Naturally, she did not address this concern on her show and I’d guess that she really doesn’t much care.

Thoughts?

The judge, Keith Bardwell, said, “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves.  In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.” Yeah, they might grow up to be, oh, President of the United States or something.

He added that he came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, Bardwell is also of the opinion that that most interracial marriages do not last long.

My disgust for his racist attitudes aside, what business of his is it to speculate on how long any individual marriage will last, regardless of race or any other characteristics, or to predict how any children born of that union will fare?  He’s a justice of the peace, not a social critic or a psychiatrist/psychologist, and it’s his job to conduct marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests it who meet the legal requirements, regardless of his personal opinions.   If he will not perform a legal function of his office, then he needs to find another line of work.

Thoughts?