via Frothygirlz
Showing posts with label candidates for deletion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidates for deletion. Show all posts
efficacy
"Efficacy."
Everyone seems to be using this word; why can't people just say something's "effective"?
Instead you get these labyrinthine sentences whose meaning is lost among the author's struggles to squeeze in strange and terrible phrases like "the efficacy of which is especially efficacious."
I recently read a sentence that went something like
I find mulching's efficacy to be 75%
You could just write, "I find mulching's 75% effective" and be done with it. Even its definition sounds pretentious:
capacity for producing a desired result or effect; effectiveness: a remedy of great efficacy.
entertainer ≠ politician?
We often hear people claim they'd never vote for an entertainer simply because they're an entertainer, which makes us wonder if their status as entertainer hinders them from any decision-making capabilities crucial to politics.
If anything, we see more similarities than differences between the two:
Both are often in the press and need to be able to articulate. Both depend on their appeal to a large number of people for their jobs. Both enjoy the perks of kickbacks and riders, the only difference being that taxpayers generally don't provide them for entertainers.
Dismissing a candidate simply because of their occupation, we think, says less about the candidate and more about the voter. A lot of entertainer-politician animosity, for example, comes from the Republicans, which shows a large degree of ignorance since some of the most notable entertainer-politicians were Republicans, too--Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura ran as an independent but is usually identified with the right, even Ted Nugent and Charlton Heston are celebrated for their political actions--is the right just ignorant of its party history? Its track record in the entertainer-politician category is pretty damn good.
Then again, when we think of entertainer-politicians, we (and we suspect many others) generally think of the left--Al Franken, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, Jane Fonda, Janeane Garofolo, Warren Beatty--even the politician-turned-entertainer Al Gore--and we think the reason we think of the left is because this crowd tends to be very outspoken.
But being outspoken isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, given their celebrity status, entertainers are more apt to be called out on a mistaken belief or corrected for their misrepresentation of fact. Being in the spotlight, entertainers are more likely have their political beliefs scrutinized, which should give them more of an incentive to defend and refine those beliefs. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but they are in a better position to get slapped down every time they shoot their mouth off--which, really, is a good place to be for anyone running for office. Remember the backlash over the Chicks' criticisms of Bush? Or the flak routinely doled out to Sean Penn? Or when Mel Gibson made a jackass of himself and apologized for it three days later? How many other people stir up a firestorm of controversy when they say something stupid?
Even if you take someone like Michael Moore, whose political beliefs are always under attack, and rightly point out that despite the constant scrutiny his positions stay the same, you should dismiss him or his politics or both--not what he does for a living. Attack the politics, not the profession.
So we're back to wondering why people dismiss entertainers. If anything, they're in a unique position to test their political beliefs and get immediate feedback if/when they screw up--in fact, we'd feel better if everyone were held to the entertainers' standard.
We're not sure why, but it's irritating when people refer to movies as Shows, as in
Us: You ever see the movie Lost in Translation?
Them: Oh yeah, I love that show!
Maybe it's because they use Show to refer to both movies and television programs, which apparently is perfectly acceptable, but ignoring the distinction can lead to confusion. Suppose you're professing your love for a television show that's also a horrible movie.
Them: All-y'all see that show The Avengers? That was great!
All-y'all: [In unison] Jesus Christ.
Why not just save us confusion and yourself scorn and refer to movies as Movies and television shows as Shows?
That written, here's Roger Ebert on the current candidates' favorite movies
Here's what Nixon watched
Here's Clinton on his favorites
Here's more
We also learn what the first movie screened in the White House was ("Birth of a Nation" – not a good start!), and who watched the most movies in his term (Jimmy Carter with 580; an average of one movie every three days!). What's most interesting is how much the movies these men liked said so much about each of them. What did Ike like? Westerns. Who was Johnson's favorite movie star? Himself. What was Nixon's favorite movie? Patton. What was Bill Clinton's favorite movie? American Beauty (hearing Clinton talking about how much that movie blew him away as the camera slowly pans up the infamous poster of Mena Suvari's half-nude body covered in rose petals is priceless!)
difference between flagrant and blatant
You may not know this, but when you say Blatant, as in, "That bird bath that's blatantly right in front of you..." you're really not using it properly.
Blatant means...
Oh, hold on a moment...
[Looking at Dictionary.com]
...
[Looking at Merriam-Webster.com]
...
[Looking at Bartleby.com]
Huh.
Apparently they've changed the definition of Blatant again--or at least swapped it with Flagrant. Also again.
Dictionary.com provides a labyrinthine usage note, so we'll shorten it a bit:
...Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant...emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant.The phrase Contempt for Public Scrutiny is confusing--but it just means, well, sort of like you're committing it in public, and you sort of want them to see or maybe you just don't care. You know, like in The Godfather when Sonny kicks the crap out of Carlo? That'd be blatant because he doesn't care who sees him. But I guess that's monstrously barbarous, too, so it'd also be flagrant...
Well, screw Dictionary.com; Merriam-Webster.com says Blatant means
noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive mannerAnd Flagrant means
fiery hotWhich, dammit, doesn't help us either. Okay, okay, Bartleby's better, we swear:
Anything blatant stands out because it is loud and boisterous. Anything flagrant stands out because it is glaringly, flamingly, blazingly visible, and hence calls attention to itself. Blatant misdeeds announce themselves loudly; flagrant wrongs are easily seen.Ah screw this. Just use Brazen.
थे सोर्स ऑफ़ मच अंग्स्त
We don't like the term Outsource, or at least most American's definition of it, which is more or less, "the act of American companies giving jobs to Indians instead of Americans."
There are a few reasons for our dislike, including the rather heroic extrapolation of meaning from a word that suggests neither charity, America, work, nor India and the accompanying moral connotations, but let's just focus on the former.
Dictionarily, Outsource means, "to purchase or subcontract from an outside supplier." So let's say we have an American Company, we'll call it SexiLexi, that hires Wordsmiths to coin terms that describe, oh, say erotic acts. SexiLexi's CEO, Mr. S.M. Johnson, hires both American wordsmiths and Indian wordsmiths. To which group were jobs outsourced?
Both, right? Because the outside supplier is going to be individuals, regardless of their ethnicity or geographic placement (or displacement). Why so many make distinctions based on those trivialities, we're not sure.
And isn't this tautological? Isn't everyone/thing an outside supplier? Let's cede the geographic distinction for a moment and say there is a difference between the two purely because India's not within the borders of America. But why stop there? If we're going to make a distinction between nations, why not make one between states and say that since SexiLexi's a California-based company, opening branches in Oregon, Washington, and The Hated State of Kentucky would be outsourcing, too? Where do we draw the line? Where do we throw up the wall and post the snipers? And is it worth doing so for such an absurd term?
What do you do when you catch poor wording blowing away two or three divine ideas?
You nip it lethally in the bud.
Stop using Nirvana when you mean Heaven.
Mass Inanity
We must overthrow the phrase "vast majority."
People need slogans, but imperialist phrase "vast majority" has become reflexive--when comrade use word majority--whether majority 51 to 99 percent--comrade always toss in "vast." It like a reflex, and when slogan become reflex, no longer has meaning.
Majority mean 51 to 99 percent--that mean at least 48 adjectives to describe majority. Foster communication by careful selection of words, not inane use of adjective.
Please to be expunging phrase "vast majority" from vocab. It not help to speak doubleplusgood.
proper use of italics
Underlining words and phrases for emphasis:
Originally this was done to indicate italics to the typesetter.
(It's a bit difficult to handwrite italics.)
Now that we have computers and Ctrl + I, underlining should be dead as Latin.
But it's not. People do it ALL THE TIME.
And it looks dreadful.
So don't do it.
Got it?
