Do you know who Manny Pacquiao is?  I had heard the name, but I was unaware of his significance.  After learning that he is a boxer, I'm still not overly sure of his significance, but at least I know who he is.  Then again, Forbes magazine listed him at Number Four on their list of most influential athletes in the world.  Huh.  So there's that.  The point here is that he came out and said that he was against same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn't have anything against gay people (a lot of his friends are gay, of course), but he just wasn't into the whole dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks dealio.  And that's fine.  It's his deal.  Just like President Barry said, most people that are against gay marriage aren't coming from a hateful perspective.  This should be reiterated to the folks who run some mall in Los Angeles, as they have banned him from the premises because of his opinion. 

The mall is called The Grove and this was their tweet after hearing about another person's opinion:  

 

Quick! Someone call in the irony police!  He's NOT welcome at your mall because he holds the very same opinion that the majority of people in thirty states also hold?!  Is The Grove aware that same-sex marriage is NOT legal in the very state that their mall is IN?!  Do they realize that there is a constitutional amendment in their state that bans same-sex marriage?  Do they also realize that it was voted upon by the people of that state?!  That's right, folks!  The majority of people in the ridiculously blue state of California voted against same-sex marriage.  Over seven million of them. And The Grove is banning someone who holds the same belief as a majority of those voters?  Good Lord. 

My favorite part of that is "not a place for intolerance".  Really?  Cause y'all seem a little bit intolerant yourselves there.  Not letting someone into what I'm assuming is a public mall (as I have yet to see a private mall) because they believe something different than you for reasons that are not rooted in hate?  Yeah, that seems intolerant.  See, tolerance goes both ways, you jack holes. See, tolerance can be defined as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". How tolerant are you being, The Grove?  Doesn't sound like very tolerant at all.

Again, this has nothing to do whether I am for or against gay marriage.  I am simply pointing out the idiocy of it how it is portrayed in the media.  The media has done a fine job making it seem like everyone is in favor of gay marriage and it's really just a handful of bigots who are holding everything back.  In reality, it's quite the opposite of that.  The majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.  That's just the reality.  I know that you wouldn't get that impression from everything you read or see on the news, but that's where we're at.  So knock it off, The Grove.  Start practicing your tolerance by accepting that there are a whole lot of people who are different than you. 

Sphere: Related Content

Ban ALL The Words!

Well, it's happened. We've come off the rails again. I had no idea there were so many rails that we were on that we could so easily slip off of. Today's rail is that of sensibility and it's in New York. The falling off took place when it was decided that certain words should be banned from appearing on tests in the city's schools. Yes. They're banning words. And the words that they're banning? Well, let's just say that you don't have to worry about your kid getting offended by seeing 'dinosaurs' on a test. Wait. What now?

Correct. The word 'dinosaur' cannot appear on any of the tests because what if, God forbid, a fundamentalist child saw that and became upset? (I guess fundamentalists don't go for the idea of dinosaurs or Jesus ponies or whatever they refer to them as? Makes me wonder how they explain all of those big bones that we're constantly digging up out of the earth. They're from dinosaurs. And just because you don't believe a fact, that doesn't make it not true!) Look, you believe whatever you want, but could it at least be based in fact? Kids LOVE dinosaurs. If you can't handle having your precious little snowflake see the word 'dinosaur' on a test at school, lest he be beset by the devil, I'm going to have to suggest that you seriously consider homeschooling your snowflakes. That's insane. Yet New York City schools are bowing to that idea (that I can't imagine would ever happen), so who's crazier here? It's hard to say, but I'm thinking the schools might win that one.

You also won't be finding any references to birthdays on tests because Jehovah's Witnesses don't do birthdays and they are apparently so dainty and fragile that even just seeing the word on a test might cause them irreparable harm. Or something. Again, if your little snowflake can't be exposed to just the word birthday, then you have to home school. But again, I don't get the impression that any of these things are actually problems. No, the real problem is the people who came up with this crap.

You can't shield children from everything that they might be offended at! And actually, exposing them to things that they might conceivably possibly ever find offensive and letting them figure out how to deal with that doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Unless you're the New York City school system. Then it's a terrible idea. Banning words is much more logical.

Want to know what else you can't have on a test in New York City? Well, you can't have the word "Halloween" because it might suggest paganism. Tell you what. You show me a room of third graders. Actually, make it any elementary age children. Show me a room of those children and ask them to write one word that they think of when they hear "Halloween". If ONE child writes down "paganism" then you win! But do you know the chances of that actually happening? ZERO. That is correct! So WHY are they doing this? No one is willing to give an answer!

You aren't allowed to reference "computers in the home" because those without computers in the home might feel excluded. You can't reference wealth because poor kids might be sad. Oh, but you can't mention poverty because then the poor kids WILL be sad and feel singled out. Good Lord. People are different! This is supposed to be a school system! Are they trying to send the message that everyone is the same?! Because I have news for them! They're NOT. You can try to get that message across, but I wouldn't exactly put that in the same category as I would teaching.

According to the New York Post, "Homes with swimming pools and computers are also unmentionables here — because of economic sensitivities". Economic sensitivities? You know, I have dumbass sensitivities. I'm very sensitive about dumbasses. They make me crazy and I want to physically harm them (possibly by punching them in the neck). Where do I get help? Can the New York City schools help me? What's that? They are the dumbasses? Oh. That's right. They're not going to be of much help. To me or ANY of their students, apparently, if this is how they do things.

You can click here if you'd like the full list of what cannot go on tests in New York City schools. But I'm just going to prattle of a few more because it's fun. (Well, it's fun right up until I get a headache. You know. Because of all the dumbassery going on here.) You can't say/use:


Geological history. (Because...people are...sensitive about...facts? I got nothing for this one. God forbid if there's a little learning that happens when you're trying to teach someone something.)

Cigarettes and smoking paraphernalia. (So...no bongs?)

Dancing, though ballet is acceptable. (Is New York turning into that town in Footloose? How is ballet acceptable if you're going to exclude all other forms of dance? Wouldn't certain religious groups have a problem with ballet because of how scantily clad the ridiculously underweight toe-standers are? How does that work?)

Homlessness. (So...no questions like "Five hobos were living under a bridge. Two died of cirrhosis that was brought on by their excessive drinking. How many hobos are left?")

Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan) (You know how I feel about the war on Christmas. I don't like it and I want to slowly choke those who think that just the mention of Christmas is going to set off some sort of holy war between inner city youth.)

Homes with swimming pools (So, no Beverly Hillbillies? They had swimmin' pools AND movie stars. Wait. I think...yep. References to celebrities are banned too. And the Clampetts were poor and then they were rich. They cover a multitude of banned words! Who knew that referencing the Beverly Hillbillies would draw such ire. Such stupid, stupid ire.)

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Going To Help

In one of the more ridiculous rules that I've heard implemented in a school, the NY Daily News tells us about a rule that was implemented in order to curb the usage of cell phones during class. Apparently, the administration was completed stumped as to what to do with kids when they are on their cell phones in class. So they did the only thing that they could think of. That's right. They banned Uggs. Wait.

That's right. The fuzzy footwear worn by famous metrosexuals such as Tom Brady has been banned at Pottstown Middle School in Pottstown, PA after more than one student was caught hiding a cell phone in this particular sort of footwear. According to a letter that was sent home with the students, something called The Mercury tells us that the principal, a one Gail Cooper, wrote that “...we have been experiencing problems with some students wearing open top boots and carrying items in their boots that are prohibited in school.” And she also wrote that "...following several problems with these items, I have banned the outdoor, open top boots from our classrooms". Good Lord.

What I can't figure out here is how Ms. Cooper was able to work her way up to the position of middle school principal without knowing about pockets! Granted, I'm totally assuming that she doesn't know about pockets (and that most pants are bepocketed), but I can't think of any other explanation for what seems like an idiotic ban on something that won't even address the problem. Not to mention that there are plenty of other places on a person's person where one could conceal a cell phone if they wanted to. But Ms. Cooper doesn't seem to know about those either, hence her attacking the Uggs.

What is this woman going to ban next when she realizes that there are other ways to sneak one's cell phone into class? Clearly, bras will be out. As will socks and, really, any kind of footwear. As far as their pants go, I guess the kids will all have to wear Speedos or mankinis. Boys won't be allowed to wear shirts and the girls will just have to have on some sort of leotard like gymasts wear. Look forward to a school full of pre-pubescent boys clad in Speedos wearing flip-flops! That'll do it! Sure, they'll get chilly during the winter months, but it's clearly the ONLY way to stop kids from bringing their cell phones into class. Right?

Wrong. I'm still confused as to why this has come down to this. It seems very simple. If the rule is that you don't use a cell phone in class, then you just take the cell phones of those who break the rule. The first time, they can have the phone back at the end of class. The second time, they can have the phone back at the end of the day. And the third time, they can have the phone back at the end of the school year. Problem solved. And you can do all of that AND wear Uggs at the same time! It's like a footwear miracle!

Sphere: Related Content

A Parent Strikes Again

Today's post follows in the steps of yesterday's post in which we discovered how one parent (one who is likely a moron and who also likely just enjoys stirring things up) can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. We discovered how if just ONE person is "offended" by something or thinks that there is something wrong with something that the way that the complainer and the complainee think is the best way to handle it is to completely overreact and remove the "offending" item from the access of everyone, even those who are not offended. That's what we discovered. And it was through that discovery that we learned that there are just some pain in the ass people out there who want to up-end the system under the guise of "being offended". Today is another one of those stories. Please don't let that keep you from reading. It's just as idiotic as yesterday's, I promise.

Our post today takes us to Culpeper County Public Schools in (surprise) Culpeper, Virginia. It's there that we learn via the Star Exponent that the Anne Frank diary entitled "The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition"...will no longer be assigned to CCPS students". That is according to a one Jim Allen who is the school system's director of instruction. Great. So we're banning The Diary of Anne Frank now? Why is this? Oh, right. Because of the vagina passage. Wait. The what now?

I had the same reaction. What vagina passage? See, apparently there are two versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. There's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years (you know, trying to avoid being taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and all) and then there's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years, trying to avoid the same fate as described above. The thing is that in the second version, there are apparently some "...sexually suggestive references". Uh-huh. The girl was 13, right? And there were only SOME sexually suggestive references? OK. And that's a problem?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a problem. But guess what? It was a problem. For A parent. That's right. For ONE parent it was a problem. The problem was what was touted in several news stories that I read about this as "the vagina passage". Now, these publications don't have a problem printing the phrase "vagina passage" no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But do you think that any of them could actually print what the "vagina passage" was? No. Apparently not. Thank goodness for some thing called The Raw Story (which dubs their publication as "an alternative news nexus") that actually saw fit to include what was so freaking offensive to A parent. (It's a good thing that they found it via Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet otherwise we might never have known.

Ahem! The offending "vagina passage": "There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!" That's it?

Wait a minute. That's it? That is "the vagina passage"? What is wrong with that, exactly? That seems like a perfectly reasonable for a thirteen year old to think and to write. I totally remember wondering how that whole birth thing was possible (as it is akin to shoving a pot roast through one's nostril). There's nary a hint of anything fictitious in that statement. It's just as she describes. I have no qualms with it.

But here's the thing: Let's say I was a moron and I did have a qualm with it. We could even say that I had qualms. Why is it that I can't just ask if my kid can read the less "seedy" version? Why is it that I have to go in there and say that I don't want this book taught at all to any of the children? By the way, I'm using the term "children" extremely loosely here as we are talking about eighth graders in this situation. Yes! Eighth graders! Some moron has a problem out there with their eighth grader reading a passage which very vaguely and extremely tamely describes a vagina and the functions that one may or may not believe that it has the capacity to perform!

What is it about our society that if one person complains, everyone has to be affected? I don't get that. But that's what happened. According to the article linked above in the Star Exponent "Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy." Please note the usage of the term "A parent". I'm not kidding, nor exaggerating, when I say that it was because of ONE complaint. ONE.

The article continues with the aforementioned Mr. Allen stating, “What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught...I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in." Hey, I'm happy when parents get involved as well. I'm not happy when parents interfere with the rest of the learning potential of the rest of the class. But I agree that when parents are looking into what their kids are doing, the (assumedly) have their kid's best interest in mind. But I'm going to have to disagree that this sort of a reaction could be defined as "good parenting" OR "good teaching" because I don't think that it's either one.

I'm curious as to what the response of this particular school would have been if there hadn't been another alternative to this book that was essentially the same book (only with less referencing of said vaginas and all). Would they have just banned the book altogether? That seems rash. After all, this is a book about a thirteen year old girl who ultimately dies at the hands of the Nazis in a concentration camp. It's not like it's light reading material at all. If anything, I'd like to thing that the "vagina passage" kind of lightened things up a little bit. But I'm apparently the only one who would like to think anything like that of the sort. Morons.

This has got to stop. We cannot keep altering the course of the masses because one individual complains. This is not setting a good precedence AT ALL. Man, I wish I had a kid in public school so that I could just try being a pain in the ass and see what I could get away with. Maybe then I'd start to understand the thinking patterns of these school administrators that simply cave with every "offended" parent that presents an issue before them. Because as it stands now, I don't understand a thing about it other than it's completely moronic and is going to doom us eventually. And probably sooner rather than later.

Sphere: Related Content

I Can't Say What?

It's happened again. You'd think that by this point, we'd be past this sort of thing. But apparently we're not. Well, we are. They are not. And by 'they' I mean those who are self appointed members of the Politically Correct Word Police. 'Pinheads' would be another acceptable term.

It would seem that some folks over in the UK are extremely concerned about things that 'might' happen. Now, there are lots of things that 'might' happen. That does not mean anything as far as how likely they are to actually happen. For example, monkeys might fly out of my arse. That does not mean it's going to happen. But it might! (In case you're wondering, I'm guessing it would have to involve some sort of a mishap with some Sea Monkeys, but that's all I've got.)

One of the things that a bunch of "taxpayer funded organizations" are concerned that might happen is that some folks may be offended by words or terms or sayings that have the potential to offend. Now, I'm not real big on the notion of 'potential'. (Obviously!) And especially when it comes to banning speech due to the "potential" for "offense". From what I can tell, there are very few things that actually offend others. There are people who like to claim that they're offended, but they're really just being a pain in the ass under the guise of offense. That's why I'd like to recommend that before folks run off and start creating this mythical Utopian society that they have in mind, they really stop and think about what it is that they're suggesting happen.

As far as the words or terms that might be offensive, some examples of this, according to the Times Online, would be "The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day." Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?

They claim that "...certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”." The term "black day" is one of those words? Allegedly? Why, yees! And..."The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”. " Um, what now?

It can imply? Under what circumstances can it imply that something is smaller and "less important"? I find that almost laughable as in the United States, the term "ethnic minority" often connotates exactly the opposite of something "smaller and less important". But I digress. Back to the Word Police.

Terms believed to be offensive to those over at The National Gallery in London include “gentleman’s agreement” (potentially offensive to women) and “right-hand man” (again, potentially offensive to women). Those softheads suggest replacing the potentially offensive terms (that may not have offended anyone ever since the beginning of time) with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” for the former and “second in command” being deemed more suitable for the latter. :::: sigh ::::

For some reason the Word Police is extremely fixated on any word that might have any connection to any sort of slavery. For example, the Learning and Skills Council "...wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it." Right. Because that would be offensive to....who? Slaves? I don't think there are any slaves these days. If to "master ones brief" was to be offensive, it would have to denote that the person was making the brief itself do the work. Actually, it's the other way around. It's the anti-master is what it is! What about the game Master Mind? Are we supposed to change that to "Perfect Mind"? I don't think we are. I know I'm not!

div align="justify">Over at the South West Regional Development Agency, they are able to admit that the terms that are "potentially offensive" have nothing to do with the part that would be offensive (if anyone were actually offended by it, which I doubt they are). They say “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black." So what should we use in their place? Dark? The dark sheep of the family? Dark mark? (Oh, please. No politically correct rhyming or I might just have to hang myself.)

I almost went over the edge when I read that "Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic." ::: blink::: :::: blink :::: That is the perfect example of someone just out to be an ass. And doing a fine job of it as well, might I add.

Over there at AOL News in an article on the same subject, a one Anthony Horowitz tries to talk some sense into people by explaining, "...our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. We know what these phrases mean....Banning them is just unnecessary." Yes! It would be silly to replace them all! Who can argue with that?! Anyone?! Oh, crap. This chick can. And does.

A one Rosalie Maggio argues that she "...sees nothing wrong with finding alternatives to these troublesome phrases." And I agree with that. But I don't agree that the phrase "gentleman's agreement" is troublesome in the least bit! This woman is the author of something called 'The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage' and 'The Nonsexist Word Finder,' just in case you were wondering where she was coming from. Her identity is the Word Police! She says "A 'fireman' could be a guy on a train. 'Firefighter' tells you -- it's an action verb. ... It tells you what they do. A mail carrier carries mail. A firefighter fights fires." What now?

A fireman could be a guy on a train? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does it mean he's any less of a firefighter? Or is she talking about the guy on the train being literally on fire? Man, this chick must be a blast at parties! Are you kidding me?! But wait! She's not going to tell you what you should be saying. She claims that, "People can use whatever words they choose, but there's no reason to fall back on ones that carry "unintended baggage." Like what? Bellhop?

Ms. Maggio also mentioned that in the United States during the 1980s, folks "... argued over words such as "snowperson" and "personhole"." OK, stop. Stop. Stop. STOP!!! What. The. Hell?!?!

Personhole? WTF is a personhole? (If I was in charge of this, Ms. Maggio would be my definition of personhole. Nice job, personhole!) Seriously? Like...as a replacement for manhole?? You have got to be kidding. First of all, if I ever hear anyone use the term 'personhole', I might have to punch them. No, I will have to punch them. Second, I cannot think of one woman I have ever met in my entire life (and there have been several!) who would have been offended by the word manhole.

I feel the need to make a suggestion to all involved in the Word Policing of societies. I'm going to strongly suggest that you take up a hobby. Perhaps get yourself a pocketknife and learn to whittle. Buy a banjo and pluck out some of the classics. Anything. Anything to keep you from nitpicking the English language to death.

But here's the perfect example of just how stupid (yes, stupid) this whole thing is and how there is the potential for everyone to be offended by everything and you can't go around banning certain words for fear of offending one soft-headed moron. (Why can't they just toughen up is my question.)

A one Christopher Cerf recalled "...a Long Island feminist in the 1970s who tried to change her name from Ellen Donna Cooperman to Ellen Donna Cooperperson." (I'm assuming Ellen Donna Imadumbass was taken?) "...she's a better person for it. Except that she forgot that 'person' has the word 'son' in it." Bravo, sir. Bra-VO.

What other words can we get rid of because they might offend people? Let's not limit it to just gender, for cryin' out loud!

What about 'handsome'? Could be offensive to amputees.

What are we supposed to do about the 'best man'? Best person? I don't think so.

Therapist? Offensive to rapists?

Manslaughter? You folks really want to go with 'personslaughter'? I don't think you do. Besides that, it could be offensive to depressed people. Mans laughter? Ahhhh...see?

Calling someone "a chicken"? Offensive to poultry.

Oooh...Headmaster! Offensive to both slaves and people without heads!

Sightseeing? Offensive to blind people.

See how silly the whole thing is? Well, it's silly all right, but I'm about to make it sillier. One of the nitpicky language usage books that Ms. Maggio has authored is titled "How to Say It" and it does just that; instructs the reader of the most acceptable (according to her) ways of composing various types of letters (ie, acceptance, complaints, responses, etc.). She goes very far out of her way to include every sort of name possibly imaginable, presumably so that there is no ethnic stereotyping or gender stereotyping in the responses. But this woman takes it to the extreme. Behold! Extreme political correctness. Or something.

Mr. and Mrs. Masterson Finbury

Chang Ch'un Meditation Center

Anders

Selina

Vickers

Shreve

Penrod

Dr. Cheesewright (wtf?)

Mr. Van Druten

William Portlaw and Alida Ascott

Marion and Leopold

Nguyen Van Troy and Tran Houng Lang

Edna Bunthorne

Gabriel Bagradian

Leon Gonsalez

Chuzzlewit, Ltd.

Uncle Thorkell (what?)

Rabbi Wasserman

Mr. Brimblecombe

Sphere: Related Content

Better Banning For 2009

All hail Lake Superior State University Word-Watchers/Word-Banishers! These folks rule. Now, if we can just get the attention of those who make the LSSUWWWBs necessary. Then we'll really start seeing some progress.

Every year, the folks over there at LSSU (described on their website as being "...located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, along the U.S./Canada international border. With an enrollment of about 3,000 students") come up with a list of words that have been overused to death during the year and which should subsequently be banished from any and all future usage. The problem is that, while the list is interesting, entertaining and based in reality, it doesn't seem to compel people to drop these words and/or phrases from their vocabulary. (Not like we should be surprised by that. After all, most people are what? Morons, that is correct. Morons, by definition, don't usually have a very extensive vocabulary. They also tend to glom on to the hype of the moment like glue.)

Drum roll, please. No drums? I'll just clear my throat then. Ahem....

• "Green" or "going green" or any variation/derivation thereof: THANK YOU!!! It's not the green movement or anything like that which I am annoyed by. It is the overuse and the frequent misuse (and blatant lying) of the term "green". Why is that? Because there are no standards (with the exception of within the construction industry) for what constitutes a "green" product. I can say that this blog is "green", what are you going to do about it? Nothing, exactly. It could be! You don't know! And neither do I. In fact, I think I am going to start saying that. I have a green blog. I like it. Ew. Wait. That would cause me to admit that I have a blog. Never mind. Read on! (But stop saying "green"!)
  
  
• "Carbon footprint" or "Carbon offset": I'd also like to add "carbon credits" to this one. They're all ridiculous and if I have to hear them one more time, someone is going to be calculating the carbon offset caused by carbon footprint on their ass.
  
  
• "Maverick": This word was doomed to be doomed probably less than 30 seconds after it was first uttered during McCain's campaign because (wait for it) people liked it. If people really seem to like something, prepare yourself to be inundated with that something non-stop for the rest of your life (or until the LSSU folks take the wheel) because the media figure that if a little is good, then a whole boat load is great! (For the record: It's not. That's why we hate this word.)
  
  
• "First Dude": Name that was coined for Todd Palin, the husband (aka, "First Dude") of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; a man that I do not think that I have ever heard utter a word publicly about anything. HOW did this word/term become so overused that it met it's own demise? See "Maverick".
  
  
• "Bailout": This is quite possibly the word that is not only overused the most, but is also used incorrectly the most (which is why it's often used (wrongly) synonymously for "loan".) "Bailout" has come to represent any sort of financial assistance regardless of origin or recipient. By the way, take note: Of the most recent "bailouts", regardless as to whether or not they really were a "bailout", I have yet to see an instance where any of them have worked, aka - successfully "bailed out" the one in peril. Thus, even though the word is still banned, just remember that when you hear it used, it usually can be taken to mean "pissing money away".
  
  
• " 'Wall Street/Main Street' comparison": Again, see "Maverick". Everyone thought that was really clever. The first 500 times they heard it. Then it began to wear thin. (The thing that really irritates me about this phrase is whenever it is used it's in the form of a question that never gets answered! For example: "How does what is happening on Wall Street effect those on Main Street? We go to our reporter whose name I have forgotten, but she's really, really hot. So over to you, sweetie. What's the deal?" And do you think "sweetie" knows anything? Other than what pumps go with what purse? Of course not.)
  
  
• "Icon" or "Iconic": This gets banned because it is so overused that it is diminishing the status of being an actual "icon". NO, not those little things on your computer desktop that you click on. Not those icons. The icons that are important people that are supposed to be at the top of their field and the ones who are immediately identified with that which they helped define or achieve. Steve Jobs is an icon. The guy who sold the most iPods at the Apple store last month is not.
  
  
• The emoticon <3: That little thing is supposed to be a heart if you tip your head to the right. I think it looks like an ice cream cone, but that's only on the days that I don't think it looks like something that has to do with porn. I don't know what, but there is a slight porn-y feel to it. As with all other annoying emoticons, it's supposed to be cute. (What the hell was wrong with "xoxo" in the first place? Isn't that good enough? Why the porn heart?)
  
  "Game changer": And what is the "game" being "changed" to, exactly? Monopoly becomes Parchesi? Doom becomes Battleship? It's blather. Pure, unadulterated blather.


• "Desperate search": As opposed to what? A lackadaisical search? A half ass search? A search that can wait until morning? And since it usually pertains to cases where it is a person that is being "searched" for, no kidding it's freaking "desperate". See? Morons.


• "Not so much": I don't have much of a problem with this one, but I'm including it because it was on their list. It's a matter of how it is used. It must be in a humorous, sitcom-like environment and it must be a response to either an obvious or a rhetorical inquiry (or an obviously rhetorical inquiry). "Wow, so you caught your wife in bed with another woman and now your wife's divorcing you. Huh. I guess you won't be worrying about what to do for your anniversary next week then." "Not so much" That's OK. "So, since it didn't rain, I guess you didn't get wet." "Not so much." That's NOT OK.
  
  
• "It's that time of year again": Is it? How often does that happen? Like, what? Once a year? Oh, all the time year 'round! Right. Because every day is A time of year and since this isn't the first year that we've ever had, it's going to be that way all the time! Got it. Now stop saying it! What if, at noon, people were always saying, "Well, it's that time of day again." You'd shoot them. Or yourself. It's the same thing. Only different. (Also loathed is the cousin to that phrase, "At the end of the day". It's pointless. "At the end of the day....it gets dark, people have dinner and then they go to bed." Ban that too!)
  
  
• "Winner of FIVE Nominations": This is like the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes effect on language and vocabulary demonstrated right here. "You MAY have already won some very exciting prizes!" But you haven't! "You are pre-approved to apply for our platinum plated, gold encrusted, titanium credit card!" Pre-approved? To apply? To fill out the form? What's your selection process for that anyway? You know, to determine who is worthy enough for you to authorize pre-approval of someone's opportunity to fill in the blanks? Oh, anyone? I see. (While we're at it, we might as well just ban "pre-approved" also. I see no reason to wait until the 2009 list comes out. Why torture ourselves for another year when we already know we hate it?)


• "At this moment in time": I loathe this phrase. "Um, at this moment in time..." Uh, excuse me, Captain Words-a-Lot, but are you trying to say "NOW"? (Please note that the self-important and those who are sports announcers will add "particular" to the wordage. "At this particular moment in time...." (Let me finish that. "....you sound like a jackass when you use that phrase.") "Now." The word is "now". Use it! Now!
  
  
• "Staycation": Not going anywhere for your vacation. ie, Staying in the area you live in and vacationing around there. The "staycation" term is a result of two things. One, the "maverick" factor. Two, the rhyming factor. Everyone loves a damn rhyme. I take that back. Everyone thinks that everyone loves a damn rhyme. Anything other than Dr. Seuss and I don't have a lot of use for them, personally. And with a word like "staycation" where the sounds rhyme with a lot of different words, people start making their own little offshoot of the term. Sort of like how some casinos will use the term "playcation" in their advertising. Ugh. To illustrate how this phenomenon works and becomes absurdly silly, I've come up with a few examples of my own.
  
  
• Gaycation: Vacation for homosexuals.
• Haycation: Vacation for farmers
• Oy-veycation: Vacation for the Jewish
• Braycation: Vacation for donkeys (or for jackasses. Your choice.)
• Straycation: Vacation for wanderers
• Slaycation: Vacation for murderers
• Jaycation: Vacation for birdwatchers
• Laycation: Vacation for porn stars
• Delaycation: Vacation for people who are always late

Ridiculous, yes? Yes.

Thank you, LSSU guys! Feel free to put out an addendum at any point during the year!

Sphere: Related Content