I still love it here. Edmonton made me proud when people counter-protested against Westboro Baptist Church on November 13. WBC was threatening to to come to Edmonton to protest a production of a play called "The Laramie Project". The play "tells the story of a small town's reaction to the real-life murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard." (Vancouver Sun)
Of course, nobody from WBC showed up, so there was no protest to counter-protest against. Ha ha! Excellent. So it was just hundreds of Edmontonians milling about and voicing their disdain for bigotry. Yay Edmonton!
Citytc.com ran a story about WBC's threat: http://www.citytv.com/edmonton/show/news/article/99553?showuid=78194
There's a photo there of people who are presumably WBC members protest against something gay-related. Curiously, two of their signs read "Thank God for Sept. 11" and "Boston = Sodomy". There's a great way to get one's fellow American's on-board, eh? But wait, if you read even just a bit more of the text on their website, it become apparent that WBC actually does hate the U.S.A. Curiouser and curiouser, hey? And there's even more! WBC has written 145 short essays, each about why God hates a different earthly nation. The instructions at www.godhatestheworld.com say "Click a completed country to find out why God hates that country, and why this world is doomed." Why do we pay Hollywood writers when there's entertainment like this for free?
Of the WBC, Citytv.com says "It is headed by Fred Phelps, and most of the estimated 70 members of the church belong to his extended family." Ha ha! Classic.
WBC's picket schedule (http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html; what a lovely little URL) insults Matthew Shepherd's mother Judy for raising a gay son and says that she got what she deserves. Of course, WBC members are clearly not kind or compassionate. We get that. But what struck me was their statement on this webpage that said "Shame on Judy for glorying in her shame." So, if one ought to be ashamed, and they "glory" in that shame, then they receive more shame. But doesn't that just give the person more to glory in? Doesn't that just create a spiraling feedback loop of glory?
I guess that's to be expected from people like that. What I want to know is how WBC feels about the fact that Jesus explicitly said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26, http://kingjbible.com/luke/14.htm)
That's quite the conundrum for a church that's made of people who all belong to the same family!
14 November, 2010
18 September, 2009
"Support the troops"
You know how pro-war people are always repeating the slogan "Support the troops"? Like it's some kind of magical phrase that separates the good people from the cancerous traitors? Like if you ever disagree them, that phrase will make them right?
"Hey Jane, I noticed that you didn't fill in the required--
"Support the troops!"
"Haha, yes. Ok. But before you sign up for the new FTP server we have set up, you just have to--"
"SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!"
Yeah, it's easy to pick these people out of a line up because of their bumper stickers, t-shirts, lapel pins, etc.
I'm completely in favor of supporting the members of our military. However, us think-before-speaking types don't confuse "Support the troops" with "Support the WAR".
The bumper-sticker types will criticize you as not supporting the troops if you say "I don't think Canada's military belongs in Afghanistan." Now you're just spitting on the sacrifices made and risks taken by our selfless soldiers. They're out their risking their lives to make the world safer while you're sitting at home enjoying your freedom to watch the hit unreality tv show of the season while not exercising, and you have the nerve to insult them? Shame!
Of course, critics of the war are not criticizing the soldiers. They're criticizing the people who placed the soldiers. If you're watching a game of chess, and one player makes a move you disagree with, who do you criticize? The chess piece?
"No, you stupid rook! Dammit! Now you're gonna die! God you're a waste! See? I hate rooks!"
No, you criticize the person who decided to put the rook in danger.
The same is true of real war. Civilians back home work to pay the wages and expenses of the military whose job it is to defend them. And these civilian workers may actually have an opinion of the people in charge of the military. Not necessarily the people who work in it.
Now, here comes the real conundrum. What do the slogan shouters do when you criticize the war... and a soldier agrees with you? This I wonder. But we may find out, because a Canadian solider has just died, and now his family reports that he had been criticizing the war he was fighting.
Was this fellow failing to support the troops? Was he spitting on his own sacrifices? Was he a spoiled ingrate, refusing to appreciate the risks he was taking for himself? What about his family? Are they rotten no-good hippie pinko pacifist traitors for questioning the war that killed their boy?
Listen, warmongers. Please tell me what you're going to do with all your name calling when the soldiers you're supposedly representing are disagreeing with you. Are you going to lump our valiant defenders in with the traitors? Either you (1) agree with the solider and put down the war or you (2) disagree with the soldier and and put him or her down. Those are your two choices now. Which will you take?
When the soldiers disagree with the war, the warmongers have a tough slog on their hands. Unless, that is, the citizens can't or won't see through the spin.
09 March, 2009
Wacko myths about writing rules: split infinitive
There's a nether caste of writer, between humble fumbler and blase maven, who obsesses far more about rules than about content. This is a huge section of the writing-ability spectrum.
Don't get me wrong. Rules are important in writing. But only because they serve clarity. People who insist that writing must follow rules only because the rules are rules make me very, very angry. The same goes for people who believe that a writer is lower-class or incompetent for breaking rules. Hence my labelling of the upper end of the skillset as "blase maven".
Listen, all you ("ye"?) blindly fascist knuckle-rapping rulemongers. The only thing you prove by bashing rulebreakers is that you're anal-retentive and misguided enough to think that mastery of a few simple mental concepts makes you an expert and thus "good". It's nauseating to see you patting yourselves on the back for admonishing someone for splitting an infinitive, ending a sentence with a preposition, refusing the validity of the epicene pronoun, beginning a sentence with "because", and so on. It's also saddening to see you passing this nonsense to otherwise bright, creative, energetic minds.
Let's discuss one of these myths: "Never split an infinitive."
What is an infinitive? It's a type of verb. A verb is a word for an action or state of being. "Think", "am", and "throw" are verbs. ("Thought" is a noun, not a verb.) An infinitive is a verb form that functions as a noun or is used with auxiliary verbs, and that names the action or state without specifying the subject (to quote Dictionary.com). So, "To err is human". The verb there is acting as a noun. Thus the subject of the sentence is "To err", and the actual verb is "is". (See, the sentence doesn't say who is erring.) A similar pattern with a noun instead would be "That recipe is French." An example of an infinitive with an auxiliary verb is "I will attend the meeting." There, "attend" is the primary verb, and "will" is the auxiliary one. Again from Dictionary.com, "I want to eat." Just like "I want an apple".
Head spinning yet? If it is, you needn't worry about that stuff. Just know that if anyone chastises you for splitting an infinitive, your correct reply should be what I recommend below.
So, these Mrs. Rancid Thistlebottom grammarians will tell you not to split infinitives. They mean that you can't place any word between "to" an the verb that follows. (And they probably couldn't define "infinitive" beyond "to plus a verb". So, Star Trek was so wrong when they said "To boldly go where no man has gone before."
Now, perhaps you heard that when Barack Obama was sworn in to his latest job, the guy swearing him in screwed up the verbal oath. That was because of this lame "rule". The full article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
The short version of that story is that the guy telling Obama what to say was so averse to the split infinitive in the oath that he refused to say it aloud as he swore Obama in. He actually changed the wording on the fly! Obama paused, then (likely with a wink) repeated the bungled version he just been fed. Here's what the text is supposed to be: "...solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."
This is not the "to" kind of infinitive that an average-level rule-psycho obsesses over. It doesn't even occur to a garden-variety knuckle-rapper that "to boldly go" is the same type of "violation" as is "I will always hate broccoli". The second seems fine to these dilettantes.
However, this swearing-in oath does indeed split an infinitive: "will faithfully execute". The swearing-in dude, Chief Justice John Roberts, told Obama to say "...solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” I doubt this is the level of text one can just willy-nilly alter on the fly. In fact, Obama had to be resworn later!
As the article and any competent source will tell you, the rule against splitting infinitives comes from a centuries old, misguided effort to have English conform to Latin. How ridiculous is that? I'm sure the French would love to force their own tongue to follow, say, German language rules! Man, so lame.
Anyway, in Latin, an infinitive is one word. Not two, as it is in English. So of course you cant split it. (People do even split single words in particularly emphatic English: "Why?! Be freakin' cause!")
So, your correct reply to just such a tiresome prude who clearly has no love of music or anything beautiful should be something similar to this: "The rule against splitting infinitives comes from an effort to make English follow the rules of Latin. In Latin, infinitives are one word. In English, they are more than one. Also, Latin is not the official language of any state on Earth, so Latin hardly seems to be a language worth pursuing. Finally, English needs to follow the rules of Latin as much as Portuguese needs to follow the rules of Mandarin. Splitting infinitives is and *has always been* [wink here] a legitimate structure in English."
I had nobly intended when I began writing this to examine several urban myths of English writing. However, it grows late and my infected gallbladder is cruelly sending pain signals to my back and chest. Thus, I will glibly end this here, and I will even knavishly neglect to proofread.
Whee, splitting infinitives!
P.S.: I later ran this post through MS Word's spell checker.
Don't get me wrong. Rules are important in writing. But only because they serve clarity. People who insist that writing must follow rules only because the rules are rules make me very, very angry. The same goes for people who believe that a writer is lower-class or incompetent for breaking rules. Hence my labelling of the upper end of the skillset as "blase maven".
Listen, all you ("ye"?) blindly fascist knuckle-rapping rulemongers. The only thing you prove by bashing rulebreakers is that you're anal-retentive and misguided enough to think that mastery of a few simple mental concepts makes you an expert and thus "good". It's nauseating to see you patting yourselves on the back for admonishing someone for splitting an infinitive, ending a sentence with a preposition, refusing the validity of the epicene pronoun, beginning a sentence with "because", and so on. It's also saddening to see you passing this nonsense to otherwise bright, creative, energetic minds.
Let's discuss one of these myths: "Never split an infinitive."
What is an infinitive? It's a type of verb. A verb is a word for an action or state of being. "Think", "am", and "throw" are verbs. ("Thought" is a noun, not a verb.) An infinitive is a verb form that functions as a noun or is used with auxiliary verbs, and that names the action or state without specifying the subject (to quote Dictionary.com). So, "To err is human". The verb there is acting as a noun. Thus the subject of the sentence is "To err", and the actual verb is "is". (See, the sentence doesn't say who is erring.) A similar pattern with a noun instead would be "That recipe is French." An example of an infinitive with an auxiliary verb is "I will attend the meeting." There, "attend" is the primary verb, and "will" is the auxiliary one. Again from Dictionary.com, "I want to eat." Just like "I want an apple".
Head spinning yet? If it is, you needn't worry about that stuff. Just know that if anyone chastises you for splitting an infinitive, your correct reply should be what I recommend below.
So, these Mrs. Rancid Thistlebottom grammarians will tell you not to split infinitives. They mean that you can't place any word between "to" an the verb that follows. (And they probably couldn't define "infinitive" beyond "to plus a verb". So, Star Trek was so wrong when they said "To boldly go where no man has gone before."
Now, perhaps you heard that when Barack Obama was sworn in to his latest job, the guy swearing him in screwed up the verbal oath. That was because of this lame "rule". The full article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
The short version of that story is that the guy telling Obama what to say was so averse to the split infinitive in the oath that he refused to say it aloud as he swore Obama in. He actually changed the wording on the fly! Obama paused, then (likely with a wink) repeated the bungled version he just been fed. Here's what the text is supposed to be: "...solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."
This is not the "to" kind of infinitive that an average-level rule-psycho obsesses over. It doesn't even occur to a garden-variety knuckle-rapper that "to boldly go" is the same type of "violation" as is "I will always hate broccoli". The second seems fine to these dilettantes.
However, this swearing-in oath does indeed split an infinitive: "will faithfully execute". The swearing-in dude, Chief Justice John Roberts, told Obama to say "...solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” I doubt this is the level of text one can just willy-nilly alter on the fly. In fact, Obama had to be resworn later!
As the article and any competent source will tell you, the rule against splitting infinitives comes from a centuries old, misguided effort to have English conform to Latin. How ridiculous is that? I'm sure the French would love to force their own tongue to follow, say, German language rules! Man, so lame.
Anyway, in Latin, an infinitive is one word. Not two, as it is in English. So of course you cant split it. (People do even split single words in particularly emphatic English: "Why?! Be freakin' cause!")
So, your correct reply to just such a tiresome prude who clearly has no love of music or anything beautiful should be something similar to this: "The rule against splitting infinitives comes from an effort to make English follow the rules of Latin. In Latin, infinitives are one word. In English, they are more than one. Also, Latin is not the official language of any state on Earth, so Latin hardly seems to be a language worth pursuing. Finally, English needs to follow the rules of Latin as much as Portuguese needs to follow the rules of Mandarin. Splitting infinitives is and *has always been* [wink here] a legitimate structure in English."
I had nobly intended when I began writing this to examine several urban myths of English writing. However, it grows late and my infected gallbladder is cruelly sending pain signals to my back and chest. Thus, I will glibly end this here, and I will even knavishly neglect to proofread.
Whee, splitting infinitives!
P.S.: I later ran this post through MS Word's spell checker.
26 November, 2007
Words & phrases I dislike
Most of these are irrational. I know. There's no need to point that out to me.
I'll update this occasionally.
joist - I don't know what it means. But it sure sounds stupid. Of course, I know joists play vital roles in building houses and other similar structures. It's too bad they have a stupid name.
batten down the hatches - That just sounds dumb. Why don't we ever "batten" anything else? Are hatches the only things that are battenable? Can we cotton batten down the hatches? Why can't we batten up the hatches? Can't we just lock the hatches? Or secure them?
drove - I know this means "large crowd of livestock or people". Still, people are always "coming out" in them. I think a gay band, such as Hidden Cameras, should have a song or album called "Coming out in Droves". Why isn't there "drove management"? Why don't people ever gather in large droves? Do droves roar?
tankini - Come on now. That's just ridiculous. Of course, so is the fashion industry. Enough said. Except that it's usually really stupid to combine words in that way.
TMI (too much information) - It's not the phrase I hate; it's the sentiment it expresses. It shows that the speaker has no sense of social flow, no sense of the dynamics of a conversation. An awkward pause usually follows this phrase.
It also shows that the speaker has no sensitivity to his or her fellow humans. It says "I don't care about how you feel or what you've been through. My social awkwardness is more important and more legitimate than your experiences." If you have any tact, decency, respect, or self-respect at all, you don't use this phrase.
slat - This just sounds awful. Isn't there better alternative? "Board"?
I'll update this occasionally.
joist - I don't know what it means. But it sure sounds stupid. Of course, I know joists play vital roles in building houses and other similar structures. It's too bad they have a stupid name.
batten down the hatches - That just sounds dumb. Why don't we ever "batten" anything else? Are hatches the only things that are battenable? Can we cotton batten down the hatches? Why can't we batten up the hatches? Can't we just lock the hatches? Or secure them?
drove - I know this means "large crowd of livestock or people". Still, people are always "coming out" in them. I think a gay band, such as Hidden Cameras, should have a song or album called "Coming out in Droves". Why isn't there "drove management"? Why don't people ever gather in large droves? Do droves roar?
tankini - Come on now. That's just ridiculous. Of course, so is the fashion industry. Enough said. Except that it's usually really stupid to combine words in that way.
TMI (too much information) - It's not the phrase I hate; it's the sentiment it expresses. It shows that the speaker has no sense of social flow, no sense of the dynamics of a conversation. An awkward pause usually follows this phrase.
It also shows that the speaker has no sensitivity to his or her fellow humans. It says "I don't care about how you feel or what you've been through. My social awkwardness is more important and more legitimate than your experiences." If you have any tact, decency, respect, or self-respect at all, you don't use this phrase.
slat - This just sounds awful. Isn't there better alternative? "Board"?
08 November, 2007
More language shifting
There are a number of great new inventions in Time Magazine's latest "Best Inventions of 2007" issue. (Wouldn't it suck to invent something totally rad in December? Damn, no appearance in Time for you, my clever friend.)
One little blurb says that a new building has "windows manned by computer". Sorry, but shouldn't a man be manning something? I mean, the use of the word man in that way is already sexist enough to offend me, but to have a computer man things? Hey, if they meant that a person controls the windows via a computer, they should have said that.
So why can man be a verb, but woman can't? Hey? That's right. Sexism.
Seriously, I know language evolves and all that. But a computer manning things just seems wrong.
One little blurb says that a new building has "windows manned by computer". Sorry, but shouldn't a man be manning something? I mean, the use of the word man in that way is already sexist enough to offend me, but to have a computer man things? Hey, if they meant that a person controls the windows via a computer, they should have said that.
So why can man be a verb, but woman can't? Hey? That's right. Sexism.
Seriously, I know language evolves and all that. But a computer manning things just seems wrong.
06 November, 2007
DJ Pet Peeves
Here are some recommendations from a radio DJ to recording artists:
Don't have music play automatically when someone navigates to your webpage. Yes, that includes MySpace. Some DJs play music directly from a computer to the airwaves. Thus, if we want to check out your website while a song is playing (usually to find out where you're from), your music comes in over top of the song we're playing, and everybody loses. Especially you, because now the DJ is mad at you.
When you send a cd to a radio station for airplay, make sure the cd package itself clearly indicates where you're from. Even though we're now supposedly in the "global village" that the multi-national media conglomerates have taken over and made "borderless" (that is, American), people like to know where the artist they're hearing comes from. Also, the CRTC insists that radio stations play 35% Canadian content. So if you're from Canada, and your cd clearly says where you're from, you're more likely to be played.
On your cd cover/jacket, don't make the text so artsie that it's illegible. That will make you less likely to be played and more likely to sound like you're a pretentious "indie" art-band who's more concerned with being creative than with making any sense to people hearing or reading you.
On your promo cd, indicate which tracks have "explicit language" on them. (I call that "swear words".) Again, a DJ will dislike you if he or she plays your cd and you swear on air.
Clearly indicate on your cd which is the artist name and which is the album name, on the spine and the cover. In these free-for-all 21st century days, it could very frequently go either way.
Thanks for helping DJs by helping yourself.
Don't have music play automatically when someone navigates to your webpage. Yes, that includes MySpace. Some DJs play music directly from a computer to the airwaves. Thus, if we want to check out your website while a song is playing (usually to find out where you're from), your music comes in over top of the song we're playing, and everybody loses. Especially you, because now the DJ is mad at you.
When you send a cd to a radio station for airplay, make sure the cd package itself clearly indicates where you're from. Even though we're now supposedly in the "global village" that the multi-national media conglomerates have taken over and made "borderless" (that is, American), people like to know where the artist they're hearing comes from. Also, the CRTC insists that radio stations play 35% Canadian content. So if you're from Canada, and your cd clearly says where you're from, you're more likely to be played.
On your cd cover/jacket, don't make the text so artsie that it's illegible. That will make you less likely to be played and more likely to sound like you're a pretentious "indie" art-band who's more concerned with being creative than with making any sense to people hearing or reading you.
On your promo cd, indicate which tracks have "explicit language" on them. (I call that "swear words".) Again, a DJ will dislike you if he or she plays your cd and you swear on air.
Clearly indicate on your cd which is the artist name and which is the album name, on the spine and the cover. In these free-for-all 21st century days, it could very frequently go either way.
Thanks for helping DJs by helping yourself.
Winter safety
We had a snowfall on Sunday. That day, I ran some errands, not using my car. There were patches of ice on sidewalks. Some of this ice was due to people putting chemical ice-melting products (such as salt) on the sidewalk.
Please don't put such products on snow. They melt the snow into water, then after the chemical has been diluted or used up, the water freezes into ice. Ice is more dangerous than snow.
Sure, such chemicals are good for loosening ice so you can shovel or chip it away. They're even good for loosening very hard-packed snow that you can subsequently shovel off of the sidewalk.
Such chemicals are very unsafe when people use them as a substitute for shoveling.
To summarize: if you're going to put salt or some other substance on sidewalks to melt snow or ice, you must shovel afterwards, or you risk creating even more ice.
Thank you.
This message is brought to you by the do-you-want-me-to-crack-my-skull-open-on-YOUR-sidewalk coalition of Edmonton
Please don't put such products on snow. They melt the snow into water, then after the chemical has been diluted or used up, the water freezes into ice. Ice is more dangerous than snow.
Sure, such chemicals are good for loosening ice so you can shovel or chip it away. They're even good for loosening very hard-packed snow that you can subsequently shovel off of the sidewalk.
Such chemicals are very unsafe when people use them as a substitute for shoveling.
To summarize: if you're going to put salt or some other substance on sidewalks to melt snow or ice, you must shovel afterwards, or you risk creating even more ice.
Thank you.
This message is brought to you by the do-you-want-me-to-crack-my-skull-open-on-YOUR-sidewalk coalition of Edmonton
05 November, 2007
Word tip
The word is "specialty", not "speciality". Thus, you pronounce it "special tea", and not spess-ee-al-it-tea or spesh-ee-al-it-tea.
I judge people who don't judge people for using poor grammar
Welcome to my inaugural blog here at Blogger.
Many of you may know that I teach writing and I edit documents for a living. So I feel I should warn you: this blog is likely to contain typos. K? K. If that bothers you, we can have editing bet. Who ever edits the best wins. You can set the amount of money you want to wager. I"ll agree to it automatically, because I'll win. You elitist wanker.
Something fun:
1) Log in to Facebook.
2) in the search box at the top left, search for "I judge people who use poor grammar."
The first group that turns up has more than 200,000 members. But the real fun is in perusing the six pages of other groups' names that turn up. Hilarity!
It's really amazing how worked up people can get on the internet. One group name calls those who judge users of poor grammar "elitist wankers". Like, dude. Relax. Go smoke a bowl. Or, if you're already a smoker of the electric lettuce, it ain't workin' for ya. Maybe I am elitist. What's in it for you in taking the time and energy to tell me so? Seriously. Weird. I wonder if this guy experienced childhood trauma when a bunch of geeks bullied him in junior high school, mercilessly taunting him for his misspelling of "their". Likely story.
Many of you may know that I teach writing and I edit documents for a living. So I feel I should warn you: this blog is likely to contain typos. K? K. If that bothers you, we can have editing bet. Who ever edits the best wins. You can set the amount of money you want to wager. I"ll agree to it automatically, because I'll win. You elitist wanker.
Something fun:
1) Log in to Facebook.
2) in the search box at the top left, search for "I judge people who use poor grammar."
The first group that turns up has more than 200,000 members. But the real fun is in perusing the six pages of other groups' names that turn up. Hilarity!
It's really amazing how worked up people can get on the internet. One group name calls those who judge users of poor grammar "elitist wankers". Like, dude. Relax. Go smoke a bowl. Or, if you're already a smoker of the electric lettuce, it ain't workin' for ya. Maybe I am elitist. What's in it for you in taking the time and energy to tell me so? Seriously. Weird. I wonder if this guy experienced childhood trauma when a bunch of geeks bullied him in junior high school, mercilessly taunting him for his misspelling of "their". Likely story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)