Suspected multi-murderer and America's most wanted listee Whitey Bulger was finally caught this week after 16 years on the run. The FBI received a "tip" that led to his almost immediate arrest.
Hmm. Who would have had a motive to see something else splashed across all the papers and the internet?
I think it's obvious. Anthony Weiner. I don't know how he did it. Maybe he tipped off authorities via text message. However he managed it, Congratulations, disgraced former U.S. Representative Weiner! I hope he qualifies for the reward.
Now, how do we get Bulger off the front page and get some new news?
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Please don't be (perfectly) frank or honest
I have a lot of language pet peeves. Heck, that's why I have a blog. From time to time I will share a word or phrase whose usage has gotten out of hand. The following is a peeve for June.
The teaser "To be perfectly frank," (or "honest") used to signal that a deeper level of candor was about to be shared. Usually, this translated into juicy gossip. Who doesn't want that? And who doesn't feel special when someone decides to be "perfectly frank" with us?
Until you consider the alternative: Speak with no conviction? Converse with you in only the most superficial way? Make sh*t up? Who wants that?
The point is, now the phrase gets thrown in to a sentence with no forethought, when in fact nothing salacious is ahead. That's always a disappointment.
Please, readers, do your part to put an end to this conversation flaccidifier (which should be a word). Do not use the phrase except in situations of extreme and genuine honesty!
Thanks a bunch.
The teaser "To be perfectly frank," (or "honest") used to signal that a deeper level of candor was about to be shared. Usually, this translated into juicy gossip. Who doesn't want that? And who doesn't feel special when someone decides to be "perfectly frank" with us?
Until you consider the alternative: Speak with no conviction? Converse with you in only the most superficial way? Make sh*t up? Who wants that?
The point is, now the phrase gets thrown in to a sentence with no forethought, when in fact nothing salacious is ahead. That's always a disappointment.
Please, readers, do your part to put an end to this conversation flaccidifier (which should be a word). Do not use the phrase except in situations of extreme and genuine honesty!
Thanks a bunch.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Words of wisdom for graduation time
If you don't have a day job, you should at least have a good tan.
(Always use spf 50+, of course.)
(Always use spf 50+, of course.)
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Upside to high price of gas
Most of my friends live in Los Angeles while I reside in the next county over. And none of these people are poor like I am. So, when one of them invites me to a social affair, I have to factor in the cost of the drive. But now when I do go to an event, nobody expects me to bring anything. With the crazy cost of gas, driving there is the gift!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Re: Schwarzenegger, Edwards, etc.
Following the latest unasked-for revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the latest married man to get another woman pregnant, I think I have come up with a theory about why men cheat that indignant women worldwide might understand.
Yes, married men should keep it in their pants, unless they have some alternate arrangement with their wives. And, no, there is no excuse for a man to have unprotected sex on the side. These are givens.
But we all know that men and women are built differently and react to things differently. Usually, that's what we like about them. We also know that the amount of testosterone in a person's body affects the way he or she behaves. So does serotonin. From what I understand, most men go through a period in their lives, sometimes a very long period, where they crave sex. They rarely get enough and still usually want it again by the next day.
Hmm. How can women relate to that? For starters, you could hand me a package of Dove dark chocolate. Most of the time I consume it in moderation. But do I ever stop wanting it? No!
Let me note here that this theory does not apply to ALL men. Just as there are probably some women out there who don't love chocolate.
Suppose you made a commitment when you got married that your husband would decide when and how much chocolate you could have for the rest of your life. Now, that doesn't seem right, does it?
And you probably agree to that arrangement with the best of intentions. But maybe after a few years, you start seeing chocolate all over the place. Maybe it is even offered to you. Will you really turn it down for the rest of your life, even if you're not getting enough at home?
I hope you see the connection now.
That's still no excuse for getting a woman pregnant.
But now say you become very famous and/or rich and therefore, hugely desirable. Ladies, you are being offered versions of chocolate you never even dreamed of. Do you still turn down the George Clooney of gourmet cocoa? Forever?? I think it will likely become irresistible eventually.
And that's why marriages where one person is outrageously popular rarely last. The best you can say to your mate is, "I never thought I'd have this opportunity! Can't I please just try it?" And some mates will understand. But not a lot.
Yes, married men should keep it in their pants, unless they have some alternate arrangement with their wives. And, no, there is no excuse for a man to have unprotected sex on the side. These are givens.
But we all know that men and women are built differently and react to things differently. Usually, that's what we like about them. We also know that the amount of testosterone in a person's body affects the way he or she behaves. So does serotonin. From what I understand, most men go through a period in their lives, sometimes a very long period, where they crave sex. They rarely get enough and still usually want it again by the next day.
Hmm. How can women relate to that? For starters, you could hand me a package of Dove dark chocolate. Most of the time I consume it in moderation. But do I ever stop wanting it? No!
Let me note here that this theory does not apply to ALL men. Just as there are probably some women out there who don't love chocolate.
Suppose you made a commitment when you got married that your husband would decide when and how much chocolate you could have for the rest of your life. Now, that doesn't seem right, does it?
And you probably agree to that arrangement with the best of intentions. But maybe after a few years, you start seeing chocolate all over the place. Maybe it is even offered to you. Will you really turn it down for the rest of your life, even if you're not getting enough at home?
I hope you see the connection now.
That's still no excuse for getting a woman pregnant.
But now say you become very famous and/or rich and therefore, hugely desirable. Ladies, you are being offered versions of chocolate you never even dreamed of. Do you still turn down the George Clooney of gourmet cocoa? Forever?? I think it will likely become irresistible eventually.
And that's why marriages where one person is outrageously popular rarely last. The best you can say to your mate is, "I never thought I'd have this opportunity! Can't I please just try it?" And some mates will understand. But not a lot.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
The decline of legitimate news reporting
I am reluctantly posting a link to a talk show host about whom I feel only lukewarm because of one magnificent monologue that hit the spot with me. Please listen to the rant, starting about two minutes in, and, if you and I have anything in common, feel satisfied. Give it 5-10 minutes and try to ignore the idiotic name-calling, lame rimshot jokes and major liberal bent. It'll be worth it.
http://www.normangoldman.com/uploads/media/2341/NG_04-27-11_FullShow.mp3
Thank you, Norman Goldman, for succinctly explaining why any coverage of Donald Trump is an abandonment of decent journalism. I wish I had said it as well.
http://www.normangoldman.com/uploads/media/2341/NG_04-27-11_FullShow.mp3
Thank you, Norman Goldman, for succinctly explaining why any coverage of Donald Trump is an abandonment of decent journalism. I wish I had said it as well.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Lazy journalist word of the month: Meltdown
Ever since the terrible sequence of events in Japan, I hear the word "meltdown" thrown about in all situations pertaining to the nuclear plant. Do you know exactly what the word means when you hear it on the news? Can a reporter somewhere in the U.S. bother to look it up and define it for the rest of us instead of repeating the same old word?
No, that would take work. I know this because the word isn't even in any of my (many) old print dictionaries.
For all of us who care, here's a definition, courtesy of yourdictionary.com:
"meltdown - A situation in which a rapid rise in the power level of a nuclear reactor, as from a defect in the cooling system, results in the melting of the fuel rods and the release of dangerous radiation and may cause the core to sink into the earth."
There, isn't that better?
No, that would take work. I know this because the word isn't even in any of my (many) old print dictionaries.
For all of us who care, here's a definition, courtesy of yourdictionary.com:
"meltdown - A situation in which a rapid rise in the power level of a nuclear reactor, as from a defect in the cooling system, results in the melting of the fuel rods and the release of dangerous radiation and may cause the core to sink into the earth."
There, isn't that better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)