15 12 2012

Washington, D.C.

Why is RG3 a “cornball brother?”

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than the fact that too many white people like him while at the same time there is hardly any white dislike of him.

Compare and contrast to a “real brutha,” Michael Vick.

UPDATE 12/16

I can now also classify this post in my linguistic linguine category.

The cornball is too injured to play today, so not only will he not start, it is said in the sports media that he “won’t dress.”

Sure, because he can sure do his team a lot of good when he’s naked.

Then again, current Redskins TE Chris Cooley proved that he can be helpful to his team while naked, or hurtful, if you consider the fact that he exposed both confidential information and his confidential body part.

Let’s Face It

7 12 2012

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

We’re living in the Era of Every Schmuck Loser Realizing His Full Potential (TM).

Just today:

1.  I was in a room that had no fewer than six products that are said to help one realize one’s full potential.

2.  Overheard on a talk radio ad:  “This mutual fund will help you realize your full potential.”

3.  Also overheard on talk radio:  “An e-mail address with such-and-such domain name will help you in your quest to realize your full potential.”

It’s getting to the point where I could get naked, hang upside down from a tree and do inverted sit-ups, and use the excuse that I’m only trying to realize my full potential.

Also remember that “realize one’s full potential” came straight out of public relations departments, and a lot of men who do PR have something in common.  Therefore, the Era of Every Schmuck Loser Realizing His Full Potential has a strong crossover with the Era of LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH.

Dinner Tab

30 11 2012

Linguistic linguine time.

This media line that football quarterbacks or running backs use that they’re “going to take everyone on the offensive line out to dinner” is getting a little tiresome.  Why not take the tight ends and wide receivers out to dinner, too?  Preventing points is just as good as scoring points, so you might as well take every defensive starter out to dinner, too.

The high school football championships in Missouri are held at the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving.  You might think that it presents an unfair geographic advantage to St. Louis teams, but you wouldn’t know it from the past handful of years.  Yes, there might be an advantage of holding them in the middle of the state (Faurot Field, University of Missouri at Columbia, did host them for a long time) or in platooning with Arrowhead Stadium in KC.  But there’s also the meteorological question — Who wants to be outdoors in late November when you can just as well be inside a climate-controlled dome?  I can assure you if you’re visiting St. Louis right now that late November and early December weather around here is rarely this good.

Anyway, the feature running back from one of the winning teams last week told a local sports crew…yep…he was taking his whole O-Line out to dinner.  I’d like to know with what money — I doubt high school varsity starting feature running back pays well — And he better realize that five really big weighty late adolescent aged young men are going to run up quite a big bill if the restaurant is some place other than where patrons hear, “Would you like fries with that?”

Mr. Running Back is going to go to college, not taking his O-Line out to dinner.  He can’t afford both.

The S Gang

17 10 2012

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

Linguistic linguine time.

Too many people confuse “secession” (or “secede”) and “succession” (or “succeed”).

Secession is part of a larger entity trying to split away and become a new entity.  Succession is the process of one thing following another.

South Sudan recently seceded from Sudan.  The Vice-President will succeed the President in the happenstance of the current President’s death, resignation, impeachment and removal or medical incapacitation.

I wish I had a dime for every time I read someone who wrote “secede” when they meant “succeed” and wrote “succession” when they meant “secession.”

Paint Job

24 09 2012


More linguistic linguine.

(Formerly) Operation CeaseFire:

CeaseFire is Becoming Cure Violence

I have exciting news to share with you. Thanks to your support, Cure Violence has worked tirelessly for 12 years to stop shootings and killings in cities around the world. By approaching violence as a disease that can be stopped, we charted a new way that uses the same science-based strategies used to fight cholera and AIDS.

Treating violence as a disease is more than a metaphor or a model. It is a movement that changes how people think about violence.

That’s why I am so pleased to announce today that CeaseFire is becoming Cure Violence.


Cure Violence is a movement of people who understand violence is a disease. Together we bring a message of hope that violence can be cured, and a model for putting an end to violence in cities everywhere.

In the coming months, you will be hearing from us about new ways to bring violence prevention to your communities. We also hope to hear from you.

Thank you for your tireless support and belief in us. Together, we will cure violence.

To say that violence is a disease is to think that violence, like real human diseases, is purely a matter of accident or bad luck, and not a result of human malfeasance and foul play.  It’s like saying the criminal is just as not responsible for his violent crimes as isn’t the Multiple Sclerosis victim for his or her MS.  In other words, it’s trying to take the criminal responsibility out of violent crime, precisely because so many of those criminally responsible for violent crime have something in common.


21 09 2012

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

Linguistic Linguine time.  Mainly sports related.

“Chippy” = Athletes getting belligerent.

“He/they is/are well coached.”  How can one glean that from a distance?  Do athletes give off certain cues in their body language that they’re following the instructions of their coaches or not?  I think it’s a euphemism for the team is winning or the player is doing well.  There is an equivalent in politics:  “S/he was poorly advised.”  As if the candidate him or her self is a brainless slug?  It serves you well to listen to a lot of advice, but you also have to know on your own the difference between good and bad advice.  But OTOH, fair is fair:  If consultants and advisers get all the credit when a politician wins, even if their advice had nothing to do with the victory, they should get all the blame when things go wrong.

Then again, I’ve never heard it said that a losing team is “poorly coached.”

The It Factor

24 08 2012



Anti-violence march in East St. Louis tonight

At 11 p.m. Friday, church members and community leaders will march at some of the more violent areas in East St. Louis.

St. Clair State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly says bus loads of church members will take an anti-violence message to three apartment complexes that have seen their share of crime: John DeShields, Orr-Weathers and Gompers.

Kelly says people interested in participating in march should arrive at 11 p.m. at the New Life Community Church at 1919 State Street in East St. Louis.

Going out marching after 11 PM in ESL to protest crime?  They’ll wind up being victims of crime.  Except I forgot:  Crime in ESL only happens after 1 AM.


East St. Louis National Night Out, Gun Buy Back

East St. Louis announces another community crackdown on rising crime Friday and Saturday. It consists of the cities first gun buyback effort, something the department tried in 2008. What separates this effort from others is that East St. Louis pastor Kendall Granger is behind it.  In his world, failure is not an option.

Hear that?  All the gun buyback programs before now from sea to oily sea didn’t work because East St. Louis pastor Kendall Granger wasn’t behind them.  You see, in his world, failure is not an option, as opposed to all other black preachers, who allow for the option of failure.  The other gun buyback programs failed because they started out with failure as an option, because the worlds of those preachers permitted that option, and even as statistically unlikely as it is, every one of the gun buyback programs before now opted for failure as the end result.  The only option Granger will give this one in ESL is success.  We are in his world, after all.

Note to self:  Quit allowing for the option of failure, and you’ll be ultra rich and ultra powerful in no time.

For real note to self:  “Failure is not an option” should put this post under the “Linguistic Linguine” category.

If only Channel 2 would have had Charles Jaco interview this guy.


The buyback program netted a total of eight guns.  Eight.


15 05 2012

More crime-related linguistic linguine.

Detroit News:

Family wants answers in death of Detroit antiques dealer

Detroit — The family of a business owner who was beaten to death with a baseball bat inside his antiques store demanded answers after a 34-year-old man was arraigned Sunday in connection with his death.

“His family would like to know why,” said a woman named Carole, a friend of Nathan Feingold’s, who was at the hearing to represent the family and declined to give her last name for fear of retribution.

“They are devastated. The city of Detroit should stand up and say, ‘Enough.'”

Ronald Bradley, of Detroit, was arraigned on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, felony murder and larceny in the May 8 death of Feingold, 66, of West Bloomfield.

Bradley was arraigned via videoconferencing in 36th District Court before Magistrate [*****]; he remains in Wayne County Jail with no bond. His preliminary exam is May 24.

Feingold was a father of three. He owned the store on Michigan Avenue on Detroit’s west side for more than 30 years.

Bradley entered the store, argued with Feingold, beat him to death and took money from him, Wayne County prosecutors say. Friends said Feingold often lent money and gave money to people on the streets.

The murder charges carry penalties of life in prison without parole, and the larceny carries a 10-year penalty.

Carole, the family friend, said she planned to propose next week to Prosecutor Kym Worthy a program that would add penalties for anyone who hurts employees inside a business.

“Instead of having the honor of going to jail, which seems to be a badge of honor, you should be put to work and clean up the city of Detroit,” she said. “If you want to hurt people, fine, then clean up the city.”

“Wants answers.”

If they’re honest with themselves, they can figure out the answers on their own in five seconds.  It is because their loved one’s assailant wanted something from someone who wouldn’t give it to him, so he killed him and took it because he could.  Back to the good ole simple seven deadly sins.

I also tend to think that Feingold’s do-gooderism did him in.  That’s why Bradley allegedly did what he did, because he figured Feingold for a chump and a human ATM machine.  It’s like cops — The do-gooders that want to “make a difference” are the ones that are murdered execution-style in the line of duty, far more than the hardened bad asses.  And it seems like his surviving friends and family suffer the same do-gooder affliction, with this bullshit about making people who hurt employees inside a business “clean up the city.”  Detroit isn’t a mess for a lack of habitual criminals being made to pick up litter!



3 05 2012


Illinois officials tout program to keep Metro East teens out of prison


Redeploy offers hometown therapy, substance abuse treatment and mental health care and more. Caseworkers also provide career counseling and field trips to successful enterprises.


Melodee Hanes, the acting administrator for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, attended and said, “Keeping kids out of jail is really the right thing to do.” She asked, “Think back to when you were 16? Did you ever make a bad decision?”

Yes, I did.  And believe me, that was the worst burrito I ever ate.  It wasn’t until I was out of college that I worked up the courage to eat another burrito.

Just in case that snarky sentence went over your head, I cringe over dismissing criminal behavior as a “bad decision.”  I ranted about a similar thing a few years ago, and “bad decision” is very similar to “choices” insofar as linguistic linguine.  Yes, people make bad decisions, but the connotation of that is that all possible decisions are legitimate, but the one you made just didn’t work for you.  It’s impossible to make a “bad decision” when you commit a crime, because the law takes that particular action out of the universe of legitimate decisions.

I also remember the exact number of crimes I committed because I lacked hometown therapy, drug treatment, mental health care, career counseling and field trips to businesses:


The photo and caption?  ‘Nuff Said.  Speaking of bad decisions, he was 15 and she was 17…

New America

10 04 2012

Fox News profiles the shady cracker who calls himself “The Raptor,” because he’s giving himself credit for the DDoS attack on Virtual AQ and Company.

On the one hand, you want to laud him for fighting a 21st century war.

On the other hand:

“Some say I and others like me are Crusaders; that we hate Islam or desire to offend Allah,” he continued. “That is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. Some of my best friends are Muslims, and I love them. They don’t wish me harm, and I would give my life to defend them. This has only to do with violent criminals who cloak themselves in the wool of a good and peaceful religion to bring death and destruction to the world.”

“Some of my (very) best friends are…”  There’s where I change the channel.

Where’s the Deed?

9 04 2012

He’s giving the media permission to use the actual N-word instead of “N-word.”

How white, er…black, er…mulatto of him.  I didn’t know he owned that word.

Think, Part II

15 03 2012

Following up on my observation yesterday.

Another problem with this mentality of convicted criminals “thinking about what they did” while doing a long prison stint is that most convicted criminals don’t think they did anything wrong.  They won’t spend even the five seconds it would take most of them to “think about what they did” because they “didn’t do nuttin.”

Let’s say 20-year old Dontrell shoots and kills 17-year old N’D’Mario (*) on the corner of College and Carter in North St. Louis City, for one of the many reasons why a 20-year old named Dontrell would murder a 17-year old named N’D’Mario — N’D’Mario moved in on Dontrell’s steady girlfriend, Dontrell saw N’D’Mario engaging in amateur pharmacology in the area where Dontrell himself likes to do the same thing, N’D’Mario accidentally kicked up some dust on Dontrell’s new $220 Jordan shoes, N’D’Mario owed Dontrell a few hundred bucks from what looked to be a game of street Yahtzee a month or two ago, or whatever.

The Circuit Attorney tries for the death penalty against Dontrell, but circumstance forces them to bargain with Dontrell’s FOOLS (Fresh out of Law School) public defender, Dontrell pleads guilty and accepts life in prison without parole, in exchange for the CA dropping the death penalty.  At sentencing, N’D’Mario’s mother, among other things, including making a fool out of herself and showing the world what kind of woman would name her newborn man child a name with two apostrophes almost two decades ago, shouts with glee that Dontrell will have the rest of his life to “think about what he did.”  Meanwhile, on the other side of the court house at the same time, Dontrell’s mother is telling the media that her son “fell in with the wrong crowd.”  Yep, it’s that wrong crowd.  It’ll get ya’ every time.  It goes around pulling down people who share something auspicious in common.  Between N’D’Mario’s old lady and Dontrell’s old lady, you’ve got a serious case of dumb and dumber.

Assume two years from murder to sentencing, and Dontrell is now 22.  If he lives out to the average life expectancy for American black men, 68, this means he will have 46 years to “think about what he did.”

Do you think he’s actually going to spend 46 years holed up in a cell in Jeff City thinking about what he did?

Hell no.  Because he didn’t actually do it.  Racist SLPD cops, racist ACAs, racist judge, they arrested the wrong guy, self-defense, his lawyer fucked him over, he was abused as a child, mama said he just fell in with the wrong crowd.  That’s how he’s going to spend the first year or two of the next 46 “thinking about what he did.”  And, on the side, raping white men doing time in the same hoosegow for producing and selling raw milk.  By three or four years into his bid, he’s going to hook up with the Farrakhanites, who will by year five or six have him convinced that the white racist system, the one where the Zionist KKK have their tentacles into everything, deliberately wanted to deprive this former honor student of a successful rap career, (and he WAS an aspiring rapper, aren’t they all?) so they planted all the evidence and framed him.  Just because they’re racist and shite.


To this day, I bet Bernie Madoff still won’t admit that he did anything wrong.  He can’t blame anti-Semitism, because two of the four AUSAs on the team that prosecuted him had obviously Jewish last names, and since they were in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Southern New York, it’s safe to assume that they were actually Jewish.  Probably his bromide is that he’s blaming the victims for being suckers and schmucks.

Just in case you’re lost, anger is the one of the seven deadly sins to explain Dontrell murdering N’D’Mario.

* – There is actually a young man in St. Louis named N’D’Mario, or he was in St. Louis as of about two years ago. How do I know that? I could tell you…


14 03 2012

I was channel surfing this evening, and I spent a few minutes watching some documentary about Bernie Madoff.  It covered his life of crime and now his first few years in prison.  While in the middle of telling the story about the jail house fight he was supposedly in, it cut to one of his victims who said that she didn’t want to see him hurt in prison, she wanted him to spend the rest of his life in good health sitting in a cell “to think about what he did.”

I hear that canard a lot when it comes to murderers and rapists.  The families of the victims will tell the media that they want the convicted party to spend a lifetime or a very long time in prison (as the case may be), in order to “think about what he did.”  Sometimes, the relatives of a murder victim will want the convict to get life in prison instead of the death penalty so he can spend the rest of his life “thinking about what he did.”

First off, why are the only criminal convicts who have this duty to “think about what they did” for many decades to come are murderers, rapists and high profile white collar criminals?  I’ve never heard it asked of someone caught with several grams of crack who will spend the next two years in a state pen, or the armed robber doing ten, to “think about what he did.”

Second, what is so complicated and nuanced about any crime, much less murder, rape or Madoffism, that convicts have to spend decades thinking about it?  Seems to me that most criminals who are honest with themselves can cite their motivation for doing what they did in five seconds.  Heck, the Catholic Church has condensed the motivation for human sin into seven words, almost all blue or white collar crimes fit into at least one of these categories.  It’s not as if these things are as intellectually convoluted and time consuming as a major longitudinal study on youth and adolescence, or string theory.

Hint:  Bernie Madoff was greedy.  That takes care of him thinking about what he did.

More “Senseless Violence” That Makes Sense

19 12 2011

Linguistic Linguine alert.

Bill McClellan’s latest in the P-D.

You have to read the whole thing to get the full effect; I just can’t give you snippets.  The problem is, it names a sitting judge, and I ordinarily don’t link to source material that does that.  But I’ll have to now, because I don’t want to blockquote an entire P-D article without linking back to it.  So, kindly avert your eyes when you get to that point.

McClellan calls this particular murder “senseless,” but as you can read in the article, it’s isn’t senseless.  There is a perfectly logical, if wholly unagreeable, reason why this murder happened.  It is because the now multiple murderer was unable to control his passions and emotions.  Yet, this now multiple murderer has the blood of two human beings on his hands, but did not get a guaranteed life sentence for either.

Someone on AR made a great point awhile back — Our legal jurisprudence has this bassackwards notion that someone who commits murder on a whim or as an outgrowth in uncontrolled passion is less dangerous than someone who commits murder after planning and deliberation, such that we don’t imprison the former for life, while we do the latter and on occasion execute them.  In reality, the man who can’t control his passions and emotions and winds up killing someone for it is more dangerous in a way than a man or woman who would premeditate a murder.

Two ordinary unremarkable plainly dressed men who never met each other before now are alone at a bus stop, waiting on the bus.  There is no credible circumstance where man A would want to premeditate a murder against man B, because there are no grounds.  However, if they strike up a conversation, and man B says something cross or untoward that offends man A, and man A chokes man B to death in reaction, then man A is going to prison, but not for life.  He will get out after a few decades.

Let’s say man A and man B aren’t random strangers, but instead business partners.  Their business is on hard times, and man B has a life insurance policy which names their business partnership as a beneficiary.  Man A plots a scheme to murder man B for the life insurance money and make it look like man B was in the ghetto buying drugs and the deal went horribly wrong, in order to pin it on one of the neighborhood drug dealers.  Man A goes through with it, but the police detectives figure out the ruse, and slap the cuffs on man A.   Man A is at least going to prison for the rest of his life, and he could get the death penalty.

Does the first circumstance sound that much “better” than the second circumstance such that the murderer in the first circumstance should get out of prison in 20 years and the murderer in the second circumstance is dying in prison for sure?  Why is the second man B’s life insurance policy plausible grounds for premeditation, while the first man B’s insulting words not?  Did not the first man A premeditate the murder of the first man B after man B uttered the insult?  Why is short term passion not legally considered the same kind of premeditation as the long term planning for the insurance money?  In the first circumstance, man A started to choke man B to death a few seconds after man B’s verbal indiscretion, while in the second circumstance, man A took a month to plan out the murder of man B.  Why is a few seconds not premeditation and a month is?  It doesn’t take long for the human brain to form a thought.

More people are more likely to be murdered as a result of whimsical, second-degree murder, than premeditated, first-degree murder.  But they’re just as dead anyway.  That’s my fear — I have a snarky personality, and it’s just as present in real life as it is in this medium.  I try to control it, but not always successfully.  Carrying a gun around has served to keep my smart trap shut for the most part.  However, I can’t think of any reason why anyone would want to murder me as a matter of long term premeditation — Maybe I chatted up some woman who was still in a committed relationship, or the relationship was far more over in reality than her last boyfriend thought it was, but I am always on the lookout for wedding ring tans.

“Sociogeographic Space”

27 09 2011



Stray bullets claim victims with no warning


Despite such carnage from “errant gunfire,” public health officials know little about it. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks accidental shootings. But they do not count stray bullets.

Dr. Garen Wintemute wanted to know more. He is a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California-Davis. Wintemute and his colleagues first had to decide what made a bullet a stray one. They came up with a bullet that “escaped the sociogeographic space or perimeter customarily set by the circumstances surrounding the firing of the gun …”

Basically, Wintemute said in an interview, you know it when you see it. A bullet fired at five men on a corner but that hit the wrong person was not a stray. But it was stray if the unintended victim stood a block away.

IOW, “stray bullet” is like “porn.”  You know it when you see it, but if you have to define it for legal purposes, you wind up with some convoluted language.  In the case of legislation that attempts to define “porn,” the wording is pretty much verbal porn all by itself.  I’ll give you a hint:  The words “penetration” and “emission” (use your imagination) are found in numerous places in Missouri’s criminal statutes.  In the case of “stray bullets,” one has to invent a new vacuous phrase like “sociogeographic space.”  I get the feeling that “sociogeographic space” is a politically correct way of saying that black thug doesn’t have a good enough aim to hit another black thug.

Linguistic Linguini

20 10 2010

Three cheers for Nicholas Stix.   One extra cheer for “David in Tennessee.”

Linguistic Linguini

22 09 2010

Two more words of which I’m getting tired, especially in the political context:

Extremist, and homegrown.

First off, they keep saying “extremist” websites, but they won’t identify the “extremists” in question until deep down in the article.  (Al Qaeda, in case you’re wondering).  So what they’re doing, the media are, is trying to confuse you by using “extremism” as a general term — IOW, the guy down the street who posts on Stormfront is just as dangerous as good ole Mohammed who runs an AQ-style recruiting website.

Second, “homegrown” falls under the same category.  What they mean by “homegrown” in this context is recent Muslim immigrants to the United States.  That’s not “homegrown.”  But they are trying to make you think that it’s just as much white people’s fault as anything, even though you have to read deep down into the article to find the words “Somali,” “Yemeni,” et al.

Linguistic Linguini

15 12 2009

A few years ago, Michael Savage had a call-in segment called “Linguistic Linguini.”  He wanted callers to tell him what vacuous or oft-used phrases or words irritated them.  Among the phrases cited as irritants were “at the end of the day,” (a lot of politicians use it — When do they ever analyze something that happens at the beginning of a day?), “in the final analysis,” (JFK used that one a lot, though no analysis is ever truly “final,” as T.S. Eliot might say), “thinking outside the box,” (so much an object of corporate reports that I’m sure Word has a keyboard macro to insert it — I’d like to reward someone for thinking “inside the box”), “s/he’s good people,” (mainly 1960s), and some others.

An object of linguistic linguini for me is “I could have sworn,” i.e. my keys were in the drawer, the hotel was right off the interstate, and so on.  What “I could have sworn” means is that I don’t know, but I want to put on like I know.

However, that was the last time that a phrase bothered me, until today.

I read a lot of St. Louis news sources about the David Freeze DWI arrests, and some of the user comments made about the treatment of that story in several STL MSM outlets.  Add to that a few unrelated national stories, and I kept reading over and over the word “choices,” and the phrase “life is all about choices.”  That has always bothered me, but it hasn’t bothered me enough to bitch about it until today.  You’ll hear this phrase uttered in anti-drug programs held in schools, health/STD/teenage pregnancy forums, near the beginning of the movie ATL (by the rapper T.I., who is sitting in Federal prison right now, I might add, while we’re on the subject of “bad choices”), and dozens of other situations.  Pay attention, and you’ll hear it enough to bug you to death.

The reason it bothers me is because it’s a gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning of “choice.”  To have a choice, you have to have two or more legitimate options, where you have the reasonable expectation (if not the reality) of satisfaction no matter which choice you make.  For example, I have $4 with which to buy a box of cereal.  Do I buy Crispix, Wheaties or Raisin Bran?  I can go on one vacation this year.  Do I go to the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Mecca?  I’m ten years old, and think I’m all grown up because I happened on one of those “booklets.” Do I use Speed Stick, Old Spice or Right Guard?  I’m being laid off at the end of the week.  Do I stay here and find new work, or move back to my native St. Louis and find work there?  (I’ve already let that cat out of the bag.)

It does not apply to illicit and illegal drugs because satisfaction isn’t supposed to be an option with one of the choices, because of the affects that, e.g. crack cocaine has on your body, and because the law has taken the legitimate choice away from you.  In other words, you can’t “choose” between doing crack and not doing crack, because the former is illegal, and even if it weren’t, everybody you know would advise you against it.  Do I run with gangs in Atlanta, or not run with gangs?  While the former choice is not technically illegal, it virtually always works out that way in the final analysis.  Therefore, you can’t choose between ganging up and not ganging up.  And while contracting an STD or becoming an expectant mother at the age of 14 isn’t illegal in any way, unless you live in fundamentalist Islamic screwballville, and the latter condition is physically impossible for half the population, save Oprah freaks, getting an STD or becoming a teenage mother makes life difficult, so it is in no wise a choice that can lead to satisfaction.

For anti-drug programs to portray the use of illicit drugs as a “choice” serves to semi-legitimize drug use.  That’s perhaps part of the reason why they don’t work well.  If they told the truth, by saying that you have no choice, then they might get the message.

Of Lists, Mails and Holes

17 08 2009

UK Telegraph:

‘Blacklisting’ banned over fears it is prejudice

The term ‘blacklisted’ has been banned over fears it is offensive or prejudice.

Instead, the Citizens Advice service has replaced the term with ‘blocklisting’ so as to avoid “fostering stereotypes”.

The two terms, which are both used in IT, mean the same thing. In this case they refer to lists of computers or computer networks which have been identified as sending spam.

During her last few years on WGNU, Lizz Brown was similarly offended by the word “blackmail” and started calling the concept “whitemail.”

What the dipshits don’t realize is in the instance of blacklist, blackmail and black hole (that one is also under attack by the PC crowd), “black” doesn’t refer to color, it alludes to the true scientific definition of “black,” and that is the total absence of color.  If you see something and it has a color, then by definition, it can’t be black.  What passes for black to the human eye is better called an extremely dark blue, or in the case of human beings, the blackest of blacks are really very dark brown.  Likewise, “white” is a perfect admixture of all colors, and that is virtually impossible to attain.  White paper is really very very light pink, and white people are sort of pinkish.

Gained In Translation — Don’t You Wish We Had This In Real Life?

25 03 2009

“I once had a romantic rendezvous with your biological mother in which fellatio was performed forthwith and without explanation.   The encounter lasted several hours, and many unspeakable acts were implemented.  I paid her for her services, and no subsequent contact either verbally or physically has been made.”

LOL — That’s how “yo mama” translates from Ebonics into English.  Give them credit for verbal efficiency.

Perhaps this is the same Ebonics-English translator that worked for Neal Boortz about ten years ago:

In the Final Analysis, Here’s One I Wish Would Have Made the List

9 11 2008

UK Telegraph :

Oxford compiles list of top ten irritating phrases

A top 10 of irritating expressions has been compiled by researchers at Oxford University.

Knock yourself out.

Here’s one I wish would have made it, a four-word phrase that I wish would fall out of the English language as soon as possible:

“I could have sworn”

Usually, when someone utters that phrase, it turns out that what they “could have sworn” is something they don’t really know.  I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that most of the time that it is used, people really don’t know the answer, but they want to put on like they know.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,642 other followers