Sunday, June 19, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The article really does seem to attribute malicious intent to our national bird. Read this excerpt:
And for the second consecutive year, they have been trying to chase off
people -- apparently unaware that the Postal Service uses a stylized eagle as its logo. (emphasis added)
As my Uncle Bill would say, “Holy Crow!
I’d like to address the hopelessly confused Reuters reporter, Yereth Rosen, directly:
So the eagles are “apparently unaware”? Even if you were “apparently” trying to be funny, that’s a stupid statement in a news story. They’re eagles! There’s no “apparently” about it—they are definitely “unaware” of anything except what eagles are supposed to do. Do you expect mom & pop eagle to check the evening news, or maybe enter a few keywords on Google, before defending their chicks?
I can just hear the exchange between the “aware” Mr. & Mrs. Eagle. It would go something like this:
“Look, Maisy, we’re the national bird. And we appear on the USPS logo. We can’t be diving at human beings at the post office. It’ll make us look bad and probably cause some idiot reporter to give us a negative write-up in the papers.”
“But Chester, we’re instinctively programmed to protect our babies and keep people away from the nest! Remember, we bald eagles were an endangered species not so long ago.”
“I know. Well, I’ll e-mail the crows and seagulls to see if they can help us out by crapping up the joint so the folks will want to stay away from the post office for awhile.”
“Okay, dear, but until you hear back, I’m going to dive-bomb those humans just like our parents and grandparents did when we were chicks!”
Seriously, Mr. Rosen. They’re eagles, not enemies. And your attitude is for the birds.
Friday, June 10, 2011
1. He is a liar.
2. He distributed smutty photos online, conduct unbecoming a Congressman (at least, in theory).
3. He is a liar.
4. He cyber-stalked women he hadn’t met using filthy language and images.
5. He is a liar.
6. He is unfit, because of his actions, to hold office representing U.S. citizens.
7. He is a liar.
8. He says he is taking “full responsibility” for his actions—where are the consequences?
9. He is a liar.
10. He is perverted, craven, depraved, disgusting, and probably mentally ill.
Oh, and did I mention this reason? He is a liar.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Or words to that effect. What with Facebook, Twitter, and unfettered, non-stop texting, we're in uncharted language territory today, with wildly fluid boundaries, and written communication can get scary very quickly. A code book often would be helpful, so I've linked one here.
The prolific craze of techie code words can be quite unsettling to an old English major such as myself. I was raised to follow the book--the book being the dictionary. If a word wasn't included in my father's leatherbound Webster's dictionary, published 1937, it was not acceptable for discourse in our home. When "ain't" was added to the dictionary as a legitimate word about fifty years ago, Dad termed it a "concession to ignorance." Naturally, as a lover of the English language with such a purist background, I tend to look askance at the brave new world of creative spelling.
However, I realize that we need to be practical--and understood. Language is organic and dynamic; it evolves. To communicate effectively, speakers and writers must accept the new. As an example, unlike the speakers of Elizabethan English, nobody says "God's blood!" today when they're outraged. In fact, no one has said that for quite some time. That expression has been archaic for hundreds of years. Although considering the crudity of many modern expletives, and the confusion of so many morphing shortcuts, a return to Shakespearan dialect might do us all some linguistic good.
As for the newfangled cyber renditions of words, often packing a sentence-full of meaning into a tiny letter/number combination, I find Stendahl's quote especially relevant today--"I see but one rule: to be clear."
Or, as the kids might text: I C bt 1 rle, 2b clr