Dr. B's Notes

169 Some Thoughts Regarding Valentine’s Day (mostly for men).

2/12/2020

Since it’s almost Valentine’s Day, I got to thinking about that, which led to this post.  First, one should know that there was a saint by the name of Valentine, but there may have been more than one – it’s not positively established.  Anyway, there was a martyr during the days of the early Roman church by the name of Valentine.  Around the time of Chaucer (late 1300’s/early 1400’s) the Feast day of St. Valentine (Feb. 14) became associated with romantic love.   In fact, however, that date had previously been a part of the Lupercalia, a fertility festival during Ancient Roman times.  (NOTE: According to Shakespeare, it was during this festival that Caesar’s return to Rome was being celebrated in Act I, scenes 1&2 of Julius Caesar.)

It is, of course, certainly possible that this “Saint’s Day” was simply another case of the church “Christianizing” an earlier, pagan celebration, but we’ll probably never know for sure.  (Anyone want to volunteer to do the research?)  In any event, it’s now a day for “sweethearts” to pledge their eternal love, etc.  Anyway, I figured some romantic advice, especially for lovelorn MALE readers, might be appropriate.  I won’t pretend that I made up this stuff, I found it in a variety of sources.  That’s not really surprising, I suppose, as romantic advice, or even just advice relating to male-female relationships, is NOT my long suit.  Women have always confused me as much as most other guys.  In any event, here’s some “advice” regarding relationships with the women, for whatever it’s worth.

"If any of you are thinking of getting married, you might wish to consider the following:
On the one hand, you get to wear a pretty cool ring.  On the other hand, you don’t.

"When a woman tells a man, “Do whatever you want.”  Do NOT do whatever you want!

"No man has EVER won a game of “notice anything different about me?”  Don’t even try.
If asked this, one MIGHT get away by simply suggesting, 'What have you done to yourself?  You look even more beautiful than usual.'  This is NOT guaranteed to work, however."

I suspect that part of the difficulty men and women have is that they really don’t speak the same language.  For example:

Definitions – Female vs. Male

THINGY (thing-ee) n.

Female:           Any part under a car's hood.

Male:               The strap fastener on a woman's bra.

VULNERABLE (vul-ne-ra-bel) adj.

Female:           Fully opening up one's self emotionally to another.

Male:               Playing football without a cup.

COMMUNICATION (ko-myoo-ni-kay-shon) n.

Female:           The open sharing of thoughts and feelings with one's partner.

Male:               Leaving a note before taking off on a fishing trip with the boys.

COMMITMENT (ko- mit-ment) n.

Female:           A desire to get married and raise a family.

Male:               Trying not to hit on other women while out with this one.

ENTERTAINMENT (en-ter-tayn-ment) n.

Female:           A good movie, concert, play or book.

Male:               Anything that can be done while drinking beer.

FLATULENCE (flach-u-lens) n.

Female:           An embarrassing by - product of indigestion.

Male:               A source of entertainment, self-expression, male bonding.

MAKING LOVE (may-king luv) n.

Female:           The greatest expression of intimacy a couple can achieve.

Male:               Call it whatever you want, just as long as we do it.

REMOTE CONTROL (ri-moht kon-trohl) n.

Female:           A device for changing from one TV channel to another.

Male:               A device for scanning through all 375 channels every 5 minutes.

Perhaps of even greater significance than the terms listed above, at least for male survival, however, are:

The rules for getting along in a relationship (especially marriage) are complicated and are difficult to learn (particularly for men). One can only hope that the male’s ability to figure them out improves with time. See below:

Some folks seem to be able to do better than others…

On the other hand, I don’t think any man ever really feels confident that he has them ALL figured out.

And heaven MAY forgive the man who finds this picture too funny, for his “better half” probably never will…

On the other hand, I confess that I am VERY glad that a good many years ago Bonnie decided that

Happy Valentine’s Day to all (and Good Luck to the guys)!

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

168 Miscellaneous Thoughts for a Winter’s Day (or Night)

1/29/2020

0 Comments

It’s been cold and rather snowy in Omaha recently. So, between helping Bonnie shovel snow off of our driveway, I’ve been spending a lot of time in the house avoiding watching the impeachment coverage on television. This has led to engage in a lot of thinking about a number of odds and ends of stuff, some (most) of which I have run across in various things I’ve stumbled across on the web, or elsewhere. Needless to say, I am quite sympathetic to the King from “The Wizard of Id,” especially the sentiment expressed below:

Some other stuff is below.

Points to Ponder:

If I had a nickel for every time that I didn’t know what was going on…
I’d be like “why do I keep getting all these freaking nickels?”

For the 10th year in a row, my coworkers voted me “the most secretive guy” in the office.
I can’t tell you how much this award means to me.

Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar...
              You can’t tell me that’s just a coincidence

How Politics Works!  (Given the state of political affairs these days, I’m forced to wonder if this just might not be true!)

I told my son "I want you to marry a girl of my choice!"

He said "NO!"  I told him she’s Bill Gates daughter!!!!

He said "OKAY!"

Got in contact with Bill Gates & told him "I want your daughter to marry my son!"

He said "NO!"

Told him my son was the CEO of the World Bank!

He said "OKAY!"

Went to the Chairman of the World Bank & told him to make my son CEO of the Bank!

He said "NO!"

Told him my son is Bill Gates' Son in Law!

He said "OKAY!"

And that, my friends, is the essence of how politics works…

Then, there’s this from "Pearls Before Swine:"

How to Identify a Congressman. (The technology in this may be a bit dated, but the principle still seems plausible.)

A cowboy named Billy was overseeing his herd in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a man in a Brioni® suit, Gucci® shoes, RayBan® sunglasses and YSL® tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

Billy looks at the man, who obviously is a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell® notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3® cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop® and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany ...Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot® that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL® database through an ODBC connected Excel® spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry® and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet® printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Billy. He watches the man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then Billy says to the man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a Congressman." says Billy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars-worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about how working people make a living - or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. Now give me back my dog.

If you ever wondered how humans survived Creation, this probably won’t help, but it seemed worth repeating.

The Story of Creation!

God said, “Adam, I want you to do something for Me.”
Adam said, “Gladly, Lord, what do you want me to do?
God said, “Go down into that valley.”
Adam said, “What’s a valley?”
God explained it to him.
Then God said, “Cross the River.
Adam said, “What’s a river?”
God explained the to him, and then said, “Go over the hill….”
Adam said, “What’s a hill?”
So, God explained to Adam what a hill was.
He told Adam, “On the other side of the hill you will find a cave.”
After God explained, He said, “In this cave you will find a woman.”
So, God explained that to him, too.
Then God said, “I want you to reproduce.”
Adam said, “How do I do that?”
God first said (under his breath), “Geez….”
And then, like everything else, God explained that to Adam, as well.
So, Adam goes down into the valley, across the river, and over the hill, into the cave, and finds the woman.
After a good while time, he comes back.
God, his patience wearing thin, said angrily, “What is it now?”
And Adam said, “What’s a headache?”

On the other hand,

Some tombstones just get it right!

Could this question be solved as simply as this?

Why Mankind Has a Long Life.

On the first day, God created the dog and said, “Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past.  For this I will give you a life span of twenty years.”

The dog said, “That's a long time to be barking.  How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?”

And God said that it was good.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said, “Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh.  For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span.”

The monkey said, “Monkey tricks for twenty years?  That's a pretty long time to perform.  How about I give you back ten like the dog did?”

And God again said that it was good.

On the third day, God created the cow and said “You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family.  For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years.”

The cow said, “That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years.  How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?”

And God agreed it was good.

On the fourth day, God created humans and said, “Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life.  For this, I'll give you twenty years.”

But the human said, “Only twenty years?  Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?”

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why for our first twenty years, we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves.  For the next forty years, we slave in the sun to support our family.  For the next ten years, we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren.  And for the last ten years, we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.  There is no need to thank me for this valuable information.  I'm doing it as a public service.

If you are looking for me, I will be on the front porch.

On the other hand, some things seem hard to explain, but may not be so…

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

167 Bullies & Bullying

1/16/2020

0 Comments

I think it was watching the movie, A Christmas Story, on TV not too long ago, after not watching it for quite a while (see # 166 in the archives for why) that got me to thinking about bullies.  I knew that the story (as told in the movie) of the local bully, Scut Farcus, and his toady, Grover Dill, just didn’t “feel” right with my memories of this incident as described in Shepherd’s original book.  So, being a well-trained historian and the son of a librarian, I dug out my copy of In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash and looked it up.  Sure enough, I was right.  The story of Ralphie exploding in fury and finally beating up the neighborhood bully, Grover Dill, (Who the heck is Scut Farcus?), is in the book, in a story entitled “Grover Dill and the Tasmanian Devil.”  But the circumstances are quite different from the version as presented in the movie and explains Ralphie’s realization and explanation of the fact that inside of everyone (males, at least) there lies a sleeping Tasmanian Devil, capable of emerging at any moment to inflict major violence and mayhem, but usually sleeping quietly and not interfering with one’s normal life as a victim of bullies, etc.  Still, as Ralphie suggests, it never goes away, it just goes dormant for a time.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about bullies and bullying; they having been frequent topics in the news (at least off and on) for quite a while now.  In fact, for a number of years, it seems as though the “worst” thing, for a child, is to be considered a “bully.”  We have seen major “anti-bullying” campaigns in schools and churches.  We have laws against bullying in public and/or online.  We have a seemingly never-ending stream of studies, etc., showing that bullying can be a precipitating cause for suicide, depression, drug abuse, low self-esteem and other undesirable behaviors.  So, there’s lots of pressure to condemn bullies.

Now, none of these efforts appear to have actually stopped bullying, but it does make us feel good to pretend we are making a difference.  Of course, then you turn on the TV and the first commercial you run across is the one for some gym where the “spin” class gives one of its members “the hiss of shame” because she was having trouble keeping the pace.  If that isn’t bullying, I would be hard pressed to figure out what is.  But, “It’s only a commercial, not real life!”

I think it may be necessary to point out that there have always been bullies!  If one looks at stories (movies, TV shows, etc.) from the ancient myths from almost anywhere down to those of the present day, what could reasonably be referred to as “bullies” are all over the place.  After all, we SAY that we don’t like bullies, but, if one looks around just a little, we do tend to reward them.  Especially in men!  For a MAN to push others around and force them to do what he wants them to do, makes him a “strong, forceful leader.”  Of course, if a WOMAN behaves this way, she’s a “mean, nasty bitch who doesn’t know her place,” at least to many.  If one even suggests that she is simply “a woman who has resorted to using the tactics which are constantly used against her by her male, co-workers,” it isn’t viewed as an adequate justification for her behavior.  Nor does it alter the fact that bullying behavior is just bullying behavior, no matter who does it.

I suspect that much of this sort of thing probably comes from our traditional methods of child-rearing, and the images (probably unrealistic ones) that everyone is always supposed to be gentle, kind, loving and sweet as a child, yet, boy’s bad behavior (temper tantrums) are often excused as just meaning that “The little tyke just wants his money’s worth, just like his father.”  Fathers, of course, are always assumed to be great examples of “proper, masculine leaders.”  Looking up “leader” at Business Dictionary.com provides the definition: “A person or thing that [sic.]  holds a dominant or superior position within its [sic.] field and is able to exercise a high degree of control or influence over others.”, which may be ungrammatical (but, perhaps, good grammar isn’t considered important in business) and would seem to be widely accepted.  It’s probably worth noting that this definition of “leader” emphasizes exercising “… control or influence over others.”  It doesn’t say anything about not behaving in a manner which could be described as being a bully in order to establish or maintain that control and/or influence.  But I don’t wish to get into the “Me, too” stuff in this post.

Now, the traditional, schoolyard (male) bully, the one who dominates the other kids, demands tribute in the form of lunch money, cuts into lines, etc. (the Grover Dills of the world) is universally condemned, at least until he becomes a domineering and overbearing adult, at which point he becomes a “leader.”  And, the female equivalent (the leader of the dominant girl’s clique in the school [the “pretty people”]) may be equally disliked (always behind her back), but has to be appeased with statements about her perfection, beauty, talent, etc.  It would seem that the female variation of this type has recently taken the form of “social media influencer.” That is at least after they achieve a certain number of “likes,” “follows,” etc., which makes them more “important” than those who just dominate sororities, country clubs, women’s clubs and other organizations which tend to use rumor, gossip, inuendo and back-stabbing (bullying) to assert their “power” over others, often, in fact, based largely on perceived wealth (frequently their husbands’).

I think that we, much too often, wish to believe that bullying is almost exclusively a “children’s” problem.  Certainly, much of our discussion of what to do about bullies and bullying focuses on young people, probably because we hope to make the sort of behavior we associate with bullying less common and/or desirable among them in the hope that that will solve the problem for everyone.  However, I’m pretty well convinced that we are being incredibly short-sighted.  In this regard, I suspect that the so-called “social media” have helped spread, perpetuate, and even increase childish bullying behavior throughout our society.

I found what I think is a rather good dictionary definition of a bully.  It says that a bully is, “a blustering, browbeating person, especially: one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable.”  I am NOT trying to suggest that I find this sort of behavior desirable or the kind of thing which I think should be rewarded.  But, that’s the point!

The problem is that we DO reward this sort of behavior.  I won’t suggest that all of our leaders engage in “blustering” and “browbeating.”  Nor will I argue that all of our leaders are “habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable.”  No, I find that “leaders” tend to fall into two types: one type become leaders because they do things which others find admirable, so others tend to wish to be like them; the second type is the “bully,” who becomes a “leader” because he (it’s usually a male) is so insecure in himself that he has to dominate others in order to try to establish the sense of power which he believes he can only achieve by forcing others to do as he wishes.  Since this need to dominate others seems to be based on his belief (and fear) of his own inadequacy, it is unlikely to ever be satisfied, creating a life-long bully.

As I look around at our “leaders,” be they political ones, “captains of industry,” media “stars” (including some so-called news reporters), even some clergy and other “religious” leaders, I see far too frequent examples of this, second type of “leader.”  These are people who won’t discuss why they do what they do, nor do they just set a good example.   No, these are the ones who simply bombard us with their opinions, desires, and dogma because “I’m better than you are because I’m bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer (That’s code for, more of a man, which is code for more virile.) than you and you should do what you’re told by your betters because they are richer, smarter and deserve to be more powerful that you are!”  I find that highly offensive, especially in political personalities.  I can usually simply ignore this sort of behavior in other circumstances, but political behavior involves the risk of war, death, and destruction. It was the purpose of our Constitution (I believe), to provide a system that was supposed to be prevent bullies from achieving too much power.  Unfortunately, I’m concerned that that Constitution is just being ignored in order to establish a political power base for certain ideas on the basis of “Trust me.  I know what’s best.”

I beg your pardon.  I’ve read the Constitution.  I don’t need ANYBODY (left, right or screwy) to tell me what it says.  I read it as saying that, as a citizen, I am no better, but no worse, than any other citizen.  I also see that it says that the job of our political leaders is to engage in the business of our country for the benefit of “We, the People…” not to engage in blindly following the dictums of any political party, religion or demagogue who happens to come along.  I think that what it’s trying to say is that we expect our leadership at all levels and in all areas to admit that they, too, are imperfect people who should actually consider, discuss, debate and act based on their best judgement as to what’s in the country’s best interests (i.e. the interest of the majority of the people); NOT what is going to be most popular among members of some political party, religious, racial, or ethnic group, or be most likely to get me re-elected most easily, or achieve the most “likes” on Facebook.  That might demonstrate real leadership.  What we have now is mostly just “feed my ego!”

I’m tired of being bullied by my so-called leaders.  As an employee of the State of North Carolina, I tried to be very careful regarding expressing political opinions in the classroom, or as part of my official duties.  That wasn’t my job as an educator. My job was to explain the facts as we currently understood them and help provide the tools to understand them.  I’ve also tried (usually successfully) to keep too most political opinion out of this blog.  However, I am very sick of the sort of stupid misbehavior which we see all too often from too many of our so-called “leaders.”  I can feel the rumblings of the Tasmanian Devil which Shepherd suggested resides within me and that doesn’t really make me happy.  I know that just beating up the “jerks” is unlikely to solve the problem.  But I also know that we, as a society, are NOT going to stop bullying in schoolyards until we, as a society, stop rewarding it in politics and business.

Perhaps we, as a society should sentence proven liars, bullies and braggarts to have their photograph taken while wearing a tee shirt which says, “I think I’m >u” and having that picture posted to all forms of social media for a period of time, say fifteen days.  This would be comparable to the tactic of posting pictures of persons soliciting prostitutes on social media which has been used in some places.

I admit that that would be a form of social “shaming,” another type of behavior which is, I think, properly frowned upon.  On the other hand, it’s not like branding them or cutting off an ear, finger or hand.  Compared to prison, it’s pretty mild.  It’s not even a fine!  It’s just a way of letting the public know that this person behaved in a manner which is socially unacceptable and got caught at it, so we are making the public aware of the fact that this behavior might be repeated by this individual.  Yes, that IS a form of “social shaming,” but the alternative would seem to be to just let this behavior go, or to suggest a “time out,” which doesn’t seem to have proven very effective and is, of course, also a form of social shaming.

I adapted this idea from a Non Sequitur comic strip published a few weeks ago when a bragging, self-proclaimed “genius” (see below) appeared wearing a shirt with “>u” printed on it.  I thought it capsulized the basic “bully” attitude quite neatly.

I admit that my suggestion would modify the pictured shirt a bit and there ARE other details which would have to be worked out, but it doesn’t seem impossible. Who knows? Such a practice just MIGHT help. What do you say? Should we give this a try?

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

166 Musings on the Holiday season after the fact

1/3/2020

0 Comments

It may be because both Bonnie and I have had a round of what we used to call “the crud” in Cullowhee during the build-up to and/or during this holiday season, or it may just be that we are older and our kids are grown, or it could be something else; but this holiday season just hasn’t seemed (at least to me) to be as “merry and bright” as they used to be. Anyway, that got me to musing on the nature of the holiday season and why this might be so….

One possibility, I suppose is that the whole “You have to be good because Santa is watching.” idea which can seem just a bit creepy.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I found this picture a little disturbing!

Then, there’s the whole hassle of the competition over who has the fanciest tree and/or outdoor lights, which can lead to serious frustration. Perhaps it’s just my impression from driving around Omaha, but the “holiday decorations competition” seems to be quite strong here. (I confess that we don’t participate in such silliness, but you should see some neighborhoods not too far from us. Fun to view, but I would NOT want to have to put up those lights and decorations.) By the way, if you have ever wondered why the lights are so incredibly tangled when you go to put them up, or on, or whatever you do with them; there IS an explanation.

Of course, there ARE some people who try to keep things relatively simple, but that doesn’t always work out as well as one would hope.

And, of course, there is the possibility of an unfortunate interaction between the family pet and some of the decorations…

And, then there are the parties and goodies and all of the stuff that goes along with them! I thought it was just a “bit much” when I discovered this paper plate Bonnie had.

Now, I have nothing against having nicely decorated paper plates to pass around goodies, but it struck me that it’s a design by Spode, an English company known for fine china since about the time of the American Revolution. It just struck me as a “bit over the top” for them to be making paper plates, even rather pretty ones.

And, of course, I can’t let the season go past without commenting on the fascination TNT & TBS have with the movie, A Christmas Story, which leads to continuous showings for days and nights without end during this time of year. I actually watched it all the way through once again this year after many years of avoiding it. I excuse myself for doing so because I thought that Bonnie (who said she had never seen it) should be exposed to this “cultural phenomenon.” Now, I hasten to admit that I am VERY fond of Jean Shepherd’s 1966 book, In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash, which contains much of the source material for the movie. I still have my copy of that book which I acquired in college (I think), when I was introduced to Shepherd’s work by a college buddy, who had heard him on the radio. I just don’t really care for the movie. As is true in many cases, I think the original stories are just a lot better when seen through one’s imagination than pictured for us in a movie. I confess that a good deal of the material in the movie IS from the book, and IS pretty accurately presented, but I still find the movie much less satisfying than what I see in my head when I read the original material. That’s probably because the book covers a number of years of “Ralphie’s” childhood, while the movie tries to cram all of the events into one. That many events just seem highly improbable and hard to believe for a single year, but as an adult’s reminiscences of Christmases past, it all seems much more plausible.

However, the material has become so well-known that it can lead to amusing (at least to me) adaptations.

Well, I’ve probably pushed this line of thinking as far as is necessary (possible?), so I’ll quit here and plan to return with more “normal” stuff in a couple of weeks.

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

165 Holiday Greetings – 2019

12/19/2019

0 Comments

It’s become my habit to post a copy of the “year-end summary” letter which we enclose with our holiday cards as an entry in this blog about this time of year. There are simply too many people we know (and think of, at least occasionally) to send cards to everyone. Anyway, for those who may remember us from across the years, here’s a summary of what’s been going on with us and our family in the past year. I’ll be back to more of the usual material shortly after the first of the year, but I’m going to take a bit of a break for “family time” at this festive season.

As Luann suggests, I hope that in this season of celebration you find the time to have appropriate gatherings with your friends and families. And may there be peace….

LLAP, Dr. B

0 Comments

164 Sloppy language usage and other “picky” stuff from the old editor.

12/5/2019

0 Comments

As many of my former students would probably be happy to attest, one of the things which annoys me the most is the sloppy use of language, be it poor word choice, vague word use, incorrect spelling, inability to distinguish between homonyms, “me/I” substitutions, etc.  In fact, I see that I have touched on this sort of thing a number of times before (See numbers 2, 9, 25, 60, 93, 137 and probably others in the archives of this blog.).

One of the most egregious violations of good sense in language, it seems to me, is the use of the word “quality.”  I sometimes wonder if that word actually is specifically defined, so often is it used to mean seemingly different things.  Of course, that’s an exaggeration.  It is usually used to suggest that something is good; as in a “quality” education, “quality” leaders, or “quality” products.  I find this to be misleading, inaccurate, and incomprehensible.

I was taught that the term “quality” did not, necessarily, mean “excellent” but referred to those characteristics which distinguished one thing from another, as in; “This ale has a distinctly different quality from that stout.” (meaning that the taste, mouth feel, etc. are different), or “That cheddar is of a much lower quality than this one.” (referring to the idea that two things can be of the same type, but one is considered superior due to superior ingredients, greater care in processing, or some other factor).

But, I ask, what does the term “quality time” mean?  Or, “quality coaching,” or “quality schools?”  Are we attempting to refer to “HIGH” quality as opposed to “LOW” quality?  If not, why not say so.  After all, ALL time has a “quality,” although some of it (like getting a cavity filled by the dentist) is likely to be unpleasant, where a different one, like having an outing with friends, is not.  I’m told that Albert Einstein once explained his idea of Relativity by suggesting that a minute holding a pretty girl’s hand and a minute with your bare hand on a hot stove were, still, only a minute, but they didn’t seem to be of the same length.  I would suggest that they had quite a different quality, in the sense of characteristics.

I think words have meanings and that we have to be careful as to what we say, and how we say it.  This idea isn’t new to me but, shows up in many ways and places.

The specific meaning of a term can, of course, change with the context in which it is used.

As my pal, Snoopy, said, on more than one occasion,

Yes, I agree that good writing can be difficult, but it can be essential to clarity and accuracy of expression. I suppose that implies that I believe that high quality (good) writing is more acceptable than the other sort. That may be my own peculiar prejudice, but it is something which I believe. I find it hard to accept points of discussion which are poorly expressed and weakly explained. A well-thought-out argument, on the other hand, can have considerable power, even if one, ultimately, disagrees with the conclusion reached.

I don’t believe that I am alone in reaching this conclusion regarding the accurate use of language. I suggest that the creators of the “Wizard of Id” comic strip seem to believe that careful use of language can lead to positive responses. For example:

One might argue that they just might be a bit too strong in their support for careful use of language, however.

In any event, I will confess that I am “picky” about language usage, but the King MAY be going a bit too far (tempting as it may be)!

As I have indicated in other places in the archives of this blog, one of the places in which language seems frequently to be quite poorly used is in criticism of all types. Whether it’s wine snobs, art gallery critics, political commentary, or other places; all too often we find ourselves confronted by (often) self-appointed “experts” who seem to feel that it is their right to tell us how we are supposed to react to some work of art, literature, theatre, music, or almost anything else.

All too often, the language of “criticism” seems to be, primarily, intended to establish superiority, or to confuse, and obfuscate. See this example from “Luann”

Yes, there are works which last for a long time and those which don’t. I’m not at all sure that that really has to do with the work being of a higher standard (higher quality) than other works as it does to lasting commercial appeal, etc. Like most people, I would like to believe that the highest quality work is likely to be the most appreciated, but I’m not at all sure that is, in fact, the case. Apparently, neither does the creator of “Non Sequitur”

But I do believe that language matters! It can provide us with many clues regarding the value of the ideas expressed. A high quality of language usage tends to be clear, precise, direct, and to the point. Far too much of what we are exposed to in the media and, especially, in politics, has none of those qualities.

I think that’s too bad, and I hope to see leaders emerge who will give us the respect of paying attention to their use of language. If this doesn’t happen, I’m rather concerned about our, collective, future.

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

<<Previous

169 Some Thoughts Regarding Valentine’s Day (mostly for men).

168 Miscellaneous Thoughts for a Winter’s Day (or Night)

167 Bullies & Bullying

166 Musings on the Holiday season after the fact

165 Holiday Greetings – 2019

164 Sloppy language usage and other “picky” stuff from the old editor.

Archives

Categories