I got another word misuse pet peeve. I heard this on a sports talk show today: "I wanted to root for my alumni." I also remember hearing on another show something to the effect of "He is an alumni of (such and such university)". Since when did "alumni" become the one correct catch-all word when talking about people and the school they attended?
No, you don't root for your alumni, that makes no sense. You're not hoping that anyone who has ever gone to a particular university is having success in whatever endeavor they are currently involved in at the moment. You root for your ALMA MATER. No, a given person is not an alumni of a school, they are an ALUMNUS (singular) of that school.
It's like saying "I am a big fans of the Jazz". It sounds stupid. Now stop it. :)
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
We've all heard this. It sounds nice...almost inspirational. But with a little thought, you realize it's a pretty stupid phrase. To illustrate, I'll use one of my favorite debating techniques, the always handy proof-by-counterexample...
How about if someone smacks you upside the face as hard as they can with a boat paddle? Probably won't kill you. Did it make you stronger? I would argue that it did not, in any way, make you stronger. Probably just a lot of pain, a severely damaged relationship, and perhaps a permanent mark.
How about a nasty bout with Leukemia? One which devastates your system to the point of NEAR-death. Unlikely you would be chosen 1st for the tug-o-war team.
And finally...let's say you have SEVERE case of facial acne. Doesn't kill you. Maybe you've learned to deal with it and continue to live your life...maybe even hit the inspirational speaking circuit to tell your story. Oops, no one will book you, don't want to give people nightmares with your scary-looking grill.
Now, in fairness, I think that I get the gist of the phrase. I guess I just take issue with the absoluteness of its tone. More appropriate, I believe, would be "SOME things that don't kill you make you stronger". But how un-inspirational does that sound? :)
We've all heard this. It sounds nice...almost inspirational. But with a little thought, you realize it's a pretty stupid phrase. To illustrate, I'll use one of my favorite debating techniques, the always handy proof-by-counterexample...
How about if someone smacks you upside the face as hard as they can with a boat paddle? Probably won't kill you. Did it make you stronger? I would argue that it did not, in any way, make you stronger. Probably just a lot of pain, a severely damaged relationship, and perhaps a permanent mark.
How about a nasty bout with Leukemia? One which devastates your system to the point of NEAR-death. Unlikely you would be chosen 1st for the tug-o-war team.
And finally...let's say you have SEVERE case of facial acne. Doesn't kill you. Maybe you've learned to deal with it and continue to live your life...maybe even hit the inspirational speaking circuit to tell your story. Oops, no one will book you, don't want to give people nightmares with your scary-looking grill.
Now, in fairness, I think that I get the gist of the phrase. I guess I just take issue with the absoluteness of its tone. More appropriate, I believe, would be "SOME things that don't kill you make you stronger". But how un-inspirational does that sound? :)
Monday, November 27, 2006
BYU wins! BYU wins! That was a classic game in almost every sense. Nothing quite like winning a close one against your rival, and it doesn't get any more "down to the wire" than that. Makes me wish I'd been there. There is something about this rivalry, however, that bothers me...and that is what the media has apparently dubbed it, i.e., the Holy War.
The Holy War? What? Clearly BYU has a religious affiliation, but Utah? They're just a state school, the U of UTAH. Last I checked Utahn was not a religion. If the rivalry were BYU vs. Notre Dame, the title Holy War would make sense. Is it supposed to be...Mormonism vs. Atheism maybe? Mormonism vs. Agnosticism? And what makes it extra stupid is that the predominant religion at the U of U is probably ALSO Mormonism. Are there feuding sects within the LDS faith that I'm unaware of??
A great rivalry deserves a great name, not a contrived misnomer.
The Holy War? What? Clearly BYU has a religious affiliation, but Utah? They're just a state school, the U of UTAH. Last I checked Utahn was not a religion. If the rivalry were BYU vs. Notre Dame, the title Holy War would make sense. Is it supposed to be...Mormonism vs. Atheism maybe? Mormonism vs. Agnosticism? And what makes it extra stupid is that the predominant religion at the U of U is probably ALSO Mormonism. Are there feuding sects within the LDS faith that I'm unaware of??
A great rivalry deserves a great name, not a contrived misnomer.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
It's time to talk a little cell phone etiquette...or lack thereof. :)
Let's face it. Using a cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely. BUT, I would venture to say it impairs some a little more (or much more) than others. Have you ever been out driving around, minding your own business, when you see another driver do something so inexplicably stupid or unsafe that you just have to get a look at the driver? And isn't it the case, 9 times out of 10, that they either have a phone crammed into the side of their face, or they're really old, OR (heaven forbid) both? Fortunately technology anxiety makes that last case virtually impossible...but in time it's conceivable that that will change. But I digress. My point is, just as not everyone is suited for driving in general, not everyone is suited for driving while talking on their phone. I think they should make it part of the driver license test. If you fail the "driving while talking" portion of the test, you get a restriction put on your license, like if you wear glasses, etc. Then if a cop pulls you over for doing something stupid, and you were on your cell phone, you get a big NASTY ticket...and the cop has the option to confiscate and stomp on your phone repeatedly, on-the-spot.
Also...it goes without saying (or should, anyway) that you either turn your cell phone off, or put it in silent mode, when you're at church, or in a movie, etc. I get that sometimes you forget, at least I GOT that sometimes you forget...like 8 years ago. :) But now I think there is no excuse for it. Cell phones and their use are so ubiquitous now that not turning them off in church, or a movie, or where ever is simply unacceptable. It would be like showing up to church and then realizing, "Oops! I forgot my pants!" Nevertheless, almost without exception these days, the poor sacrament prayer is tainted by a low-fi, blippy-sounding rendition of some Eminem song echoing louder than life in the chapel...quickly followed by the sound of some poor schmuck desperately trying to silence it (usually takes about 10 seconds). I think you should get a 6 month temple recommend suspension for that. Or maybe...have to give a talk the next week in church. There must be consequences or people will never learn! :)
Lastly, there is a relatively new cell-phone related phenomenon that has been especially bugging me of late, which also occurs in a movie theater. You're watching an exciting movie on a big screen, the room is dark, you're enveloped, engrossed, and then...a small but annoyingly bright light appears three rows ahead of you and takes you temporarily out of the movie. MAN that is annoying. I mean, wouldn't want a little thing like the MOVIE you paid $8 to see, not to mention everyone else in the theater, get in the way of your important text message. HEY TEENAGE CHICK, YOUR MESSAGE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS!!! :) I'm telling you, if they installed cell phone jamming devices in theaters YESTERDAY it wouldn't be too soon. I think it's inevitable...but only time will tell.
Let's face it. Using a cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely. BUT, I would venture to say it impairs some a little more (or much more) than others. Have you ever been out driving around, minding your own business, when you see another driver do something so inexplicably stupid or unsafe that you just have to get a look at the driver? And isn't it the case, 9 times out of 10, that they either have a phone crammed into the side of their face, or they're really old, OR (heaven forbid) both? Fortunately technology anxiety makes that last case virtually impossible...but in time it's conceivable that that will change. But I digress. My point is, just as not everyone is suited for driving in general, not everyone is suited for driving while talking on their phone. I think they should make it part of the driver license test. If you fail the "driving while talking" portion of the test, you get a restriction put on your license, like if you wear glasses, etc. Then if a cop pulls you over for doing something stupid, and you were on your cell phone, you get a big NASTY ticket...and the cop has the option to confiscate and stomp on your phone repeatedly, on-the-spot.
Also...it goes without saying (or should, anyway) that you either turn your cell phone off, or put it in silent mode, when you're at church, or in a movie, etc. I get that sometimes you forget, at least I GOT that sometimes you forget...like 8 years ago. :) But now I think there is no excuse for it. Cell phones and their use are so ubiquitous now that not turning them off in church, or a movie, or where ever is simply unacceptable. It would be like showing up to church and then realizing, "Oops! I forgot my pants!" Nevertheless, almost without exception these days, the poor sacrament prayer is tainted by a low-fi, blippy-sounding rendition of some Eminem song echoing louder than life in the chapel...quickly followed by the sound of some poor schmuck desperately trying to silence it (usually takes about 10 seconds). I think you should get a 6 month temple recommend suspension for that. Or maybe...have to give a talk the next week in church. There must be consequences or people will never learn! :)
Lastly, there is a relatively new cell-phone related phenomenon that has been especially bugging me of late, which also occurs in a movie theater. You're watching an exciting movie on a big screen, the room is dark, you're enveloped, engrossed, and then...a small but annoyingly bright light appears three rows ahead of you and takes you temporarily out of the movie. MAN that is annoying. I mean, wouldn't want a little thing like the MOVIE you paid $8 to see, not to mention everyone else in the theater, get in the way of your important text message. HEY TEENAGE CHICK, YOUR MESSAGE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS!!! :) I'm telling you, if they installed cell phone jamming devices in theaters YESTERDAY it wouldn't be too soon. I think it's inevitable...but only time will tell.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Every year around election time (like right now) someone will inevitably get in my face about "getting out to vote." Try as I might, a few simple reasons explaining why I usually DON'T vote never suffices. This so-called "civic duty", as they often put it, must have been ingrained very deeply and from a very early age, because I can never persuade anyone. Or maybe my arguments just suck. :) I'll let you decide...
First, I would like to clarify that I view the act of voting and the right to vote as different. The right to vote I view as very important. The act of voting, specifically me voting, however, I don't view as nearly important. I have several reasons why I feel this way, but I will only go into my latest one here.
If you're the type of person who carefully considers every candidate, reads all the provided literature, and (heaven forbid) does some independent research on the candidates, then this reason does not apply to you. In fact, you are the type of person I would want to vote. That is to say, an informed voter. But the average citizen, myself included, is a far cry from this ideal...or in other words, an grossly uninformed voter. This fact is not lost on the candidates, of course, whose sole purpose in life come election time is to get into office.
Why do you think the message we get shoved down our throats every couple years is a simple "get out and vote."? Wouldn't it be more productive to send a message something more along the lines of "research the candidates and get informed about the issues."? If someone were to take the time to do that, my guess is the simple act of casting a ballot would follow naturally.
The reason is, when you have so many uninformed voters, winning an election is a simple matter of getting your name out the most. E.g., TV commercials, signs, radio ads, flyers, etc. Who you are and what you stand for are pretty inconsequential. He who spends the most money, and therefore gets the most exposure, wins the election. And that's why I think the message they push is simply "get out and vote". The uninformed voter, or the average voter, is just a sheep susceptible to the proven marketing methods that candidates undoubtedly utilize.
An election that can be bought, which is what it pretty much boils down to, I think naturally leads to corruption. And of course corruption is bad for everyone except the corrupt. So to summarize...I consider myself so grossly uninformed that I feel I would be doing society a disservice by casting my ballot and potentially negating an informed voters ballot. Or put as succinctly as possible, an uninformed vote is worse than a no-vote. And that is why I won't be visiting the polls tomorrow. Well, that and a few other reasons, not the least of which is sheer laziness...but I won't elaborate on that point. :)
First, I would like to clarify that I view the act of voting and the right to vote as different. The right to vote I view as very important. The act of voting, specifically me voting, however, I don't view as nearly important. I have several reasons why I feel this way, but I will only go into my latest one here.
If you're the type of person who carefully considers every candidate, reads all the provided literature, and (heaven forbid) does some independent research on the candidates, then this reason does not apply to you. In fact, you are the type of person I would want to vote. That is to say, an informed voter. But the average citizen, myself included, is a far cry from this ideal...or in other words, an grossly uninformed voter. This fact is not lost on the candidates, of course, whose sole purpose in life come election time is to get into office.
Why do you think the message we get shoved down our throats every couple years is a simple "get out and vote."? Wouldn't it be more productive to send a message something more along the lines of "research the candidates and get informed about the issues."? If someone were to take the time to do that, my guess is the simple act of casting a ballot would follow naturally.
The reason is, when you have so many uninformed voters, winning an election is a simple matter of getting your name out the most. E.g., TV commercials, signs, radio ads, flyers, etc. Who you are and what you stand for are pretty inconsequential. He who spends the most money, and therefore gets the most exposure, wins the election. And that's why I think the message they push is simply "get out and vote". The uninformed voter, or the average voter, is just a sheep susceptible to the proven marketing methods that candidates undoubtedly utilize.
An election that can be bought, which is what it pretty much boils down to, I think naturally leads to corruption. And of course corruption is bad for everyone except the corrupt. So to summarize...I consider myself so grossly uninformed that I feel I would be doing society a disservice by casting my ballot and potentially negating an informed voters ballot. Or put as succinctly as possible, an uninformed vote is worse than a no-vote. And that is why I won't be visiting the polls tomorrow. Well, that and a few other reasons, not the least of which is sheer laziness...but I won't elaborate on that point. :)
Friday, November 03, 2006
Okay, Little Ceasar's Pizza, you make a really crappy pizza and sell it for really cheap. MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!
Clearly you've subsidized the cost of the pizza by cutting the marketing budget dramatically. It would seem you've created exactly 1 (lousy) radio ad and 1 (equally lousy) TV ad in many many months. One part of the marketing budget you haven't scrimped on, however, is the number of times you run your ad. It's a rare day that I don't hear that nausea-inducing radio spot at least 3 times on my way home from work: "Hot 'n' Ready, just 5 bucks!"
The ironic thing is, I would happily dish out $6 or $7 if you would promise to switch your ads up once in awhile. There's a happy medium on the "cost of pizza" vs. "marketing budget" spectrum, but you're a LONG ways from it. Think about it, little toga man. :)
Clearly you've subsidized the cost of the pizza by cutting the marketing budget dramatically. It would seem you've created exactly 1 (lousy) radio ad and 1 (equally lousy) TV ad in many many months. One part of the marketing budget you haven't scrimped on, however, is the number of times you run your ad. It's a rare day that I don't hear that nausea-inducing radio spot at least 3 times on my way home from work: "Hot 'n' Ready, just 5 bucks!"
The ironic thing is, I would happily dish out $6 or $7 if you would promise to switch your ads up once in awhile. There's a happy medium on the "cost of pizza" vs. "marketing budget" spectrum, but you're a LONG ways from it. Think about it, little toga man. :)
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
For the LOVE, people. "Loose" does not equal "lose". You don't loose your mind. You don't loose a game of checkers. You LOSE them! LOSE LOSE LOSE. I see this all the time...and someone needs to say something. :)
"Pardon me while I blow my noose." No one seems to have a problem with that. So what is it about loose and lose?
Just stop it!
"Pardon me while I blow my noose." No one seems to have a problem with that. So what is it about loose and lose?
Just stop it!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Is there anything more pointless than asking, "Can I ask you a question?" Man that bugs me. :) And people do it too. I just heard someone ask it, prompting this entry.
Hey retarded time-wasting pointless question askers...just ask your real question! Has anyone in the history of time ever EVER responded to the question "Can I ask you a question?" with "No."? NO!
Hey retarded time-wasting pointless question askers...just ask your real question! Has anyone in the history of time ever EVER responded to the question "Can I ask you a question?" with "No."? NO!
Monday, September 25, 2006
I'm as unhappy as the next guy about Utah gas stations' apparent gouging of the consumer (my car gets a not-so-Geo-Metroish 17 mpg). I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is, but I can tell you what's NOT the solution. Watching the news tonight, I see that someone has proposed the infamous, if not completely futile, gas boycott.
"If everyone just doesn't buy any gas for one day, we'll flex our collective consumer spending muscles and FORCE them to lower prices." Ahhh, this is so mind-numbingly stupid an idea that I can hardly stand it. :) Let's break it down...
First, not everyone puts gas in their car everyday. Not every OTHER day either. So what that means, is on a given day, most people are not putting gas in their car ANYWAY. And the people who are putting gas in their car on a given day are not doing so just so they'll have extra gas ready just in case they want to go on a long, trivial drive somewhere. No, it's so they'll have gas to get where they need to go. Like to work, for example.
Let's pretend for a moment that everyone is stupid and they go along with this idea. Most won't need to put any gas in anyway, like we've discussed. Those who are close to empty will most likely put some gas in the day before. So that leaves those who will run OUT on the boycott day, and I'm guessing the vast majority of those people, rather than get stranded on the side of the road somewhere, will just say "screw this idea" and go and get some gas anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is, with the extra gas bought the day before, and the day after, it would just all even out anyway and the net effect is that it would do ZERO damage to the oil companies.
Here's what we would need to do. If it were possible for everyone to participate in the following, I believe it WOULD have an effect on the oil companies. Rather than have a "don't buy any gas" day, we should have a "no one drive their car" day, or better yet a week, or a month. If it were possible for everyone to walk or ride their bike or even use mass transit, this is gas that would never be used, and consequently concrete revenue that the oil companies would never see.
But alas...organizing and executing something of this magnitude is a near impossibility...
Looks like my gas light is on, I guess I'm off to the Chevron. Ooh, ooh, $2.79...a steal! :)
"If everyone just doesn't buy any gas for one day, we'll flex our collective consumer spending muscles and FORCE them to lower prices." Ahhh, this is so mind-numbingly stupid an idea that I can hardly stand it. :) Let's break it down...
First, not everyone puts gas in their car everyday. Not every OTHER day either. So what that means, is on a given day, most people are not putting gas in their car ANYWAY. And the people who are putting gas in their car on a given day are not doing so just so they'll have extra gas ready just in case they want to go on a long, trivial drive somewhere. No, it's so they'll have gas to get where they need to go. Like to work, for example.
Let's pretend for a moment that everyone is stupid and they go along with this idea. Most won't need to put any gas in anyway, like we've discussed. Those who are close to empty will most likely put some gas in the day before. So that leaves those who will run OUT on the boycott day, and I'm guessing the vast majority of those people, rather than get stranded on the side of the road somewhere, will just say "screw this idea" and go and get some gas anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is, with the extra gas bought the day before, and the day after, it would just all even out anyway and the net effect is that it would do ZERO damage to the oil companies.
Here's what we would need to do. If it were possible for everyone to participate in the following, I believe it WOULD have an effect on the oil companies. Rather than have a "don't buy any gas" day, we should have a "no one drive their car" day, or better yet a week, or a month. If it were possible for everyone to walk or ride their bike or even use mass transit, this is gas that would never be used, and consequently concrete revenue that the oil companies would never see.
But alas...organizing and executing something of this magnitude is a near impossibility...
Looks like my gas light is on, I guess I'm off to the Chevron. Ooh, ooh, $2.79...a steal! :)
Monday, September 11, 2006
Here's a gripe for ya. On Friday morning, Sep. 8th, some a-hole, probably on their cell phone, wasn't paying attention and hit and killed my poor cat, Wudang, on Main St. just in front of my house. I found her on the road that morning as I was pulling out to go to work. I gathered her body and then buried her Sat. morning in Provo Canyon.
Wudang was probably my favorite cat, and I've had a few. She was 2 1/2 years old, and I had her since she was an 8 week old kitten, fragile and small enough to fit entirely in the palm of one hand. Here is a picture of her very soon after I brought her home for the first time...
She was a beautiful Siamese breed with pretty blue eyes. I get bummed still when I think of what happened and how I found her, so I will leave it at this. R.I.P. Wudang. Maybe they'll feed you better than the plain ol' dry cat food on the other side. :)
Wudang was probably my favorite cat, and I've had a few. She was 2 1/2 years old, and I had her since she was an 8 week old kitten, fragile and small enough to fit entirely in the palm of one hand. Here is a picture of her very soon after I brought her home for the first time...
She was a beautiful Siamese breed with pretty blue eyes. I get bummed still when I think of what happened and how I found her, so I will leave it at this. R.I.P. Wudang. Maybe they'll feed you better than the plain ol' dry cat food on the other side. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)