The thing with the buttons that changes the TV channels wirelessly from a distance, what's that called? A FRICKIN REMOTE (or just remote, if you prefer, I can even accept "changer"). IT IS NOT A CLICKER. Almost nobody alive today has seen, used, or even knows what a channel changing "clicker" is. The Zenith Space Command remote, introduced in 1956, operated by hammers physically striking bars, making "clicks". That was a clicker. Nothing else is, it's an inaccurate name, and hearing otherwise intelligent people say it bugs the hell out of me and hurts my ears. It's harder to pronounce "clicker" than "remote", too, unless you're Elmer Fudd, so given the laziness of the average person, I don't understand why they use it.
Don't go claiming that it's a phrase that's entered the lexicon as a generic term, like "dialing" a phone, even though there haven't been dials for years. At one time, EVERYONE alive used dial telephones, they all knew why it was called dialing, the term was standard. A very small portion of the population had TV "clickers", so almost everyone who ever used the term has no idea WHY THEY'RE EVEN SAYING IT.
I will give a pass to people who actually had a clicking remote, but the term must die with you, don't infect anyone else.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Lama, Obama. Obama, Lama.
The Dalai Lama met with Barack Obama, as he has met with previous presidents for the last 20 years. The Chinese government was annoyed, as they always have been over such meetings. The Lama/Obama meeting was scaled back to a more discrete arrangement. The headline regarding this was "Dalai Lama doesn't fault Obama for quiet meeting". Of course he doesn't, he's the Dalai Lama! I'm pretty sure it's in his job description to take things as they come, make the best of them, and not complain about people who are making an effort. This falls under the "Dog bites man" and "Pope condemns violence" category of headlines. When the Dalai Lama calls someone a fellating political hack, that'll be a real headline.
Afterthought, the Dalai Lama commented on the Tiger Woods things, since Tiger says he's a Buddhist, and feels the need to get back to his religious principles. What did D.L. say? He doesn't know who Tiger Woods is! I love it. Seems that spending 60 years focusing on being a religious leader and working against the military occupation of your country is what it takes to keep from being sucked into the pit of celebrity depravity. However, he had advice for Tiger - Buddhism takes the same line on adultery as most other religions. Way to go Dalai, 3 for 3 in one interview. Keep popping the egos and not giving the grave-robbing media hacks anything to work with.
Afterthought, the Dalai Lama commented on the Tiger Woods things, since Tiger says he's a Buddhist, and feels the need to get back to his religious principles. What did D.L. say? He doesn't know who Tiger Woods is! I love it. Seems that spending 60 years focusing on being a religious leader and working against the military occupation of your country is what it takes to keep from being sucked into the pit of celebrity depravity. However, he had advice for Tiger - Buddhism takes the same line on adultery as most other religions. Way to go Dalai, 3 for 3 in one interview. Keep popping the egos and not giving the grave-robbing media hacks anything to work with.
Humorless Receptacle
I am a member of a certain unnamed professional networking site where people get linked to each other, to exchange information, network, job hunt, and give and receive all sorts of professional advice. I belong to a few groups in this system, one of which is for alumni of a certain prestigious university that sits south of the Mason-Dixon line, and has never been attended by Prince Andrew. Last week, a post was made to this alumni group, linking to a humorous list of snappy answers to stupid job interview questions. They're pretty funny, and we've all probably heard (or heard about) some of them. Go check it out.
Anyway, the first comment posted was from a pharaceutical professional, Ph.D., with 500+ followers on the network, who felt that "anyone with a degree from (prestigious university) would not appreciate such sophomoric humor". Apparently I missed that day when working on my Ph.D. at said prestigious institution, because I enjoyed the hell out of the list. Unfortunately, this humorless individual shit in the pool with the first comment out, thus setting the tone and making it difficult for anyone else to comment positively. Additionally, as this is a professional networking site, saying that you enjoy such subversive humor could get you in trouble down the line, particularly since you are identified when commenting, and don't have the weasel shield of anonymity to hide behind (as I'm doing here). I told this story to someone else, and he provided me the title of the post (except he didn't say receptacle, he used a word that rhymes with an alternative way to hit a baseball), a phrase that would fit in perfectly in this series of outtakes from Better Off Ted, which contain very strong language.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is it's easy for one person to ruin other people's fun, especially when we all know that the list has a strong element of truth behind it. People who have a sense of humor never seem to have much trouble with the stick-up-the-butt persuasion, but the humorless just can't handle anything outside their microscopically narrow view of what is acceptable. Whipping out the humongous tarbrush to claim that a degree would prevent us from laughing is the action of an uptight, miserable human being who needs to get over themselves. Perhaps we could learn from the way that people agree with the list, and those responsible for asking these dumbass survey questions could re-evaluate their priorities. But no, they couldn't do that, it's easier to call people sophomoric and denigrate them than to acknowledge that they have a point.
Anyway, the first comment posted was from a pharaceutical professional, Ph.D., with 500+ followers on the network, who felt that "anyone with a degree from (prestigious university) would not appreciate such sophomoric humor". Apparently I missed that day when working on my Ph.D. at said prestigious institution, because I enjoyed the hell out of the list. Unfortunately, this humorless individual shit in the pool with the first comment out, thus setting the tone and making it difficult for anyone else to comment positively. Additionally, as this is a professional networking site, saying that you enjoy such subversive humor could get you in trouble down the line, particularly since you are identified when commenting, and don't have the weasel shield of anonymity to hide behind (as I'm doing here). I told this story to someone else, and he provided me the title of the post (except he didn't say receptacle, he used a word that rhymes with an alternative way to hit a baseball), a phrase that would fit in perfectly in this series of outtakes from Better Off Ted, which contain very strong language.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is it's easy for one person to ruin other people's fun, especially when we all know that the list has a strong element of truth behind it. People who have a sense of humor never seem to have much trouble with the stick-up-the-butt persuasion, but the humorless just can't handle anything outside their microscopically narrow view of what is acceptable. Whipping out the humongous tarbrush to claim that a degree would prevent us from laughing is the action of an uptight, miserable human being who needs to get over themselves. Perhaps we could learn from the way that people agree with the list, and those responsible for asking these dumbass survey questions could re-evaluate their priorities. But no, they couldn't do that, it's easier to call people sophomoric and denigrate them than to acknowledge that they have a point.
Stupid Census Commercial Part II
So, so there's a series of stupid census commercials going on, with the "Snapshot of America" catchphrase. These are also particularly stupid (see my first Stupid Census Commercial post). It doesn't help that the recognizable actors are noted liberal activists (like Ed Begely Jr. and the guy who was the gay movie producer giving Jed Bartlett a hard time on West Wing). BUT, my main point is the idea of the census being a "snapshot of America" is total bullshit. I said it before and I'll say it again, the point of the census is supposed to be a count, nothing more. All the demographic stuff is nonsense used to play games with money.
AND, have you heard that the 2010 census is estimated to cost $14BILLION dollars? Most of that is chasing down people who don't answer their form in the mail. Maybe if all they did was make a straight count of people, they'd get it right the first time.
AND, have you heard that the 2010 census is estimated to cost $14BILLION dollars? Most of that is chasing down people who don't answer their form in the mail. Maybe if all they did was make a straight count of people, they'd get it right the first time.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What I saw in traffic today
Got behind two interesting cars today. The first was a pickup truck, relatively new, nice paint job advertising a car repair business, big logo, name, and phone number. The truck was absolutely spewing black smoke out the tailpipe. Good advertising.
Then I passed a minivan with a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker on it. I remember some sort of "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker a while ago, but this one is clever. Very few people will fall for the Voldemort sticker, but the Obama sticker is believable. It may or may not be true in the specific case, there certainly were Republicans who voted for Obama, but the sticker doesn't have to be true on that car. If I were a trouble-maker, and I can be, putting an upsetting, but believable sticker on my car would be the best way to annoy people. That's a hell of a way to astroturf, just get a group of people who commute in the same metro area every day to put a fake sticker on their car, and suddenly you've got people believing that Houston is a hotbed of Democrats for Huckabee.
Then I passed a minivan with a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker on it. I remember some sort of "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker a while ago, but this one is clever. Very few people will fall for the Voldemort sticker, but the Obama sticker is believable. It may or may not be true in the specific case, there certainly were Republicans who voted for Obama, but the sticker doesn't have to be true on that car. If I were a trouble-maker, and I can be, putting an upsetting, but believable sticker on my car would be the best way to annoy people. That's a hell of a way to astroturf, just get a group of people who commute in the same metro area every day to put a fake sticker on their car, and suddenly you've got people believing that Houston is a hotbed of Democrats for Huckabee.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Who's to Blame?
On Chris Bowers' blog post at Open Left, the projected woes of congressional Democrats in the upcoming election are discussed, with a view to assigning blame. The author blames delays in getting health care out of committee, as getting it passed and voted on would have gotten it out of the newscycle. He blames a group of Democrats that took $100B out of the stimulus bill, and another group that blocked mortgage cramdown. Finally, the Obama administration is blamed for not taking on banks hard enough or fast enough.
Agree with him or not, a certain theme kept occurring to me (beside the fact that assigning blame is more fun than coming up with solutions). The author's main thesis seems to be that the function of congressional Democrats is to get re-elected, thus keeping their majority. He doesn't seem to be concerned about whether the actions he wants to occur retroctively would FIX problems, but rather that the actions "would have resulted in a superior electoral position for Democrats than the one they currently face."
What matters more, trying to find the right thing to do, and fix problems, or to keep your image high in the minds of the voters, and hold onto the precious majority so that the "opposition" can't take a crack at screwing things up? The best thing that ever happens for either party is being in the minority when everything goes haywire, so that they can deflect blame and come out on top. Being in charge when everything goes to shit is a death sentence, because for damn sure Congress isn't actually going to be able to FIX THINGS.
Congressional approval is somewhere around 20-30%. Complete turnover couldn't possibly make things worse, and at least by getting rid of the good-ole-boys (and girls) who have been making connections and building their sleazy power constructs, the mass of corruption and incompetence would be gone. Of course, the problem is, that whenever this comes up, people may disapprove off all of congress, but they don't disapprove of their guy. "Vote out everyone else, but keep in Senator Doofus, he does good things for my state." With that attitude, nothing ever changes.
Well, guess what, you can't think like that anymore. Everyone has to go. If Senator Doofus is really a good guy, he can run again in a few years, and take another crack at it. When it's time to vote, vote against the incumbent. Vote against them in the primary, vote against them in the general election, vote against them in the run-off. Yes, it means not voting the straight party-ticket that you always do. Yes, it means voting for an asshole who says mind-bogglingly stupid things and has dangerous ideas. But you know what? The guy you like says stupid things too, and has dangerous ideas too, that's part of being human. The part of the system that works is that they need about 268 other people to agree with their stupidity in order to change anything, and how often does that happen? Too often, I know, but again, by dismantling the sleazy power structures, it'll be harder for them to put together a coalition of schmucks to scratch each others' backs and pass bullshit wastes of money. And, in the next election, vote out the asshole you voted in this time.
Everyone must go.
Agree with him or not, a certain theme kept occurring to me (beside the fact that assigning blame is more fun than coming up with solutions). The author's main thesis seems to be that the function of congressional Democrats is to get re-elected, thus keeping their majority. He doesn't seem to be concerned about whether the actions he wants to occur retroctively would FIX problems, but rather that the actions "would have resulted in a superior electoral position for Democrats than the one they currently face."
What matters more, trying to find the right thing to do, and fix problems, or to keep your image high in the minds of the voters, and hold onto the precious majority so that the "opposition" can't take a crack at screwing things up? The best thing that ever happens for either party is being in the minority when everything goes haywire, so that they can deflect blame and come out on top. Being in charge when everything goes to shit is a death sentence, because for damn sure Congress isn't actually going to be able to FIX THINGS.
Congressional approval is somewhere around 20-30%. Complete turnover couldn't possibly make things worse, and at least by getting rid of the good-ole-boys (and girls) who have been making connections and building their sleazy power constructs, the mass of corruption and incompetence would be gone. Of course, the problem is, that whenever this comes up, people may disapprove off all of congress, but they don't disapprove of their guy. "Vote out everyone else, but keep in Senator Doofus, he does good things for my state." With that attitude, nothing ever changes.
Well, guess what, you can't think like that anymore. Everyone has to go. If Senator Doofus is really a good guy, he can run again in a few years, and take another crack at it. When it's time to vote, vote against the incumbent. Vote against them in the primary, vote against them in the general election, vote against them in the run-off. Yes, it means not voting the straight party-ticket that you always do. Yes, it means voting for an asshole who says mind-bogglingly stupid things and has dangerous ideas. But you know what? The guy you like says stupid things too, and has dangerous ideas too, that's part of being human. The part of the system that works is that they need about 268 other people to agree with their stupidity in order to change anything, and how often does that happen? Too often, I know, but again, by dismantling the sleazy power structures, it'll be harder for them to put together a coalition of schmucks to scratch each others' backs and pass bullshit wastes of money. And, in the next election, vote out the asshole you voted in this time.
Everyone must go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)