 Ok, back to less heavy topics.
I came across this site, one dedicated to Rollie Theodore Sakers, who was featured on one of my favorite albums of all time, Sublime's "Robbin the Hood". His rants are infamous.
On the site, you can hear a full half hour of his "semantic blockage" rant, recorded while he was in a halfway house somewhere in California (there's a link to download it to), along with what is supposedly the only known picture of him. He doesn't look like what I expected; I sorta thought he was more Charlie Manson-ish based on his voice. I dunno.
WARNING: This guy is ridiculously foul-mouthed, so if there are kids around, move them :)
Ah, the things that people care to talk about...
A question arose recently concerning the rules in English grammar to show possession. I'm sure many of you discuss the English language often ( hehe ), but this question did generate some interest, apparently. So....
The question revolved around how to write the possessive of a proper name that ends in "s" or "z", like Sanchez or Miles. One thought was that if a word ended in "s" or "z", there is only an apostrophe. Another thought was that if you heard and extra "s" sound in the possessive, you added the 's, like James's.
From "A Writer's Reference" by Diana Hacker:
Possessive nouns usually indicate ownership, as in Tim's hat or the lawyer's desk. Frequently, however, ownership is only loosely implied: the tree's roots, a day's work.
When to add -'s
1. If the noun does not end in -s, add -'s. (driver's side, children's money)
2. If the noun is singular and ends in -s, add -'s. (Lois's sister)
EXCEPTION: If pronunciation would be awkward with the added -'s, some writers use only the apostrophe. Either use is acceptable. (Sophocles' plays)
When to add only an apostrophe
If the noun is plural and ends in -s, add only an apostrophe. (both diplomats' briefcases)
Joint possession
To show joint possession, use -'s (or -s') with the last noun only; to show individual possession, make all nouns possessive. (Joyce and Greg's new camper, John's and Marie's expectations)
Compound nouns
If a noun is compound, use -'s (or -s') with the last element. (father-in-law's sculpture)
I tend to agree with this general definition, with the exception for awkward sounding singular nouns. I think the right way to show possession of a proper name is to add the -'s, unless it sounds too awkward.. It does seem as though the best rule of thumb is to listen for the es sound and use a -'s if you hear it. This rule even applies to words that end in a silent-s, too, like Illinois. What about words that end in an es sound, like experience or science? Is it an -s' or an -'s? Why do I care?
 It looks like the newly declared Lowell Spinner mission to eliminate all trace of the precious Yankee club nickname from youth league teams across New England is gaining notoriety. Though the Spinners maintain that this is all "in good fun", the movement's waves are being felt across the country, most importantly in the Rotten Apple. One Yanker fan talks of getting leagues in the NYC area to remove the name "Red Sox". There are 2 reasons this won't work: Yankee fans are too fairweather to care, and they're mostly in New Jersey, not NYC.
From The Onion Radio News
(from Wednesday).
"...but, I think we can all agree that he [Bush] is a lovable president who doesn't mean any harm."
Though they jest, imagine how crippling a truth it would be if this is the primary reason he was re-elected into office. Pay attention to policy people!
No, this post doesn't explain how to get a better night's sleep. Nor does it have anything to do with poker, coughing, nor hyperspace travel. Very simply, this post is about something I remember my mother always yelling at me to do correctly:
Folding clothes.
Why post about such a seemingly trivial and unimportant topic? The short answer is, I happened across the site fold-your-shirt.com, got excited and actually want to go grab a shirt and try this myself. Check out the vid, and you'll laugh at yourself for actually being impressed...
Damn, if Apple really is planning on using this kind of technology in the future, watch out. This is phenomenal. It definitely reminds me of the interfaces used in "Minority Report", but much less technical looking and much more intuitive. It seems to me that this type of interface makes for an environment that fosters productivity and minimizes the buffers between mind, hands, and result.
from Vic Divecha's Official Tech Blog
Well, its about time. That weird period between the end of the Patriots season and the beginning of the Red Sox season is almost over, as the Red Sox Equipment truck left for Spring Training today, something that I think is news only in places like Boston.
The Lowell Spinners, the single-A affiliate of the Boston Red Sox, came out with a press release today that announces their new mission to replace all "Yankees" teams in youth leagues in and around Red Sox Nation with "Spinners" teams. To me, this boils down to the Spinners saying "Yankees Suck" in their own special way.
Hey...Go Spinners.
They make a convincing argument, describing the turmoil many kids go through when waiting to find out to which youth league team they've been assigned, hoping that they go to any team BUT the Yankees. I can understand this...I certainly wouldn't be very excited to have to play on a team with that name, and may have dropped the whole little league thing all together, given my droughthers. "When you are a kid playing baseball it is pure fun, and worrying about what team you are on should be the least of your concerns," says GM Tim Bawmann, and I think he's right. Furthermore, I think it's time we removed big league club names from the youth leagues althogether. I would like to think people are creative enough to come up with some team names other than those such as "Orioles", "Giants", and "Astros". They all have connotations as well; don't you think a kid from Boston may be somewhat partial to playing for the "Red Sox"?
Lastly, one might ask themselves, "what about those kids who WANT to play for a team called the Yankees?". The short answer is:
TOO BAD.
Over the course of the last few months, I've noticed a trend where various real-estate agents and other property related types have been taking the liberty of renaming some of Boston's neighborhoods. There has been such a large negative reaction to it that it seems to be dying down a lot. Hallelujah.
Now when I read articles about neighborhoods, I don't see "SoWa" (South Washington), "SoHa" (South Harrison) or, the worst one ever, "EaBo" (East Boston). It's bad enough that these names sound like Star Wars Characters ("Commander Eabo, I've got Rebels closing in, 5 o'clock"), but what's more disturbing to me is trying to figure out what the rationale was to rename them in the first place. Were the old names not good enough? Was it that what the old names are affiliated with isn't desirable to the clientele the real estate people are trying to attract? In effect, the changing of a neighborhood's name consequently affects that neighborhood's identity and culture. So who are these people to rename them?
EVERYONE I've seen interviewed on the news or with whom I have spoken about this has had a mixed reaction of laughter and confusion. Some, even anger. The whole situation is so ridiculous, it prompts me to fight back.
From now on I'll be sending mortgage payments to my MoCo and paying condo fees to my CoAss.
My co-workers first words to me this morning about the President's State of the Union address last night were his opinion that he thought Bush was "trying to sound like a liberal". Interesting observation....I wonder if others thought the same thing.
I read over the transcript at the White House's site, and was not surprised to read that "the state of our Union is strong", yet again. Well, if you say so, prez...
It looks as if last night's speech was the same old "stay tough, the union" speech we've heard at least 3 years in a row now. One of the scary things is, I've actually heard people who take this mentality to heart, saying things like "yeah, we'll take them (Iran) over, then we'll move onto the next country", and "Let them (Korea) try to fuck with us, we'll kick their ass too". At what point, exactly, did I become a citizen of The United Bullies of the World, anyway? It seems as though none of these zealots will stop complaining and threatening until the world is under US control, and even then, I'm sure they'll still have the itch to pick a fight.
It is said that...our government failed to connect the dots of the [9/11] conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Couldn't connect the dots? What was the title of that report, Ms. Rice? I also love how he implies, without saying so exactly, that 9/11 happened because we couldn't wiretap people, and worse, that it will happen again if he's not allowed to do what he wants. If the whole "Tough Guy" tactic isn't enough for you, there is another classic strategy of control: Fear. I thnk I first learned about it when I was studying the propaganda of Nazi Germany. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well? Wow! Lincoln? MLK? As another friend of mine so sarcastically put, "He [Bush] is clearly the next Martin Luther King". So, next time you want to move others to your way of thinking, remember this cue form Bush. All you have to do is start talking about famous and revered figures in our history, throw in a lame attempt at tying in something you did recently that is loosely related to the argument, at best, then present a dichotomous choice (and sometimes ultimatum) like this one here: "turn back" (clearly negative, you wussy) or "finish well" (clearly positive, as opposed to finishing poorly or not at all..."stay the course"). Why do I THINK at all when my government is so ready to do it for me? I had no idea that every decision the President needed to make was so easy and clear cut...what an easy job! And the bonus is (according to some heavy pushers of the Republican agenda / religion), the President is never wrong... ...but damn, does he talk tough.
It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I report to you the end of free Red Sox games in the Boston area. Though I pay for cable and can watch them at home, there was something nostalgic about watching them on TV38, albeit only on Friday nights for the last few years. I remember when they first made the move to NESN years ago, and my father shelled out something in the neighborhood of $12 a month to Cablevision JUST to get that station and watch his games. With rising ticket prices and even faster rising cable costs, it seems that being a Sox fan is getting expensive these days.
At least I can read about them online.
Oh, yeah, that costs money too.
This story is great. I kid out in Milton is trying to say that the school system is gender biased towards female students. I can't get enough of him. I'll start out with a quote:
The system is designed to the disadvantage of males...From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this. Thankfully (or unfortunately, depending on your view) this isn't this kid's only point. Can you imagine a world where we try to instill discipline into the youth? But let's not judge too harshly or too quickly; maybe he has a point. Could it be that he is identifying something valid but isn't quite saying it right? Maybe what he's really pointing out is that much of what determines one's success in school does NOT come from academic achievement, but rather from simply following rules. I think he's just making excuses for not doing well. He says he wants to get into Holy Cross, and this seems to me to be a feeble attempt by this kid (and probably his father, who is a Boston lawyer) to somehow explain away why he doesn't have the grades to do it. Not surprisingly, this kid has support among other students in the school. Amazingly, however, even the female senior class president back several of this kid's ideas. You can't expect a boy to buy pink paper and frills to decorate their notebooks. What she's essentially claiming here is that because one teacher offers extra credit to anyone who "decorates" their bookcovers, this equates to using glitter and feathers. It may be just a way in which that teacher is getting kids to cover their books, something that prolongs the life of the book so as not to have to buy new ones any time soon. In the same breath, the president complains that the same teacher requires students to type up reports, which is somehow girly. Wow...typing, what an unneeded life skill. Many of the other points this kid raises seem to have nothing to do with academics at all, and could actually be testament to favoratism towards girls in his school. If teachers are asking boys for passes in the halls and not girls (one of his claims), it could be that they like girls more....OR it could be that it has nothing to do with gender at all, and those people who are asked for passes have established some precedent for the inquiry, and this kid (I love calling him that) is simply trying to conveniently generalize it to fit his whacko theory. To top off this kid's list of ridiculous suggestions, he poses the idea that boys should not be made to fulfill the community service required of all high-school seniors to graduate, saying it is "another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result"...this kid could care less about the community apparently. His father should be ashamed of himself for raising such a child (and that's exactly what he is) and in fact encouraging this type of mentality. The fact is, this kid has no idea what it is like to be discriminated against. He's a white guy who seems pretty well off and will be provided for regardless of what he does (or more acurately, doesn't do) in whatever school he ends up going to. Daddy, it seems, will make sure of that. I enjoyed the other things boston.com readers posted in response to this story. Read them here.
"Christmas"
It's just a word. In our current American society, however, its usage is a hotbed topic of debate. Some say using it to decribe the time at the end of the year when people sing songs, give gifts, light candles, and make a point to spend time with family is not appropriate anymore. In lieu of saying "Christmas time" or "Christmas season", many companies, institutions and individuals have now adopted the term "Holiday Season". I myself have used it, almost unknowingly, as it's appearance around town and in the media has become more commonplace. When I think about it, its not a big deal to say either, as people know what I mean either way (successful communication is of course still the most important thing). It's the reasons I hear people give as to why NOT to say simply "Christmas" that I am not sure about.
The most popular complaint is that the term "Christmas" describes only the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Sure, this is what the holiday was originally about. The man's name is in the word itself, even. It still IS about that, to Christians, but what about the rest of us?
I was raised by a Catholic and an Athiest. I was never baptised or christened or initiated into any kind of religion whatsoever. Yet somehow we had Christmas every year, and though I eventually learned about the holiday's origins, my parents never presented it to me in any way other than the time of year kids got gifts randomly. Materialistic, yes (and now that's truer than ever), but it still managed to suceed in solidifying Christmas in my mind as a holiday that transcended its religious origins.
Christmas isn't just for Christians. I know lots of people from varied cultures, ages, and religions, Jewish and otherwise, who exchange gifts on December 25th in the name of a non-religious Christmas holiday.
Most of what we as a whole affiliate with the holiday has nothing to do with it's Christian origins. Christmas trees, stockings, coal in the stockings, milk and cookies, eggnog, mistletoe, elves, toys, the North Pole...none were present or part of the celebrated birth in the manger. Even Santa Claus, whose title indicates sainthood, has what to do with the birth of Christ? Most children, I would venture to guess, become more familiar with all of Christmas' non-religious pieces long before they learn the Christian story behind it.
This would not be the first holiday to break off, at least partially, from its religious beginnings. Another Christian holiday is I think an even stronger example of this phenomenon: Easter. How many kids across America think about Jesus' resurrection before decorating eggs, eating jellybeans, and awaiting a visit from the Easter bunny (none of which I think had anything to do with the Christian meaning)? All of the bunny-related parts of the holiday are so detached from the religious parts of Easter that they are pratically two different holidays with the same name and occuring on the same day.
Why, then, is there not an outcry for the use of different names for the two different kinds of Easter? Might it be that there are not observances from other religions around the same time? Maybe if there was a Kwaanza or a Hanukkah around the same time we'd have another "season" to appease all. I contend that this is another reason people are no longer wishing others a "Merry Christmas" in late December without reservation.
Maybe the fact that there are so many Christians in this country has something to do with the uproar. Perhaps they don't want others to celebrate their holiday. If that's true, its not exactly a step in the direction of recruiting people to become Christians, not to mention its extrememly narrow-minded. So let's assume that is not the case. Maybe it is that non-Christians affiliate Christmas with Christianity and therefore want nothing to do with the holiday. OK, perhaps. But what about Kwaanza? So far as I know, that isn't affiliated with any religion whatsoever. Can people celebrate both holidays at the same time?
Do people who don't celebrate Christmas celebrate other holidays like Easter (in the non-religious sense)? What about holidays that stem directly from other belief systems that are not as popular? Halloween is a great example. Originating from a Pagan observance, how many of us non-Pagans dress up our kids and march them around to collect candy from neighbors? Maybe a better question is, how many of us do not because of a conflict of religious interest? I see Halloween as maybe the clearest example of a holiday that has transcended it's religious origins.
Let's come back to the original point: "Christmas" is just a word. It's a word that has different meanings to different people, sometimes unrelated to the word's origin. How much time has to pass before it is acceptable to the majority? Are there any such words in our everyday vocabulary today? The answer is yes, and for evidence look no further than the names of the first six months of the year:
January, from Janus, the god of doors and gateways in Roman mythology.
February, from Februus, the Roman god of purification.
March, from Mars or Martius, the Roman god of war.
April, possibly from Apru, the Etruscan name for the Greek god Aphrodite.
May, from Maia, the Greek godess of fertility.
June, from Juno, the Roman god of marriage.
I think that very very few, if any, people are part of a Roman or ancient Greek belief system today (merely the fact that we describe those religions as mythology is testament to our perception of them). Since they have nothing to do with Christians, should Christians come up with new names? Wait..wasn't it the Romans who persecuted Jesus? Hmmm...
In the end, I'll wish people a "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" interchangably and without reservation. If someone claims offense or notes that they don't celebrate Christmas because of religious differences, I'll simply make sure they know what I mean.
Then I'll give them a Christmas card.
 | Watch out for those trees on the slopes!
Happy birthday Bugdaddy. |
|
|
