Thought Leaders and Thought Followers

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I was a recent Web conference associated with my day job, and I was extremely fortunate to attend during a year when there were so many thought leaders floating around, including one of the keynote speakers. I was merely one of the much less important thought followers.

Leaders, innovators, experts, and book authors are nothing new, but the concept of a thought leader is. It’s a re-hash of the old terminology, but I find it to be condescending. I might not have the expertise of one of the so-called thought leaders, but my thoughts are as valuable as his or hers.

I know. That’s not how the term is intended, and it’s just the people in a new generation defining themselves in their own way. But I’m telling you this: I have my own thoughts, and I’m not going to follow anyone else’s!

Speaking of thoughts, mine often wandered to the attendees who paid a couple of hundred bucks each for the right to not pay attention to the presenters. How could they–with tweets to send and follow, Facebook pages to update, e-mail to send, and Web sites to visit?

Seriously, have you noticed how little attention people now pay to other people, including those who they adorn with such titles as “thought leaders?” It’s getting progressively more difficult to get work done with so few people paying attention.

Posted in language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

League Slams Players for Foul Language–Circa 1898

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

For those of you who believe that poorly behaving athletes is a modern problem, check out this yahoo.com blog: Late 19th century ball players sure used creative vulgarities.

The blog highlights a memo (I don’t know what it was called then!) from the league, highlighting some of the vulgarity used by baseball players around and, in some cases, directed at fans, issued in 1898. The blog shows the offending phrases blocked out, but the article includes a link if you want to see the uncensored correspondence.

I’ll put it this way: It’s a good thing that they didn’t have access to Twitter back then. Yikes.

Posted in language, sports | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Palmero’s Pizza Not-So-Organic Cooking Instructions

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I know that all cooking instructions leave some room in the directions for the variability of ovens, individual done-ness preferences, etc., but Palmero’s Organic Pizza seems to have taken it to extremes.

Cooking instructions are “bake for 11 to 17 minutes, or until crust is light brown and cheese is melted and golden brown.”

The time range is wider than most instructions, and it includes a version of the standard “or until done” line. In addition, they include a note that “ovens vary, rely on appearance.”

And everyone makes fun of meteorologists (like me)?!?!?!! I’m not going to let this test kitchen get away with that.

They obviously have no idea how long it’s going to take; it might be 11 minutes (or less if your over runs hot) or 17 minutes (unless your oven runs cool), so why not just make it simple and go with 8 to 20 minutes or until done.

I will say this, though. Palmero’s is the best frozen organic pizza we’ve had, with plenty of cheese and a fresh-tasting sauce. So, if Palmero would like to send any coupons for free pizza to writers of wildly popular blogs who happen to like their pizza, check out our About Us page.

Posted in language, off topic | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Palmero’s Pizza Not-So-Organic Cooking Instructions

Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

Who would have ever thought that we’d need to put the names Paul Revere and Sarah Palin in the same sentence?

Posted in off topic, politics | Tagged , | Comments Off on Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

America: Misnomer of a Moniker

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I don’t get it. Why are the terms United States and America used interchangeably?

The United States is part of America, which is why it’s called the United States of America! It is not America any more than France is Europe, Sudan is Africa, Chile is America, or Australia is Australia. Oh wait, scratch that last one.

America is split into two continents, North America and South America, and the two continents are divided into separate nations, one of which is called United States.

America and United States are not interchangeable.

I know. I know. I can almost hear the descriptivists out there, typing fervently on their keyboards:

Well, Paul Revere first referred to the United States as America in 1751, and famous author William Cullen Bryant often referred to the United States as America. Usage gained even more popularity in the 20th century. Therefore, its use is completely acceptable.

Yeah, yeah. It’s not always about usage. Sometimes, it’s about clarity, and it doesn’t make sense to refer to one nation on a continent (or, in this case, two continents) as the continent itself.

It makes me want to move to America, I mean Canada.

Posted in language | Tagged , , | Comments Off on America: Misnomer of a Moniker

Merchandise Replenisher Wanted

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I know that every employer wants to make his job sound important, and I truly believe that every employee deserves respect for whatever job he does; however, I find new titles for old jobs to be very amusing.

A national chain store is advertising for a “merchandise replenisher” position for early Friday and Saturday early mornings.

In other words, they wanted to hire a part-time stocker but didn’t want to say so.

Posted in language | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Merchandise Replenisher Wanted

Deliberately Misleading Language

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

This is as much a political opinion piece as it is a language piece, but when has that stopped me before? If hearing political views that may not match yours (even though they should) is offensive to you, then please go to my completely non-political post about dates being printed on eggs–Jobs I’d Hate to Have.

Teleconference Town Hall?

I had never heard of a telephone town hall with a U.S. Congressman, but some automatic calling system invited me to participate in one with my (I use the term “my” loosely since he doesn’t represent my point of view very well) representative, Glenn Thompson.

I immediately jumped on the opportunity to listen and ask a question (details on that below), but I was struck by the deliberately misleading language he used during one of the poll questions during the meeting.

Yes Means No, and No Means Yes

The lack of support (and downright anger from many) for Paul Ryan’s budget plan to turn Medicare into a privatized voucher system that would basically destroy the program that has worked for the past 40-plus years has resulted in nearly all politicians backing away from supporting the plan.

People like Medicare the way it is; they don’t want their elderly family members having to shop for insurance on the open market with a government voucher that is only going to cover a portion of the cost that the plan used to. It’s simple: When people know the details of the plan, they don’t like it.

The political response, of course, is to muddy the waters so that people are confused about what’s really going on, which is what Thompson did with his poll question. (The following is not a direct quote; it’s a paraphrase since I wasn’t thinking that I’d be writing about it today.)

  • A recently issued report (I don’t remember the name) states that Medicare will be insolvent by 2020.  Do  you support reforming Medicare so that we can meet our commitments? (If so, press 1). Or, do you believe that the program should not be reformed? (If so, press 2).

First of all, we could argue about what state Medicare is going to be in by 2020; it (and Social Security) is not nearly the deficit-causing problem that Republicans like to make it out to be. The financial burden placed on Americans is NOTHING compared to the burden of the Bush tax cuts. That’s right. The Bush tax cuts have been a tremendous burden on all of us–all of us except the rich. Re-instate the taxes to Clinton-era levels, and the Medicare/Social Security “problem” would be solved.

Regardless, national polls indicate that a high percentage (70-80%) of Americans support no cuts in benefits to Medicare. Therefore, the question was framed in such a way that a vote to reform Medicare (which is a Republican code word for cut) seemed like it was a vote for keeping benefits the same as they currently are (meeting our commitment) while a vote for not reforming Medicare seemed to indicate that we couldn’t meet our commitment.

In other words, Thompson deliberately worded the question so that he could say he has support for cutting reforming Medicare when he doesn’t.

No means yes, and yes means no. We all used to call that a lie, and I still do.

Tax Question

Unfortunately (for me, not Mr. Thompson), time ran out before I could ask my question. I was, however, given the opportunity to leave a voice mail question (monologue/question).

Approximately 80% of the population agrees that we should raise taxes on millionaires and large corporations in order to help reduce the deficit, but all I ever hear is “Washington has a spending problem.” Washington also has a very serious revenue problem. The rich and large corporations pay less tax now than they did in 1980!! Do you support having the rich pay their fair share, or do you only support cuts–cuts to education, cuts to Social Security, cuts Medicare, etc.?

Oh, and please don’t insult me by telling me about trickle down economics. We’ve done that for nearly 30 years, and it doesn’t work.

Congressman Glenn “the rich pay too many taxes” Thompson or one of his staff promised to get back to all questioners. When he does, I’ll post his response on the blog.

Geez, I hope it’s not about trickle down economics. The blog might lose its status as a family blog.

Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The World Is Still Going to End, According to Camping

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I know this has nothing to do with language, but I thought that you’d like to know that the world is still coming to an end, at least according to self-proclaimed prophet Harold Camping.

Apparently, Camping never learned the philosophy of quitting while behind!

Posted in off topic | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Tween a Rock and a Made-Up Word

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Using overly trendy language can lead to all sorts of problems, such as lengthy conversations and  strained relationships. To make my point, here is a hypothetical conversation between a mom who thinks she’s hip and a friend who prefers to use normal language:

Mom: “I don’t know what to do. Now that Sarah is a tween, she’s getting more difficult to handle.”

Friend: “Sarah is 13 already? I thought she was 11. I thought her 10th birthday was just last year.”

Friend (agitated and concerned) continues: Geez. I’m getting old fast. Maybe it’s dementia. I’ve got to see a doctor.”

Mom: “No! She’s 11, not 13. Why do you think she’s 13?

Friend: “Because you just said she’s a teen!”

Mom: “I didn’t say that! Aren’t you listening?”

Friend: “Oh my God. It’s worse than I thought. Now, I’m hearing things. I could have sworn you said that Sarah is a teen. Maybe I can call Dr. Phil or Dr. Drew.”

Mom: “No, I said ‘tween,’ not ‘teen.”

Friend: “Dr. Oz. I like Dr. Oz. He can help me. Yeah, Dr. Oz.”

Friend (catching up to the conversation):”Tween?!?!? What the CENSORED does that mean?”

Mom: “There’s no need for that tone. A tween someone who’s not yet a teenager but isn’t exactly a child, either.”

Friend (laughing): “Oh, so you meant to say pre-teen, but you accidentally invented a new “word.” That’s funny.”

Mom: “I didn’t make it up. Everyone is saying it. It’s either tween or tweenager.”

Friend: “No–not everyone. That’s stupid. I call them ‘pre-teens’ like I always have–and so does everyone else I know.”

Mom: “Well, you don’t have to call me stupid. You’re the one who doesn’t know the new words.”

Friend: “It’s not a word. The only time I’ve ever heard tween was when someone was too lazy to say between.”

Don’t let this happen to you!

Posted in grammar, humor, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Does “States’ Rights” Really Mean?

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

I love hearing the term “states’ rights” during  political discussions because of what it seems to mean, which is something like “This radical idea I’m espousing has absolutely no chance of becoming law at the national level, but a few of the wacky states might agree to it; therefore, I’m a strong proponent of states’ rights.”

I’ll use what I heard from Ron Paul today as an example.

He talked about how the legality of drugs, such as marijuana and heroin, should be decided on a state level (states’ rights issue). He also said that his personal view is that there is too much of an emphasis on “the war on drugs” and that legalizing drugs would make them easier to control, reduce the strain on prisons, etc.

There is something to this idea, but good luck getting anything like that passed in the U.S. What politician is going to want to face a re-election campaign with that as fuel for the opponents? I can hear it now: “Joe Smith wants more heroin addicts in the parks where your children play. Vote for me, and I’ll keep your children safe.”

If he believed that this idea had national support, would he still believe that it’s a “states’ rights” issue, or would it be part of his national platform? Paul actually might leave it to the states because that tends to be one of the tenets of a true libertarian; however, in most cases, the language of “states’ rights” is an attempt to get a foothold for a policy that has little national support.

Politicians just can’t be that transparent.

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment