Category: speech

8 June 2019

Photo-essayist and pink (generations before it was co-opted into service for breast cancer awareness) profiteer Bob Guccione, publisher of Penthouse, entered the growing “science faction” market in the late 1970s with OMNI. Presenting original fiction, speculative essays, and other sci-fi-geekery, the slick paper magazine also included games and contests and fun. Contest Editor Scot Morris invited readers to play, sweetening the inducement by offering cash prizes for “best entrants.” I frequently played, but never won, never got paid, and am STILL not a professional wordsmith.

Not that I wasn’t noticed. After disbursing the gelt to the elites, Morris saw fit to honorably mention some of the hoi polloi.
I made that cut twice.

In 1979, Morris invited readers to contribute “scientific graffiti” such as might be found on the bulkheads of spacecraft or in the halls o’ high learnin’, and deemed entrant Anthony Reynolds’ offering,
“Microwaves frizz your heir,” tops.
Lower he cites my own, “Entropy isn’t what it used to be.”

In 1983, he began assembling his “Fractured Dictionary” and asked for “redefinitions for up to three words” and then declared that the best trio came from Chris Doyle, to wit:
Circular saw: “A rose is a rose is a rose.”
Digger wasp: A preppy archaeology student.
Damnation: The Netherlands

Harrumph! Some sore losers might count FIVE words up there in the redefinition column, but that would be mingy and graceless. Even more mingy and graceless would be to point out that while an example is an example is an example, it is NOT a definition. Instead they’ll restrain themselves, and simply direct the reader to a more elegant (and honorable) entry which does not stray into ambiguous compound word territory but simply redefines three INDIVIDUAL words, so:
Ambidextrous: A sugar that is its own stereoisomer.
Analogy:
Overprotective response of the immune system to foreign protein.
Binary: Frugal fiscal policy.

“Insufficient Eyes” (12 January 2019)
I have only two eyes.
If I were to keep (fix, sustain, do not remove) my eyes (note plural usage, meaning both of them) on the prize, there would be no eye left for anything else, including keeping it on the ball.
“Why did you run into that player?”
“I didn’t see him.”
“Why didn’t you watch where you were running?”
“You told us to keep our eyes on the ball. I was watching the ball.”
Coach didn’t like that answer. I think this may have been the same psycho-terrorist who insisted that I “Don’t try! Just do it!” But of course he would never explain how ANYTHING is EVER done without trying.
It could be that I missed his larger lesson;
it may have had something to do with running laps.

“The Consequences of Fakery” (1 September 2019)
The consequences of fakery are varied, ranging from trivial to dire.
In the social or emotional realm, fakery can [aggravate emotional fragility] or, more seriously, [compromise a] reputation.
In accounting or actuarial work it leads to bankruptcy and disgrace.
In the material realm (carpentry, engineering, surgery) people die. 
update 210105:  In the political realm, fakes are elected and re-elected and millions are financially ruined and thousands die.

(1 September 2019) A fool and his honeys are soon half-way fed up with each other. I will testify to that. As this fool never sought divorce, my hapless honeys were obliged to carry the whole load themselves. And when you work out the averages you get half, so I remain correct (one of my many flaws — no wonder they ditched me)! : update 9 January 2021 — the beat goes on…

“Diggin’ up Bones” (6 September 2019)
“I’m diggin’ up bones… exhumin’ things that’s better left alone”?
The authors of this song (Paul Overstreet, Al Gore, and Nat Stuckey) expressed it as a declarative sentence, and while singing it vocalist Randy Travis betrays not a hint of a Valley Girl accent, so there is no good reason to infer that it is a question. Yet I have misquoted it as a question because I think it is a very good question. For me.
What am I doing here with all this writing and hoping for feedback and other silly or stupid activity?
I’m diggin’ up bones. When patterns are presented by dynamic processes (like human beings, f’rinstance) sometimes an exhumation or other deeper analysis will yield useful results.
Other times it will blow up in my face. Boy Howdy!

“Another Case of ‘I’m NOT My Daddy!'” (15 September 2019)
Hip texters (or textie hipsters?) may wish to assert their digital prowess and distance themselves from “old people” who can spell (Wall Street Journal weekend edition: “Tales of ‘Woah’”). That’s fine in their clique. That’s what slang is for, to conceal meaning and to exclude outsiders. However, if one wishes to communicate with strangers, correct grammar and spelling remain key to clear meaning.
It might be helpful to consult with Noah Webster over the probable pronunciation of “woah.” Meanwhile, I’m not so old that I don’t remember movies. When Keanu Reeves skidded to a stop at the roof’s edge, he did not say “woe-uh.” He released the single breathy syllable, “Whoa!” (pronounced Hwoe).
English phonics can be confusing; ask someone who doesn’t pronounce his name kanidjit (“Knight”). Intentionally mispronouncing and misspelling words or reversing definitions (“sick” – “bad” – “privilege”) doesn’t help.

“Who Needs to ‘Learn How to Lose’?” (20 September 2019)
This is one of those “valuable team/sports/life lessons” we hear too much about. Losing goes on all the time. It takes almost no effort to lose. In fact, “no effort” is often one of the key elements of losing. Anyone presuming to teach you “how to lose” is wasting his own time (his own privilege) and insulting you (your own call.) If you’ve ever come in other than first or misplaced your keys, you already know how to lose. It’s a drag.
Maybe team sports are intended to teach me how to like it.

“Listening Between the Lines” (29 September 2019)
Because…
“Would you like a receipt?”
“I’m good.”
“I’m delighted you’re good. Would you like a receipt?”
“I don’t need one.”
“I realize. Nobody needs a receipt. Would you like one?”
“I said NO!”
“Thank you.”

Janson Jacket (28 December 2019)
Is she wondering how pleasant and charming he might be?
Or giving woodland survival tips?
Was that “Wood gnat be sweet”
or “Would Nat be sweet?”

A Brief Encounter (10 August 2020)
(co-authored by Huey Lewis —  “Yes, it’s true!”)
Customer:  “…and the same.”
Clerk:  “A dray?”
Customer:  “Yes!”

20 September 2019

One of the easiest ways of insulting people is to tell despicable lies about them or people dear to them. Mothers remain the gold standard of rich and rewarding targets. This is particularly effective against adolescents whose personal value is often predicated on the perceived value of their pack and most especially their blood kin. In short, “Diss my dog, diss me!”

This tactic is far less effective against the more emotionally stable (or “mature”) as broad insults to unknown third parties have less power in light of realizations that can range from “This idiot doesn’t know my Mom” to “’Bitch’? Really? Is that all you’ve got? You don’t know the half of this woman’s strength!”

If you’re really intent on insulting someone, the best way is to tell him something that he believes. But how to know what your target believes? Listen, watch, and learn.

People are often eager to tell you what they believe. Ignore this. As (fictional character) Greg House says, “Everybody lies.” Whether he meant it literally (as in “everybody”) or colloquially (as in “everybody, everybody else, most people, some people, few people, nobody, or just me”) it’s a fair warning. Sure, there are some careful analysts who can sift nuggets of truth out of mountains of lies, but most of us don’t have that kind of time.
So if explication is not reliable, how can we tell what people believe?

Watch what people DO. Behavior is much more sincere than oratory, especially if money is involved. For example, recently Michelle and Barrack (Bubback Hussein Walker Bush 44) Obama gave us about twelve million good reasons to believe that they don’t take environmental hysteria seriously, nor particularly fear Miami’s, Micronesia’s, or Martha’s Vineyard’s being inundated by the rising sea. Here, again, “do” trumps “say.”

The other reliable way that people will tell you about their real feelings and standards and expectations is through their accusations. Just as with “everybody lying,” everybody also projects. We can hardly help it. Our natural assumption is to believe that everybody is like us. Liars will never believe you and thieves are convinced that you’re trying to rip them off.
It’s also why such a sweet guy as myself is the eternal chump.

Another way to insult people, albeit clumsily and often inadvertently, is to offer broad criticisms of popular stereotypes. Those who are eager to seize offense will assume, with certitude, that you mean them if they happen to match some superficial characteristics. Many others might reasonably infer insult if you have failed to adequately identify qualifying modifiers. Others may breeze by such qualifiers and assume that by “some” you mean “all.”

So be careful with stereotypes. Even if they are exaggerations, the middle-management martinet, the sedentary clerk, and the emotionally retarded tech type are still based on reality, and to the sufficiently tender, they’ll sting as badly as actual facts. (Caveat in re retarded techs: Insulting us is generally a lot safer. We often don’t even realize it’s happening.) As far as using stereotypes in general: If I’ve misspoken, I’m sorry. If you’ve misinferred, I’m sorry.
On the other hand, as (fictional character) Chief Smitherman says,
“If you think it’s an unfair stereotype, don’t live up to it.”