"This whale... was literally saying, 'Thanks. Thanks for helping me out.'" Yes, someone actually said that on NPR's "Radiolab" recently. As a friend of mine put it, "I didn't know whales spoke English! Imagine making a thhh sound through a baleen!"
Granted, even reputable dictionaries do give an extended definition of "literally" as "in effect, virtually," but the word seems to have become something of a fad lately. There's even a hilarious blog devoted to chronicling abuse of "literally." I'm tempted to try to find some sort of sociological basis for this phenomenon — is there now a cultural fixation with literality, a backlash against insincerity and irony? — but there's probably nothing to it except mindless disregard for the language. Most likely, these things just erupt of their own accord.
Remember last year's "Really, [person's name]? Really?" With the first "really" pitched relatively high, and the second one pitched even higher, almost at a squeal. People spat that one out like it was a computer macro, and you could tell they felt really cool when they did it, like little kids when they speak into a walkie-talkie. Now "really?" is disappearing, thankfully. But why? Have people suddenly become incapable of disbelief at the bad behavior of others? Or was it just some vapid trend that folks mindlessly repeated as if they had little digital samplers attached to their vocal chords and then abandoned when they got tired of it?
Or how about the truly tacky "douche" and its even more repulsive adjectival sibling, "douchey"? Ugh, I feel sullied even typing those words. Starting a little over a year ago, people uttered them with obsessive-compulsive regularity and little provocation. Now it's almost gone, despite the fact that ignominious behavior has not suddenly abated, as far as I can tell from the newspapers.
Last year, I was in a band with a guy who would parrot those memes reliably and with unironic gusto. He was the kind of guy who did fist bumps and said "WAZZZUUPPP!" and "THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!" when they were trendy. One day last year this eager magpie hit a linguistic grand slam. He was driving me back from practice when someone cut in front of us. And he said "Really, douche? Really?" I literally wanted to scream.
These things are fairly innocuous in themselves, despite the fact that they make me retch violently. But since language and thought are so intertwined, it makes me wonder whether ideas and opinions also get transmitted and popularized the same way. Maybe these inane memes, like weather balloons that trace the path of a jetstream, are a visible marker of the otherwise invisible, revealing the routes by which ideas travel.
JFK MEETS GEORGE ORWELL AT THE LIBRARY
"Too often, we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
That's more relevant than ever, and I was so struck by it that I went back and recorded the passage on my iPhone. Then when I got home I looked up the quotation so I could find out when and where he said it, which turns out to be a commencement address at Yale on June 11, 1962.
The funny thing is, that's not quite what Kennedy said. What he actually said was:
"For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often, we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere."
Those are the same sentences, but rearranged, and it eliminates a slight hitch in Kennedy's delivery. Granted, it doesn't change the meaning or substance of Kennedy's statement, but that little bit of Protools magic strikes me as a little creepy in a 1984 kind of way. All presidential libraries are exercises in vanity and revisionist history but it really makes me wonder what else they manipulated. (And let's not even get into the irony of our most mythologized president decrying mythology in a place that exists solely to perpetuate his myth.)
And what about Bush 43's presidential library? Are they going to edit his 2003 State of the Union speech so it doesn't include the lie about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake uranium?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: AMERICAN PSYCHO
Chris Matthews is the second-craziest host on cable news, and he has a number of strange, almost OCD, tics that he repeats endlessly on his MSNBC show Hardball. One thing he does a whole lot is gloat about how he knows how to pronounce Dick Cheney's name correctly.
You see, the former vice president says not "Chainy," but "Cheeny." Matthews rarely fails to mention Cheney's name without signaling that he's taking special care to pronounce it right, pausing briefly before emphasizing the name and then smugly looking at the camera as if to say, "Go ahead, I dare you to tell me I'm saying it wrong." He really loves the fact that he knows how to pronounce "Cheney" and you don't.
But often, that's not enough for Matthews, and that's when he sanctimoniously reminds his audience that he knows how to pronounce Dick Cheney's name correctly. He never gets tired of it.
September 7, 2006
"And on Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney, that‘s how he pronounces it, exclusively on Tim Russert‘s Meet the Press."
October 25, 2006
"…he was deputy assistant to Vice President Cheney, that‘s how I like to pronounce it, on domestic policy."
June 21, 2007
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Jeremy Bronson. Let‘s bring in Ron Christie, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, and Robert Raben, former Clinton assistant attorney general. You like that pronunciation, don‘t you?
RON CHRISTIE, FORMER ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: I do. And you do it every time.
MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s the way the family does it.
March 16, 2009
"Former vice president Dick Cheney—that's how he pronounces his name…"
March 24, 2009
"The on-going story of Dick Cheney—by the way, that‘s the way the family pronounces it, Cheney, in that Dickensian fashion."
May 21, 2009
"Back to today‘s main event, President Obama versus former Vice President Dick Cheney, and that‘s how the family pronounces it, that Dickensian way, Cheney."
May 22, 2009
Matthews discusses the controversy about how to pronounce "Cheney" and cites an NPR interview with Liz Cheney and another one with Lynne Cheney.
June 18, 2009
CHICAGO TRIBUNE COLUMNIST CLARENCE PAGE: And you are right. Cheney is the original pronunciation.
MATTHEWS: It‘s the correct pronunciation.
July 15, 2009
"By the way, the name is pronounced “Cheeney.” Just ask him."
July 23, 2009
"Cheney—that's how you pronounce it…"
August 31, 2009
"We know where Dick Cheney stands. And that's how you pronounce his name, by the way, Cheney."
September 4, 2009
"It‘s pronounced “Cheeney,” by the way."
September 28, 2009
"Up next: Could we see another Cheney in public office? Actually, she pronounces it Cheney, unlike her dad."
September 29, 2009
"…daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney. He pronounces it differently."
September 30, 2009
"…the Cheneys—rather the Cheney and the Cheney—they pronounce their names differently…"
CORPORATE PEP TALK
I was trading some e-mails with my friend Jon about what a drag it is to work in an office, and how one of the biggest drags is putting up with corporate jargon. Here's his reply. I think it's pretty much the final word on the subject, although I welcome more buzzwords from my faithful readers.
THE WORST OF CNN.COM HEADLINES
And every once in a while I remember to note down some of the most idiotic headlines from CNN.com's absurdly titled "Top Stories" section.
X-Men illustrator dies in Superman pajamas (November 28, 2006)
For some reason, this preceded a spate of headlines with the word "groin" in the title. I wish I'd recorded more of them, but the following is a good example.
How very interesting.
Isn't that what falcons do?
Two clowns shot dead during performance (February 21, 2007)
Thongs, fishnets called harmful to young girls (February 23, 2007)
Wife yells on 911 tape after husband shot lover (March 28, 2007)
Jeez, couldn't she just talk in a normal voice?
Virginia Tech wounded confront deep scars (April 29, 2007)
Easily the most unfortunate headline I've found to date.
Man bites dog to rescue puppy (July 4, 2007)
A little inside journalism humor, gotta hand it to them on this one.
Dancing penguin beats up 007 (December 3, 2006)
Ticker: Chelsea Clinton to say aloha to Hawaii (February 14, 2008)
Of course, "aloha" means both hello and goodbye. Which was it? Idiots.
Toilet-trained chimp on the loose in California (July 1, 2008)
Oh no, it's going to shit in your bathroom!
STUPID, IGNORANT AND HOMOPHOBIC LIKE A FOXX
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R,
North Carolina) claimed the other day, on the House floor, that Matthew
Shepard's death was a "hoax," not a homophobic murder but something
that happened in the course of a robbery.
Of course, it was actually a homophobic murder, and a brutal and grisly
one at that. A lot of people
complained, so yesterday, Foxx issued an apology. Well, not really.
Let's parse her statement.
It has come to my attention that some people have been led to believe that I think the terrible crimes that led to Matthew Shepard’s death in 1998 were a hoax.
"Led to believe" implies that somehow people were swindled by unnamed and nefarious outside forces. But the person who said Shepard's murder was a "hoax" was none other than Rep. Foxx. No one was "led to believe" anything — she said it outright. Also, the use of "some people" is pretty sleazy; the phrase implies that not everyone who heard her say it came to the same conclusion. But virtually anyone with a half-decent grasp of the English language would understand that Rep. Foxx was clearly claiming it was a "hoax."
"The term 'hoax' was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill."
This is deliberately slippery language designed to imply that she simply chose the wrong word. Hey, anybody can do that, right? Hogwash. She said "hoax" and she meant it, as proven by the context of the statement.
"Mr. Shepard’s death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received."
Again, very sneaky. Foxx pointedly doesn't acknowledge that it was a hate crime, just a "tragedy." And by stating that the murderers "deserved the punishment they received," she is really saying that existing legislation is sufficient for this type of crime, and that hate crime legislation is therefore unnecessary.
"I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement."
This is the crowning glory of the "apology." She's not sorry that she said something that was blatantly ignorant and homophobic, she's just sorry that anyone took it that way. This is the way government officials apologize these days – blame the victim.
"The larger context of my remarks is important. I was referring to a 2004 ABC News 20/20 report on Mr. Shepard’s death. ABC’s 20/20 report questioned the motivation of those responsible for Mr. Shepard’s death. Referencing this media account may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake based on what I believed were reliable accounts.”
So she's taking speculation by the news media – the one she no doubt regularly accuses of left-wing bias – and takes it as fact to be repeated on the floor of the House of Representatives and read into the public record… in front of Matthew Shepard's mother. This is especially egregious considering there was in fact a murder trial for this case done under sworn testimony which explicitly confirmed that Shepard was murdered because he was gay. Thus Foxx admits that she ignored a very basic principle of our society: that legal verdicts, not speculation, are accepted as the official truth of a given case. "Believing" something is a reliable account is weak, especially if you're an elected representative who is expected to know and trust the findings of the courts, especially when debating national legislation.
Virginia Foxx is an embarrassment to our nation and to democracy. She should resign in shame, immediately.
BOOTS-AND-PANTS BANDS
One learns all sorts of things at the SXSW music convention: industry gossip, tips on great new bands and cheap, tasty restaurants, and where to find a party with an open bar. Perhaps one of the most useful tidbits this year was “boots-and-pants bands,” a wonderful term. Apparently, that’s how a certain large Northwest indie label dismisses the innumerable robotic art-dance groups still cluttering up the Brooklyn scene. It refers to the fact that the music all has the same basic rhythm: boots-and-pants-and-boots-and-pants-and-boots-and-pants...
What a find — right up there with “yarling"!
"REALLY?"
Has anyone else noticed the recent trend of using "really?" to communicate more of a tone of indignation rather than surprise or disbelief? So it's more like "you actually have the nerve to do that [to me]?" as opposed to "you're kidding!" or "wow!"
I first saw it in a commercial for Travelocity, where there was a hipster website-developer-type guy whose hotel room was made into a living hell by construction noise. Every time he'd try to ask his girlfriend where his flip-flops were, a jackhammer would start up and drown out his words. Finally, he rolled his eyes, flung out his hands and said, "Really?"
Now I hear it everywhere -- it's the new "kewl" or "suh-weet." Funny how that happens.