| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
William Harasym's invitation is awaiting your response
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, January 26, 2015
The Origins of 8 Nearly Obsolete Phrases!
Image credit: ThinkStock
There are some phrases and clichés that were once common, but are now hopelessly dated thanks to changes in technology. Yet we still hear them somewhat frequently due to the preponderance of nostalgia-based cable TV stations that keep mining those dusty studio vaults for daily content. As a result, a lot of viewers born after the Reagan administration might be able to divine the meaning of these old-school expressions from the context, but they probably don't have an inkling as to why the old folks said them in the first place. As always, mental_floss is here to assist!
1. The rabbit died -
Up until the early 1980s, announcing the death of a bunny was the standard method of coyly hinting that a TV or movie character was with child. In the 1920s, way before home pregnancy tests were the norm, a woman who had suddenly started throwing up every morning had to visit her doctor rather than the drugstore to find out whether it was a bundle from heaven or a bad clam that was causing her distress. She would then have to fret for a few anxious days from that initial visit before finding out the results—her doctor had to inject her urine into the ovaries of a female rabbit and then wait 48 hours or more for the telltale changes which signaled the presence of the hCG hormone. Interestingly enough, the phrase "the rabbit died" itself was a misnomer because, as a rule, the bunny was already deceased prior to its ovaries being removed for testing purposes. (In later incarnations of the test, doctors were able to examine a rabbit's ovaries without killing it first.)
2. Drop a dime -
The phrase "dimed me out" is sometimes used today to indicate that someone has been ratted out or otherwise turned in to the authorities. It's a twist on slang from the 1960s and '70s, when we "dropped a dime" on someone. Prior to the big Ma Bell deregulation in 1984, the cost for a regular, local, standard-issue telephone call was ten cents. If you wanted to make an anonymous, untraceable call—say, to report nefarious activity of some sort to law enforcement personnel—a public telephone (or payphone) was the obvious solution. Phone booths were so ubiquitous that no one would give you a second glance as you inserted a dime into the slot to call the local cops to squeal on a neighborhood kid who was all hopped up on goofballs.
3. Don't know [excrement] from Shinola -
Shinola (pronounced shy-no-la) was a brand of wax-based shoe polish that was on the market from 1907 until 1960. The classic phrase that used the product to describe a person's intelligence—or lack thereof—gained popularity during World War II (GIs can always be counted on to coin a colorful phrase or two while dodging enemy fire). Appearance-wise, Shinola didn't look any different than any other shoe polish paste, but somehow "He doesn't know crap from Kiwi" doesn't have the same ring to it.
4. You sound like a broken record -
Literally speaking, a broken record would be cracked or fractured so that it was unplayable on a turntable. What the exasperated speaker meant when he called you a broken record was that you were repeating yourself, which is what a record with a deep scratch would do. Such a flaw would not only prevent the needle from progressing, it would also cause it to bounce backward a groove or two on the record and replay the same piece of the song over and over and over, until you lifted the tonearm up and manually advanced it. Bill Withers purposely repeated "I know" 26 times on his 1971 hit "Ain't No Sunshine," but nevertheless it is a good example of what your mom meant with her "broken record" simile when you asked for the umpteenth time in a row if you could please, please, please go to Mt. Splashmore.
5. More ______ than Carter's has liver pills -
New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell confounded many viewers during his 2013 appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show when he stated that in the 1996 election his opponent "had more money than Carter had liver pills." The more senior audience members realized that Mr. Pascrell was referring not to President Jimmy Carter, but rather to a patent medicine originally formulated by one Samuel Carter in 1868. Thanks to saturation advertising campaigns that promoted the tablets as a cure for everything from "overindulging" in liquor consumption to headaches to indigestion to a sallow complexion, Carter's Little Liver Pills were once as common as aspirin in American medicine cabinets. Carter-Wallace stopped hawking their little pills (in which the active ingredient was a laxative) in 1961 after the FTC forced them to remove the word "liver" from the product name, but that didn't stop folks from rolling their eyes during an argument and exclaiming "You've got more excuses than Carter's has liver pills!"
6. Don't touch that dial!
This admonition started out back in the days when radio was the main source of entertainment in U.S. households; in order to change the station, a person needed to turn a dial rather than push a button or type in a station number. So it was common for stations to promote upcoming shows or news broadcasts with great fanfare, warning listeners in stentorian tones, "Don't touch that dial," hinting that if you changed the channel you would miss something of life-altering importance. Once entertainment and news moved from radio to TV, the announcer's warning remained the same, since television sets were likewise equipped with a rotary dial to switch from station to station. That is, of course, until push buttons and digital tuning were developed and slowly became commonplace in the early 1980s.
7. Film at eleven -
Local news stations still regularly use "teasers" in between commercials to entice viewers with breaking stories, but as a rule they accompany those teasers with a snippet of actual video footage of the highlighted event. That wasn't the case before the invention of videotape; prior to that time, camera crews that were on the scene of a major fire or dramatic hostage situation recorded the happenings on 16mm film, which then had to be transported back to the station for developing and editing. Thus, many significant events that occurred during the afternoon—such as earthquakes or riots—were often only talked about during the 6pm broadcast, with film footage of the event not shown until the late night news.
8. One lump or two?
This question, when posited in Looney Tunes cartoons or a Three Stooges short, always ended in a welt-raising bonk to the head. While still available today, sugar used to be predominantly served in individual compressed cubes, or "lumps." This particular innovation was the brainchild of Jean Louis Chambon, who invented the technique to humidify, dry, and compress the equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar into a convenient lump in 1949. It was far more sanitary and convenient than the use of a communal spoon in a dish of granulated sugar, as had previously been the practice in restaurants and at tea parties and coffee klatches. The person serving coffee or tea would, at the time, graciously inquire as to how much sugar the guest preferred by asking "one lump or two?" and then would place the requested cubes onto the saucer before serving the beverage. Benjamin Eisenstadt invented the sugar packet in 1945 (and 12 years later, he created Sweet 'N Low), making portioned sugar not only easier to distribute around the table but also to discreetly slip into your purse. Not that we'd ever do such a thing.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
William Harasym's invitation is awaiting your response
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sunday, January 18, 2015
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, November 28, 2014
Pollution and Politics and the E.P.A.!
Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced - [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/epa-ozone-limits-divide-industry-and-environmentalists.html ] proposed regulations to curb emissions of ozone, which causes smog, not to mention asthma, heart disease and premature death. And you know what happened: Republicans went on the attack, claiming that the new rules would impose enormous costs.
There's no reason to take these complaints seriously, at least in terms of substance. Polluters and their political friends have a track record of crying wolf. Again and again, they have insisted that American business — which they usually portray as endlessly innovative, able to overcome any obstacle — would curl into a quivering ball if asked to limit emissions. Again and again, the actual costs have been far lower than they predicted. In fact, almost always below the E.P.A.'s predictions [ http://www.epi.org/publication/bp69/ ].
So it's the same old story. But why, exactly, does it always play this way? Of course, polluters will defend their right to pollute, but why can they count on Republican support? When and why did the Republican Party become the party of pollution?
For it wasn't always thus. The Clean Air Act of 1970, the legal basis for the Obama administration's environmental actions [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/without-passing-a-single-law-obama-crafts-bold-enviornmental-policy.html ] , passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 73 to 0, and was signed into law by Richard Nixon. (I've heard veterans of the E.P.A. describe the Nixon years as a golden age.) A major amendment of the law, which among other things made possible the cap-and-trade system that limits acid rain, was signed in 1990 by former President George H.W. Bush.
But that was then. Today's Republican Party is putting a conspiracy theorist who views climate science as a "gigantic hoax" in charge of the Senate's environment committee. And this isn't an isolated case. Pollution has become a deeply divisive partisan issue.
And the reason pollution has become partisan is that Republicans have moved right. A generation ago, it turns out, environment wasn't a partisan issue: according to Pew Research- [ http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/6-4-12-v-6/ ], in 1992 an overwhelming majority in both parties favored stricter laws and regulation. Since then, Democratic views haven't changed, but Republican support for environmental protection has collapsed.
So what explains this anti-environmental shift?
You might be tempted simply to blame money in politics, and there's no question that gushers of cash from polluters fuel the anti-environmental movement at all levels. But this doesn't explain why money from the most environmentally damaging industries, which used to flow to both parties, now goes overwhelmingly in one direction. Take, for example, coal mining. In the early 1990s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, [ https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E1210 ] the industry favored Republicans by a modest margin, giving around 40 percent of its money to Democrats. Today that number is just 5 percent. Political spending by the oil and gas industry has followed a similar trajectory. Again, what changed?
One answer could be ideology. Textbook economics isn't anti-environment; it says that pollution should be limited, albeit in market-friendly ways when possible. But the modern conservative movement insists that government is always the problem, never the solution, which creates the will to believe that environmental problems are fake and environmental policy will tank the economy.
My guess, however, is that ideology is only part of the story — or, more accurately, it's a symptom of the underlying cause of the divide: rising inequality. [ http://themonkeycage.org/2011/10/18/polarization-and-inequality/ ]
The basic story of political polarization over the past few decades is that, as a wealthy minority has pulled away economically from the rest of the country, it has pulled one major party along with it. True, Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do. Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite — like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes — will face bitter Republican opposition.
And environmental protection is, in part, a class issue, even if we don't usually think of it that way. Everyone breathes the same air, so the benefits of pollution control are more or less evenly spread across the population. But ownership of, say, stock in coal companies is concentrated in a few, wealthy hands. Even if the costs of pollution control are passed on in the form of higher prices, the rich are different from you and me. They spend a lot more money, and, therefore, bear a higher share of the costs.
In the case of the new ozone plan, the E.P.A.'s analysis - [ http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20141125fs-overview.pdf ] suggests that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs. But that doesn't necessarily matter to the non-average American driving one party's priorities. On ozone, as with almost everything these days, it's all about inequality.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Fw: "South Carolina 5th Cir. Top Prosecutor Called SC Police Shooting a 'Clean Shot' & should recuse Himself and his Office from Prosecuting this Case!"
South Carolina 5th Cir. Top Prosecutor Johnson Called SC Police Shooting a 'Clean Shot' & should recuse Himself and his Office from Prosecuting this Case! And obviously he has watched a different video then the rest of America.
Levar Jones was shot by a (now) former member of the South Carolina Highway Patrol earlier this month. The disturbing video hit national media today, showing that Sean Groubert, the officer in question, wildly discharged his firearm as Jones attempted to comply with the officer's request to produce identification. Groubert had taken valuable time out of his day, during the middle of the capital city's rush hour, to write Jones a $25 ticket for a seatbelt violation.
After being suspended pending an investigation, Groubert was fired, and prosecutors pressed felony charges today.
One might be tempted to levy some praise on Richland County, and on the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, for handling the matter in a swift and egalitarian manner. These parties did what many police departments have not by firing and charging the officer in question.
But that ending just seems a little bit too perfect for South Carolina, now doesn't it? The state's been known for its criminal justice fumbles, and deeper digging shows that you can add this one to the list.
Enter Dan Johnson, the solicitor of South Carolina's fifth circuit. For the uninitiated, South Carolina has its citizens elect the top prosecutor in each part of the state, with that prosecutor hiring a team of assistants to handle most cases.
In the immediate wake of the shooting, having viewed the video tape, Johnson called the incident a "clean shot." FITSNews and the DailyBanter have both reported that Johnson told the chief of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) that the use of force was warranted.
Dan Johnson has been accused of sexually harassing "multiple women" in his own office. He's been accused of using a firearm to threaten the life of an FBI agent. He's also alleged to have had an affair, then used his position to make difficult the life of the man married to his mistress.
Johnson's questionable background not withstanding, his past employment sheds some light on why he might claim that this shooting was "clean," and it also suggests that he may be unfit to prosecute this particular case.
According to his bio:
He served as Chief Deputy and Legal Counsel for the Richland County Sheriff's Department, where he worked for eight years. While there he assisted the Sheriff in directing the county's law enforcement programs and performing various legal and administrative duties to ensure the strict enforcement of state and local laws relating to the public's safety and welfare.Johnson is an eight-year veteran of the Richland Police Department, and while prosecution personnel and local police often have a cushy relationship, that past, combined with his statements on this case, call into question his ability to oversee this particular case.
Rogue cops and lone actors are scary, especially if you're a black man in America. Johnson, who himself is black, presents perhaps an even greater problem. When the chief executor of the law in one of South Carolina's largest counties provides his personal stamp of approval to an incident so clearly unlawful, what does that suggest about the system?
After reviewing a report from SLED, and under tremendous pressure from local and national forces, Johnson's office did press charges against Lance Corporal Groubert.
But Johnson, and potentially his office, should recuse themselves from this case. His judgment has been compromised, and his credibility to prosecute this crime has been undermined by his public statement on the lawfulness of the act.
And for the love of God, fine people of Richland County - it's time to vote out the alleged sexual harasser who believes that the officers patrolling the streets of your country should have open season on young black men. It's far past time to eradicate this disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)