When Words Can Mean Anything

Original oil painting on stretched canvas

by Mikyong Rodgers

Click here to visit virtual art gallery

I don’t know what anyone is talking about anymore!

I hear people referring to a good friend as “bad,”  a thin girl as “phat,”  a great movie as a “bomb.”   Any time I lament the decline of the English language, however, and complain about the confusion that results from people using language incorrectly, someone will invariably chime in with the obvious cliché:  “language changes!”

Well of COURSE language changes!  That’s obvious, but saying this is a little like cutting off your nose, and when asked why you did it, you respond by saying “Hey, people change!”

Not only DOES language change, it MUST change, but there is a real difference between stupid change, and smart change.  Smart change is modifying the language to help express things that could not have been expressed before, such as 'email,' 'cyberspace' and  'software.'  There were no terms for these just a few decades ago, and they had to be invented… which is a bad thing. (and by 'bad' I really mean 'good')

Stupid change, on the other hand, is using words to mean the opposite of their known meaning, or taking words that already have a meaning, but changing it to the point where no one knows what you are talking about.

Take for example, the word 'vegetarian.'  A perfectly good word (here I really do mean 'good'), meaning one who eats only plant-based food: no fish, beef, milk, eggs or cheese.  Tragically, this perfectly fine word has been misused so often that it has come to mean a non-meat eater, although since most people don’t consider fish to be meat, they can actually eat animals and still feel as if they are morally superior to those who eat poultry, pork and beef.    The ugly word 'vegan' has now come to mean what vegetarian has always meant to begin with: one who doesn’t eat animals or anything that comes from an animal.    Now, I really have no idea when someone says she’s a vegetarian because I don’t know if she is using it in its original context, the modified and incorrect modern use, or some kind of pathetic hybrid. This has not enhanced communication; it has obfuscated it.

'Decimated' is another fine word that is falling by the wayside.   From the root meaning 'ten,' the word 'decimated' means to destroy 10% of something.   If a tornado wiped out 100 houses out of 1000, you could correctly say that the neighborhood or village was decimated.  Today, however, so many people use decimated to mean 'destroyed' or 'obliterated' that I have no idea what they’re talking about now when they use the word.  Stupid change.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation in a bar with a young man on the subject of rap.  I don’t have anything against rap, and I even like some of it, I just don’t call it 'music' because it’s not.  There is no music there.  There is no tune.  They are words recited to a beat;  It is poetry, some of it very good poetry, but poetry, not music.  My young friend, however, said that rap is music because they call it music, which reminded me of the Abraham Lincoln quotation:  “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?  5?  No….4…..  because calling a tail a leg does not it make it one.”

“Yes,” the young man insisted.  “ ‘High’ is ‘low’ and ‘low’ is ‘high’…. words can mean anything you want them to mean.”  Unfortunately, he doesn’t get it.   When words can mean “anything,” they cease to have any meaning at all.

15 questions to ponder

 

Original oil painting on stretched canvas

by Mikyong Rodgers

 

click here to visit virtual art gallery, RainyDayPaintings.com

 

If the garbage company and grocery store raised their prices, claiming the high price of gasoline forced them to do so, then why wasn’t there a corresponding drop in prices when the price of gasoline declined?

 

If cell phone companies charge you extra for going over your anytime minutes, why don’t they refund your money when you are under the limit?

Why does everyone consider 80 degrees and sunny to be the only "good" weather?

If people accept girls playing loudly, wrestling, and climbing trees, why do they scoff at little boys who play with Barbie dolls?

If ATMs are self-service, why do you have to pay more to use one than you do when you deal with actual human beings inside the bank?

If our old, worn-out jeans with holes in the knees are worth nothing, why are teenagers charged premium prices for jeans that look even worse?



If plumbers come to your house to fix a leaky faucet and fail, they have to do it again for no extra cost. Why do doctors charge you for every time you visit, even if they fail to cure you?

If people can go to jail for perjury, why don’t lawyers suffer the same fate when they lie in court to protect their clients?

If titles are supposed to be used as a means of showing respect to others, why do people introduce themselves using their own titles? Isn't it defeating the purpose?

 

If Indian names for team mascots such as Chiefs and Braves are deemed disrespectful, then why do we have teams named the Saints, The Texans and Patriots?  Aren’t we insulting God, Sam Houston and our venerable founding forefathers?  And aren’t mascot names of teams intended to revere, not demean?

 

If, in order to vote in America, you must be a citizen, and to become a citizen, you must know English, then to whom are the signs in foreign languages addressed when you go to a polling station?

 

If phone solicitors are now legally allowed to call us on our cell phones (for which we pay per minute used), then why aren’t we legally allowed to send these companies our phone bills anytime they call us?

 

Why do we still have the nickel and the penny when they both cost more to produce than what they are worth? 



What is the Queen of England still doing on the payroll of the English taxpayer?  If she were no longer on the throne, would anyone really notice?



If Kenya is considered by some to be President Obama's homeland (because his father was born there), why is it that no one considers Kansas his homeland, although that's where his mother was from?

You're Getting Warmer!

original oil painting on stretched canvas

by Mikyong Rodgers

click here to visit virtual art gallery

We’re not in the ice age anymore my friends.  The evidence is overwhelming.  The ice caps and glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising, average temperatures of the air and water continue to increase, bizarre weather patterns have become the norm.

And still, there are detractors. 

Of course, that is part of what makes the world go around.  Someone is going to always disagree with what seems obvious to most.   There are those who still believe the earth is flat, that men never walked on the moon, that the pyramids were constructed by aliens from outer space, and that Sarah Palin is a good choice to run for president  in 2016.  And, of course, there are those who say that global warming is just another liberal scheme to get citizens dependent on the government .  They say that temperatures have always gone in cycles, and even if the earth is getting warmer, we had nothing to do with it, and cannot change it anyway.

Never mind the fact that 90% of all scientists affirm that global warming is a fact.  And let’s ignore for a moment a still more obvious fact, that humans can and have contributed to the phenomenon.  Still…. Are the proposed solutions really that unpalatable?  Would it cause anyone great harm if we were to comply with the very logical recommendations set forth by the scientific community? What exactly would it take to help slow the rate of global warming?.... cutting down factory emissions, creating increasingly fuel efficient cars, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation (including bicycles and electric vehicles), reducing the use of electricity, using alternative, cleaner forms of fuel and energy such as tidal and wind power, reducing coal emissions….and the list goes on.

The way I see it, the question of whether global warming is a fact…. doesn’t matter in the end.  The solutions that will help slow the process are good for us all and ought to be embraced.

Lawyers and other primordial parasites

original oil painting on stretched canvas

by Mikyong Rodgers

visit Rainy Day Paintings virtual art gallery here

I hate lawyers!  Lawyers are the reason it’s so hard to find trampolines, pools with deep ends, high dive boards, hot coffee. They’ve paralyzed businesses, frightening them into inaction, to the point where businesses do nothing that could possibly injure even the most cautious of patrons, lest they call their blood-sucking Neanderthals in Armani suits. 

Those who bring the lawsuits to court will often claim 

“Oh, it isn’t for the money, it’s the principle of the thing.”  

"Oh really?  Great, glad to hear it, then donate any winnings to your favorite charity…but do it publicly because you know how people talk…some naysayer will probably think you just plunked down your winnings on a custom made Winnebago and a time share condo in Myrtle Beach.

You’ve all heard commercials asking “have you been injured in an accident”?    What could be more despicable than a lawyer encouraging people to become angry enough to take someone to court….and over accidental damage, at that?  Obviously no one intended to injure anyone, or damage anyone’s property.  Why make the perpetrator's life more miserable than it already is, by dragging him through a messy trial and bleeding him dry?  Oh, right, because the lawyer needs another vacation home in Martha’s Vineyard.

There are a number of things we can do:

   1. Make advertising for lawyers illegal.  It used to be.  At one time, it was thought beneath the dignity of a lawyer to beg for business.  There is something about it that faintly hints of a used car salesman, when a lawyer goes on TV and asking people to let him pursue a doctor who botched the botox on your latest plastic surgery.

2. Require the person who brings the suit to pay the entire court costs for both sides up front, getting a refund only if he wins.

3. Most importantly, make it illegal for the lawyer to take a percentage of damages. All fees must be stated and agreed to from the beginning. Without the allure of a huge settlement of which the lawyer can take a sizeable cut, lawyers will lose their incentive to encourage frivolous lawsuits.

Then, and only then, can the world resume some semblance of normalcy.

Do pregnancy, illness and bereavement entitle employees to special privileges?

Every few seconds, another baby is born.  Yea!   Ok, I’ll avoid the temptation to be cynical (saying something like “What are babies good for?”  or “Why bring yet another screaming baby into this hellish world?”)    It does seem rather odd, however, that many employers offer extraordinarily generous benefits—namely, to be absent from work, with FULL PAY, for one, two or even three months!!!    Yes, you heard correctly.  You have a baby, and suddenly you are entitled to collect the same pay you would have received, had you been working????  That’s a good gig if you can get it!   

Does this not seem just a tad unfair, not just to all the men, but the single and unpregnant women in the workforce, as well ?  What is their compensation for NOT having had a baby?   And how exactly does pregnancy benefit the employer?  Some people say pregnancy is a wonderful thing, and a benefit to society. Well, that may be.  I don’t see it, but whether it is or not, how does that benefit your employer, who lets you have all that time off?  How does it benefit the workers who don’t have, don't want, or can't have children?  How are you more entitled to time off, for doing the same work? 

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with them getting time off.   I'm simply asking why their co-workers shouldn't have the same privileges.

For that matter, why even have sick leave?  Doesn’t that unfairly reward the lazy or dishonest people who call in sick when they are not?…. Doesn’t it likewise reward the people who may be hard working but are often indisposed to work because of frequent or chronic illnesses? 

And speaking of time off, why have bereavement leave to attend funerals of the dear departed? Are employees with a plethora of dying relatives more entitled to time off than those who have few, if any, relatives, or those who don’t care about the relatives they DO have, and wouldn’t attend one of their funerals if their favorite reality TV show was on at the same time?

Having an open ended, one-size-fits-all leave plan is more efficient, helps people be honest, and best of all, treats everyone equally, regardless of gender, health, or even how many elderly dying relatives they may have.   I would personally opt for six weeks off a year for all workers, two of it mandatory, with four weeks being accumulative.   That way, employees could all have a much-needed vacation, but could use the four weeks per year for whatever they wished:   pregnancy leave, bereavement leave, vacation time, sick leave, or just a few mental health days to prevent them from “going postal” on their co-workers.  It seems the best solution.... if treating everyone equitably is important to you.

original oil painting by Mikyong Rodgers

click here for virtual art gallery

Everyone's a Doctor!

Everyone is a doctor today….at least that is the impression one might get by the number of people introduce themselves as such. In fact, about the only ones I know who DON’T call themselves doctors, are some doctors… doctors with real credentials and enough confidence to know that titles are a superfluous means of elevating one’s self-esteem. But doctors who are not doctors are crawling out of the woodwork! Dentists call themselves “doctors.” They’re not doctors. A chiropractor calls himself “doctor.” He’s not one, either! I went to the optometrist the other day and the first thing she said was “Hello, I’m Doctor Hahn.” Doctor? Mmm, sorry. An ophthalmologist is an eye doctor. An optometrist is a person who checks people’s vision for glasses. Even a basketball player, with a PhD in physical education calls himself a doctor! One of my best friends is a real doctor who works as a research scientist, curing diseases. When his graduate students call him “Dr. Smith,” he always corrects them. “Just call me ‘John,’” he tells them. Why does he need a title? He doesn’t depend on meaningless titles to gain respect. He is respected. Now there are even PhD programs for nurses. Imagine the fun trying to sort out that at the hospital before surgery!


“The doctor will be with you in a moment.”

“The doctor? Oh, but…I thought the nurse was going to prep me for surgery!”

  "Yes, the nurse will be here.”

  “Oh, not the doctor?”

  “Yes, the doctor. The nurse IS a doctor. Dr. Wang has a PhD in nursing.”

  “So… if both the doctor—the real doctor—and the nurse, who calls herself a doctor but is not one, were both in the room at the same time, and I called out 'doctor,' who would answer?”

“Both of them. It would be elitist of the doctor to think such a title is his exclusive domain! He’s not the only one who worked hard to get where he is!”

“Well, for that matter, the janitor probably works harder than anyone in the hospital! Should I call him a doctor, too?”

  “No of course not. That would be silly.”

  “Thank God.”

“Refer to him as the resident expert in anti-microbial engineering.”

Curved black line, original oil painting

by Mikyong Rodgers

click here to visit virtual art gallery

Skin tone, and other misplaced priorities

I'm sure you've all heard someone say "I'm going to work on my tan!" I can't help but wonder what exactly they are "working" on. It seems to me that such labor generally consists of lying on the beach, and, perhaps less often, sitting or squatting, but it all pretty much amounts to the same inactivity that inflicts a large percentage of tan seekers. It's always amazed me, anyway, how society places such importance on skin color. 

Over the years, it has changed, of course. A century ago, young white women in polite society, carried around parasols in sunny weather, to prevent their skin from becoming dark or freckled. These days, much to their detriment, it has become fashionable to soak up the rays and become dark. 

In the movie "The Talented Mr. Ripley," the very tanned Jude Law, upon seeing the very UNtanned Matt Damon, remarked disparagingly..."You are sooooo white!" 

It was not a compliment.

Unfortunately, the societal pendulum which has swung in a decidedly darker direction does not bode will for tan seekers. Note to sun worshippers everywhere: skin becomes dark under the sun's rays as a negative reaction to being poisoned by the ultraviolet rays of the sun!  

People! This is not a good thing! 

One of the supreme ironies of life is that all those things that we need to survive (such as the sun) also kill us! The sun is not something it's particularly wise to expose your skin to. It can lead to all kinds of radiation poisoning that wrinkles the skin, causes cancer, and decreases longevity.

The next time you are tempted to lie in the sun and get a tan, spend eight bucks, get an umbrella, and shade yourself from the celestial orb which is doing its utmost to shorten your time on planet Earth.

a day at the beach

original oil painting by Mikyong Rodgers

virtual art gallery

Republicans' ill-conceived love affair with the Constitution

I've often found it interesting that Republicans are always invoking the constitution, as in "We only want our Constitutional rights," as if the document is somehow the exclusive domain of right wing conservative tea party do-gooders. Don't get me wrong. I like the Constitution. It's a fine piece of parchment, but if you're going to support the sanctity of a document, you cannot, at the same time, call for constant amendments to nullify it. How can the same group of people who revere the Constitution, simultaneously call for changes in the document anytime they disagree with it???? They call for Constitutional amendments.... 1. to ban abortion 2. to ban flag burning 3. to ban same-sex marriage 4. to ban stem cell research 5. to ban euthanasia ...... anyone notice they like to do a lot of "banning"????? 5. to ban any ban on capital punishment 4. to ban any mention of Ronald Reagan having dyed his hair jet black. (Come on, he MUST have! How can an 80 year old man not have a single gray hair?) Ok, ok, I made that last one up, but it IS a rather disturbing trend, wouldn't you agree? Personally, I think most of this is tied to the second amendment, on the right to bear arms. Republicans, look....you can't help being who you are, but here is something to reflect on. Don't you think it's possible that you are reading into the Constitution just what you want to read and nothing more? How else can one explain the preposterous propensity for reciting endlessly that all Americans have the right to bear arms, and totally ignoring the first and most important part of the amendment, that it is for a "well regulated militia, being necessary for the maintenance of a free state"? They can't have somehow....accidentally...skipped over that part, could they? 250 years ago, the American "people" were the "militia." They were citizens, mostly farmers and craftsmen who from time to time were called upon to help their fledgling country in its time of need. This does NOT mean, that in the 21st Century, psychopaths should be allowed to massacre kindergarten students as some kind of sporting competition. Can any sane person really believe that to ban automatic weapons, to limit the number of gun sales, and to require gun registration, is in anyway contrary to what the Founding Fathers espoused? And even so, isn't it the sane choice in the world today?

Lip Synchers and Other Liars

Music technology can be a wonderful thing when used correctly, but in recent years, it unfortunately has enabled liars and cheats to convince people they were actually performing, when, in fact they were not. Even musicians are not above such deceit. At President Obama’s 2008 inauguration, famed cellist Yo Yo Ma infamously faked his own cello playing. He said later it was too cold to be able to play well. Paula Abdul clearly lipsynched her supposedly live American Idol performance a few years ago, and it’s been said that Madonna lip synchs every concert (Of course, with the way she sings, who could blame her?!) Beyonce, at the super bowl, lip-synched the entire National Anthem. To appease the critics, afterward, Beyonce sang, supposedly live, for a news conference, smugly asking “any questions?”, as if singing live somehow negated having lied to us the day before. It’s a little like a murderer who, the next day, holds a knife to someone’s throat and then doesn’t kill him, just to prove he is capable of NOT murdering a person when given half a chance! He is still a murderer…and Beyonce is still a liar. I wish I had been at that news conference! I would have said “Yes, Beyonce, I have a question. Why did you lie to the American people by pretending you were singing live when in fact you were just flapping your gums? No one questions whether or not you CAN sing, the fact is that you DIDN’T sing. If you saw a baby in a burning building, and ignored her, would you later justify your cowardly actions by claiming that you COULD have saved the baby. You just decided not to? It defies all logic and credibility. So to all you liars and cheats out there…. I have no problem with your cowardice, just be honest about it. The next time you’re tempted to lie to the audience, just say “I am afraid I might make a mistake,, so I recorded something earlier I’d like you to listen to. Why don’t you all just sit back with me and enjoy it.” It might seem rather odd, but at least you could look yourself in the mirror the next morning.

The Grinch Who Stole Christmas in California

 

original watercolor by Mikyong Rodgers

 

click here to visit virtual art gallery

 

 

 

For over sixty years, private groups have put up 14 Nativity scenes in Palisades Park in Santa Monica, California. For the first 45 years, there was little controversy, but 14 years ago, atheist groups began demanding equal time. Because of their insistence, the city decided to institute a lottery system and divvy up spaces at random. This meant that Christmas displays were set up side by side posters declaring all religions nothing but ugly myths. This all came to a boiling point last year when atheists flooded the lottery and got most of the available spaces, prompting church groups to sue and leading a frustrated city council to ban all private displays. Much of this supposed controversy is nothing more than ignorance of the Constitution, and a lack of the regard for people with differing traditions and beliefs. . First, even though Puritans 400 years ago banned Christmas celebrations as too secular, and the majority of Christmas revelers today pay little attention to its religious beginnings, for the sake of argument, let’s assume many think of Christmas as a purely religious celebration. As such, is it a violation of the Constitution to display religious symbols on public property? The short answer is “no.” Contrary to common belief, nowhere in the Constitution does it state there should be a separation of church and state. What the Bill of Rights does say, is that Congress cannot either establish a religion, or prevent people from exercising the right to worship the way they choose. Clearly, private groups displaying their personal beliefs in no way establishes a religion, but preventing them from putting up Nativity scenes could very well violate the second part of the amendment. The city council of Santa Monica caved into pressure from atheist groups, and by so doing, punished everyone for the actions of a few. Allowing groups to display their traditions and beliefs in public is, or should be acceptable. What should not be allowed is for people to ruin someone’s long-standing tradition just because they don’t wish to play a part. It was wrong of the council to ban everything. What they ought to do is to allow Christmas displays at Christmas time, just as one might allow Pumpkin displays during Halloween, even though clearly not everyone celebrates Halloween, and some are even offended by it. If atheist groups wish to have their say, let them have space where other holidays are not being celebrated. August comes to mind as having very few holidays. Hatred and vindictiveness should not be considered valid points to establishing displays and ruining the Christmas spirit for the 97% of Americans who celebrate it.