A new study has confirmed something you already knew: That swearing can improve a person's tolerance to pain. Specifically, people are able to submerge their hands in freezing-cold water longer if able to let go of a few good ones than if they're only able to use more neutral words.
One aspect of swearing that the article touches upon is its universality, something easily attested to by anyone who has tried to learn another language or experienced any type of cultural-linguistic exchange, either aboard or right here in the U.S. -- swear words are often the first words that a new speaker of another language learns, and they're often great insights into a culture. As evidence, look at the way Paz breaks down the term hijo de la chingada in Mexico, and connects it to the region's history and the crimes of Spanish conquistadors in The Labyrinth of Solitude.
As long as I can remember, I've never agreed with the line that the use of swear words betrays a limited or weak vocabulary. Their artful use has its place in speech for emphasis and can often add color to what might otherwise be dull.
If some four letter phraseology helps someone relieve stress, it seems like a much more appropriate (and victimless!) way of handling it than, say, the placing of a fist through a wall, or into someone else.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Comedy and the Beholder's Eye
I read this morning in a comment from Richard Howe in which he wrote that "family value moral minded politicians" are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
I would say ditto for comedy.
I respectfully disagreed with an opinion about 'The Hangover' last night and got some of the 'lighten up and stop overthinking it, would ya?' and 'I don't go to comedy movies looking for deep meaning' type of responses, which are all well and good, except they don't address the chance that some people might disagree on what they find funny.
For the record, I believe that ethnic humor and slapstick are VERY funny, but only in the right context.
Ethnic humor is funny when put into a witty context, as exemplified most masterfully by much of what Chris Rock does in his stand-up routines. It's not funny, however, (to me, anyway) when someone says, "Hey Wasserstein, go pick that quarter up off the ground!" It's not my sense of political correctness that's offended by that, it's my sense of humor!
Slapstick can be very funny, too, but it doesn't work for me in and of itself. A 93 year-0ld lady falling on ice just isn't funny to me. It's not my sensitivity for elderly women that's offended by that, it's my sense of humor!
Bestiality is never funny. Again, that's an opinion and nothing more. I have very good friends who are repulsed by ANY form of bathroom humor, which is more or less a staple in any of my 'homemade' routines. My lack of laughter at bestiality doesn't come from any sensitivity to animals, by the way, but from a sensitivity to what meets my definition of 'funny'!
Insta-humor, as I define it, is when an entire joke or gag depends on just saying a word or showing something devoid of context. Examples from recent stand-up routines would include: Crack, Spam, Viagra, and Ebonics.
Another really good example of insta-humor is when people think something becomes funny just because it somehow involves midgets. Please bear in mind, I'm not saying midgets can't be funny, it's just that something otherwise not-funny does not suddenly become hysterical just because it involves a person who's less than four feet tall.
For the record, I'm not a fan of the boilerplate workplace stuff, either. So when someone says any of these, I meet them with a blank stare:
You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps!
I pretend to work, they pretend to pay me...
Are we hard at work, or hardly working?
Of course, my blank stare is met with a poke to the ribs and a "It's a joke man, have a laugh." That's the same blank stare I'd give, by the way, to someone who said, "Would you like pancakes with that syrup?" thinking there was some kind of original wit contained therein.
What the person doesn't realize is that yes, maybe the attempt at humor is being recognized, but simultaneously dismissed.
I'll respect your right to laugh at bestiality, stock ethnic stuff, and old ladies falling on ice all day long...to me, that's no different than you liking the cheddar-stuffed Combos while I reach for the Fritos.
And when I crack up hysterically at the Michael Moore v. Peter Griffin farting scene on a Family Guy episode, and you don't even crack a smile, I'll promise not to say you're "overthinking it."
I would say ditto for comedy.
I respectfully disagreed with an opinion about 'The Hangover' last night and got some of the 'lighten up and stop overthinking it, would ya?' and 'I don't go to comedy movies looking for deep meaning' type of responses, which are all well and good, except they don't address the chance that some people might disagree on what they find funny.
For the record, I believe that ethnic humor and slapstick are VERY funny, but only in the right context.
Ethnic humor is funny when put into a witty context, as exemplified most masterfully by much of what Chris Rock does in his stand-up routines. It's not funny, however, (to me, anyway) when someone says, "Hey Wasserstein, go pick that quarter up off the ground!" It's not my sense of political correctness that's offended by that, it's my sense of humor!
Slapstick can be very funny, too, but it doesn't work for me in and of itself. A 93 year-0ld lady falling on ice just isn't funny to me. It's not my sensitivity for elderly women that's offended by that, it's my sense of humor!
Bestiality is never funny. Again, that's an opinion and nothing more. I have very good friends who are repulsed by ANY form of bathroom humor, which is more or less a staple in any of my 'homemade' routines. My lack of laughter at bestiality doesn't come from any sensitivity to animals, by the way, but from a sensitivity to what meets my definition of 'funny'!
Insta-humor, as I define it, is when an entire joke or gag depends on just saying a word or showing something devoid of context. Examples from recent stand-up routines would include: Crack, Spam, Viagra, and Ebonics.
Another really good example of insta-humor is when people think something becomes funny just because it somehow involves midgets. Please bear in mind, I'm not saying midgets can't be funny, it's just that something otherwise not-funny does not suddenly become hysterical just because it involves a person who's less than four feet tall.
For the record, I'm not a fan of the boilerplate workplace stuff, either. So when someone says any of these, I meet them with a blank stare:
You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps!
I pretend to work, they pretend to pay me...
Are we hard at work, or hardly working?
Of course, my blank stare is met with a poke to the ribs and a "It's a joke man, have a laugh." That's the same blank stare I'd give, by the way, to someone who said, "Would you like pancakes with that syrup?" thinking there was some kind of original wit contained therein.
What the person doesn't realize is that yes, maybe the attempt at humor is being recognized, but simultaneously dismissed.
I'll respect your right to laugh at bestiality, stock ethnic stuff, and old ladies falling on ice all day long...to me, that's no different than you liking the cheddar-stuffed Combos while I reach for the Fritos.
And when I crack up hysterically at the Michael Moore v. Peter Griffin farting scene on a Family Guy episode, and you don't even crack a smile, I'll promise not to say you're "overthinking it."
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tim Cahill: Not a Real Indy
For the record, Tim Cahill doesn't -- and won't -- count as the first tremor in the anti-major party earthquake.
Just like John Anderson, Joe Lieberman, or, shoot, Christy Mihos, major party exiles who simply leave their party because they don't or won't get nominated and then try to run down between the two flanks don't count to me as real, organic Independents (as I just saw in a Kad Barma comment on RSOL, that gets filed under the 'Bald Gamesmanship' category).
I still don't know about celebrities, either, whether it's a big name outside the state (Jesse Ventura) or a big name inside the state (Angus King). They still get credit because they can step outside of traditional lines and owe fewer favors, though.
Just like John Anderson, Joe Lieberman, or, shoot, Christy Mihos, major party exiles who simply leave their party because they don't or won't get nominated and then try to run down between the two flanks don't count to me as real, organic Independents (as I just saw in a Kad Barma comment on RSOL, that gets filed under the 'Bald Gamesmanship' category).
I still don't know about celebrities, either, whether it's a big name outside the state (Jesse Ventura) or a big name inside the state (Angus King). They still get credit because they can step outside of traditional lines and owe fewer favors, though.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Patrick Murphy and Free Speech
"Money is the mother's milk of political campaigns," is probably one of the oldest, and truest, maxims of American political culture.
A candidate's ability to raise money is one of those great positive feedback loops, because the more money you've got in your war chest, the more you're going to seem like you're leading the pack. The more this perception can take hold, the better you're going to poll, which means more people take you seriously, and more donate, etc. Bob's your uncle, and let the circle be unbroken.
New Media runs against this grain, however. Whether we're talking Twitter, YouTube, blogs, or even e-mail, what all these have in common is that they're free for the user. (And yes, by the way, for many people, e-mail still legitimately counts as 'New Media.')
If television ads were king (as they may still be in a state or national race), a candidate forgoing the spending of money on his race, as Patrick Murphy is doing in his Lowell City Council bid this year, would immediately resign him to also-ran status come November. And although the trend points us towards higher and higher dollar amounts spent on political campaigns, there's part of me that imagines (hopes?) that a future turn away from traditional targets of campaign expenditures (TV ads before the days of DVR, TiVO, and Hulu, not to mention print media), could change the way money impacts races.
I checked Left in Lowell this weekend and caught this Video Clip put out by Murphy's campaign.
Even if things like YouTube might not affect a significant portion of Lowell voters, it still seems like low-budget video shorts are *worth it* in terms of costs v. potential benefits. For whoever's willing to listen, it's a chance to spell out who you are and what you're about in a concise, easily-transferrable and easily-preservable format.
For the record, Murphy is directing would-be donors to non-profit/charity organizations. He also did not fundraise during his 2007 Congressional bid as an Independent in the 5th CD race.
A candidate's ability to raise money is one of those great positive feedback loops, because the more money you've got in your war chest, the more you're going to seem like you're leading the pack. The more this perception can take hold, the better you're going to poll, which means more people take you seriously, and more donate, etc. Bob's your uncle, and let the circle be unbroken.
New Media runs against this grain, however. Whether we're talking Twitter, YouTube, blogs, or even e-mail, what all these have in common is that they're free for the user. (And yes, by the way, for many people, e-mail still legitimately counts as 'New Media.')
If television ads were king (as they may still be in a state or national race), a candidate forgoing the spending of money on his race, as Patrick Murphy is doing in his Lowell City Council bid this year, would immediately resign him to also-ran status come November. And although the trend points us towards higher and higher dollar amounts spent on political campaigns, there's part of me that imagines (hopes?) that a future turn away from traditional targets of campaign expenditures (TV ads before the days of DVR, TiVO, and Hulu, not to mention print media), could change the way money impacts races.
I checked Left in Lowell this weekend and caught this Video Clip put out by Murphy's campaign.
Even if things like YouTube might not affect a significant portion of Lowell voters, it still seems like low-budget video shorts are *worth it* in terms of costs v. potential benefits. For whoever's willing to listen, it's a chance to spell out who you are and what you're about in a concise, easily-transferrable and easily-preservable format.
For the record, Murphy is directing would-be donors to non-profit/charity organizations. He also did not fundraise during his 2007 Congressional bid as an Independent in the 5th CD race.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The Value of Michael Halpert's Life
There is no doubt in my mind that Seaman Michael Halpert died doing what he thought he was right, which was standing up to something he knew was wrong -- the theft of $15 meant to pay a tab at a bar in Preston, CT. See the Norwich Bulletin article here.
There is something noble in that, though I doubt that's any consolation to his family on this July 4 holiday weekend. From the article:
There is something noble in that, though I doubt that's any consolation to his family on this July 4 holiday weekend. From the article:
A Navy man died Wednesday from injuries sustained in a fight in Preston that witnesses say started with a dispute over $15.
Seaman Michael Halpert, 31, a Navy electronics technician from Miami Beach, Fla., died at 4:50 p.m. Wednesday at The William W. Backus Hospital in Norwich. Police said Halpert was involved in a fight at David’s Cafe on Route 12 in Preston early June 26 and suffered a subdural hematoma, a form of traumatic brain injury.
Eduardo Rosario, 34, of 43 Denison Drive, Groton, was arrested hours after the fight and charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, second-degree breach of peace and violation of a protective order in connection with the assault.
The only times in my life I've been in anything that even remotely started to become a two-way physical altercation (which I can count on one hand), it's always come back to the same thing: a desire to want to right something I had perceived as wrong, which usually involved someone running his mouth in a manner designed to provoke that type of response. There have been many more fights avoided, such as the time someone essentially *extorted* $15 from me in a bar in order to pay for dry cleaning after he claimed a female friend of ours had spilled a beer on his jacket. His tone of voice and the wild look in his eye told me right away that half the cost of a round of drinks for our group was well worth the value of avoiding something far, far worse for us that night.
A quote I read regarding confrontations on a Choosing a Soundtrack post has stuck with me for the past few months, and has guided me through some bite-the-lip-and-walk-away type of moments since I first read it. To paraphrase: "Don't get into an argument with an idiot, because it will soon become impossible for any observer to tell which of you is the idiot."
Of course, it's always WAY easier to give someone else that type of advice than it is to take it, especially when your sense of right and wrong has been violated. But bear in mind that when you describe your interpersonal conflicts to other people, no matter how *right* you think you are, no one is really listening, and they're just going to come away with the understanding that Person A and Person B were in a dispute, regardless of who *started it* and regardless of who was right or wrong.
Last Friday night in Preston, Eduardo Rosario was the idiot and the bully. That seems indisputable.
However, there's now one Sailor recovering from a broken jaw and one whose family is in mourning after a life and a Navy career was cut far too short.
That can't be *right* or *just* in anyone's idea of a fair world.
Michael Halpert's life was worth more than that.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Krieger on Kerry
Fans of Right-Side-of-Lowell would've already known where its author stood, but folks reading yesterday's Boston Globe could've seen this letter about Senator Kerry's crossing the line of acceptable public discourse in his recent "joke" about Governor Palin.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Senator Diaper...and You
After some very spirited and healthy debate last week -- here, on Choosing a Soundtrack, and on Right-Side-of-Lowell -- surrounding public figures, scandals, and their families (the Letterman v. Palin stuff spilled right into Ensign/Sanford) I realized late last week we had entirely ignored what most people ignore every time this stuff comes up, but what ANY 2nd Lieutenant or Lance Corporal walking through the doors of places like Huachuca, Goodfellow, or Dam Neck already knows -- the potential risk that certain behaviors could place on those who hold security clearances. That's why I wrote this letter to the Sun (thanks for the heads-up Cliff, I didn't know they had published it but will grab a hard copy tomorrow afternoon from the missus).
Before you write me off as a paranoid conspiracy nut, I would suggest you read about names like Clayton Lonetree, Irvin Scarbeck, or Katrina Leung. Or just read any Cold War spy history you could get at any Barnes & Noble or Borders (or local library, if so inclined).
Or ask the FBI Agent friend of mine (also a reserve Gunnery Sergeant, Marine E-7, which is how I know him) about what happened when he and a lot of his associates went to Moscow for an FBI-FSB liaison trip a couple years ago. Every single one of them wearing some left-hand jewelry was solicited almost to the point of harassment by young, eager Russian women every time they went out. In fact, it got so ridiculous that towards the end of the trip, one particularly charged-up partygoer grabbed one of them by the arm forcibly and yelled, in these exact words, in Russian-accented English at a high decibel level, "LET'S GO SEX!"
Needless to say, that three-word rallying cry became a long-running inside joke among those guys, and it still draws a laugh to this day.
None of them were stupid enough to take the bait, though, because they'd all been warned it was going to happen, and they knew the consequences of doing so would be either bartering information or money, or making the most difficult speech they would ever give to their spouse.
Anyway, back to the spirit of the letter. Let's take a look at the DC Madam scandal. We now know that:
a) David Vitter is a U.S. Senator who represents the great state of Louisiana;
b) David Vitter is an outspoken champion of 'traditional' family values;
c) David Vitter enjoys (or did enjoy) the company of prostitutes; and
d) David Vitter enjoys (or did enjoy) wearing diapers in said company.
The issue here has NOTHING to do with the rightness or wrongness of wearing diapers, which is absolutely not my place to judge. The issue has everything to do, however, with the vulnerability it creates for the wearer, the Right Gentleman from the Pelican State.
In an easy-to-imagine scenario, Mr. Vitter could've found himself in the same situation that the FBI agents were way too street-smart to fall into. It wouldn't have required true agent recruitment on the part of the prostitute, either. (That's important, and that's why I italicized that).
Imagine one of the DC Madam's call girls. Imagine she has money trouble. She has bills to pay, addictions to feed, credit cards, rent, etc. Imagine someone who she doesn't know is aware of this, and says, "I'll pay you ______ thousand dollars to wear this piece of recording equipment while you cavort with Senator Diaper." (This would be sort of a twist on Hazel Moore with Marion Berry, only with different players and stakes).
Now, voila, that agency has one percent of our highest-level deliberative and legislative body over a proverbial barrel.
They could delay legislation, they could introduce legislation, they could hold things up in committees. And if they ran into any trouble, they could instantly end the career of a very ambitious man with a few simple mouse clicks (which is even easier than the boys in Berlin used to do it, back when they had to rely on international air mail to make good on these).
The same could apply to any pol, so I don't really care whether it's Craig, Clinton, Spitzer, Mark Foley, or even Gary Hart.
Again, no one said you had to be perfect. To cite my past examples, no one said anything about slurping your soup, picking your nose at a red light, or ripping a fart as you get out of bed (a.k.a. Morning Thunder). That's the kind of stuff that the imperfect people I know tend to do.
And if you're going to skip town for international trysts, wear diapers with prostitutes, or solicit sex in airport bathrooms, that's okay too -- provided you'd be comfortable disclosing that in a public forum without going to any lengths to hide the evidence.
But if you're not, you just abused all of our trust, and you don't deserve to be elected dog-catcher.
Before you write me off as a paranoid conspiracy nut, I would suggest you read about names like Clayton Lonetree, Irvin Scarbeck, or Katrina Leung. Or just read any Cold War spy history you could get at any Barnes & Noble or Borders (or local library, if so inclined).
Or ask the FBI Agent friend of mine (also a reserve Gunnery Sergeant, Marine E-7, which is how I know him) about what happened when he and a lot of his associates went to Moscow for an FBI-FSB liaison trip a couple years ago. Every single one of them wearing some left-hand jewelry was solicited almost to the point of harassment by young, eager Russian women every time they went out. In fact, it got so ridiculous that towards the end of the trip, one particularly charged-up partygoer grabbed one of them by the arm forcibly and yelled, in these exact words, in Russian-accented English at a high decibel level, "LET'S GO SEX!"
Needless to say, that three-word rallying cry became a long-running inside joke among those guys, and it still draws a laugh to this day.
None of them were stupid enough to take the bait, though, because they'd all been warned it was going to happen, and they knew the consequences of doing so would be either bartering information or money, or making the most difficult speech they would ever give to their spouse.
Anyway, back to the spirit of the letter. Let's take a look at the DC Madam scandal. We now know that:
a) David Vitter is a U.S. Senator who represents the great state of Louisiana;
b) David Vitter is an outspoken champion of 'traditional' family values;
c) David Vitter enjoys (or did enjoy) the company of prostitutes; and
d) David Vitter enjoys (or did enjoy) wearing diapers in said company.
The issue here has NOTHING to do with the rightness or wrongness of wearing diapers, which is absolutely not my place to judge. The issue has everything to do, however, with the vulnerability it creates for the wearer, the Right Gentleman from the Pelican State.
In an easy-to-imagine scenario, Mr. Vitter could've found himself in the same situation that the FBI agents were way too street-smart to fall into. It wouldn't have required true agent recruitment on the part of the prostitute, either. (That's important, and that's why I italicized that).
Imagine one of the DC Madam's call girls. Imagine she has money trouble. She has bills to pay, addictions to feed, credit cards, rent, etc. Imagine someone who she doesn't know is aware of this, and says, "I'll pay you ______ thousand dollars to wear this piece of recording equipment while you cavort with Senator Diaper." (This would be sort of a twist on Hazel Moore with Marion Berry, only with different players and stakes).
Now, voila, that agency has one percent of our highest-level deliberative and legislative body over a proverbial barrel.
They could delay legislation, they could introduce legislation, they could hold things up in committees. And if they ran into any trouble, they could instantly end the career of a very ambitious man with a few simple mouse clicks (which is even easier than the boys in Berlin used to do it, back when they had to rely on international air mail to make good on these).
The same could apply to any pol, so I don't really care whether it's Craig, Clinton, Spitzer, Mark Foley, or even Gary Hart.
Again, no one said you had to be perfect. To cite my past examples, no one said anything about slurping your soup, picking your nose at a red light, or ripping a fart as you get out of bed (a.k.a. Morning Thunder). That's the kind of stuff that the imperfect people I know tend to do.
And if you're going to skip town for international trysts, wear diapers with prostitutes, or solicit sex in airport bathrooms, that's okay too -- provided you'd be comfortable disclosing that in a public forum without going to any lengths to hide the evidence.
But if you're not, you just abused all of our trust, and you don't deserve to be elected dog-catcher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
