Language and Pretense

With one of my favorite things in the world being language, and one of my least favorite things being pretense, I've got to fire a quick one off this morning before I head down to the gym: President Obama's Latinization of English speech.

Don't worry, this won't be anything political about what we should or shouldn't do regarding the nation of Honduras, but it is a strong-held belief about the way we should say 'Honduras.'

If we were in a coffee shop or diner right now, I could *speak* this entry, but we're not, so you're going to have to bear with me. For a person speaking English, for consistency's sake, an Anglicization of place names is the smoothest, least-pretentious way to speak. So France is "Franse," not "Fraaahnce." In that same vein, Honduras is "HAHN-DUR-US," not the forced "OWN-DURE-US," that we're hearing from our President.

For some reason, people wanting to express some type of sophistication or political correctness feel the need to do this with Latin American proper nouns, even though the same standard doesn't seem to apply anywhere else. Someone would take the "H" out of Honduras, but when could someone speaking with a straight face take the "S" out of Paris? (As they would if they were speaking in that city's mother tongue).

They wouldn't.

They wouldn't over-Germanize words, either. Our language is crawling with German roots and proper nouns of German origin, but I don't see anyone going out of their way to turn "Ws" into "Vs." Besides, even if they that when talking about listening to 'Vagner' or the author 'Max Vay-ber' there's no attempt to put some kind German accent spin on it.

You know why we don't do it?

Because it'd sound silly.

But somehow we can do it with Spanish, and, at least to someone, somewhere, it makes sense. It's not consistent, it doesn't show extra sensitivity or awareness, and quite frankly, it makes the speaker sound like a pompous ass, all the way from here to TUH-GOOSEY-GALPA!

Saying "No Thanks" to Bingo and Shuffleboard

This post is inspired in part by a recent post on Right-Side-of-Lowell about a study regarding people's activity levels in old age, which have been negatively correlated with the onset of dementia.

I commented to that post to basically say that: a) I think the entire idea that workers -- especially those of us who don't make a living through strenuous manual labor -- should be entitled to stop working and sit around drawing benefits for the last quarter of our life is preposterous; and that b) when I think about all the directions my life could go in the next several decades, the LAST thing I ever want to think about is sitting around playing bingo or sipping cocktails on a Caribbean beach (for longer than a week, that is).

Yesterday, I heard someone at my church basically say the same thing. A spry, vibrant lady about to hit the ripe age 0f 70, she talked about how a lot of people reach these arbitrary, milestone sort of birthdays and basically just "decide to be old," thereby resigning themselves to their demise. I know that goes against hard science, and sounds a bit folksy, but I like it, and I think studies like the one mentioned on RSOL back it up.

So it was great for me to open the Economist this week and see the special on aging, in which the esteemed British periodical did some sacred cow slaying (and though cheerleader and non-controversial blogger I may be, I'm a huge fan of anything that challenges conventional wisdom).

Changing life expectancies and the *softening* of the average American's work environment have greatly changed the rationale behind retirement ages, but this is one of those great policy issues where politics gets in the way. Despite everyone and their mother being an avowed *fiscal conservative,* people know which side their bread is buttered on, and the aged tend to vote in droves. From the magazine:

Retirement has been overdone. The original idea was that people should enjoy a bit of a rest after a life at work, but nobody imagined that the rest would stretch to almost a quarter-century. Some countries have already raised their official retirement age; others are debating whether it still makes sense to have a specific retirement age at all. One widely touted idea is to phase in retirement over a number of years. It does not seem like a good idea for people to be working at full tilt one day and twiddling their thumbs the next.

Admittedly, there are points added for balance, such as the idea that some abilities really do decrease after middle-age, and that companies have more incentives to hire younger workers. I also want to acknowledge that there's a middle-ground between full-time employment and endless "Price is Right" reruns -- someone could, for instance, work part-time doing defense consulting and research, attend formal classes, and blog prolifically.

I can only speak for one person -- not a generation, not a mindset, not even direct family members. I also try not to go to heavy on the theology stuff here on this blog (and besides, there's not TOO much to say, my beliefs on that are pretty simple).

That having been said, the LAST thing I ever fantasize about or even envision doing is...nothing at all.

That's just not my goal, and I don't think it's why I was put here.

Hey, Hit the Pause Button....That's My Elbow!!

Below, in italics, is an e-mail I got this morning concerning some The Fighter-related filming going on in Lowell three weeks from now:

Great post about The Fighter. Wanted to give you a heads up that the producers are allowing BeInAMovie.com to invite people to Be In The Movie as spectators during the big fight scenes. No headshots, auditions, stress required.

This is about coming out, having fun, and giving people an opportunity most never get. These are not paid extra positions but it is a great way to experience a day on a real movie set with all the stars and see the industry from the inside out. Plus its all FREE! Anyone 16+ can be our guests on a movie set for a day and receive free food, entertainment and eligibility to win prizes throughout the day's activities.

The filming will be taking place in Lowell, MA on July 14, 15, 16. Participants choose which day to attend and do not need to come to all three days (although, given how fun it is many may come more than one day) A more detailed description of this film is available on our website, http://www.beinamovie.com/movie.php?mtitleid=84 For more info and to sign up, people simply need to visit www.BeInAMovie.com. Spots are filling very fast though so time is of the essence.

I'm guessing the "no audition, no head shot" disclaimer might ensure there won't be a line of people snaking around three city blocks with cabbie hats and Larry Bird jerseys.

Sanford and Ensign: Don't Go Away Mad...

A healthy debate has sprung up based on some recent posts and comments on Choosing a Soundtrack and Right-Side-of-Lowell regarding when politicians' family members are or aren't "fair game" for lampooning and even generally discussing.

That's one of those great topics that will never really go away, and for which there won't be any *right* answers (I guess if there were, it would cease to be an interesting topic).

One issue for which there's no doubt, at least in my mind, is whether it's fair to call into question the actions of the politicians themselves.

Running for, and holding, a public office is a conscious choice. There are of course a lot of downsides (such as the scrutiny) but there are also MANY upsides. When was the last time you saw a former Governor or Senator scrounging for spare change or worrying about how to afford health care? It's a chance to impact history, it's a chance to help steer the debate, it's a chance to give 'em hell on your behalf, or your constituents' behalf, or whatever else it brings.

However, if you're going to take the mantle of leader of your state, your district, or whatever, and the accolades and respect that come with that, you've also got to accept that people are going to pay attention to your behavior.

So can we please just pack away and throw out the pervasive myth that politicians are being held to some impossibly high standard??

No one is saying you can't slurp your soup.

No one is saying you can't pick your nose at a red light.

No one is saying you can't cut a fart between the sheets in the morning.

However, sneaking off to Argentina to be with your mistress during your state's time of budget crisis, or calling yourself a Christian leader and then sleeping with your staffer (who happens to be married to one of your supporters) might fail most people's sniff test of what constitutes unacceptable behavior.

I'll periodically re-do this post, or some variant on it, the next time this happens...in much the same fashion as I followed up on Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Larry Craig, or David Vitter.

In the meantime, I wish the best for the Sanford and Ensign families as they try to heal and reconcile.

I won't, however, take in any sanctimonious lecturing from either the fallen Governor or the fallen Senator about what is or isn't someone else's business. They can have all the privacy they want, just the same as if they had entered a private legal practice, or business consulting, or whatever else it is that non-politicians do with their time...once they tender resignation letters.

A Very Quick Lowell DNA Wrap-Up

For the past few months, I've followed up on DNA meetings with a write-up that's usually a summary of the agenda and then an observation or two. Since last night's meeting was really just a nice dinner over at the Museum, I'll just hit the wavetops before I get back to work:

Two Council candidates were there (Ryan Berard and Franky Descoteaux, whose kick-off is tonight at Mambo) as well as a lot of the DNA usual suspects, right down to the ubiquitous Mark Goldman in his Upper Deck trading cards ballcap.

$100 for the Arts League of Lowell was quickly raised (with a check to be cut Friday morning and delivered in a 'dead drop' inside the Club Diner...but in a more 'Spies Like Us' than Jason Bourne fashion).

There will be no meeting in July, but things will kick up again in August. Fourth Monday, 7 p.m., Revolving.

Lempster, NH: State's First Commercial Wind Farm

The Globe ran this piece today about the dedication of New Hampshire's first commercial wind farm, whose produced annual energy is said to be the equivalent of taking 5,700 cars off the road, or enough to power 10,000 "typical" New Hampshire homes.

Whether you're interested in this because of its comparative friendliness towards the environment, or because of the way it decreases our dependence on foreign oil, or any combination of the above, I think you have to admit that this merits interest.

The 'Meet the Press' Effect, Spelled Out

On at least a few occasions during the UML Community lecture series earlier this spring, groups presented problems which usually centered around publicity and fundraising. Time and again, I broke out my "use the blogs" hobbyhorse, to mixed results.

Some supported the idea (and have taken it to heart) while others either dismissed the idea that anyone actually reads blogs, or, more pointedly, stated that while some do read the blogs, they are the politically active citizens who are most likely aware of whatever would be put out ahead of time. Besides the first problem I have with that idea -- the assumption that just because someone is 'politically active' he or she must somehow be omniscient -- it ignores what I call the "Meet the Press" effect of local blogging.

Here's how it works: Just as it's almost solely those already-plugged-in-to-politics citizens who watch Sunday morning talk shows like NBC's "Meet the Press," it's mainly the locally plugged-in who read local blogs. But just as a major policy proposal or revelation announced on "Meet the Press" would eventually make its way to a MUCH larger crowd (those who get their news in some way, at some time, via some format), so would something stated, introduced, or proposed on a local blog to a MUCH larger swathe of the local populace.

This could've been seen on at least two recent, memorable instances -- the reaction to the Tavaryna Chouen slaying and on the way a couple of the blogs helped change the timbre of the debate surrounding Bon Marchegate.

Today's Saturday Chat helps bring this concept to light once again. There really only might be a couple dozen people who regularly read some of the smaller-scale blogs (such as this) and a couple hundred who read some of the more major ones. But before you dismiss their power, you have to ask: Who are those people?

Apparently, Kendall Wallace is one of them. Today's Sun column included several references to the blogs, including direct references to something Lynne just posted on Left in Lowell.

Here's what was most interesting to me, though: The way five particular challengers were listed as "leaders" among those challengers seeking Council spots in November. I don't think it's any coincidence that the five names mentioned are the same ones that have appeared on Right-Side-of-Lowell and on Left in Lowell. So from something that might have a few dozen daily local readers, to something that might have a few hundred such readers, those names get mentioned in something that gets printed up to 50,000 times over in hard copy.

Those getting that type of virtual *press* are listed as *leaders* to a potential audience of tens of thousands that may have never heard of -- let alone follow -- the local blogerati.

To me, that's more proof of how new media can influence the debate in ways that aren't immediately obvious to all who might be tangentially affected by it.