The mirrors of September 11. No guff, and nothing to add.

 
So Ev was good enough to point to this, which I gleefully quote in (almost) full:

"You know who's really good to make fun of?

"Steven Seagal, that's who.

"When you make little snipey comments about him, it helps you to grow and develop as a person, because in spite of the fact that Steven Seagal could probably beat your punk ass into a quivering mass of tears and regret, there's no way he would ever know. You know what else is great? There is virtually no chance that anyone will admit to liking Steven Seagal movies enough to argue with you."

No, I thought, humanity's low bar for taste smashes into my shins every day. There must be at least one out there, no? Then I looked it up; he could be right afterall. And I'm rather partial to his nick and blog*spot locale -- no explanation required.

 
"Smurfs are asexual. They don't even have reproductive organs under those little white pants ... What's the point of living if you don't have a dick?"

Dunno. I guess we could ask the women.

 
A look at guff rewrapped. Far too hard to read for my tastes...

(retrofit by GoodWorld)

 
Stuart Little discovered in real life, scientists claim it's a puncture in the space-fiction continuum.

 
Sleep? What is this thing you humans keep calling sleep?

 
There's just too many ways I can have fun with this book. Like, "will someone please make sure to buy President Gee Dubya a copy?" Or perhaps "For idiots, about an idiot. How appropriate." Or an oldie but goodie, "make sure to pick up the companion book."

Thankfully, I'm above all that. And I'm a little ashamed there's a market for it. But mainly I'm pissed that I (jokingly) suggested just such a book more than ten years ago!

 
The Honest To Goodness HTML Lessons Plan:

Lesson One - HTML, The Early Years (or, <XMP> Remembrances)
Lesson Two - Prepare To Be Confused... I Mean Dazzled.
Lesson Three - What HTML 2/3 Giveth, HTML 4 Taketh Away.
Lesson Four - CSS: A Whole New World Of Sh.. Confusion.
Lesson Five - You Want To Know Javascript? BWAA HA HA!
Lesson Six - Screw It And Go Get A Spiffy HTML Editor.

Lessons over. Traipse out to become future Web serfs.

 
Robert aka Noah takes on the deluge with modern day aplomb, when he should have just turned over. No, no guff here. Just foolishly enjoying myself.

 
New mechanism for making demeaning characterizations which I hope catches on: bobblehead. As in 'bobblehead jazz', 'bobblehead philosophy', 'bobblehead airport security'. It plugs into just about any object of ridicule!

Please put to use immediately. Thank me at your leisure.

 
Rhetorical question: when did blurry come to be equated with "art" in the world of photography?

 
"...a word that J.R.R. Tolkien thought was just fine."

(This is from a post (scroll up!) on Number 2 Pencil, discussing a teacher who was tossed due to using the word niggardly in a student vocabulary - read the story.)

I'm trying to think back to when I last saw JRRT used as a signal for race awareness and tolerance. Hmm, I believe that would be 'never'. This is the same British author of books which make absolutely no mention of any "human" race other than white, correct?

I am a long-time fan of Tolkien's creations, including his few scholarly writings, and I hardly see Lord of the Rings or his other works as tomes of racist polemics, but I'm not sure I would use him to make a point about the racial emblem (real or imagined) of a word.

So, IS the word niggardly a racist one? Etymologically speaking, no. An adjectival form of 'niggard', it derives from the Middle English nigard, meaning "miser" or "miserly", and has roots in Old Norse. That at least is something Tolkien could have taught us.

Oh, and a note to Kimberly at Number 2 Pencil, in case you happen across this: please set your name anchor tags at the top of your blog posts. Makes life a lot easier when someone wants to link to 'em.

UPDATE:
I thought I was long over adding addenda just to answer other people's addenda (forget it, long boring story).

Kimberly (of Number 2 Pencil -- see links above) notes I take her to task for her use of JRR Tolkien. I wouldn't call it that as much as I question whether throwing JRRT into the mix here helps or obscures the objective of her argument, which if you're not reading under the lines, let me say I agree with. I also don't see that it matters how the news article all this references does the same thing; duplicating a bad effort (my opinion) is only a marginally useful tactic. I can probably locate a celebrated author or ten who avoids use of the word -- hopefully for reasons beyond simple lack of knowledge to its meaning. So who is correct?

In essence, Kimberly thinks I missed the point behind her annoyance (she qualifies that with "deftly", a favorite of mine, so I can't take it personally. However, calling me "Guff"! *sniff*). In all honestly I purposely avoided it, as I'm aware how most people (and I cannot qualify that one enough) will miss it. Many because they refuse to see it at any cost. I don't like waving flags no one looks at. I could wave it right in their face, but that tends to make them nasty.

Word and context, this is what it comes down to. The teacher places the word in a context of literature and historical definition. The parent places it in a context of our culture and its near homonymic relationship to another, long vilified word. One can't negate either position, as each in its own way is true. I stand in the former camp and that causes a conflict in me -- one I'm willing to live with, as I refuse to deny the opposition its context. It's the shame of our arguments over context that good people can lose jobs over such things, and worse. So I'll do my best to educate them (alongside the Kimberlys of the world) on why I see their context as an unnecessarily narrow one; but in the end I can't claim it's false.

 
In regards to US public weariness over expectations of the upcoming 9/11 media onslaught:

"Closure is precisely what Brian Pilant craves. “Shut up about it!” the 28-year-old bagpiper from Tempe, Ariz., grumbles when asked about the attacks, plugging his ears with his fingers for emphasis."

Irony, thy name is that of a Scottish musical instrument. Read the full article.

 
Infected yet by the West Nike virus?



A quickly crafted gift for a bird in pain.

 


But of course. Good to see that some morons people were pulled in by Acclaim's flush toilet expansion to their advertising genius. But hey, at least they're adults making a conscious choice to become walking punchlines.

Note to Acclaim: sorry, but you were not the first in the world of "identity marketing". Hey, it has a name!

 
You've got e-mail... about blogs.

Too much is written about the blog phenomenon, primarily by people who spend more time in their prose trying to figure it out rather than explain it. Probably because those who understand it are too busy blogging. But at least Kurt's and Andrew's messages (linked above) were an enjoyable read. Almost blog-like.

 
Heretic doesn't 'blog' because he realizes that the medium shapes the message. Well of course it does; but the medium can often be reshaped to ones own will as well, if you're up to it. If it couldn't, I wouldn't bother speaking, since it's a (wait for it)

medium.

Sometimes all it takes is changing how you think about it that can put you and the medium on better footing. Sometimes reconceptualizing it is the way to go.

Then again, the medium may just not be your hlutur. I'm fine with that.

 
This is what having a webcam is really all about!



Damn that stupid foot fetish... Not me! Not me!

 
Yet another unexpected intellectual blog mot is pealing across the interscape. I may or may not go several paragraphs further into this particular topic on Blurried Musings. For now, this will do:

Five words or less? Cheapskate!