A SMAL;L DIVERSION

I hate to admit it, but I watch far too much TV. It is an effortless source of passive entertainment, and a starting point for my fulminations about language. Because no one, no place, no how makes more egregious errors in language than the people of the tube.

Because my wife is drawn especially to HGTV because she enjoys mind-betting on which of the three houses "Home Hunters" will choose, or "My House is Worth How Much?" I tag along, if for no other reason than to sneer with superiority at the tiny vocabularies most people possess. There are figures somewhere that document how many of the thousands if words available in the English language are actually used by most folks. The number is mind-numbing. The range runs the gamu - as we used to say from A to B.

Several years ago my crew and I insisted that anyone coming aboard never ever use the word "amazing." Faced with the restriction, it was remarkable how many people suddenly became aware of how cliched their speech had become.

In the house hunting kind of show we usually find a standard garden-variety couple in their twenties who make a big deal sabout popcorn ceilings, and kitchens that do not have granite countertops. The most widely heard adjective of praise is "amazing" followed closely by "awesome." I have actually counted the number of times awesome gets used in one progam. I lost count after`five. It seems the the only superlatives anyone seems to use are those two words - ad nauseum.

So I am going to go on a crusade. I want to change the word. Someone, somewhere -= some star, or a gushing awards show doyenne like Joan Rivers, accompanied by daughter Melissa. can help. A few years ago, atanding on the sidewalk ooing and aahing as each celbrity dismounted from their limo, she would talk to each one. The eword "amazing" covered everything. She spoke of the "amazing" performance in a recent movie, the "amazing" (pronounced amaaaaaazing) hairdo, the amazing dress, and the amazing children. Maybe I could enlist Joan in my crusade.

My wife and I mulled this over together. I said: "I think I have a word, if we can make it fashionable, that will succeed amazing." She reminded me that the Brits use "brilliant" a lot. I suggested we try to promote "stunning."

I can hear it now. The awkward couple looking at their first home can now have a choice. The kitchen is amazing. The yard (where the ubuiquitous dogs will have a place to play) is "awesome, and the remodelled bathroom is "stunning."

I noted without spending time on it that this year's annual dropping of words story, out of a university in Michigan, deals with the problem every year.

But getting people to switch cliches might be harder than stopping restaurants from featuring Tiramasu.

I need input. Without asking Joe the Plumber to increase his word use, what words must be dropped and what words do you think can become the new cliches.

THE NEW IS OFTEN OLD

I am not an authority on Greek history, so I apologize in advance for taking innapropriate liberties.

Am I correct in recalling that the downfall of the great Athenian Pericles came, not as a result of things he did wrong, but of things he did right? He was so good at what he did that people began to tear him down. Today's parallel is often that we most detest the ones we should most revere. Or that once someone becones successful there are legions of people waiting to tear him/her down. It is a kind of "schadefreude." There is nothing people are more drawn to than a fallen idol.

The pundits have absolutely massacred Obama's inaugural address.

"Trivial." "Boilerplate" "Old ideas wrapped up in rhetoric." "Totally unoriginal," "No comparison to Lincoln's, Roosevelt's, Kennedy's inaugural." The chattering masses of punditry are outraged thsat a giant of a man should give a pygmy speech.

What these guardians of the "truth" don't "get" is that Obama was not trying to endear himself to the media, nor was he trying to make a place for himself in the Pantheon of leaders who made great inaugural addresses. Yes it was cliched. Yes is was a speech suited to a pep rally. But he was talking to the Anerican people.
The hair-splitters will say he made no platform statements, he offered nothing concrete, he avoided issues and danced around reality. Blah, blah, and more blah.

What I heard was Shakespearean. It soared. It went to the heart of the new mindset. I evoked, in all its sometimes purple prose, memories of his campaign pledge for "change."

I hate the overuse of the expression "wake-up call" but it was just that. For those who have been sleeping through the turmoil of the past several months, it is time to take responsibility for the future.

Listen, if you want to quote stirring inaugural addresses, you might look at Nixon's
1960 rhetoric. It was stirring. It called for a return to the kind of civil order and concern for each other that made America great. At a time of the deep division over Viet Nam, revolution and anarchy on university campuses,riots and draft-card burning, he promised the dawning of a new America. The fact that there has been no more duplicitous president than Nixon does not matter.

Nor does the demand for a history-making inaugural address matter in the face of whatever awful reality America, and the rest of the world, will be facing.

It was, despite the babbling disquietude of the media, the right speech at the right time. He is above the barbs of the chatteroing classes.

THE OLD IS NEVER NEW

For Austin, this is a cold Texas morning. The thermometer hits 40F and people shiver. It has been colder during our stay, but never the cold, frost-filled, winter-aromatic cold we get at home. I can take a deep breath here but it doesn't penetrate every node of my lungs with freshness. I look forward to returning home and taking those deep breaths again.

But there is more than just "returning." There is more, or is there (?) about returning.

A few nights ago we ate out at one of their favourite watering holes. With us was the president of an ad agency who just got all the Spanish TV for Burger King. Celebration was in the air. Somehow the conversation got around to my own Texas experiences. Manny (the ad agency prez) wanted to know all about why I had been in Texas.

I realized I would be delving back and going into old war stories.

"I was in Texas for one part of the 8 part TV series I did for the CBC about America on the occasion of its Bicentennial."

"So who did you meet in Texas?"

"I was hosted by the president of either Texas Instruments or Lytton Industries. Anyway, a corporate Texas bigwig. He would open doors for me, get me to people I
couldn't ordinarily interview. Like Nelson Bunker Hunt, he of the silver-market felony and the son of H.L. Hunt, one of the godfathers of the John Birch Society. I was told not to ask him about his father."

There was rapt attention around the table. I went on.

"We went to an auction of Charolais cattle at his ranch outside Dallas. I asked him non-threatening questions (this was not a pick-the-scabs-ff probe into the detritus of the Anerican system, but a loving look sat a country on its 200th birthday.) I asked the usual cream puff questions: what did he like most about America? What were his most important memories. The answers we pure boilerplate. Then I couldn't resist: tell me why you don't want me to ask you about youtr father. There was a pause and he turned slightly p[ink. His answer was startling: "I may even be more of conservative that my father." And he went on at length about self-reliance and individualism and success by effort. (I would have been tempted to ask him if that included taking the world for a ride by manipulating the price of silver.)

Everyone at the table seemed iknterested. Responses were "Who else did you meet?"

"I interviewed the axe-ahndle chicken restaurant owner who got to be governor of Arkansas - Lester Msaddox, probably a bigger racist that George Wallace. With him was a black man who played the banjo. They sang together."

By now I wass tired of reminiscences. Later I said to mny son-in-olaw: "I don't like always going into the past. That was then and this is now."

"But your past is who you are. You are entitled to be proud of what you ave done."

I was flattered but not rewarded. Everyone wants 6o hear about what I did so many years ago. My interview with Hunt was more than 30 yeards ago! Do I keep my reputation alive by telling old war stories? Does anyone care? Does ot label me as a once-celebrated man whose feet are planted firmly in what used to be?

My son-in-law sees nothing wrong with a resume that goes back to 1946 but sadly, with several esceptions, ended about ten years ago. Even Mark Kolke of "Mark's Musings" encourages me to tell old stories about people I met and talked to during my once-lively career. That was then. This is now.

It is true that we are the sum total of what we have been, shere, who what, and all that. I would rather have people read what I have to say today and comment on it, than remind me, sometimes endlessly, of how they listening to me faithfully back in 1964.

SELFISH VS SURVIVAL

I'm in Austin, Texas, visiting my daughter, her husband and their three boys. I'm sitting at the Sunday morning breakast table. My son-in-law, sitting opposite is reading the Statesman. "They're lay8ing off at AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) the scond largest` chip maker in the U.S. And those who stay are getting pay cuts."

It's the same all over of course and there is no point in my belabouring the obvious. In a recession people lose their jobs. The government steps in with Unemployment or as we call it in Canada, Employmnent Insurancre.

My son-in-law tends toward the political right, although, after` several years in th Texas hotbed of liberal thought, he has tempered his political bias. I suggest to him that instead of laying people off they reduce hours and create more of a job-sharing atmmosphere. He demurs, suggesting, as any good CEO would, that not all employees are equal and that if you let people go you try to keep the best.

We abandon the argument. I go back to reading Frank Rich's superb column on growing up in reacist Washington. He returns to the morning paper and the businees of letting the dogs out.

I ponder. I was never a Rae-baiter during the years when Bob Rae was trying to run Ontario and trying, as the Right would characterize, to spend the province out of a recession. That played well to people who knew nothing about econonomics and they kicked Rae out and ushered in the slash-and-burn Common Sense Revolution.

Looking back at one of Bobn Rse's most unpopular moves: Rae Days, I realize (as I did then) that it was a great idea. It exemplified the unselfishness that would spread the work around while each working person might take home a little less. Rae Days, if you remember, gave civil servants days off without pay. The unions were furious, which incidentally came up during my conversation with my son-in-law. The unions simply did not understand what he was trying to do. Yes, he was violating the collective agreement. He was, I believe, hoping the private business would pick up the idea and offer employees days off without pay nstead of a pink slip. In fact, one of the points I remember Bob making was that reducing hours was better than laying people off. He was right of course. The angry civil servants found that when Mike Harris came to power thousands of their members lost their jobs.

What is missing in the idea of job-sharing, is that the Federal Goverbnment should have been involved. Wouldn't be easier, instead of shelling out employment insurance benefits, to use that fund to "top up" the wages reduced by job sharing?

At the hjeart of the problem of course is the innate survival imperative that says my instict for self-surivival is greater than my instinct to reach out to my fellow man. Charity begins, not just "at home:" but in the hearts and souls of people who think of themselves as a community.

JUST ANOTHER CRANKY OLD FART

One of the prerogatives, no - make that imperatives - connected to aging is the obligation to write letters to the editor. A friend once told me that if I kept having my letters published (The Star, Globe and Mail, New York Times) no one would buy a piece from me when they can get it free.

Heedless of that argument, I continue to vent.

I am however, trapped by geography. I write this from my daughter's home in Austin, Texas, and the paper would have to call me long distance to confirm that I and not some name-dropping imposter, had written the letter.

The moderator of the United Church, responding to a question about the furor over transit ads for atheism, commented that atheists instead of being "against", should tell us what they are "for."

I had no alternative. I was compelled to respond. I said that just a few days ago my son-in-law, a devout Catholic (married to my very Jewish daughter) asked me why I was an atheist. He cannot imagine anyone not believing, partly because of his religious background, and partly because he falls back on the timeworn notion that "there must be something out there bigger thasn we are who is responsible etc..."

I told him, reflecting perhaps on what the United Church moderator is quoted as having said, that atheism - literally "a" without - theism - belief in a deity is not enough. Perhaps we atheists should clarify that our belief is not simply that the idea of the Divine is mythic superstition, but that (at least in my case) there is more.

I explained to my son-in-law that the positive side is that I am an existentialist. I believe in my own primacy, or more correctly, the primacy of man/womankind. We alone are responsible for who we are and what we do. The choices are ours. I could have quoted Henri Bergson on Free Will and that I alone am responsible for my choices. (So what would you expect from a Jewish philosopher - Bergson, not Solway.)

Here in the most faith-based country in the developed world, I sit and ponder why they so constantly invoke the Divine. I would remind them that two of their greatest historical heros - Franklin and Jefferson - were Deists, which is another way of describing what Isaac Newton also believed, that if there is a God he created things but then (and this is the sense of the story of the Fall in Genesis)
left us on our own. No prayers. No invocations. No on-your knees.

But I digress.

My big beef is with the Church that always says the same thing about atheists. They think we are bereft of belief. Thinking that makes them feel better I suppose.

GETTING CRANKY. a function of aging (or a self-endowed privilege.)

It is too easy to preach about people who describe something as “very unique,” (Heaven help me if some of my readers have to wonder what’s wrong!) or to make fun of the common misuse of the verb “to lie” – meaning to recline. I amuse myself by wondering what Faulkner meant when he wrote “As I Lay Dying,” given the common use of the word “lay” instead of “lie” – which as we know is the present tense. It is hardly ever used. But did Faulkner mean really “:As I Lie Dying” – which would put it in the present tense. Of course – he did not. But we can never be saved by the now-common “I’m going to go lay` down.” Enough pedantry.

There are new cuties that express to me, not that language is evolving, but that it is being massacred. I know. I know. Critics will accuse me of substituting propriety for reality. To those critics, the reality is that common misuse leads to eventual acceptance. Some dictionaries now offer an alternative to the pronunciation of nuclear Guess what that “acceptable” alternative is. The same dictionaries offer “momentarily” as “in a minute.” To me, it can’t be IN a minute and FOR a minute, or do you miss the contradiction?

But I have other (if not bigger) fish to fry. My favourite resource for solecisms and coined words, mixed metaphors and redundancies (i.e. free gift) is usually television. I try to believe that the fracturing of language is done on purpose to appeal to the LCD among us.

How about a ramshackle house being “jury-built?” Acceptable? Not to me. There is jury-rigged, as in using something at hand to replace a part as in “the mast of the ship came crashing down. We jury-rigged a new one from other spars.” There are two expressions: “jury-rigged” and jerry-built.” They are not interchangeable.

An old friend of mine confessed to me (he was a super writer) that it was only recently that he found out that you didn’t “hone in” on something (unless you were sharpening a razor) but that you “homed” in, meaning you “zeroed” in.

A few other lulus heard during learned discussions on TV: “Exactly right! You “hit it on the head.” Right up there with “The proof is in the pudding.” Or “I could care less.” Of course you “hit the nail on the head,” “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” And If you COULD care less then why bother when you really mean you could NOT care less.

This is just one more installment in my continuing fruitless crusade that no one really cares about. I do it because it makes me feel slightly superior. How’s that for insight?

LIVING AND LEARNING

There is a lot to be said - none of it positive - about not being able to "teach and old dog new tricks." I simply do not blieve that after a number of years our ability to learn, to reason, and yes - to change our minds - have become atrophied.

In my years on radio, in mouth-to-mouth combat with callers, I was impressed (or depressed - take your pick) with the nubmer of people who not only could not change their minds, but clung fiercely to opinions based on their own personal prejudices.

I do not suggest that everyone should experience a Paul-like epiphany on one's own road to Damascuds, but at least with an open mind, to be able to alter ones most precious beliefs.

I am stimulated to write this because of what Mark Kolke wrote in "Mark's Musings" on this January 6th. I quote: "If we are to learn - and if you believe it is not the world's job, but rather our own job to do the learning - I think we need to dream bigger and better, shoot higher and demand more of ourselves rather than of others. As for Dyer's doom and gloom comments, he is a master purveyor of gloomy, though often accurate, predictions of man's undoing."

I think that the human flexbility inherent in being able to change one's mind, is absolutely fundamental to any kind of human growth. We all expect our children to be able to0 develop new ideas - that's what growing uhp is all about. Sadly, some of them do not grow intellectually because they sit each evening at dinner with parents who have long since stopped thinking and believe today what they believed yesterday or a year ago, in spite of new information. So - if the parent is a bigot, chances are the child with have to wrestle with personal bigotry. The good ones survive, taking in new informatiopn and allowing their minds to change.

My favourite window on stupidity is the "streeter." That's where the TV News department, bereft of ideas, does a straw poll of people in the street, usually hearing only from those who have the time to stop. Most of the time what they` say i pure rubbidsh. Sadly, we think we are finding out "what people think." The word "think" is misplaced.

The political comments are always lulus, liike: "My family, right back to my grandparents, have always been Conservatives, and so am I." (Or Liberals or anarchists - that's not the point.)

We must be able to absorb new information no matter how old a dog we may be.
Mark's comment grew from a piece about Global Warming. I understood what he meant.
But I also understand that there is an enormous gap in the ability of people to reach thougjhful conclusions. Like the comment when the weather turns cold and snowy (as it has this winter) that "so what's all this stuff about global warmikng - ha-ha."

I've tried to no avail, to meet this absurd comment with something like: "We're talking about climatge change. There will always be temperature changes, but with the eqathr's atmosphere heating up by just a degree or two, the evaporation from our oceans increases and adds to the airborne moisture, hence more snow, rain and freezing rain. It may be also thast climate change affects the jet stream brining it farther souht."

One cold week does not mean that the stuff about polar brear habitats is rubbish.

Think. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.