Fractured speech

Words we need to stop using or use correctly

I'm going to start with several phrases or usages which particularly bug me, and then just riff on several more until I'm ranted out.

Legendary:  I heard a commercial recently for a relatively new (open about three years) club in Orlando which extolled the qualities of their "Legendary Drink Specials."  Legendary implies at least some extended period of accomplishment, passing into the collective  memory later to invoke waves of nostalgia and fond remembrance, usually grossly exaggerated and hyped. One example might be the Gunfight at the OK Corrall. A really big frozen Margarita  isn't a legend, it's just liver abuse. When Arthur and Lancelot start coming to your bar to hang out, you  may resume calling it legendary!

Technology: If you have a mop with a squeegee, it is just that. Calling it Soap Extraction technology doesn't make it clean any better. In the same vein, Insurance companies are now touting "enhanced claims technology."  It that anything like taking better care of customers?  The same soap that used to be advertised as simply cleaning better, now has  "enhanced surfactant  technology" Apparently the current guiding concept of modern advertising is that a consumer on seeing the word technology related to a potential purchase will close their mind and open their  wallets!

Hand crafted/craft brewed:  All too frequently, this term is applied to things I definitely don't want hands touching. "Hand crafted" micro-brewed  beer is a good example. These micro brewers seem to believe that we picture them burning charcoal, hoeing barley, growing yeast and hops, all to be stirred with a paddle in a washtub  until just right, at which time they pour it through a funnel one bottle at a time and seal it with wax. Craft Brewed? Really? Micro-breweries are exactly like large ones, only -  wait for it....."smaller!" Disappointed? I know I was. Now if you make it at home, mix it in the sink, etc...... Go for it; but don't expect me to drink it instead of my favorite ale.

Went to Steak and Shake today. Hey, we were hungry and it was there, ok?  They proudly advertise "hand dipped"  milkshakes. Now if you call something a milk shake, it must have ice cream and milk as well as assorted flavorings in it, that's the rule. If it comes out the spout of a fast freeze soft serve machine, you might call it a shake, but we know it isn't a MILK shake and you can't claim it is.  So how else would one get ice cream into the thing if not hand dipped? I looked for the robot dippers in other places, but alas, they don't exist.  Of course it's hand dipped. In like manner, they advertise hand crafted burgers. I would buy this if, after I order, they  hauled out of the locker a whole primal cut, ground it , added just the right amount of fat , mixed it and then hand formed it into the perfect patty. What they do, however, is open a refrigerated drawer, take out a pre-formed patty and mash it a bit on the grill. hand crafted? For the record, that's also how White Castle makes hamburgers, minus the hubris of calling their gut bomb sliders "hand crafted!"

I saw a recipe today, with accompanying video for  "hand crafted" goats milk soup." Yeah, I  know;  yummo, huh? I watched, expecting to see the goat milking and cheese making , spice gathering, etc. Instead I watched a lady open a container of commercial goat's milk and dump the pre-measured ingredients into a pan. That was the extent of the hand crafting. we are grossly overusing the term, which used to actually be applied to one of a kind original handmade furniture and the like. stop it!

There are many more of these misuses, but here are some favorites with short discussions relating to the misuse:

Groundbreaking (or its cousins, breakthrough and late-breaking): Very few products are groundbreaking in the sense that they figuratively broke new ground, created a new market where none existed before or even actually are a true innovation.    The Ford Model T, typewriter, iPod and sliced bread come to mind. Most others need not apply!

Revolutionary: Did your product or service start a revolution? Probably not. If it did, you probably got in trouble at some point, unless you're a weapons manufacturer.

Advanced: we  see this word applied (and generally misapplied) to almost everything. “Advanced ingredients.” “Advanced technology.” “Advanced processes.” "Advanced formula".....It`s being used so much that it has lost its value. The word is essentially meaningless in the previously shown contexts.

Bleeding edge: This is a favorite in the technology industry. Apparently when “cutting edge” wasn`t enough, marketers started using “bleeding edge.” I suppose that if the edge was actually a  "cutting edge" and one was careless, it could become a "bleeding edge", but that wouldn't really be a positive product aspect, would it?

Pioneering:  See groundbreaking, above. If you aren't experimenting and creating in relatively uncharted waters, sorry, you aren't "pioneering."

Exclusive: Unless whatever you make, or whatever service you provide is only available to one person, it`s not exclusive. You are simply selling snob appeal to people with little tiny penises. (see Humvee)

Unique: We all think we`re special. But unless what you do, produce or sell does something nothing else ever made has done,  it's not unique. In fact, if there is one other good, product or service like yours, it can't be unique. I'm just sayin'.  A far better approach would be  to let your consumer public  come to the conclusion that what you offer is unique, by describing its real features and benefits. Just saying that it`s unique, outright, does nothing to convince and is almost assuredly a lie.

Best: Can you say "Hubris?"  "Best" is a comparative word, just like better. Best compared to what? Better than what? Use of "best" to describe a product or service implies that some authoritative agency has compared and found yours to be better than all the rest. It is a bit reminiscent of the Zen koan- "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" This is pretty high ground to be on, and claiming it makes a statement which is almost assuredly fatuous at best and   false at worst.

OK, that's enough for now.

Treason? - Not!

    

This in response to the significant number of persons who should know better, regarding the use of the word treason to describe the childish, disrespectful and poorly thought out letter open letter to Iran written by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and signed by 47 Republican members of the Senate. These persons are using the word treason, which I suppose makes them feel better, but which in fact, simply displays the same lack of knowledge the Tea Baggers showed when they called several Obama initiatives treason some time ago.

    "One more time. Read the definition of treason. Where? In the Constitution. It's the only crime actually defined in the document. Why is that? Because the British screamed "treason" anytime someone did something they didn't like. "Treason against the United States shall consist only of waging war against the United States or adhering to its enemies ( which had historically interpreted as in actual declared war) ......." . Before one calls for a specific action, it might behoove one to actually have a clue what they're talking about! Aside from that, the offending Senate members are flaming assholes, which is heinous , but not treason.  I am far from an apologist for these Far right imbeciles, I just hate to see the term Treason bandied about with the same vituperation and much the same context as the Tea Baggers have used it against the current President of the United States. What we are talking about here and your response to it is precisely why Hamilton, Madison and Jay felt it necessary to define it in the Constitution. If simply doing something some people don't like is treason, we would have a lot of executions. (but if it changes, start with Tom Cotton, boy asshole!, lol)

        There simply is no legal precedent that is relevant. Because the Constitution, ratified in 1788 wasn't in force during the War for Independence. In fact for much of it the US had no governing document at all, until the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. The fast and loose use of the charge "treason " by the British is the precise reason why the Framers of the Constitution made it the only crime actually defined and described in the document, to avoid exactly the sort of thing you suggest.

         Jefferson couldn't even get a treason conviction against Aaron Burr in 1807 for conspiring to break away Louisiana, parts of several and several southern states and part of the Texas territory to form a southern confederation, even though such action would probably have constituted war against the remaining states. Chief Justice (and presiding judge in the trial in Richmond) John Marshall, no fan of Jefferson, insisted upon the strictest possible interpretation of the wording. Since all law in the US before the Constitution is irrelevant, the precedent stands. As much as you might want these guys to be tried for treason, what they have done just doesn't come close to meeting the Constitutional definition. Don't get mad at me for pointing it out. Hell, using the one time loose British definition, I'd have been jailed during the entire Bush administration.

        Several Treason cases during the Civil war were heard by military tribunal, which might make it strange today because of the obvious public knowledge of it. In our history, there have been relatively few events which have engendered the majority of treason charges (less than 20 have ever been convicted and two of them Washington pardoned almost immediately (Whiskey Rebellion). The rest stem from: WWII (Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, a guy who broadcast for the Germans, a pilot defector, and a US born Japanese defector , John Brown's raid - He was actually charged with treason against Virginia, a weird R.I. thing (Dorr's rebellion), and Lincoln's assassination (Five convicted, 4 hanged, Dr. Mudd got life. As for the whole definition thing, in the UK as little as 150 years ago, calling for treason charges against members of the upper house of government might well, in and of itself, been sufficient to get a charge of treason. I don't want to go there."