Rivers Cuomo Hates My Verbal Crutch

I say "like" too much. It's my verbal crutch. But I don't just use it to fill space while I think, as many might use "um" or "uh" or even "you know". I tend to use it as a verb too, i.e. "He was like, 'are you gonna eat that' and I was like, 'Yeah'. So then he was all like weird." I'm not quite that bad and I've become terribly self conscious about it recently because the overuse of the word as an adult (which I suppose I'm on the road to becoming) makes one sound less intelligent.

So why do I do it? I can't really answer that question. As a teenager, my verbal crutch was quite common among other girls my age perhaps due to a generational trend. I did not stand out as less intelligent and maybe, at that time, my peers were too concerned with (bad) hairstyles and the coolest shoes you could possibly wear with a uniform while the adults in my life were too concerned with my grade point average and SAT scores to really bother with a silly word that had found its way into my vocabulary. They probably thought I'd grow out of it. Maybe I even thought that.

To be honest, most of us did. Unfortunately, I was not part of that group. My vocabulary expanded but the new words emerged in my writing rather than in my speech. And, granted, I am pretty quiet but when I do get excited and tell a story, a mental tally of the word runs in my head. But I can't stop it. It's like a geyser. I want to stuff cork in my mouth.

Alas, a cork will not solve the problem. Eventually, I'll have to say something again for some reason (to the dismay of some).

Someone once told me that if you say a phrase three times, it becomes part of your regular vocabulary (the fact that I can't remember who told me this may be a sign that this is not true). However, how does one remove a phrase from their regular vocabulary. Especially a phrase that has become such a vital part of their vocabulary.

I might try replacing it with another word. But the only word that I can come up with that can be used as multiple parts of speech, as a verb, adjective, noun, and that I also say quite a bit is very inappropriate and probably not the best replacement in most cases.

So it seems I'm cursed to this verbal crutch for the rest of time. And those who love me will only have to accept it. There. I said it.

Ima Q.T.

A few politicians have claimed that the English language is in danger from the .8% of non-English speakers currently living in the U.S. (as opposed to the 3.6% of non-English speakers in the U.S. in 1890). I disagree. Something else much more criminal, much more vile, much more prevalent than non-English speakers: AIM.

I don't mean to shock you. But I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Those divisive little pre-teens butchering the English language with their "LOL"s and their "BRB"s. Nothing has caused such damage since those English fuckers who decided to introduce random Latin words into the OED.

Certainly, Shakespeare had his place making up words for the good of the dramatic arts (and the language, in many cases). He contributed quite a bit of nonsense to help us all express ourselves a little better (i.e. homely & puke). But even he was pushing the line in the proper way of introducing items into the common communication system.

I propose a general assembly to approve each and every item suggested to express any type of communication. This assembly could be made up of representatives from every state. And if other English-speaking countries would like to take part, they can call in by conference call. Granted, such a meeting would require vigilance on the part of the government so that the assembly might keep on top of every new bastard word dropped into the mix. To do this, the president will of course have to appoint a language czar.

Had this been the practice from the beginning, we could have avoided such disasters as "like" and "cooch". Even the English themselves managed to rid the language of "shit" and "fuck" by labeling them as "vulgar" when in fact they were just Germanic instead of Latin.

When evidence of the damage emoticons and acronyms have had on the language is presented to the Congress, I'm sure they will agree. Down with Internet slang. If you cannot type properly, you will not be allowed to use the program!

Ok. TTYL.

"I gather all the news I need from the weather report."

There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?

I try not to take myself or anything, for that matter, too seriously. However, sometimes it seems that our friendly media conglomerates would prefer otherwise. Well, not that I personally (they'd need a bigger audience than that to sell the vacuums and diet plans they advertise on those networks) start taking everything seriously but that the country as a whole freak out at every little turn of events inside and outside of schools, around the corner, and in your neighbor's backyard.

This morning, a cook at a school in Boulder, Colorado saw "masked men" in a hallway and called the cops. Granted, if I were that cook, I would do the same. And I, by no means, want to belittle this episode. We're all still a little shaken by the events at Virginia Tech, certainly. (I am aware of the fact that I've just called into play a technique used by media conglomerates: comparing new, slightly less interesting events to a quite shocking, quite horrifying scene still fresh in viewers' memories in order to sell a story. But it seems appropriate at this point in time.)

I suppose what I want to point out is the bitterness this entire situation strikes in me. This morning, we were all swallowing back a fear conceived by confirmed terror attacks and school shootings only to hear a school official admit that the "masked men" may just have been a couple of high school pranksters looking to end the year with a (tasteless) prank.

Immediately, my conditioned skepticism for 24-hour news networks kicked in and I recalled my own high school days and the senior prank played on my school to which the response was far less than a bomb squad appearance and news coverage. Is this what we've come to?

But, since no explanation has been offered, it's possible that the events were much more sinister than I'd like to admit. Unfortunately, that's where we live now. We have to accept the fact that we, as a culture, are always on guard thanks to recent occurrences. Welcome to the future.

So, before drawing any conclusions based on my own personal bias, I should wait (and pray for the best) to see the true outcome.

Is the real issue that I've been conditioned to distrust news anchors? Perhaps. I'm sure this is true of many people. I feel as though there was a time when we could trust news anchors. But after countless stories accusing either the "liberals" or the "conservatives" of "plots" to "further" their respective "agendas", even going so far as using movies ("Brokeback Mountain" or "The Chronicles of Narnia") as proof that they are drawing followers to their "platforms". As though each political faction is a cult within and of itself.

And then weeks of 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death and the follow-up of Larry Burkehead (sp? -- really don't care enough to look this one up) and their daughter. And the fancy graphics to boot.

It makes me sick to think that we get our news from these people working with material that's slightly better than that of a late night infomercial.

Well, maybe not sick. I overdramatize to get the point across. You know how it is. (See what I did there?)

And perhaps I've gone too far by comparing them to infomercials. It was an emotionally-charged step. And this is just a blog. I'm not too worried about encouraging America to turn their backs on the handsome news men and women.

I still watch myself. Perhaps the key is to know enough on your own and take every view spewed out from the TV with a grain of salt. No news program, book, movie, piece of art, actor, singer, entertainer or it-girl is influential enough to shake a strong belief in facts. I'd like to think that's true of everyone.

But those sales people ... er ... news anchors. They can be convincing sometimes.

Chivalry for a Feminist

I believe quite passionately in equality of the sexes and yet I can't help but get a little steamed when a man jumps into a seat on a crowded train while I have to continue standing. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite or a "poser", as the kids say -- or used to say when I was in high school. I'm not familiar with what the current label would be.

Regardless, I continue to exist a walking contradiction. A feminist on a soap box who shoots dirty looks at the construction worker who "stole my seat". The thing is, it isn't my seat just because I'm a woman. I'm about six feet away and the construction worker, who has probably been on his feet all day, is conveniently located right next to it.

You might chivalry has somehow made me unjustifiably entitled. As David Foster Wallace said, "A child who exited a womb inconvenienced." (He didn't say this with me in mind, but I might as well throw a little literary snobbery into this for the hell of it.)

I don't mean to rip chivalry. I suppose it was developed with some good intentions in mind: to protect one's property; keep the dings off the new wife, right? Of course, I kid. Chivalry was a knights' code. It actually has less to do with opening doors and dropping your jacket over puddles than you might think.

According to a French historian (Leon Gautier) an example of this code reads, "Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them." I know all this info makes me look smart, but in reality, I knew none of this without Wikipedia. In fact, the difference between what I knew about chivalry itself when I began typing and when I linked Leon Gautier's name to his page on Wikipedia is pretty big. I was a dumbass before. I'm a little less of one now.

Anyhow, I digress. I'm not speaking of some centuries-old code. I'm not speaking, in fact. I'm typing about that old-fashioned idea that we have that men must protect women. I suppose it's not so far-fetched. Biologically, men tend to be stronger in that "I can bend a steel rod with my bare hands" kind of way. It's one of those scientifically documented facts which I can't easily deny in my typical devil's advocate way.

However, I hate being told to walk on the inside of a sidewalk (a weird one I've only recently heard) so that a man can protect me from ... whatever comes at you from the outside of a sidewalk? I am more than willing to hold the door if I get there first. I can order my own damn dinner. And I dislike being looked down upon for being the "weaker sex".

But I cannot deny the fact that I want to sit down on the train. Because sometimes I'm wearing heels. Because they make me look like a pretty girl.

Blog War

It was recently brought to my attention that "Brooklyn Has Nation's Bloggiest Neighborhoods" by a friend and fellow blogger who will, for her spikey-haired sake, remain nameless.

Blog War Is On!