specialized lingo

I heard the word "staledated" to refer to checks that are past 90 days of their issuance. It is a professional word, used among bank personnel. And unlike most professional speech, it manages to be vivid and humorous.

"this one. . ."

Working at the assisted living facility, I have noticed among some of the kitchen workers -- the middle aged ones, I think -- the tendency to refer to people present as "this one." I don't speak this way, and I wonder how they acquired this habit. Is it generational and regional? My parents never said that. Or generational, regional, and class-specific (as in, working class).

Often it is used in situations of mild joking or ribbing, as in, "This one decided not to come into work yesterday."

It reminds me of the Indonesian usage: "yang ini."

Long Island, New Haven

Growing up in Madison, I have noticed a certain tendency to put stress on the "New" in New Haven. I personally say "New Haven," according to the original stress in the word "haven," but lots of people here stress the "new." I considered it a curious quirk of locality here, but the utterance of a person at work last week made me reconsider. She said "Long Island," not "Long Island." I thought, is this then a systematic local way of stressing names on the first syllable, changing their original stress?

Yes, my interests can tend to the microscopic.

value added = knowledge subtracted

these are the new TV dinners. remember how we used to laugh at them? well, they are back, and without the laughable little tin foil trays. their "value added" is that they are already cooked, so the industry profits more than selling mere pieces of raw meat. but as with much "value-added," the addition of "value" to products means the subtraction of knowledge from people.

of course the picture is complex. even as the new tv dinners flourish, another sector of the meat industry is also growing: organic meat.

dictatorship of civility

At least 70 percent of primary election coverage consists of commentary on the level of "civility" of the campaigns. If one candidate makes a mild critique of another, the campaign is getting "dirty" or "rough and tumble." One gets the perception that the public can hardly stand candidates making anything but veiled statements. A candidate who does not preface his or her statements with the stock phrase, "I respect so and so highly but I just want to say that I would do such and such." Without this thick padding, the candidate is liable to be viewed as absolutely barbaric. One cannot risk saying, "So and so takes too much money from industry." Or rather, one can, but one will quickly be eased out of the spotlight. Witness John Edwards' treatment at the hands of media and voters. I think many voters long for clear statements, but not so clear and unequivocal that they ruin the nice haze of fantasy and day-dreaming and hero worship.

I for one am not threatened by direct statements of principle. I am not afraid of a leader who does not constantly assure me he is nicer than a choir boy or as friendly as my waiter. I can handle it. But so many people can't. To such people, the horrors of war unleashed on other people are far preferable, and much more tolerable, than a candidate who displays a hint of anger. God forbid someone express human emotions! Better far to let millions die somewhere else. We like our leaders nicely muzzled, tamed, useless. And then we get mad when they do nothing but lie to us. We don't like the truth. Seduce us, we say to them. Hence the glee in the media about the way Obama and Clinton "practically embraced," "whispering in each others' ears" after their most recent debate in California. Why is this a good thing? Are we electing saints? Or homecoming royalty? Or leaders?

new hampshire windows

new york sunlight