E-letter: Stand up, sit down, fight fight fight!
I enjoyed your editorial once again. When I got to peer, I thought – is it peer or peeer. Then I read further and saw that you had used peeer. So, I think, rather than try and find the correct spelling, or even if it is, in fact, a word, I will let the issue lie (or is it lay?) and continue to wonder – peer or peeer? JJ
Have a nice day, Kerry
In case you haven’t heard, the media has a new pet word. Trope. As with preceding pet words, all media are now required to look up the word trope and use it in a sentence. Or even 20 sentences. It joins deep dive, start a conversation, boots on the ground and double-down as media pet phrases. To them, they are creating a professional jargon that will help identify them as professionals, just so everybody will know. Like “gravitas.”
[caption id="attachment_6049" align="alignleft" width="180"] Kerry Knudsen[/caption]
To us, it is just another step into the realm of Remarkably Unbrilliant, wherein reside shots that always “ring out,” debate challenges that are always “racist,” and everything from a rubber-band gun up is an “assault rifle.”
It really doesn’t matter what you or I think of assault rifles. I don’t own one and never will, and statistically you are the same. What matters are the facts, and the facts are that the operation of a semi-automatic black rifle is the same as a semi-automatic wood rifle, and, for our purposes, there is no legal possession of a real assault rifle, already. Not for you and me, anyway. If you’re interested, the marketing of toy guns morphed in the ‘70s from western-style carbines to Vietnam-style M16s. But our media simply cannot live without calling something an assault rifle. Or a racist. Or a trope. In fact, right now “trope” is a trope. But don’t call them stupid.
Speaking of tropes, you may have missed one. Back in 2016, when everybody else was focused on impeaching a president before he had been elected, there was a trope. You should start to pee in the shower. I am not kidding. Here is a link to the U.K. Sun that describes it. One wonder who was the whiz that thunk that one up.
Concurrently, over in good-olde Europe, somebody filed a suit against a guy for peeing while standing. It raged into an international trope with the Swedish lapphunds dutifully following suit. You can read all about it if you trigger your favourite non-invasive search engine for sitzpinkler. I say “non-invasive” because Mark Zuckerberg came out last week, admitting Fakebook has been acting invasively and will now stop. Seriously. He says, Fakebook is going to shift its focus to users’ privacy by encrypting messages. He says that the company won’t even be able to access these messages.
I’m not sure what he meant, there, but it sounds great. But if you believe Fakebook is going to ignore your personal data and your messaging, I have a trope in Manhattan I can sell you for about $63 billion.
Speaking of double-talk, did you get a chance to hear Justin Trudeau explaining how his instructions to Justice to leave SNC-Lavalin alone was only “for the workers”? Be still, my quaking heart. He sounds even more sincere than Bernie Sanders.
I am a “real journalist.” Seriously. But I don’t get to ask Justin any questions. I have to listen to what others ask, check them out on the internet and report as if I know something. However, I would like to ask Justin just one question. If they would let me, I would say, “Mr. Prime Minister, let’s forget about SNC-Lavalin. This question has nothing to do with that. But let’s hypothesize that some Prime Minister, in the past or in the future, got hooked up somehow with a vicious, international, organized-crime construction company and took millions of dollars in bribes. If that ever happened, and I’m sure it would not, how would we, the people, know? What would it look like?”
For example, if the syndicate got caught with its hands in a despot’s pocket and got charged for violating Canadian law, would the Prime Minister be obliged to earn the money he pocketed? Also, assuming he pocketed money, would it be by cheque at the RBC, like I have to do, or might it be through other channels to the Cayman Islands? I am all about the presumption of innocence, but in the face of gross irregularities we don’t need to carry the presumption to the poor house. Investigations have a purpose.
But back to peeing in the shower. Can we all agree that these “tropes” that get shoved in our faces are not the normal evolution of political thought? In case you’re curious, they are not. They are the product of a very screwed up idea of what education ought to be like. In a phrase, education has become indoctrination. That means, if you don’t use the tropes and speak the jargon, you won’t pass.
I have a great story from days long gone about being a student with an aggressively feminist professor. One of these days I’ll tell it, but the upshot is that I passed, anyway. I can say this: some people simply cannot take a joke.
On the other hand, when we are living in a milieu of siztpinklers, lapphunds, shower peeers and low-IQ journalists, it’s hard to know whether we didn’t take a wrong turn, somewhere, and how we will ever get back. Just so you know, socialism thrives in the sump of institutionalized ignorance, and just look what’s been growing. Maybe they should answer for how we incorporate sitzpinklers and peeer pressure into six-gender gyms.
Oh. I forgot. We need to tax successful businesses into oblivion.
For starters, I think we should start using the term “stupid” more often. It could even be a trope. I know it might hurt the feelings of stupid people, but it might heal society. The Chinese have a proverb I use at every chance. Call it a trope. “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”