This is Not About Anthony Weiner
Believe it or not, this blog is not about Anthony Weiner. He certainly is a catalyst for the column, but not the heart of it. So, for those of you who, like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), don't know what is going on because you were so busy you, "...came late to the issue." [No joke, that was her original comment on the emerging scandal!] Rep. Weiner (D-NY) was found to be sending electronic photos of himself in various stages of undress and arousal to young women around the country. He denied it, dissembled, got caught, angry, and contrite, in that order and admitted the whole thing in a teary-eyed press conference. It seems Mr. Weiner is in the habit of having techno-sex with women and some of the photos have (as they always do) leaked out to the Internet.
There are many people who are going to address the issue of powerful men with lots to lose and lovely wives who can't seem to control their reptilian brain. [What a time for Oprah to leave us!] I will leave the psychology of the issue to them. I have always told my lady friends that a penis must be a heavy thing to carry around! While I certainly enjoy borrowing my husband's on a regular basis, I really wouldn't want to have to deal with that thing and its issues on a daily basis. It seems to have a mind of its own and a single, all pervasive cry, "Pick me! Pick me!" You can't escape evolution.
No, this is not about Weiner, it is about the beautifully coiffed, stylized, Barbie-girl airheads from CNN who were consistently describing the scene of the press conference as, "surreal." They must have used, and therefore misused, this word a dozen times prior to the arrival of the principal member of the conference. As a retired school teacher I tend to bring out my blue pencil on a regular basis and the pervasive misuse of the word, "surreal" is starting to make my teeth itch. To be surreal means you are using bizarre, grotesque and unreal representations in strangely configured patterns to illustrate concepts of the subconscious mind. Think about Salvidor Dali and all those dripping clocks with a woman and lion in the background. Nothing in that press conference even approach surrealism. There were no disembodied eyes floating through corn fields made of microphones. It all seemed pretty predictable to me. Podium, banks of chairs, curtain for a backdrop and idiots from the press filling dead air with bad vocabulary.
I presume that both the women from CNN, batting, "surreal" back and forth like a badminton birdie have degrees in journalism. Where they taught nothing about accurate and efficient use of the language? Do they simply pick up a word because it sounds dramatic and take no pains to discover its actual definition? They may take umbrage at my referring to them as objectified news readers instead of journalists but the fact is, I will treat them like journalists when they start acting like journalists. You can call it sexist if you want, but I've never heard Walter Cronkite misuse the King's English.
There are many people who are going to address the issue of powerful men with lots to lose and lovely wives who can't seem to control their reptilian brain. [What a time for Oprah to leave us!] I will leave the psychology of the issue to them. I have always told my lady friends that a penis must be a heavy thing to carry around! While I certainly enjoy borrowing my husband's on a regular basis, I really wouldn't want to have to deal with that thing and its issues on a daily basis. It seems to have a mind of its own and a single, all pervasive cry, "Pick me! Pick me!" You can't escape evolution.
No, this is not about Weiner, it is about the beautifully coiffed, stylized, Barbie-girl airheads from CNN who were consistently describing the scene of the press conference as, "surreal." They must have used, and therefore misused, this word a dozen times prior to the arrival of the principal member of the conference. As a retired school teacher I tend to bring out my blue pencil on a regular basis and the pervasive misuse of the word, "surreal" is starting to make my teeth itch. To be surreal means you are using bizarre, grotesque and unreal representations in strangely configured patterns to illustrate concepts of the subconscious mind. Think about Salvidor Dali and all those dripping clocks with a woman and lion in the background. Nothing in that press conference even approach surrealism. There were no disembodied eyes floating through corn fields made of microphones. It all seemed pretty predictable to me. Podium, banks of chairs, curtain for a backdrop and idiots from the press filling dead air with bad vocabulary.
I presume that both the women from CNN, batting, "surreal" back and forth like a badminton birdie have degrees in journalism. Where they taught nothing about accurate and efficient use of the language? Do they simply pick up a word because it sounds dramatic and take no pains to discover its actual definition? They may take umbrage at my referring to them as objectified news readers instead of journalists but the fact is, I will treat them like journalists when they start acting like journalists. You can call it sexist if you want, but I've never heard Walter Cronkite misuse the King's English.
Comments