According to Campus Reform.org, "The University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill has removed the word 'freshman' from official university documents, citing as their reason an attempt to adopt more 'gender inclusive language.'"
Fascinating. Once again the necessity to not hurt anyone's feelings instead of using language and concepts as intended has resulted in further foolishness. Now, to be fair, it's not some deep devotion to the term "freshman" that has me commenting on this. It's just an illustration of uninformed stupidity.
You know, if I were going to eliminate a term from "official university documents", it wouldn't be "freshman". I mean, really ... who cares? No, for me it would be "sophomore". Apparently no one knows what that one means. Rooted in Greek, it comes from sophos, "wise", and moros, "foolish, dull." (Hint: moros is the root for our word, "moron".) That's right. A "sophomore" is most literally someone who thinks themselves wise but is actually foolish. Nor am I being outlandish. What does "sophomoric" mean? What do we mean when we describe something as acting like a sophomore? It means "conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature." That is what it means to be a sophomore. But that isn't offensive. "Freshman" is.
Sigh.
________
In other news, who does the world want to win our election? According to the BBC, the world favors Obama over Romney by an unbelievable margin. Interestingly, the biggest support from Obama comes from the socialist nation of France. Huh. Now, when I consider that most of the world hates the U.S., that gives me pause. Would we be wise to elect the guy that those who would like to see us fail prefer? I'm just sayin'.
________
I love this ad from a local candidate. (And what a candidate! She is on public record as declaring that stay-at-home moms are leeching off their husbands or boyfriends. She favors every possible tax increase and new spending. Okay, not every possible increase; only for those who make $75,000 or more. The New York Times lauded her as a leftist extremist. Beyond this, two special groups are hoping she wins. She would be the first Congresswoman in office as a openly-avowed bisexual and an openly-avowed atheist.) So what is it that is so interesting in this ad? Here's what she says: "I sponsored this ad so I can change Washington and get things done." That's it. There you go. Those are her goals. What change? Oh, she's not saying. Get what done? Nope ... nothing. Indeed, I have to admit it's the first time I actually believe a campaign promise. If she does get elected, her presence will be a change in Washington (because she hasn't been in Congress before) and she will have gotten that done. Whoopee! A success! No ... really ... what?
________
I do have to wonder sometimes when ads cross the line from "attack" to slander. One local ad against a Republican congressional candidate is a classic example. "He's fighting for his principles," it begins. "He is trying to eliminate what is bad." So, what is bad? They show you a picture of a little school girl. Yeah, that's what he's up for. They move from "He wants to eliminate the Department of Education" to "He wants to destroy your children's education." Now, wait! I'm not really following that particular race and I'm not really up on that particular candidate, but I'm pretty sure it is not his goal to destroy education. Pretty sure. But, then, "truth in advertising" laws, sadly, don't apply to political ads. So, don't slander laws?
________
You know, if I were to judge by the news, I'd have to conclude that "who gets elected president" is moot. Fortunately, my world is not defined by the news media.
No comments:
Post a Comment