TimWoolery.net Documenting the Journey and the Learning Curve

#55 – Idiotspeak

I sincerely try to suffer fools. They?re all around us, hold most of the cash and therefore are the cornerstone of all economic trends. Idiots are a force to be reckoned with. Therefore, it is with fear and trepidation that I venture forth to deliver my opinion and do so in the hope that the idiots will let me slide under their radar while they?re watching ?Joe Millionaire ? Women are Stupid?Twice!?

I let the idiots have their fashion, their music and their TV shows. Why must the idiots also try to take over a noble and public domain, like language? Frankly, I thought they?d be satisfied with the four-letter words and leave us in our multi-syllabic, thesaural world. But no, it?s not enough. They have to keep adding words that are non-sensical and make you feel like an idiot for wondering what they mean. And then other media arms catch a hold of the phrase of the minute and start repeating it like a parrot with OCD, lest they fall behind the times. And so, we?re stuck with the world getting stupider by the minute and the only eye-catching thing anymore is to watch what new and colorful ways they can screw up next.

To begin with, what Bud-swilling, Lamont-and-Tonelli-listening horses hind end thought of using the phrase ?ta-tas? to refer to a woman?s breast? Like we didn?t have enough euphemisms as it was? Was ?hooters? too high-brow? How about melons? Or juggs? Or yabos? Are all of these things too upper-crust? It?s not like we?re fooling women, guys. We can use a phony word all day but they can follow our line of sight to a woman?s, umm, ?chestular? area and figure it out pretty fast. Women, on the other hand, when referring to a man?s unmentionables, just use the word ?thing?. I think ?thing? encompasses the matter pretty roundly. And the nice part is, they stick with ?thing?, they don?t move on to other phrases because they don?t feel the need to. Men would be proud to know a woman was referring to his genitals. Mostly because they?re usually so ashamed of them as it is. I am starting a guerilla, grass-roots campaign to call a woman?s breast exactly what it is: a mammary. So when we?re in a bar together, having a beer and an attractive woman walks by, you?ll recognize me as the guy yelling out, ?Boy, check the mammeries on that! Nice mammeries you got there, dollface!? Or breasts. Just lose the ?ta-tas? guys, we?re not fooling anyone.

The second on my phrase-of-shame list is ?bling bling?. Seriously, did it have to come to this? When a guy has 40 G?s to drop on a bracelet or a watch or a ring, does he go to the Bling Bling Store? Does it say Zales Bling Bling on the sign? Say it with me folks, ?Jewelry.? Jooool-reee. It?s not hard; it actually rolls off the tongue easier than the aforementioned phrase of shame. What?s even worse is that the Oxford English Dictionary has added ?Bling-bling? to its lexicon. I fell off a chair when I heard that; the Cash Money Millionaires have changed the English language forever. I have no bling bling. I have jewelry and precious little of that as it is ? only mobsters, rap stars and Liberace wear that much precious metal on their fingers.

The third isn?t an actual phrase per se, but rather a whole genre of writing. I detest, loathe and despise glam rag writing. Magazines like People, Entertainment Weekly and anything written by Liz Smith exude this whole subculture of people who have ?fave? actors and watch movies with ?hotties?, ?hunks? and ?star couples?. It?s like that one kid who wrote for the high school newspaper with his/her breathless use of superlatives went out and started a magazine. I put up with it when I was a kid, I?ve done my time. I don?t want it coming at me in the supermarket checkout line. (Note use of iambic pentameter.) Perhaps the quality of writing suggests the demographic they?re shooting for and I suppose I should be glad that they ain?t shootin? for me. I?m just not that glamtastic.

Here's another: Po-po. I dislike and loathe this word much for the same reason I hate "ta-tas". If we're going to invent slang, can we work on words and phrases that don't sound like they were invented by three-year-olds? Did the police need another derogatory word to be attached to their profession? I know every generation needs to invent their own slang but even the words fuzz, pig and flatfoot sound downright hoity-toity by comparison. I caught ahold of some illegal racing video and the kids shooting it were saying "You think they got caught by the po-po?" It made me nutty there for the next five minutes. When I came to, I was writing this column down.

There?s not a great market for bitterly sarcastic, common sense-type, non-political commentary in this day and age. This explains why I?m writing my own Doses for my own page instead of writing for the Miami Herald (Home of the Nationally Syndicated Column!).

-Tim Woolery, 11/4/03