Friday, April 24, 2009


OK, so, now what's the language coming to? Is no word sacred and/or exempt from the assaults of misspellers, especially on public signs?

definitely was one of the victims, as research appears to have revealed. Check it out if you dare!

For the record, there's a hill in New Zealand called Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, which is actually longer than the name of this lake.

And do not forget the town in Wales: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch.

Still, they are eclipsed by the Thai name for 'Bangkok', which actually is, at least for English speakers, less...ahh, 'suggestive' I suppose...than 'Bang-kok': Krungthepmahanakonbowornratanakosinmahintarayudyayamahadilo

Be careful though, if you travel to Thailand. Never attempt to spell this out. The danger of getting jailed for the act of making a mistake—it might be considered comparable to saying anything in writing about the monarch, or any now-dead monarch or his or her associates, no matter whether it be complimentary or not—are considerably higher than getting jailed for a similar orthographic offense in Western demesnes, where you might actually get rewarded instead for lingusitic 'creativity'.

Think I'm joking? You wish!

Anyway, next to this bit of major miscreant misspelling mischief the following almost pale into insignificance, though of course, otherwise they might stand out more.

Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel

Clown cannot wear giant shoes due to health and safety

Punishing a Doctor-Patient Romance

The first of these items merely supports my conviction—which as yet begs for a counterexample!—that politicians universally are opportunist hypocrites, and even more so if they wear any kind of green. As far as the current US administration is concerned...well, just start the video and play it as you read on!

Surely, the delicious irony of this piece cannot escape any but the dullest or dimwitted and/or ideologically indoctrinated; whether said indoctrination was inflicted by others or just their own inability to think that crucial extra thought or ask that all-important extra question or two.

The last two items above have in common that they deal with issues of the control of human behavior by state and/or other institutions of authority, secular or spiritual (meaning 'ethical' and 'moral' and so on).

The first one, about the clown, is so laughable that the laughter almost turns into a sob, occasioned by the kind of existential nausea one might feel when one realizes that humans, and especially on the societal scale, almost universally obey the Wizard's First Rule:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

Sometimes it's difficult to believe in the future when confronted with this truth. Still, we must soldier on. And since today, April 25, is Anzac Day, let us pause and, with The Who still loudly praying that we won't get fooled again, remember those who died, mainly because the WFR is so ubiquitously applicable and there's always, always someone to exploit that.


A comment on the last of the articles referenced above—the one dealing with the whole issue of the ethics and the associated 'professional body' meddling in people's lives, of what happens when a medical practitioner and a patient happen to be physically and romantically attracted to each other—reads like this, and I considered it appropriate:

"Two adults can’t have a consensual relationship because one is a doctor and the other is a patient? The Medical Board will decide what is and isn’t appropriate? The patient is a wee baby, incapable of deciding what is or is not in his/her best interest and what is/is not in his/her own heart? God save us from these intrusive busybodies who can’t seem to attend to serious failures but instead want to waste society’s precious resources on such matters. The nanny state grows apace as the world falls apart around us..."

The last sentence is the most interesting. It had not occurred to me until today that the nanny-state may indeed, at least in part, arise from the same phenomenon that will prompt an individual to try and exert excessive and unreasonable and unrealizable control over his/her environment. The nanny state—the 'benevolent' variety, meaning the 'lefty' kind; as opposed to basically unconcealed tyranny by ideologues and/or powerhungry cretins who should be shot on sight and on their way up, rather than trying that when it's already too late—does indeed attempt to do the same thing to society and its members, with them being the essentially uncontrollable elements (standing in for 'life', if you will) that require said control.

In NZ recently the nanny state outlawed all forms of smacking or laying-hands-on children under tha age of 14. The consequences are not just predictable, but there are a whole lot of them that nobody thought of. Like what hapens when even the police are constrained not to lay hands on a youth one day away from the age of 14 (just to construe an extreme case to illustrate the point), even if he is making a public nuisance of himself. In the case of open criminal activity there is a difference, but in NZ what constitutes a crime has also been sanitized to the point of the ludicrous.

Ahh, what the heck, let's leave it at that.

Have The Who finished yet? Well, if they have you can play this one. It's another of those songs used in part in the intro to one of the 'CSI' series.

No comments: