Greetings From Planet Spam

As an intermittent blogger who can't seem to get on a regular publishing schedule, I sometimes go weeks (months) without looking at the "dashboard" of this blog. Sometimes I'll pop on the site just to jot down some note for an article I'd like to write, when time permits. Other times I may look through old drafts, trying to breathe new life into an idea which lost appeal, or lost out in the daily time lottery around here. Usually the effort of slogging through several hundred writing attempts that never made publishing grade is agonizing enough to make me close the tab in discouragement. Rarely do I look around behind the scenes and see what kind of traffic has been visiting here at Polite Ravings.

But for some reason, a few days ago, I decided to poke around the stats pages. It was nice to see that, whether I post new material or not, there are still a few people finding me and reading a bit. Of course, since some of those new readers are finding me on some Uzbekistan google channel, I have a feeling that my wit and charm are lost on them. And God love Lego fans. I posted just two articles mentioning Legos, but, perhaps due to the frequency with which I used popular search terms (Legos, ninjago), that post stills get lots of hits, and occasionally a total stranger (and Lego fan) will comment on the old article.

While reading the comments, I noticed a tab that I don't remember noticing before. It was more like a button and and said "Spam." I wasn't sure what to expect, since the only spam I know about is the crazy list of email messages I dump periodically, with subject lines that promise to share Kim Kardashian's diet secrets, Katy Perry's eyelash secrets, and an a variety of unnamed secrets involving the word "enlarge." I've never known where spam comes from, and I don't know how spam finds my email account. All I really know about spam is that it is to be avoided. It's bad, and I should never open anything that looks suspicious because that can lead to more spam. 

So, I wondered, should I click the "Spam" button on the comments page and see if my blog is getting enlargement offers?

I clicked. I looked. I laughed! This was a different kind of spam. Turns out, there are many bloggers out there who are even more desperate to find readers than I am. The techies who advise bloggers on increasing traffic have evidently designed a formula for "mutual admiration spam" (my invented term - can someone design a cute piece of clip art with that phrase on it? We can share the royalties.)  I'm guessing this process involves the ambitious blogger conducting searches for terms that relate to their blogs, and when they find another blog that uses similar terms, they send a "comment." I say "send a comment," which is probably pretty naive, since I imagine these are computer-generated comments of some kind. They must be, because they are so horribly worded, cobbling together some thin reference to a search term in my blog, paired with praise for my blog in general, then, (the big payoff to these spammers) a link back to their website.

This may not sound interesting, but when I share some of the garbled messages you will understand why I had to bring this to the attention of my dedicated readers. These comments are some kind of human/computer hybrid-speak...a kind of new, helpless and witless language for peddling your product while reaching out to strangers. It's reminiscent of credit card offers for dogs or the deceased. Here is an example of what I'm talking about, in response to my post entitled To Your Health! 

"Asking questions are really pleasant thing if you aren't understanding something completely, except this post provides good understanding even. My homepage..."

I used this example first because it is the most recent and it fits the generic pattern. There are literally hundreds of variations on this theme - or there were until I deleted them. Many of the comments are in response to that particular blog post, which is tagged for aging and health, and therefore draws more general search traffic. Since a large number of spam comments read very similar to the one above, that suggests to me that there is some formula for creating this kind of fake response while sneaking in a link to another blog. I'm very glad that Blogger weeds these out, since there are hundreds more of these spam comments than there are real ones!

But let me share a few of the more humorous fake compliments for my blog. They are so touching in their utter lack of sincerity:

"You make running a blog look easy. The overall look of your web site is fantastic, let alone the content material!"

"Content material" will make a good addition to the Repetitive Redundancies file. And yes, dear reader, it is easy to run a blog when you forget about it for months on end! There are dead and expired gadgets everywhere...this joker never took a peek.

Here's another example of an extravagant compliment for my blog, written by someone/ something who/that clearly has not glanced at my bare-bones effort at design:


"Wow, amazing weblog structure! How lengthy have you been running a blog for?"

or this over-the-top analysis:


"Its an amazing post in favor of all the web visitors; they will get benefit from it I am sure. Feel free to surf my site..."

I know it is tempting to think the writer is just someone for whom English is not their main language. But after reading pages and pages of these, a pattern emerges that suggests the spam comment formula works something like this:

Compliment site feature

+ mention sharing blog post

+ state benefit to web audience

+ add link to own website

= instant anonymous comment

Here's one of many that fit that boring pattern but made me chuckle:

"Excellent post...I'll certainly digg it and ...reccommend it to my friend...I confident they'll be benefitted from this web site. Please check out my website..."

(Note that the writer chose two different spellings for the same term in this brief message.)

Several comments mention the importance of the issue I'm writing about and compliment my great research or excellent insight into this concern. If they didn't end with a pitch for their website, which is unrelated in any way to the post, I'd probably be fooled and touched by those comments. But here's an example of a comment attached to my fluffy, 95% content-free post called Say It With Flowers:

"Excellent research of your blog. This paragraph is genuinely a pleasant one it helps new internet viewers who are wishing in favor of blogging. See my site at..."

Since the post contained photos of flowers and plants around my house, I'm not sure how it helped "new internet viewers." But the research - there's no research, there is just a map and a fake calendar charting my interpretation of Gulf Coast weather! Could it be that a webcrawler service found this chart and identified it as weather research? That is rather chilling, isn't it? Someone could be quoting my "research" right now, in a speech or paper citing more definitive proof of global warming. Who knows?

Likewise, several of the comments to To Your Health! mentioned they would put a link on their website back to my post. I don't know if anyone remembers that blog, but it began with another of my lame charts designed to look like a pop-psych "test" to help the reader discover hidden signs of diseases. It is satire! I'm a housewife, not a doctor, but look at this sample comment:

"I think this is among the most important information for me. And I am glad reading your article. This will mean much better for the website viewer and reader. I show articles and sell the weight loss on..."

As I look at these comments, I'm very glad I didn't stumble on them sooner. When I began my blogging efforts, I was desperate for feedback, any feedback. I would have lapped up this eloquent but confusing comment for Am I a Hoarder? when I published it back in 2011:

"Ahaa, its fastidious dialogue concerning this article at this place at this website. I have read all that, so now me also commenting here. Visit my website at..."

I gather this writer missed the point about the fill-in-the-blank method of creating convincingly sincere spam. 

If you are wondering why I didn't just cut and paste these comments in their entirety, Blogger doesn't allow that. When I tried to highlight text, I was prevented from doing anything except deleting the entire post or converting it to "not spam." That meant I had to hand-write all the entries I wanted to quote, then type them into this post. Can you imagine how hard it was for me to write and type these errors and misspellings - twice? But I guess that policy protects all of us from being maliciously quoted or used as spam against others. And perhaps by quoting them I'm breaking some fine-print clause in the Terms and Agreements for Blogger use. But I love bad writing, I love the folly of people trying to pretend they like something they've never seen, and I am enjoying learning about how web traffic and back-linking really works. So I had to share these amusing comments, just as I always want to share bad writing, wherever I find it.

And I saved my favorite for last, because I am not entirely sure it is spam. The writer links to a website that is actually related to the post topic (health), and after the obligatory compliment for the layout and content, the writer makes an interesting point:

"I do have a couple of questions? for you if you tend not to mind. Is it only me or does it seem like a few of these responses come across like coming from brain dead folk: :-P"

Hey, keep them coming.

Blog Olympics: Legos Beat Kardashians

I haven't been blogging much lately, for reasons that wouldn't interest anyone but the terminally bored. I've been involved in the normal range of activities that most people find manageable, but I, for some reason, don't. I've got the usual number of piles and projects deposited around the house in varying states of incompleteness, attesting to the fact that blogging hasn't lost out to productivity just yet.

I can't blame "not blogging" on the Olympics, either. I'm apparently a lousy American, because I barely watched 10 minutes total. And I followed the preparations in London like the sad Anglophile I am, thinking I'd finally watch "The Games" this year. I always think that, but then the coverage actually commences and I find I'm not interested. I watch highlights and recaps with the sound off, but beyond that, I'm content to look at Wheaties boxes to find out who won.

The competitive activity I've been glued to is the statistical analysis of my neglected blog. I have been trying to look at what I'm writing that "works," and what I post that falls flat. Blogger, the Google blogging platform I publish through, makes it very easy to analyze the impact of my writing. Studying my statistics, sparse as they are, is usually a pretty dull experience. As regular readers know, some months ago I attempted to build my readership by invoking the most trendy word I could think of: Kardashian. I used the name multiple times in a blog to see if the Google search insects would calculate that, based on the frequent appearance of such an important word (Kardashian), my article must be important and should therefore be featured high on any keyword search.

At least this is how savvy bloggers claim to get more traffic - choose trending keywords and execute careful keyword placement. So I gave it a go a few months back, writing not one, but two articles about the Kardashian phenomenon and how it has personally affected my family. If you missed them, the one about Eric's notorious extramarital affair with one or more Kardashians is here, while the recap of my blog's influence on the Kardashian's endorsement deal with Sears is covered here. Feel free to go back and read them, since you are really not missing much here.

Aaaaanyway, it was fun, and I'm sure a few random teenage girls stumbled on my blog before hurriedly clicking the "back" button, but other than a brief spike in hits on the day I published those two, I detected no lasting increase in traffic. I decided to let the Kardashians to go find another housewife to do their publicity. I was clearly not cut out for such a glamorous assignment.

So I went back to the tried-and-true philosophy of "Write What You Know," cranked out a few articles that were probably examples of better writing, but still my same predictable housewife schtick. Google Analytics showed very steady, undramatic charts and graphs to indicate a small dedicated readership, with only the occasional "Kardashian" search.

Real life continued to get in the way of meaningful writing, spring turned to summer, and one day I decided to look at my stats again, to see who or what was going on behind the scenes at "Polite Ravings" while I was ignoring it.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that a different Registered Trademark had overtaken the Kardashians in keyword search frequency in my traffic analytics? I'd always hoped the gushing odes to my Keurig or Dyson would finally draw in some random readers (or advertisers), but the magic product that attracted so much attention was one I don't even own:

Legos.

I wrote about my introduction to today's microscopic building sets in a fun blog you can find rat-cheer. The post was really about how much I enjoyed the job of babysitting a charming 5 year old, owner of enough Legos to construct a mid-sized strip mall. Looking back, I'd have to say I was writing about how Legos brought this little boy and I closer. The catalyst could have been confusing baseball cards or a violent video game, but fortunately, we bonded over wholesome building blocks.

Legos, and their ninja subsidiary, Ninjagos, have propelled me to the highest number of search hits in my 2.5 year blogging history. If you include my favorite Ninjago character, Kai, in the keyword search data, the collective impact of Legos on my blog traffic is a staggering three times the total of the Kardashians!

I now see which side my bread is buttered on.

Oh, the Kardashians haven't heard the last of me - I'm sure they are shaking in their stilettoes as they read that promise. I browsed their trashy, poorly-made Klearance racks while at Sears yesterday. Not surprisingly, there were more Kardashian Kollection fashions on Klearance than there were new product. I could have left that store with four complete slutty outfits and a scarf for under $100, which is not a bad bit of shopping by my standards. But the stuff is hideous. That's just an opinion, but the racks echo my sentiment. It warms my heart to think that there are more sleazy clothes than sleazy people to buy them. I'm sure I'll be forced to bring up the Kardashians from time to time, just to keep them on their toes.

But what does it mean, that more people search "Legos" than "Kardashians?" What does it portend for hopeless, imitative bloggers? Do I have a future in toy reviewing or babysitting? How can I capitalize on my unintended success with Lego shoppers? Is there some way to combine the concepts of chin hairs and toys for profit?

Yes, these questions provide ample opportunity to think more and do less, which may have become my personal motto by default. In the medal count, I may not get any gold for blogging, but I'm clearly a world-class procrastinator.

Dear Kardashians: I'm So Glad I Could Help!

I received the award on the right in an anonymous email, but I think I know where it came from.

And I would never want to be accused of exaggeration or hyperbole, but please allow me to indulge myself for a minute.

Thanks in part to me and my blog, the Kardashian sisters have hit what some may call the pinnacle of success.

They have arrived.

Before, they were just rich, beautiful, cleavage-y celebutantes with a reality show.

Then, after allegations that one or more was involved in an affair with my poor, innocent husband, they suddenly achieved the creme de la creme of retail deals.

I refer, of course, to the new line of home decor merchandise being purveyed by the pouty, touseled trio via that edgiest, trendiest, coolest of mercantile giants,

Yes, Sears! Where the Brady Bunch went to celebrate after saving Hawaii from a shark invasion! Or was that the Partridge Family celebrating after playing Carnegie Hall? I'm confused. I think therefore I digress.

Anyway, those Kardashians are on the path to respectability with this enviable design/endorsement deal. From stodgy old Sears, they stand to gain much-needed stodginess, while Sears may just become the place to get sheets and towels with that tousled look I've been trying to achieve since Joan Collins and "Dynasty" first introduced the mussed bed.

Gentle reader, I write for myself and my own fulfillment. I don't look for fame or money or even guest spots on local radio. This is an altruistic endeavor and I don't mind being totally unknown, unloved and unrecognized.

So imagine my surprise and delight when, glancing at the Sunday circulars, I saw the unmistakable blur of eyes, lips and hair that, after closer study, turned out to be a Kardashian grouping. These girls, with no discernible intelligence or talent, have developed a following and created a brand that is inescapable. I don't begrudge them for achieving celebrity, and I can only assume they don't begrudge me whatever attention I can gain by using their name a minimum of 8 times per 500 words for maximum search engine optimization.  It's a win-win, right?

But I am somewhat upset about one aspect of this laudable achievement on the part of these girls. Their name, Kardashian, has become their brand. They've all got first names that begin with "K," which ups the "exoticness-per-syllable" quotient. Kim, Khloe and Kourtney realized they could kapitalize on the kuteness of their brand if they kept with the "K" motif. Herein lies my complaint.  This is the logo for their new Sears merchandise:

Yes, America, the kombined marketing/branding geniuses at Team Kardashian/Sears decided that kitschy kommerce trumps korrect spelling in the battle for your clothing and home decor dollar.  My milk glass, your stamps, your kid's Beanie Babies - those are collections. But correct spelling isn't good enough for the Diva Klass - they have to have a "Kollection." I fault them for turning their teachable moment into another konquest for kapitalizm. But I do wish them success in their endeavor.


EXTRA! EXTRA! I hope you are sitting down for this news flash. While over at the Sears website to copy the above logo, I discovered that they have officially named this "Kardashian Week." Why am I only just now hearing about this? If I mail a card today, will they get it in time?

(I should clarify: their clothing line was launched in 2011. This home line is what is "new" and deserving of its own special week.)

I'm wondering how this partnership between the beautiful young trendsetters and the once-great retailer will fare. According to my fashionista neighbor, the venture is off to a slow start. As she said, "It will take more than trashy clothes to get me to shop at Sears." But some celebrity-retail alliances bear long-term fruit: I'm thinking Jaclyn Smith and KMart, I'm thinking George Strait and Tractor Supply Company, and ... many others that I don't have time to think of. So how do the experts see it?

Well, I tried to do some online research, but got so distracted by the stories of the girls and their men that I completely lost track of the original articles on Investors Business Daily and The Motley Fool. Suffice to say that experts espouse the dire prediction that Sears is a retail dinosaur and the Kardashians can't stop them from going the way of T-Rex and becoming a fossil in the near future.

Now I do shop at Sears. I get replacement vacuum cleaner bags and filters for my old canister there, once every year or so. And because Sears is strategically located in my local mall, I park in their empty parking lot and look at stuff on clearance as I pass through on my way to somewhere else in the mall.  I am usually one of the youngest people in the store whenever I go to Sears, and most of us shoppers are alone rather than with kids or teens. When I see a couple shopping there, the wife is usually holding the broken lawnmower part so the husband can manage his walker. Even with a Land's End shop inside the Sears store 2 miles from me, I still sometimes have trouble spending a $300 gift card there.

But now that the Kardashians signed on, Sears is gonna ROCK!

Wait until Eric sees what the Kardashian sisters suggest for our room:

And who among you would not be bursting with pride to think you'd played a part, however small, in bringing this scrap of frippery to market? 

This may be just the thing to get your hubby/man/sig-o interested in shopping, ladies.

Well, I just had to toot my horn, since I know Kourtney, Khloe and Kim are much too busy being billionaires to toot it for me. Speaking of which, I'd better get busy myself. Errands to run, a house to clean, dogs to walk...I may not live the chic and komfortable life of a Kardashian, but I'm rich in the ways that count. And tonight I have a special outing planned with my husband. Not a glitzy, glamorous evening on the town a la K, K and K, but one befitting the suburban matron that I am: dinner at Golden Corral, followed by a romantic walk through the intimates department at Sears.

Tuesday's Term Turnaround, v. 2

The blockbuster yet awkwardly-titled series returns after taking a week off for spring break. Now I'm back, well-nourished and ready to introduce some words that need to disappear from use in their currently misused forms. I'm depending on my brilliant and literate reading audience to assist me in achieving that goal.

There have been thousands of articles and blog entries devoted to the topic of word overuse, which means I didn't have to look very far to discover some candidates for this week's list. After you read mine, go here and here if you want to see some real effort. I'm pretty haphazard: I scratch my head, think about my personal pet peeves and start writing.  But some of these people devote their whole professional lives to creating complete and useful lists of words they want to bury. I wonder if that pays well.

If you still don't know where I'm going with this post, please look at the first installment of Tuesday's Term Turnaround, where I explain why "perhaps a vocabulary tune-up is in order."

For the rest of you, let us begin to examine some truly overused words.

basically - adverb
Here's an example of how people like to use "basically" to start as sentence in which they'd like to sound sincere, although the facts dispute this:

Man: "Basically, I'm a one-woman man."
Date: "How many times have you been married?"
Man: "Four. But only to one woman at a time."

This guy wants his date to believe that his fundamental nature is monogamous, so he precedes his statement with "basically." But "basic" is not a perfect replacement for "true" or "accurate."

Another abuse of "basically" is when the speaker wants to convey they idea that they are only sharing part of a more complex or lengthy story, as in:

Prisoner X: "So what are you in for?"
Prisoner Y: "Murder, robbery, possession, speeding and illegal lane-change."
Prisoner X: "What happened?"
Prisoner Y: "Basically, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Notice how "basically" spares the listener of the sordid details leading to Prisoner Y's incarceration. By saying "basically," he suggests unnamed, complicated circumstances which are central to the truth of the story, but unrevealed.

It is best to use "basically" sparingly, and to apply it when only one feature, factor or variable is being measured or analyzed. It should refer to something in the base form, i.e. simple, essential, primary. If you need to discuss something complicated, don't confuse the issue by introducing the idea as simple.  For example:

DON'T: "Basically, an anti-quark is just a really small part of an atom that is the opposite of a quark."


DO: "I am incapable of describing a quark or an anti-quark in terms you can understand. Basically, you should look it up."


totally - adverb
Another adverb, (for those of you keeping track), "totally" is like fingers on chalkboard for me. When it is used to confirm attendance at something ("Are you going to the party?" "I'm totally there!"), I clench my fists and grit my teeth.

Other abuses worthy of a citizen's arrest, and some suggested substitutes:

"She totally shouldn't wear those skinny jeans because her butt is totally hanging out and she basically just looks like a totally flat slob."

Instead, try:

"Those skinny jeans aren't very flattering to a size XXL figure. Her mother was completely justified in suggesting she wear something else." 

"The Patriots will totally dominate the Giants."

Instead, try:

"The Patriots were completely dominated by the Giants." 

"If I'm crowned Miss Northeast Granger, I will be totally about stopping global warming before it totally kills the Earth."

Instead, try:

"If crowned Miss Northeast Granger, I will devote myself to the awesome cause of ending global warming, since that is guarantees lots of publicity." 

 

Think of "totally" as a word reserved for statements of mathematical precision. If you can quantify your response at or above the 99% threshhold, you can totally use "totally." And in the name of all that is sacred, please apply that same rule of thumb to the word "absolutely."

amazing
This word shows up on many overused word lists. "Amazing" must be the go-to substitute for people who were told they say "awesome" too much.

Ending in -ing, you'd expect it to be used as a verb. Something that is amazing should cause amazement to occur. But in this sample exchange which passes for polite conversation:

A: Hi! How are you?
B: I'm amazing! How are you?
A: I'm awesome, thanks for asking.
B: No problem.

you'll notice that neither person mentioned any experience or activity that would inspire awe or amazement. They just referred to their current status as being capable of doing so. ("No problem" in place of "you're welcome" is a peeve for another day.) Referring to the capacity to amaze without specifying how you achieve this effect is inconclusive. If you never describe a person, including yourself, as "amazing," you are safe.

Since grammar is never far from the mind of any of my devoted readers, let's pause to hurriedly open another tab and find out exactly what part of speech "amazing" generally functions as, in lazy daily speech. Since it often describes or modifies a noun, but ends in "-ing," it must be a present participle. As such, "amazing" cannot be the main verb, much less the lone word, in a sentence.

"Amazing" is usually applied liberally when discussing issues of beauty and fashion. Examples gushing from the red carpet commentary prior to an award ceremony might include:

"Jennifer Aniston's dress is an amazing shade of gunmetal grey that does absolutely nothing for her complexion."

"Check out the number of ripples on Ryan Reynolds' abs. Amazing!" 

"That Kardashian sister is going to have slit her skirt much higher if she wants to compete with Angelina's amazing thigh exposure."

If you want to use "amazing" correctly, reserve it for situations where something truly caused amazement. "To amaze" suggests an extreme level of surprise. The original meaning actually conveyed fear, as in an alarming or terrifying thing or event. The word has evolved to connote a lesser affect, but should still be used for exceptional cases, not just a modifier of exaggeration.

Miss Aniston's dress was probably a "pretty" or "dull" shade of grey. The color of the dress probably didn't cause astonishment; the dress probably didn't impress or astound the audience purely by virtue of the "amazing" color. Sometimes an "amazing" dress is simply a "nice" dress.

Last time on Tuesday's Term Turnaround, I dissected five words, which took much too long for the limited appeal. I decided to stop at three this week, which means I'm done.  Next week, I'll be whining about the misuse of the following words: diversity, addictive, need and possibly exhausted. I'm also taking requests for this Hit Parade, so if you would like to suggest a word or term that drives you crazy, post a comment and let me know, and I'll try to find something annoying  and overly-complicated to say about it.

So what's left to say? Basically, go have a totally amazing day!

Tuesday's Term-Turnaround

Did you ever see Tuesday on the calendar and think, "what a useless day!" Tuesday gets the short shrift in the heirarchy of days. It's not manic, it's not a hump, no one ever thanks God it's Tuesday. If Tuesday was one of Snow White's dwarfs, it would be Sneezy. (ADD moment - why are they not dwarves?)

I decided to rectify this neglectful attitude with an exciting new weekly entry called Tuesday's Term Turnaround. With such a cumbersome name, it's bound to be a very short-lived tradition, but I'm going to try it out and see what happens.

The idea is that there so are many words and terms in common usage that have practically lost their impact, often because of overuse, that perhaps a vocabulary tune-up is in order.

This week's entries are: hate (v.), job (n.),  literally (adv.), hot (adj.) and bitch (v.).


Let's leave the naughtiest ones for last, if you don't mind.  And if you have to ask which one I mean, you are way too young to be reading this column in the first place.

HATE

In the course of a normal day, I have heard people remarking that they "hate" the following:

pollen, high heels, Daylight Saving Time, driving, T-ball, the season premiere of "Mad Men," chlorine, Rick Santorum, spreading mulch, buying gasoline, Duke's basketball team and getting the lawnmower out of storage.

While it is possible to understand a feeling of dislike associated with any one of these entries, no one item on the list seems to rise to the level of engendering hatred.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines hate thusly: 

a. v. trans. To hold in very strong dislike; to detest; to bear malice to. The opposite of to love.

As an transitive verb, hate needs a direct object. All those items in the list theoretically receive hate from the hater. Doesn't it seem that most of those people, things, events and tasks could benefit from a more precise description of the emotion being experienced? Shouldn't intelligent people save the term "hate" for the direst circumstances, the most awful objects?


I'd like to propose some synonyms, a few of which I only just learned while researching for this blog. Here are a few you might like to try, with substitution examples:


No: I hate high heels.
Acceptable: I dislike wearing high heels.
Very specific: I love how high heels make my legs look, but I dislike how they treat my feet.


No: I hate pollen.
Acceptable: Pollen irritates my allergies.
Verbal gymnastics: I experience intense loathing for the microscopic particles which produce the profusion of spring flowers, because they trigger an allergic reaction which causes me to call in sick for April.


No: I hate buying gasoline.
Acceptable: The price of gasoline makes me upset.
Best in show: I bear extreme malice toward the rich speculators and/or greedy corporations responsible for the exorbitant cost of gasoline.


See how easy it is to re-route your thinking and find appropriate, precise words to help you make your point? And if you want to throw in a little Austenesque phraseology, try this:


"I am ill-disposed to accept my doctor's recommendation that I refrain from consuming Blizzards."


On a side note, I found some nice synonyms for "hateful," a word I probably rely on too much and use too loosely. I think it's a southern thing. Next time I want to describe someone who criticizes my dogs or makes fun of my sewing, instead of calling them hateful, I'll use "mordacious," which means biting or severe. I can hardly wait to be insulted so I can fling out my new harsh word. Mordacious. I like the sound of that.

JOB
In this era of high unemployment, everyone within spitting distance of a microphone talks about jobs. But the word "job" is so vague. People who are unemployed lack a paying job, but there are many other definitions of "job" that refer to unpaid employment. Synonyms for job include activity, assignment, career, chore, engagement, livelihood, occupation, position, profession, vocation and work.  This incomplete list demonstrates that there should be no problem finding other word choices. Let's try a little replacement exercise. A friend recently made this remark:

"The first job on my to-do list today is to get a haircut and a manicure."

In this sentence, the word job implies work, but the events listed hardly qualify.  (There is also the issue of singular job and multiple treatments, but I digress.) Perhaps a more accurate sentence would read:

"My first activity of the day is to go to the salon and have a mani/pedi. I only mention it because your ragged cuticles and split ends reminded me that I am overdue for some pampering."

See how much more precise and descriptive that sounds? A well-to-do person who does not need to earn a living by holding down a job should use the word sparingly. Now I'll pull a quote from the news:

"If elected, I'll single-handedly create more jobs than all the presidents going back to Millard Fillmore - combined!"

A better alternative to this typically empty campaign promise would read:

"If elected, I'll provide many new career choices in my cabinet for entrenched lawmakers and lobbyists, make huge changes to the Labor Department resulting in re-categorizing the entire national professional index to disguise the fact that the same number of workers have new titles for their vocations, and by repealing every unpopular law enacted in the past 100 years, I'll create millions of entry-level paper shredder positions!"

Here's a short list of available synonyms :   task, work, business, undertaking, vocation, chore, duty, assignment.


Teachers give assignments; parent assign chores; daily life includes tasks; you can have a position as a volunteer, you can earn a living by having a career or a profession. Not all jobs are work, and not all work is a job. I write almost every day because I task myself to do so. I don't earn any money, I don't have an employer and I don't write to put food on the table. I write as an "occupation," because it occupies my time and I do it for reasons of self-satisfaction. I also keep house and am a wife and mother. In that sense, I work all the time, but I still don't have a "job." Do you agree?


Note to self: Write a blog about the most useless parenting phrase of all: "Good job!"

LITERALLY

This term is literally the most misused  word in the English language. Okay, not really. And very few occasions in everyday life warrant the usage of "literally." In fact, you could add another overused word to describe the overuse of "literally:" the word "literally" is "abused" in common speech. 


That's because the word literally refers to precision, accuracy and exactness. It should never be used to describe things that didn't happen, but it usually is used that way. The word is intended to precede a true statement; the translated meaning is "with truth to the letter." But most people, myself included, use "literally" as a term of emphasis or exaggeration. Let's look at some real-life examples and some alternatives:


"I literally died when he offered me a piece of gum at the bus stop."
"I nearly lost control of my bladder and my saliva when he offered me a piece of gum at the bus stop."


"That book was literally the most boring book in the history of the world."
"I fell asleep on page two and didn't wake up until I saw the words 'The End.'"


"I literally only had yogurt and water for a week but I gained literally about 20 pounds."
"No one saw me eat anything but yogurt or water all week, but the scale knows the ugly truth."


"That was the hardest exercise class I've ever been to; I literally can't move an inch. Want to go to Target?"
"Before the soreness sets in, let's engage in retail therapy while I tell you about all the amazing and difficult calorie-burning activities I did while you sat home blogging."


"Peyton Manning literally broke a billion hearts when he signed with the Broncos."
"I hate the Colts."


I hope these examples demonstrate my point. We should all reserve "literally" for statements which involve facts, truth and exactness, and avoid using it to convey an extreme emotion or exaggerate the impact of an event. If everyone would literally just completely stop saying literally, I think the world would be a better place in, like, literally, five minutes.


HOT


The overuse and misuse of "hot" is nothing new; "hot" has been used to describe a good-looking person, a high-performance car and popular new TV shows for many years. Although the primary dictionary definition pertains to temperature, it seems to rarely be used for that measure; instead, it is usually invoked to describe the attractiveness or desirability of a person or thing. When I was growing up, however, mere mortals weren't referred to as "hot." The term was reserved for the likes of Sophia Loren and Elvis Presley, people who oozed sex appeal without any effort. Now it is commonplace to hear a 5th grade girl refer to a 5th grade boy as hot (especially if he has a Justin Bieber haircut). I found this trend disturbing when I heard my own child call a boy hot, but like so many words, the meaning has been diluted to the point where calling a person "hot" is just another way of saying they aren't ugly.


I think that we must experience some kind of psychological safety when using short, amorphous words to describe things we actually like. It's easier to call a guy "hot" than to say you like the way he wears his hair or the thoughtful comments he makes in English class. Sometimes the finer points of why we like something are difficult to articulate, like the integrated bumper or mosaic-like taillights of a "hot" Jaguar convertible. But then there's the sexiness component of "hot," where a person can obliquely refer to experiencing strong physical attraction to someone. It make the word take on entirely too many mature connotations for such common, flippant use. 


Let's deconstruct "hot:"


hot - a temperature measurement. Correct uses: An outdoor temperature of 98F can be called "a hot day." If you stick your finger in a flame, your finger will experience the sensation of uncomfortable heat, therefore, "the fire is hot." Incorrect use: "I'm wearing this sweater skiiing, because that ugly coat you bought is too hot." 


hot - a measure of attractiveness. Common use: "The fact remains, Edward sparkles and emotes with deep intensity, but he's nowhere near as hot as a shirtless Jacob." Correct use: "Sean Connery looks hot at every age."  Excepting 007, substitute the following words for "hot" to describe a pleasant appearance: 

attractive, handsome, pretty, alluring, pleasing, good-looking, magnetic, fetching, agreeable, winning, beefcake and hunky.

hot - as in "new and popular:: Common use: "The hot-selling IPhone 12 is pre-loaded with a rocket launcher and can microwave a Hot Pocket with the screen.." Plenty of synonyms are available at thesaurus.com, such as: 

approved, cool*, dandy, favored, fresh, glorious, groovy*, in demand, just out, keen, latest, marvelous, neat*, nifty*, peachy*, popular, recent, sought-after, super, trendy, up-to-the-minute.

hot - denoting a strong feeling of physical attraction for another: Correct use: "Mr. Darcy was clearly hot for Elizabeth, but managed to hide that fact until their wedding night." Incorrect use: Almost anything else.  No one under 25 should use "hot" in this way. Furthermore, this feeling should not be discussed in polite conversation. If you cannot restrain yourself from sharing this sensation with others, substitute the word "concupiscent." It is awkward, doesn't roll off the tongue easily like "hot," and it may take you a minute to think of it. Once you do, perhaps you will also reconsider openly discussing such private feelings in the first place. Example: "The vision of Isolde bathing in the pond rendered Tristan concupiscent." If everyone would just adopt this minor change, perhaps some of us would be spared the unpleasant mental pictures resulting from standing next to chatty teenage boys in line at the video store.


Acceptable alternatives, in an emergency: 

lascivious, libidinous, prurient and concupiscent (if you dare).

BITCH


It is hard to believe the stir that was caused by Elton John's song "The Bitch is Back," released in the distant, innocent year of 1974. The radio station I listened to banned it, because the word "bitch" simply wasn't considered an acceptable term for public airwaves. Nowadays, the word has no shame value - anyone can say it to anyone else for any reason. Recently, I heard a mother at the grocery storewith a whiny child of about 3 yell, "Quit your bitchin'" in full hearing of anyone in the produce section. I think it is regrettable that a word which should truly be reserved for dog breeders has achieved such popularity and acceptance in everyday speech.


Part of the problem stems from the fact that "bitch" has developed many meanings, and functions as both a noun and a verb; people find it a very useful crutch in their vocabulary. But in researching the term, I discovered that there are many satisfying alternatives, if people would just take a minute to memorize a new word or two.  For example:


"Bitch" as a measure of difficulty:
"That test was a bitch."
"That test was arduous and challenging. I wish I'd studied more."


"Bitch" as a derogatory description of a person:
"My Body Pump teacher is a bitch."
"My Body Pump teacher is an imposing lady with a formidable teaching style."


"Bitch" as a verb, as in nag:
"Why do you bitch every Sunday when I'm trying to keep up with 12 games at one time?"
"Why do you complain as if football was not the single most important thing about the weekend?"


For the more liguistically ambitious, I have a few more synonyms you should try:

virago: an aggressive woman.
calumniator: a person who accuses, smears, defames or slanders.
termagant: troublemaker.

Every campaign needs a logo

I hope today's installment will help you, in some small way, avoid banausic  (common, ordinary, undistinguished) words and will enable you to replace lazy, hackneyed (cliched, timeworn, quotidian) terms with ones that are precise, descriptive and suited to your intention. (Do you think I should enter the previous sentence in the Parenthetical, Comma-Spliced, Run-On Sentence Hall of Fame?)


Perhaps the next time you see Kim Kardashian, instead of saying:
"I hate that stupid show, but that bitch is like, literally, hot,"


you will be inspired to politely remark:
"I intensely dislike her insipid program, but that harridan, Kim Kardashian, is admittedly a fetching young lady."


At long last, this concludes my first installment of Tuesday's Term-Turnaround. I had fun with this piece, but want to apologize if any of my more polite readers were offended by the indelicate language. If there is a next time, I'll try to be more delicate. Which isn't going to be easy, because the nest term-turnaround I want to tackle is "freaking." 


In the meantime, feel free to comment or email with your suggestions for words or phrases that need to be clarified, redefined or retired. I welcome your awesome feedback on this hot topic!

Help! A Kardashian Stole My Husband!

At least I think she is a Kardashian.

And when I say she stole him, I don't mean it has actually happened yet.  But I'm worried that it will.

You see, infidelity is everywhere.  Broken marriages are the norm.  And celebrities are often a major  cause of these breakups.

Now when I say celebrities, it's not possible for me to be specific, because with only a few exceptions, I cannot tell celebrities apart.  But I know if they have a reality show, a clothing line or a cologne named after them, they are probably a homewrecker.

In case you think I'm being hard on today's celebrities, who probably work as hard at unearned fame as celebrities of previous generations, I'll harken back a few decades for the first celebrity scandal of which I have any memory.  Elizabeth Taylor was a husband-stealer from way back, and I can remember the grown-ups talking about her shameless immorality and homewrecking ways. I suppose even back then you could parlay your notoriety into profit.  It's not a new gimmick, and God only knows how much she made off that stinky "White Diamonds" scent, created after she ballooned up to 225 pounds, and left her 14th husband at rehab.  I know I'm speaking ill of a dead legend, and let me say that when it comes to her movies, I'm a huge fan.  But her morals and comportment left something to be desired, at least in her younger years.  (But I could say the same thing about myself, so...)

Still, for some celebrities, it's not enough that they have 6 million friends on Facebook, and fan clubs and stalkers and magazines with their picture on the cover.  What they really want for their very own is someone else's spouse.  Preferably someone also rich and famous, but so long as they are happily married to someone else, they are a potential love interest/headline grabber for the celebrity.

And I, as the ultimate head-in-the-sand expert on celebrities, have found the whole Kardashian phenomenon inescapable.  I watch news, weather and history on TV, but I still know about the 72 day (or was it 72 hour?) marriage that involved a Kardashian girl.  Without knowing where they came from or what they actually do, I cannot seem to go a full day without some mention of a Kardashian in my hearing.  Therefore they must love publicity.  And one of the best ways to get publicity is to steal someone else's husband.  Which is why I'm worried that one day my children and I will be interviewed by (*insert popular search name here*), sobbing about how whichever socialite/model/businesswoman stole my man, for spite and headlines.

Now that I've given this topic a thorough going over, without one single concrete example or peer-reviewed reference, I can share the real reason for my Kardashian concerns.  This quickly written, poorly edited essay is a test to see if the repeated use of the word "Kardashian" will increase traffic to my blog.  But just to keep things interesting, let me tell you the made-up stuff my husband is doing that makes me think he's a target for an illicit affair with a Kardashian:

1.  He got his hair cut without being told.
2.  He asked me to iron his nicest shirt two weeks in a row.
3.  He keeps saying he needs to get in shape.
4.  He's on the computer "working" at all hours of the night.
5.  He remembered to put the seat down.
6.  I found a plastic comb in the center console of his car.
7.  He looked up at the TV when the 1-800-FLOWERS commercial came on.

If you were me, wouldn't you be in agonies of suspicion?  I feel some detective work is in order.  I need to find out who these Kardashians really are, and figure out how they are messing with my husband.

According to Wikipedia, the final word on such matters, the surname Kardashian is Armenian and means "stone carver."  Only one family with that surname is featured, and in that family, there are three daughters who all seem to have the same jobs: socialite, model and businesswoman.  So it's going to be hard to tell them apart by their profession alone.  Wikipedia also warns that this family, while unusual, should not be confused with the Cardassians, an alien race from Star Trek.  That's helpful

But I'll need Google images to see who I'm really dealing with.  Here they are, the tramps:

From your left to right, that's Kourtney, Kim and Khloe.  Okay, they are cute and they airbrush nicely, but what right does that give any of them to propose a wild affair with my husband?  He's really busy, doesn't like to get dressed up and he's almost always broke.  Why can't this mystery sister chase someone else's husband?  There are plenty of celebrity men who seem to have no problems cheating on their devoted spouses - chase one of them!  I'm thinking Ashton Kutcher, I'm thinking Jesse James, in fact, I need a column to do justice to this list:
Jude Law
Eddie Murphy
Blake Shelton
Ethan Hawke
Kobe Bryant
Jack Nicholson
Usher
Randy Travis
Arnold Schwarzzenegger
Tiger Woods
Mel Gibson
Donald Trump
John Edwards

Not that women don't do their share of cheating - celebrities and otherwise.  I'm only focusing on the men because, if the Kardashians are looking for a married man with an demonstrable record of cheating, there is no shortage.  They have no need to come bothering nice husbands like yours and mine - you know, the terrified, conforming, henpecked kind.

 So if anyone sees any of these pathetic bimbos hanging around my town, let me know.  They shouldn't be hard to spot, since their cleavage seems to arrive at their destination a few seconds before the rest of them.  They are clearly not the kind of girls who make you think "Hoosier resident;" more like "hooters investment." Also, if you see a Kardashian of any description at any of Eric's  haunts, like Ace Hardware, Tractor Supply Store, Bass Pro Shop, or at the Pitt Stop in downtown Granger (Wednesday is $1 Bud night), notify me right away.  I'll whup all three of these stilettoed socialites to keep my Prince Charming safe from their immoral, yet exquisitely manicured clutches.  I'll strike out for common decency and family values, helping to keep everyone's Everyman husband safe from Hollywood hussies and their ilk.

And with any luck, maybe I'll get my picture in the paper, which should really help my blog traffic.