Thursday, March 25, 2010

aaaaah.....aaaaaaah....AAAAAAHHHH....CHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!


Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com


MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S ENTRY/DEFINITION:

Main Entry: pol·len
Pronunciation: \ˈpä-lən\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin pollin-, pollen, from Latin, fine flour
Date: circa 1760
1 : a mass of microspores in a seed plant appearing usually as a fine dust
2 : a dusty bloom on the body of an insect


LISA ERIN BROWN'S DEFINITION:

Entry: Pollen
Function: Huge ass pain by way of the nasal passages
1 : a yellow dust spewed forth by a number of plants in her immediate vicinity, that causes her sinuses to burn, her nose to plug, and her head to pressurize to the point of exploding.

Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com

The above are a couple of pictures of the pollen dust on the truck. Glenn has been feeling the pollens effects, too. It's rather thick at the moment. Blech...

Friday, March 5, 2010

Grammar Gaffes...


The following appeared in Reader's Digest ~ the February, 2010, issue ~ under the title "How to Sound Smarter: the Reader's Digest Version of those rules for talking and writing-the ones you missed in high school". Many of these have been pet peeves of mine, and they state things very well in this piece. Thought I'd share.

You almost never mean: Hopefully
You almost always mean: I hope
Why: Hopefully means "in a hopeful manner." "I hope the boss lets us out early" and "Hopefully, the boss lets us out early" aren't the same thing.

You almost never mean: More importantly
You almost always mean: More important
Why: More or most important is probably what you want. Only if you're a pompous blowhard do you say things importantly.

You never mean: Between you and I
You always mean: Between you and me
Why: Between you and I sounds fancy, and therefore right, but don't be so quick to belittle Cookie Monster ("Me want cookies!"). In this case, me is correct because it's the object of the preposition between.

You almost never mean: Assessable
You almost always mean: Accessible
Why: A library is wheelchair-accessible. Your house is assessable by the county that taxes it.

You almost never mean: I feel badly
You almost always mean: I feel bad
Why: Is your sense of touch physically impaired (almost never) or are you feeling some guilt after screwing up (almost always)?

You never mean: Equally as well (important, etc.)
You always mean: Equally well
Why: The as isn't necessary. "I speak Latin and Pig Latin equally well."

You never mean: The reason is because
You always mean: The reason is that
Why: The reason is that the word reason implies because. Likewise, why say "the reason why" when you can say "the reason"?

You almost never mean: I need to lay down
You almost always mean: I need to lie down
Why: This is another case where people think (wrongly) that a particular word sounds more "educated". Lay and lie are not interchangeable. Lie doesn't require an object: "I need to lie down." But lay does: "I need to lay my head down." Confusion kicks in becuase of the past tense of both verbs-lie becomes lay; lay becomes laid-but the usage stays the same.

You never mean: Chaise lounge
You always mean: Chaise longue
Why: People have been getting this wrong for at least a century. The proper phrase is French and translates as "long chair".

You never mean: ATM machine, PIN number
You always mean: ATM, PIN
Why: Redundancy ("automated teller machine machine," "personal indentification number number").

You almost never mean: Historical
You almost always mean: Historic
Why: In short, historic means "significant" ("a historic election"). But if you intend "occurring in or relating to history," go with historical (think "historical data" or "a historical link between the two world wars"). By the way, it's never "an historic/historical event." The vowel sound "a" should precede a consonant sound (like the hard "h" in historic).

You never mean: The person that
You always mean: The person who
Why: A human is a "who." Anything else (yes, including animals) is a "that."

You never mean: Could of
You always mean: Could have
Why: This error pops up because of the similar pronunciations. But remember, every sentence needs a verb: "I could have written a better cover letter."

You never mean: Most everyone
You always mean: Everyone
Why: Make up your mind: If you truly mean "every peron," use just everyone. If not, say most people.

You never mean: I feel nauseous
You always mean: I feel nauseated
Why: In strict terms, nauseous means "to cause nausea" (as in "a hateful, nauseous person"); nauseated means "afflicted with nausea"(as in "I'm nauseated").

You never mean: Very unique
You always mean: Unique
Why: Unique things and people are one of a kind, absolute.

You never mean: For all intensive purposes
You always mean: For all intents and purposes
Why: Even if you do get it right, you don't need this expression. It's just filler.

You almost never mean: I literally laughed my head off
You almost always mean: I laughed my head off
Why: Literally means "actually" and is best reserved for real events.

You never mean: Merge together
You always mean: Merge
Why: The phrase is redundant (as are combinations like absolute necessity, free gift, and a pair of twins-unless you mean two sets of twins, that is).

You almost never mean: Orientate
You almost always mean: Orient
Why: Orientate is a word, but it means "to face east." "The tour was meant to orient new students."

You almost never mean: Impact
You almost always mean: Affect
Why: Impact shouldn't be forced into service as a verb. No: "The decision impacts everyone." Yes: "The decision affects everyone."

You never mean: Off of
You always mean: Off
Why: some words are perfectly fine on their own. "May I bounce an idea off you?"

You almost never mean: In order to
You almost always mean: To
Why: See above

You never mean: Comprised of
You always mean: Comprises
Why: Comprises equals includes. You'd never say "My grocery list includes of milk, eggs, and kiwis." Same goes for comprises. (Use of with compose: "The sculpture is composed of wire hangers.")

You never mean: Everyone has their grammar hang-ups
You always mean: Everyone has his or her grammar hang-ups
Why: Everyone, everybody, and close cousin each are singular, so words that refer to them should also be singular. Or, since we all have our grammar hang-ups, you could just rephrase the sentence.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Today's activities...or lack there of...


I've had a lethargic day. Just like yesterday. Just like the day before that...and the day before that...and the...well, you catch my drift. This whacked out sleep schedule is getting to be a routine, and I don't like it. A bit. That coupled with medical issues has me very low energy. ~yawn~

Today I had a check up with the doc. My usual thyroid/arthritis maintenance visit. It was the usual 'chat about me' deal. The doc arrived, we chewed the fat a bit about how I've been doing, and discussed any issues I've had since I last saw him. I mentioned my lethargy. Mentioned the extreme pain I've been having in my right arm, in addition to the usual arthritis pain. You know, I have a high tolerance for pain, so if I'm in tears...well, there's a lot of pain going on. I was at the clinic a couple hours. Had an EKG (came back fine), a shot of B-12 in me arse, a few vials of blood sucked out of my arm, and I left with a couple of new prescriptions. Well, techinically one was new, the other was just a bigger dosage of a medication I've been on for awhile. The new pill is a pain killer. As a rule, I only take a pill if it's necessary. I know there are people who will self medicate, or take pain pills that a relative had left over, but I'm not one of those people. The episodes of pain in my right arm are just too extreme. When they hit...well, it sucks. I don't know if I could even properly articulate the type of pain I get. It lasts for hours, and I basically just have to wait it out. The pain med I got is called 'Tramadol'. It's supposedly new, doesn't make the taker feel drugged (a huge plus in my book), and the side effects are minimal. It'll be nice just to have something on hand if I can't endure one of my 'events'. My doctor has taken it, so he speaks from experience (Dr. Metz is a bit long in the tooth, so I expect he does have his aches and pains). I'd dig some input if anybody that reads this has taken Tramadol.

Well, I've blathered as much as I can for now. Time to go throw some hot wings in the oven. Mmmmmmmmm...hot wings....

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Sweeney...


Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com

I recently acquired a copy of Tim Burton's production of "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street". Had seen it several times and wanted a copy, so when it was spotted at Walmart for a mere pittance...Bazinga! I do believe I would rank it as my favorite Burton/Depp film. Who knew that Johnny Depp would actually be able to sing relatively well? I think it surprised him more than anyone. Apparently, Burton hired him for the part without even hearing him sing. It appears that his long standing working relationship with Depp has instilled a certain amount of trust...trust that Depp would pull it out. Pull it out he definitely does.



For someone who never really sang nor considers himself to be a singer at all, for Depp to be singing Sondheim his first time out of the vocal gate...well, I'm impressed. Sondheim is known for being difficult. In this particular piece, there are several points in a few of the songs where two actors are singing different lyrics at the same time (I'm sure there's a technical term for that) AND are able to stay on key and not get distracted. That's quite an achievement. (I was involved with a singing group a few years back and harmonizing was tough enough...I always ended up sitting next to the tone deaf lady which always threw me off. If I had had some formal training I might have been able to tune her out and stay in control. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.) Sondheim also has a rep for being particular about who sings his music, so he had to sign off on the final casting. Except for Depp. Helena Bonham Carter's turn as Mrs. Lovett is also notable. I'm sure she was enduring the added pressure of being compared with Angela Lansbury, who originated the role and I think might have won a Tony...don't quote me on that... Carter is a musical theater lover from way back, and this particular piece was a favorite of hers as a girl. Being Burton's significant other has found her a place in several of Burton's films (she is wonderful in all of them), and she does a great job here. Actually, I can't think of anyone in 'Todd' that didn't do a great job. Even Sascha Baron Cohen was good, and I can't stand his work. I think 'Borat' and that other crap he's done is...well...crap. Not funny at all. I haven't sat through one of his films, but from the clips I've seen he just looks like a guy portraying annoying characters who are looking to get their ass kicked. Not funny, in my book. That being said, his role as Pirelli the italian barber showed me that he is not devoid of talent. The rest of the cast - Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, and the four others who I think are relatively unknown - were also very good. An all around well cast movie. A well cast 'musical' movie. A musical produced in the last couple of years that is actually good. Who knew?

The years of musical film have been long gone for a long time. Much to my chagrin. They can't make musical films the way they used to. They can't make them the way they should be made. I love all of the old films. Everything from "Singing in the Rain" to "Sweet Charity" to "Oklahoma". All those Busby Berkeley numbers...brilliant. Why do I think the musical in the broad sense has died? Because film has changed. Plain and simple. The equipment, the media, the advent and development of special effects...progress has killed the art of the truly great musical. Some things just don't hold the same magic when they're done in CGI. If I'm watching a dance number with 100 guys wearing top hats, tails, and tap dancing down a gigantic circular staircase...I want to see 100 guys, not 10 dancers and 90 others that were pasted in during post production. Okay...after saying all of that, I'm going to eat my words a tad. Is there CGI in "Sweeney Todd"? Yes. Many of the exterior shots are actors in front of a green screen. There are certain scenes that are obviously 'inhanced', for example the "By the Sea" footage. Burton is known for his stylized/artistic vision and execution on his movies, so I can see why. Does it bother me? No. But if there were some big dance numbers that had been created on a computer...well, I would have a problem with that. In this case, the actors and the story/material are the meat (hehe) of the film which is as it should be. The surroundings are just that. They inhance, but don't dominate. I'm so tired of movies that are all big pretty effects, and have no story. There's nothing to engage the audience. Well, with "Sweeney" I get engaged. I even have a tendency to hum some of the songs for a couple days after. Usually that would drive me nuts, but not these songs.

I highly recommend "Sweeney Todd" to anyone who hasn't seen it. If excessive blood bothers you, well...give it a try. Maybe you can get past that element. If it helps, the type of blood they use looks very theatrical as opposed to looking real. Oh...just see it. I give it two thumbs up.