The adornment of persons' names with acquired titles has long been an established custom throughout the civilized world. American habits in such respect have lagged behind those of European and Asian countries, yet the trend here definitely seems to be on the rise.
In principle, we're allowed to carry on through life the most significant or impressive designation attained in the course of our careers. For example, a physician will still be addressed as Doctor after retirement, or even if he elects to leave the medical realm and sell shoes.
Upper echelon military officers are commonly known as General, Colonel, Admiral, or whatever their highest rank was, while they carry on post-service activities in business or elsewhere. We also have the once-earned-never-to-be-shed appellations of Senator, Congressman, Governor, Mayor, Mr. President, Mr. Justice, and the like.
These privileged groups are further supplemented by the "Initialed Elite", or the people who've gained the right to post two or more letters after their names. In addition to the familiar A.B., M.A., and Ph.D., we have L.L.B., L.L.D., D.D., M.D., D.D.S., C.P.A., C.L.U., A.S.C., Q.C., and M.P., plus a host of others.
Despite the widespread use of such fancy words and alphabet mixtures, their access is still limited to a small, select population element. Considering how relatively few may be called Emperor, Prince, Duke, Baron, Archbishop, Rabbi, Warden, Your Honor, Your Highness, Your Excellency, et cetera, can it not be further envisioned that those of us with less lofty achievements will some day be permitted to embellish our mundane identities in a similar way?
Perhaps it wouldn't be out of line to expect that the following article might appear in a feature publication around 2050.
“The trend began in 2021, when the legal profession exhibited signs of unrest, due to having been greatly slighted over the years. It was felt that attorneys-at-law should be entitled to nomenclature on a parallel with the medical field.
“Accordingly, in February 2022, the American Bar Association encouraged each member to adopt formally one of several appellations:
Judge (restricted to those who had current or previous bench service),
Attorney,
Barrister, or
Solicitor.
“Authorizing the first-listed title was merely official recognition of an existing custom. As for the other three, the choice lay open, even though the separate terms don't possess a common meaning.
“Response was so enthusiastic that virtually every qualified person wasted not an instant before taking the prefix he or she found most acceptable. In many cases, some balanced, melodious, or rhyming sounds were brought about by the newly-adorned surnames. I can well recall such combinations as Solicitor Schultz, Barrister Browning, and Attorney McBurney.
“Once the lawyers had established this modus, a brother profession quickly followed suit, by announcing a stringent policy. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants made it compulsory for members in good standing to use the appropriate initials after their names at all times. The decree soon resulted in such practice whereby a man away from home on business might send his wife a letter, closing with (for example):
Affectionately,
Ralph, C.P.A.
“The snowball effect continued. In August 2024, the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants passed a resolution authorizing each member either to append S.I.C.A. to his name or formally precede it with the words Industrial Accountant.
“By early 2026, public pressure had become so great that Congress approved the Duncan-Reynolds Act, granting any individual citizen the right to adopt legally The most significant designation he or she had ever attained.
“There couldn't possibly have been a more spirited reaction. Men and women, both young and old, began frantically searching their attics for certificates or other supporting documentation, since the law stipulated that suitable evidence had to be presented at the local Federal Title Registration Office.
“However, following the emergence of a new wholesale forgery racket across the nation, the Act was later amended to allow for filing mere third-party affidavits which would corroborate a petitioner's sworn statement of claim to a desired prefix.
“When autumn of 2029 arrived, the responsible government bureaux were working round-the-clock shifts, to handle the rising flood of humanity which clamored at their portals. It had grown no longer fashionable to be an ordinary Mister, Mrs., Miss, or Ms. if you had any right whatsoever to a more impressive appellation.
“Many of us remember such prominent individuals as Air Medal Holder Paulson and Oscar Nominee Findlay, among others. I was closely acquainted with Beauty Contest Winner Marvin, the lady who had captured leading honors in the swimsuit pageant at the Lucasta, Illinois American Legion Post carnival in 1988. At age 60 she proudly regained her former glory.
Eddie Slover, who took the 2018 National League hitting crown, became the first to choose the official title of Batting Champion. From this point on, a deluge of applications were submitted and OK'd for such nomenclature (whether current or past) as Home Run Champion, Earned Run Average Champion, Field Goal Champion, Golf Tournament Champion, and countless more. The Duncan-Reynolds Act had been sufficiently liberal not to limit said rights to those attaining top status in the major sport circuits. Consequently, thousands of men assumed this sort of prefix based on boyhood achievements as little leaguers or summer camp softball players.
“One lesser known, yet nonetheless distinguished moniker was awarded to Yo-Yo Competition Winner Davis, whose performance at J.C. Penney’s 1974 contest held in Montenegro, Minnesota may never have been surpassed anywhere. Even though 68 years old, he still smiled from ear to ear whenever addressed by his reclaimed designation.
An endless list of possibilities was further offered by individual occupation or profession. Plating Department Foreman Long, Management Consultant Harris, Senior Invoice Clerk Moresby, Personnel Officer Wynn, and Customer Service Supervisor Kalinsky were among my more intimate friends in those days.
“As might be expected, some bad taste prefixes soon emerged. Perhaps they started when a Chicago lady of dubious virtue became legally known as Streetwalker Mulherne. Although the public frowned on such appellations, the trend continued. Pornography Dealer Thompson and Panderer Naismith were two whose adopted labels gained renown, not to mention a good bit of free advertising.
“The Duncan-Reynolds Act was also subsequently interpreted as permitting use of appropriate letters after a surname. Quite readily, therefore, the Ph.D.s, C.P.A.s, and others lost their traditional exclusivity. Federal Title Registration Offices in certain cities had many imaginative arrays on file, of which just a few are shown below.
L.U.C.S. (Leading Used Car Salesman)
Awarded to Herman Lenkenmuller of Ningunas, New Mexico, who had outdone
his fellow representatives at the Myers Ford Agency for each of the
preceding seven years.
M.A.T.D. (Most Artful Tango Dancers)
Awarded jointly to Vice President - Engineering Wellston and his wife,
of St. Louis. It was common knowledge that a more agile ballroom couple
couldn't be found in the midwest area, or maybe the entire country.
A.L.D. (Ardent Lover of Dogs)
Awarded to Staff Sergeant Leslie Ware of Atlanta, Georgia. However,
such designation is not to be confused with that of M.A.L.C.F.S. (Most
Ardent Lover of Canine and Feline Species), held by Spanish Teacher
Rodriguez of Waco, Texas.
“Certainly no combination was more elaborate than that granted Special Executive Assistant Waller, who owned rights to the letters G.C.B.C.P.D.C.W.O.P.L.R.P., standing for Genius at Creating Business Correspondence to Placate Dissatisfied Clients, Without Offering Possibility of Legal Recourse or Pursuit.
“So far as anyone recalls, the lengthiest set of title and initials in existence belonged to Harry Millstein. His job plus his social activities enabled the man to be called Vice Chairman and Recording Secretary of the Operational Planning Committee of the Well-Knit Hosiery Fabrication Company of Southern Louisiana Incorporated Millstein, A.B., M.A., M.P.P.A.S.A.B.R. (the final group being Most Popular Person in All Suburban Areas of Baton Rouge). Old acquaintances of the amply-termed gent confirm that he was indeed a charming fellow, quite deserving of such honor.
“In 2036, the plain Mrs. Willis Hogshead, H.S.G. (High School Graduate)introduced a new movement by not giving any of her children first or middle names. The logic was that they would eventually become obsolete through substitution of prefixes, so why bother? But the idea soon died out, since families with multiple offspring who followed the practice found it increasingly difficult to accomplish such otherwise simple tasks as summoning the kids to dinner. A specific testimonial was made in this regard by Girl Scout Patrol Leader Jacobsen of Great Neck, Long Island.
"’My entire brood of 7", she explained to me, "were absent from the house late one afternoon. In order to track them down, I decided I'd telephone their friends' homes. Placing a call to a neighbor several doors away, Woman's Club Treasurer McPhee, B.Sc., I duly identified myself by title and name, then started to ask if __________ might be there.
"’Suddenly, I realized it was impossible to tell her whom I sought. Nor could I inquire about __________, __________, __________, __________, __________, or ___________!
"’The situation proved totally frustrating. So, when the children at last did return, my husband, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post Commander Jacobsen, and I assigned names to each of them. __________ became Wesley, __________ became Lesley, __________ became Cecily, __________ became Presley, __________ became Thessaly, __________ became Nestle, and __________ became Junior.’
“And thusly that particular lady’s dilemma was solved.
”As we're all aware, however, the whole trend fell into decline around the year 2040. People had grown weary of using up to three lines writing somebody's full combination on an envelope, or taking perhaps ten seconds for a polite verbal salutation.
“Memories were often taxed unfairly, with mistakes frequent. Witness, for example, an incident I personally observed during the latter teen years, when Meat Market Proprietor O'Flaherty of Los Angeles addressed a customer in error one day.
“He said "Good morning, Wife of the President of the Chamber of Commerce Gormley", whereas he should have called her "Wife of the President of the Chamber of the Deputy Council Gormley". The woman was so offended that she gave the poor fellow a stern dressing down in front of several other patrons, including Bishop's Errand Boy Lotkins and Jeweler Chalmers, A.B.
“It’s generally agreed that the real turning point occurred on June 14, 2041, at the Elmira, New York Rotary Club luncheon. Nationwide headlines were created by Welcome Wagon Chairman Novak, C.L.U., as he publicly renounced his authorized title and initials before the assembled group, stating that henceforth he would just be known as Mister Percy Novak. Then, following a round of thunderous applause, Rotary Club President McDaniel, L.L.B., further announced his wish to be Mister Horace McDaniel. From there on, the backward slide to "ordinariness" developed an irreversible momentum.
“Even though the pre- and suffix era is now a thing of the past, a deep nostalgia lingers in many hearts. For example, a close chum of mine says he often dreams at night about being addressed as in bygone days -- Grocery Inspection Team Coordinator Newman. And admittedly, I still find myself somewhat resentful when a person calls me Mister Stanley Winkel, not using the distinctive moniker I once carried (but shan't mention here, in the interest of keeping it more or less sacred).
“My wife, who used to be known as Navy Lieutenant Lox-Winkel (adding her maiden name, since it usually accompanied the title), believes the lull is only temporary. In her opinion, proper designations will eventually return to their former state of grandeur.
“But I fear she may be overly optimistic.”
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
COULD HE BE?
The reader is advised outright that the composer of this piece does not fall within the deeply religious category. As a matter of fact, he has a tough time even recalling when he last attended any church service. Instead, he’s simply an ordinary worldly citizen who’s been around a great many years, and thus accorded a broad opportunity to observe mankind’s realm from a carefully studied and objective standpoint. With this essential point established, the conjectural exercise can begin.
Just over two thousand years ago, the legends attached to a particular infant boy’s birth, although perhaps overblown to some extent, have formed a foundation for what has long been the world’s most predominant religious faith. Despite its many misinterpretations and malpractices, along with its having often become corrupted by greed and similarly evil motivation, the spirit engendered by that individual enjoys a powerful and popular influence unmatched by any other human being.
It stands to reason indeed that Jesus Christ entered our midst through divine intervention, with the indisputable goal being that He guide the behavior pattern of the earth’s most intelligent animal species in its long and difficult trek. His status as Messiah lies beyond question.
Certain current-day events occurring within the past two year span – a minor blip in man’s calendar – have given us reason to speculate that divinity has suddenly repeated itself, with the advent of a second person, whose fundamental mission is to help fortify God’s efforts for mankind’s salvation and ultimate benefit.
Does such a statement by a mere mortal appear outrageous? To the devout bible-thumpers or those of differing faiths, maybe so. This, however, isn’t the population segment being addressed herein. We seek the collective opinions of those with clearly more open minds, and the aim is to present the reasoning which supports a rather radical thesis.
In many respects, one might say that the human race consists of just two types – those ready to seek and embrace worthwhile change, as opposed to those who never will be under any circumstances. Whereas our newly-elected President has undertaken to foster long- and much-need improvement in our fundamental practices, the omnipresent band of greed-motivated abominable no-men and no-women continue to persist as they have for countless ages. The daily harangue by political and certain media opponents is proving this point beyond the remotest doubt.
Once more, your writer is about to challenge the older world dogma by endeavoring to strike parallels between the beloved Jesus, the unquestioned Messiah, and what might well be His 21st century counterpart, Barack Obama.
Both men:
· Were products of relatively humble, minority groups;
· Resided in the hub of the world’s universe at the time;
· Came into prominence when man’s status could be described as little other than an
outright mess;
· Were accepted and highly acclaimed by the majority of their populace, yet hated by those
who feared what they stood and were striving for;
· Offered both fresh judgment and inspiration to their followers and fellow believers;
· Were instrumental in fostering revolutionary change.
In Jesus’ case, His influence bore fruit. Nothing has been quite the same since He was brutally forced to leave the earth. In many respects, the uphill election victory scored by Mr. Obama overcame prejudicial feeling that had dominated majority race thoughts for hundreds of years, a situation to which no return can ever be fully possible.
Although Jesus was betrayed by His own people, His teachings did lay the groundwork for what became the world’s major faith which, after becoming the basis for long periods of unfairly imposed dogma and oppression, have eventually earned at least lip service, despite continued misapplication.
In our present-day troubled world, Mr. Obama is attempting to teach us what we should have known all along, but never seemed to apply well. He has attracted countless listeners. However, his enemies, not unlike rodents who infest sewers and constantly seek more adequate habitats to fit their greedy requirements, continue their undermining efforts. Unhappily, they may well succeed in either the short or long run.
Jesus Christ didn’t really manage to save the world, but nobody can deny that He helped it a lot and cast everlasting influence over many people. Barack Obama has dedicated himself to the same level of accomplishment within his somewhat differing, yet in many respects highly comparable universe. For our everlasting good, we cannot but hope he’ll at least succeed in part to prevent what’s left of our ship from being dashed to pieces on the rocks.
Getting back to the basic question of this theme, did the Almighty send Barack Obama to us, as He once did for His only son?
The point has to be strongly debatable, but this writer is inclined to support its possibility.
Just over two thousand years ago, the legends attached to a particular infant boy’s birth, although perhaps overblown to some extent, have formed a foundation for what has long been the world’s most predominant religious faith. Despite its many misinterpretations and malpractices, along with its having often become corrupted by greed and similarly evil motivation, the spirit engendered by that individual enjoys a powerful and popular influence unmatched by any other human being.
It stands to reason indeed that Jesus Christ entered our midst through divine intervention, with the indisputable goal being that He guide the behavior pattern of the earth’s most intelligent animal species in its long and difficult trek. His status as Messiah lies beyond question.
Certain current-day events occurring within the past two year span – a minor blip in man’s calendar – have given us reason to speculate that divinity has suddenly repeated itself, with the advent of a second person, whose fundamental mission is to help fortify God’s efforts for mankind’s salvation and ultimate benefit.
Does such a statement by a mere mortal appear outrageous? To the devout bible-thumpers or those of differing faiths, maybe so. This, however, isn’t the population segment being addressed herein. We seek the collective opinions of those with clearly more open minds, and the aim is to present the reasoning which supports a rather radical thesis.
In many respects, one might say that the human race consists of just two types – those ready to seek and embrace worthwhile change, as opposed to those who never will be under any circumstances. Whereas our newly-elected President has undertaken to foster long- and much-need improvement in our fundamental practices, the omnipresent band of greed-motivated abominable no-men and no-women continue to persist as they have for countless ages. The daily harangue by political and certain media opponents is proving this point beyond the remotest doubt.
Once more, your writer is about to challenge the older world dogma by endeavoring to strike parallels between the beloved Jesus, the unquestioned Messiah, and what might well be His 21st century counterpart, Barack Obama.
Both men:
· Were products of relatively humble, minority groups;
· Resided in the hub of the world’s universe at the time;
· Came into prominence when man’s status could be described as little other than an
outright mess;
· Were accepted and highly acclaimed by the majority of their populace, yet hated by those
who feared what they stood and were striving for;
· Offered both fresh judgment and inspiration to their followers and fellow believers;
· Were instrumental in fostering revolutionary change.
In Jesus’ case, His influence bore fruit. Nothing has been quite the same since He was brutally forced to leave the earth. In many respects, the uphill election victory scored by Mr. Obama overcame prejudicial feeling that had dominated majority race thoughts for hundreds of years, a situation to which no return can ever be fully possible.
Although Jesus was betrayed by His own people, His teachings did lay the groundwork for what became the world’s major faith which, after becoming the basis for long periods of unfairly imposed dogma and oppression, have eventually earned at least lip service, despite continued misapplication.
In our present-day troubled world, Mr. Obama is attempting to teach us what we should have known all along, but never seemed to apply well. He has attracted countless listeners. However, his enemies, not unlike rodents who infest sewers and constantly seek more adequate habitats to fit their greedy requirements, continue their undermining efforts. Unhappily, they may well succeed in either the short or long run.
Jesus Christ didn’t really manage to save the world, but nobody can deny that He helped it a lot and cast everlasting influence over many people. Barack Obama has dedicated himself to the same level of accomplishment within his somewhat differing, yet in many respects highly comparable universe. For our everlasting good, we cannot but hope he’ll at least succeed in part to prevent what’s left of our ship from being dashed to pieces on the rocks.
Getting back to the basic question of this theme, did the Almighty send Barack Obama to us, as He once did for His only son?
The point has to be strongly debatable, but this writer is inclined to support its possibility.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
KNOCK IT OFF FOR A WHILE -- MAYBE UNTIL NEXT WEEK
In this age of endless world turmoil, with one or more civil or neighboring nation wars being waged at any and all times, there is a certain related feature we’ve always been unable to comprehend. Perhaps somebody will be kind enough to provide a plausible explanation.
It has become fairly common for third party interests to stick their noses into these frays, bringing foe spokesmen together for peace-inducing conferences. Oftentimes, the outcome is a negotiated cease fire. In other words, lay down your weapons, Fellows, and go home for a while to cool off.
What dumbfounds this writer in every such case we’ve noted is the timing aspect. For example, let’s say that the discussions wind up today, with a cease fire mutually agreed upon, after weeks, months, years, or decades of vicious conflict. Why on earth do the intermediaries invariably set it to take effect at a specified later date? What’s wrong with enforcement from this very minute onward instead?
Supposing you walked into a room or around a street corner to discover two men punching the living daylights out of each other, with hands and mouths bloodied. In order to break up the melée, what action would be appropriate on your part?
Well, in accordance with the usual cease fire terms imposed under the previously described circumstances, you’d most likely separate the pair, then sternly tell them “Look, You Guys, this brutal fighting has to stop. So ….. you can keep at it just five minutes more, than call the affair quits for a while.”
Would that make sense? We fail to see how. What is the point in allowing combative forces at any level to carry on the fracas a little while longer, thus wreaking as much additional damage as possible throughout an established “grace” period?
Furthermore, though, judging from these all too frequent delayed action cease fires we’ve observed, the second pertinent question is why bother? The likelihood that they’ll be back dropping bombs, lobbing artillery shells, or whatever else following a brief “cooling off” time span seems rather unavoidable at best.
It has become fairly common for third party interests to stick their noses into these frays, bringing foe spokesmen together for peace-inducing conferences. Oftentimes, the outcome is a negotiated cease fire. In other words, lay down your weapons, Fellows, and go home for a while to cool off.
What dumbfounds this writer in every such case we’ve noted is the timing aspect. For example, let’s say that the discussions wind up today, with a cease fire mutually agreed upon, after weeks, months, years, or decades of vicious conflict. Why on earth do the intermediaries invariably set it to take effect at a specified later date? What’s wrong with enforcement from this very minute onward instead?
Supposing you walked into a room or around a street corner to discover two men punching the living daylights out of each other, with hands and mouths bloodied. In order to break up the melée, what action would be appropriate on your part?
Well, in accordance with the usual cease fire terms imposed under the previously described circumstances, you’d most likely separate the pair, then sternly tell them “Look, You Guys, this brutal fighting has to stop. So ….. you can keep at it just five minutes more, than call the affair quits for a while.”
Would that make sense? We fail to see how. What is the point in allowing combative forces at any level to carry on the fracas a little while longer, thus wreaking as much additional damage as possible throughout an established “grace” period?
Furthermore, though, judging from these all too frequent delayed action cease fires we’ve observed, the second pertinent question is why bother? The likelihood that they’ll be back dropping bombs, lobbing artillery shells, or whatever else following a brief “cooling off” time span seems rather unavoidable at best.
Monday, May 18, 2009
THE TRANSLATION CORNER
Top business executives, often through their public relations officers, love to make glowing statements to the media or to their shareholders, which describe how marvelously effective their company activities are proving to be.
However, words of such a rosy nature usually require translation into what the real facts are. Accordingly, we're showing below the phrases uttered by the trained public relations types, along with the true underlying situations.
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"John Forthright has served as our Chief Executive Officer for the past ten years."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our company policies and outlook are just as sluggish as they were ten years ago.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
Our field of business is an extremely competitive one."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We aren’t operating as efficiently as our competitors are.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're looking forward to even better results for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This year has been pretty lousy so far.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our staff morale and enthusiasm level is as high as it has been for a long
while."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Most of our people have been with us six months or less.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're spending substantial sums for new product research and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Those guys in our Research Department are driving us into bankruptcy with their spending practices."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"People are our company's most important asset."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our payroll costs have gone sky high over the past year.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've established a more acute sense of financial responsibility."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The banks are on our tail to improve, or they’ll take us over.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We are investing heavily in staff training and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our people are so inept, we have no choice but to send them on special courses all the time."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
“Hard work is our main forte.”
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so understaffed and underqualified that we have to work our butts off
around here.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're constantly seeking new markets, new products, and other new fields to conquer."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our efforts have been pretty much a bust so far, but some day we hope to make it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our cash flow has improved over the past year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our bank balance is a black figure for the first time since 1999.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're currently quoting on more prospective business than ever before."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve finally learned to adopt sensible pricing policies.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our Zilchblende product line has captured 67% of the market during the last six months."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Only three sales have been made of these junk products – two by us and one by a competitor."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We find it necessary to increase prices."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so inefficient, we can’t even begin to control our costs properly."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have a most energetic staff incentive program laid out for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve changed the payroll system terminology, to make it sound better to the staff.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"This is our company policy."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This is how the home office says we should do it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have an outstanding array of systems analysts and programmers."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Everybody on our software service staff has had some school training.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our company has always enjoyed a harmonious internal relationship."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The only person who ever makes a decision around here is the CEO.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've always prided ourselves in being an imaginative organization."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We want to avoid facing reality at all costs.”
However, words of such a rosy nature usually require translation into what the real facts are. Accordingly, we're showing below the phrases uttered by the trained public relations types, along with the true underlying situations.
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"John Forthright has served as our Chief Executive Officer for the past ten years."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our company policies and outlook are just as sluggish as they were ten years ago.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
Our field of business is an extremely competitive one."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We aren’t operating as efficiently as our competitors are.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're looking forward to even better results for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This year has been pretty lousy so far.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our staff morale and enthusiasm level is as high as it has been for a long
while."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Most of our people have been with us six months or less.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're spending substantial sums for new product research and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Those guys in our Research Department are driving us into bankruptcy with their spending practices."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"People are our company's most important asset."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our payroll costs have gone sky high over the past year.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've established a more acute sense of financial responsibility."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The banks are on our tail to improve, or they’ll take us over.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We are investing heavily in staff training and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our people are so inept, we have no choice but to send them on special courses all the time."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
“Hard work is our main forte.”
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so understaffed and underqualified that we have to work our butts off
around here.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're constantly seeking new markets, new products, and other new fields to conquer."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our efforts have been pretty much a bust so far, but some day we hope to make it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our cash flow has improved over the past year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our bank balance is a black figure for the first time since 1999.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're currently quoting on more prospective business than ever before."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve finally learned to adopt sensible pricing policies.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our Zilchblende product line has captured 67% of the market during the last six months."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Only three sales have been made of these junk products – two by us and one by a competitor."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We find it necessary to increase prices."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so inefficient, we can’t even begin to control our costs properly."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have a most energetic staff incentive program laid out for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve changed the payroll system terminology, to make it sound better to the staff.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"This is our company policy."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This is how the home office says we should do it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have an outstanding array of systems analysts and programmers."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Everybody on our software service staff has had some school training.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our company has always enjoyed a harmonious internal relationship."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The only person who ever makes a decision around here is the CEO.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've always prided ourselves in being an imaginative organization."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We want to avoid facing reality at all costs.”
WHO BEARS THE GREATER GUILT?
The TV sitcom show that insults your intelligence by constantly piping in canned laughter with nearly every dialogue exchange, to imply side-splitting audience humor; or
The viewer who faithfully watches and gets continually tricked into believing the skit is
uproariously funny?
The small-minded character who repeatedly utters unfounded racial, religious, ethnic, or other such slurs; or
The creep who listens and either accepts the non-facts or else offers no comment in rebuttal?
The overzealous loudmouth who yells every word of his TV commercial message into your ears; or
The dope who doesn’t promptly switch to another channel?
(This one is expandable to virtually any con scheme carried out)
The New York City slicker who offers to sell you Brooklyn Bridge; or
The sap who buys it?
The guy who gets caught with his hand in the company till or benefits from purchase kickbacks; or
The boss who magnanimously overlooks or forgives him?
The accountant who presents fraudulently distorted financial results to the management and the public; or
Those naïve enough to believe the figures at face value with never a question raised?
The business executive who denies his personnel fair pay, adequate benefits, and due privileges; or
The employee who suffers along while never rebelling even slightly, and fails to seek work
elsewhere?
TV advertisers who display intentionally misleading commercials; or
The stupes who fall for those half-truth pitches?
The tobacco companies that doctor their products so as to enhance smoker addiction; or
Those dumb enough or too weak to quit the habit?
The food processing companies that market obesity-causing and similarly harmful products; or
The careless gluttons who gobble them up with gusto day after day?
The mudslinging political candidate who attacks an opponent’s personal character rather than deliberate on key issues; or
The voter who lets him- or herself be swayed by such unethical practice?
The political candidate who spouts countless campaign promises he or she has obviously no intention of honoring; or
The jerk who believes and votes for him/her?
Washington lobbyists who endeavor to influence Congress members on behalf of special interest groups; or
Those in office who don’t toss them out on their ears?
The offerer of a bribe; or
The knucklehead who accepts it?
(This one is a bit out of date for the time being)
The automobile manufacturers who keep earnings high through intended dynamic obsolescence practices; or
The yuppie types who habitually buy new cars ever too frequently?
Credit card companies that assess exorbitant interest rates and other charges; or
The meatheads who let themselves fall into debt way over their heads?
(Here’s another one somewhat out of date currently)
The issuers of junk bonds and similar extreme risk securities; or
The suckers who buy them?
The obnoxious kid who grows up to be an equally obnoxious adult; or
The parents who caused him/her to be that way from gitgo?
The viewer who faithfully watches and gets continually tricked into believing the skit is
uproariously funny?
The small-minded character who repeatedly utters unfounded racial, religious, ethnic, or other such slurs; or
The creep who listens and either accepts the non-facts or else offers no comment in rebuttal?
The overzealous loudmouth who yells every word of his TV commercial message into your ears; or
The dope who doesn’t promptly switch to another channel?
(This one is expandable to virtually any con scheme carried out)
The New York City slicker who offers to sell you Brooklyn Bridge; or
The sap who buys it?
The guy who gets caught with his hand in the company till or benefits from purchase kickbacks; or
The boss who magnanimously overlooks or forgives him?
The accountant who presents fraudulently distorted financial results to the management and the public; or
Those naïve enough to believe the figures at face value with never a question raised?
The business executive who denies his personnel fair pay, adequate benefits, and due privileges; or
The employee who suffers along while never rebelling even slightly, and fails to seek work
elsewhere?
TV advertisers who display intentionally misleading commercials; or
The stupes who fall for those half-truth pitches?
The tobacco companies that doctor their products so as to enhance smoker addiction; or
Those dumb enough or too weak to quit the habit?
The food processing companies that market obesity-causing and similarly harmful products; or
The careless gluttons who gobble them up with gusto day after day?
The mudslinging political candidate who attacks an opponent’s personal character rather than deliberate on key issues; or
The voter who lets him- or herself be swayed by such unethical practice?
The political candidate who spouts countless campaign promises he or she has obviously no intention of honoring; or
The jerk who believes and votes for him/her?
Washington lobbyists who endeavor to influence Congress members on behalf of special interest groups; or
Those in office who don’t toss them out on their ears?
The offerer of a bribe; or
The knucklehead who accepts it?
(This one is a bit out of date for the time being)
The automobile manufacturers who keep earnings high through intended dynamic obsolescence practices; or
The yuppie types who habitually buy new cars ever too frequently?
Credit card companies that assess exorbitant interest rates and other charges; or
The meatheads who let themselves fall into debt way over their heads?
(Here’s another one somewhat out of date currently)
The issuers of junk bonds and similar extreme risk securities; or
The suckers who buy them?
The obnoxious kid who grows up to be an equally obnoxious adult; or
The parents who caused him/her to be that way from gitgo?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A PRIVATE PHILOSOPHICAL OBSERVATION OR THREE
ON LIFE IN GENERAL
There are only three groups of people in the world: 1) Those who make things happen; 2) Those who watch things happen; and 3) Those who have no idea what’s happening.
This fellow has never learned how to tolerate laziness or stupidity – and hopefully never will.
If you allow yourself to be swindled by a confidence scam, you deserve the consequences.
Idle or in-transit time is not something to be spent, but invested.
Being old is strictly a state of mind.
When your age clicks over to the sixty mark, you should no longer be inclined to self-ask “How old am I?”, but rather “How many productive years do I have left?” This will provide a better perspective for making the most of your remaining time.
Given enough years to live, every person would eventually wise up and become a Socialist.
If you’ve nothing better left to do in this world than die, you might as well do it.
ON MANKIND
It’s a toss-up as to which is mankind’s most destructive invention – the nuclear bomb or the passenger automobile.
If it weren’t for selfishness and greed, most of the world’s problems could be readily eradicated by simple changes.
There is much concern being expressed these days over population explosion. In actual fact, the solution to this problem should be quite easy – impose the death penalty upon anyone convicted of corruption.
ON EDUCATION
With an educational institution being most appropriately definable as an environmental area where the prime duty of the person seated up front is to help you teach yourself, it logically follows that we have no such thing as poor schools – only poor students.
ON OCCUPATIONS
Anybody who is not a farmer by chosen occupation deserves to be classified as a horse’s ass.
When viewing European or other national royalty and their lifelong ceremonial duty requirements, the only suitable statement in their regard is “What a way to make a living”.
ON WORKING
Any of your subordinates who are not after your job should tell you either they aren’t remotely qualified, or else the position isn’t worth having.
The way to avoid last-minute changes is to do everything at the last minute.
The best indication of having done a good day’s work is a full waste basket at 5 PM.
ON TOBACCO
Despite the curtailment of Joe Camel and similarly “offensive” ads, coupled with severe restrictions on smoking allowed areas, tobacco companies are still enjoying impressive sales. Why not, then, carry the campaign to a further point where virtually every signpost or indoor spot available for display shows a poster proclaiming “CIGARETTES KILL”? How better can the message be hammered into disdainful minds?
ON U.S. POLITICS
The prime qualification for being a Republican is to have your head up your ass.
ON DOGS
We really have no objection to our best animal friends. What turns us off, though, are the people who bring them to places where only humans should be.
SUNDRY DEFINITIONS
An interesting place: Somewhere you’ve never been.
A library: A vast data storehouse containing all the information in the world except that which you’re expressly looking for.
An atrocity: Any act if aggression or terrorism not perpetrated by American or Israeli forces.
The United States: The land of the greedy and the home of the commercial.
McDonald’s: The number one symbol by which America continues to spread its non-culture throughout the world.
Bus drivers: Small-minded men operating large vehicles.
There are only three groups of people in the world: 1) Those who make things happen; 2) Those who watch things happen; and 3) Those who have no idea what’s happening.
This fellow has never learned how to tolerate laziness or stupidity – and hopefully never will.
If you allow yourself to be swindled by a confidence scam, you deserve the consequences.
Idle or in-transit time is not something to be spent, but invested.
Being old is strictly a state of mind.
When your age clicks over to the sixty mark, you should no longer be inclined to self-ask “How old am I?”, but rather “How many productive years do I have left?” This will provide a better perspective for making the most of your remaining time.
Given enough years to live, every person would eventually wise up and become a Socialist.
If you’ve nothing better left to do in this world than die, you might as well do it.
ON MANKIND
It’s a toss-up as to which is mankind’s most destructive invention – the nuclear bomb or the passenger automobile.
If it weren’t for selfishness and greed, most of the world’s problems could be readily eradicated by simple changes.
There is much concern being expressed these days over population explosion. In actual fact, the solution to this problem should be quite easy – impose the death penalty upon anyone convicted of corruption.
ON EDUCATION
With an educational institution being most appropriately definable as an environmental area where the prime duty of the person seated up front is to help you teach yourself, it logically follows that we have no such thing as poor schools – only poor students.
ON OCCUPATIONS
Anybody who is not a farmer by chosen occupation deserves to be classified as a horse’s ass.
When viewing European or other national royalty and their lifelong ceremonial duty requirements, the only suitable statement in their regard is “What a way to make a living”.
ON WORKING
Any of your subordinates who are not after your job should tell you either they aren’t remotely qualified, or else the position isn’t worth having.
The way to avoid last-minute changes is to do everything at the last minute.
The best indication of having done a good day’s work is a full waste basket at 5 PM.
ON TOBACCO
Despite the curtailment of Joe Camel and similarly “offensive” ads, coupled with severe restrictions on smoking allowed areas, tobacco companies are still enjoying impressive sales. Why not, then, carry the campaign to a further point where virtually every signpost or indoor spot available for display shows a poster proclaiming “CIGARETTES KILL”? How better can the message be hammered into disdainful minds?
ON U.S. POLITICS
The prime qualification for being a Republican is to have your head up your ass.
ON DOGS
We really have no objection to our best animal friends. What turns us off, though, are the people who bring them to places where only humans should be.
SUNDRY DEFINITIONS
An interesting place: Somewhere you’ve never been.
A library: A vast data storehouse containing all the information in the world except that which you’re expressly looking for.
An atrocity: Any act if aggression or terrorism not perpetrated by American or Israeli forces.
The United States: The land of the greedy and the home of the commercial.
McDonald’s: The number one symbol by which America continues to spread its non-culture throughout the world.
Bus drivers: Small-minded men operating large vehicles.
BUTCHERING BOND: THE EPITOME OF HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITING CORRUPTION
Most present-era respecters of English language literature will concede that author Ian Fleming churned out numerous cleverly-written novels during his all too short earthside venture. In case memories need jogging, he was the man who created master spy/sleuth, supersuave pursuer of sultry ladies, and homicide license 007 holder, James (himself) Bond.
The Bond books provided easy reading, much welcome put-it-downness and pick-it-up-laterness, a tempting sex interlude every few chapters, and suspenseful plots, climaxing with justifiable, sometimes comedy-tainted bloodshed. Mr. Fleming did indeed manage to incite mass reader sensationalism in his prime composing years.
During the mid-1960s, a person who couldn’t hold his or her own in cocktail and dinner party discussion of almost any James Bond adventure simply didn’t belong among those who were “with it”.
Perhaps on a comparable basis with the revered football coach Knute Rockne, Fleming was cut down at the very height of his career. Unlike the fabled Notre Dame mentor, though, he hasn’t been remembered with pseudo-reverence decades thereafter. In fact, his literary contributions are virtually forgotten today by the less-aged generations. There happens to be a most unfortunate reason for that.
All thirteen Bond tales that stemmed from Fleming’s penmanship were turned into movies, with a series of extremely masculine heroes. The initial productions launched Sean Connery into stratospheric stardom. Others have followed in his wake, all adequate, but none quite so exclamation pointy. British actor Bernard Lee also enjoyed top support ratings in his continuing role as “M”, James’ iron-jawed, authoritarian, anti-espionaging boss. The girls who came and went from film to film didn’t necessarily damage their careers by hitting the sack with our ubiquitous rogue either.
Now, as one often says, that was the good news. It’s time to proceed with the bad.
The novels were published between 1953 and 1962, the last two after Fleming’s demise in 1964. The first four, beginning with 1963, made reasonable viewer sense, as Connery globe-hopped, caressed a series of fair maidens, and wiped out nasty blokes by increasingly unimaginable means. The remaining nine, since supplemented by an apparent eternal string of lower class writers’ copycat efforts, warrant description in no terms other than repulsive to the hilt. The disappointing cumulative result to date has been an utter wipeout of any and all tastefulness once exhibited by the original author.
Doctor No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, despite a few spice-adding script deviations from the books, did stick fairly close to the original stories. From then onward, the plots have featured a consistent pattern of sex, ultra-modern technological gimmickry, more sex, more technological gimmickry, and finally blowing the arch villains’ structures for foul evil-doing plumb to hell. Even Fleming’s off-beat tale The Spy Who Loved Me was converted into the same mess as the other eight stinkeroos.
Despite middle or advanced age, most of us fellows can remember taking our girls to the movies and seizing the opportunity to grip them tightly whenever suspenseful terror appeared on the screen. The love scenes were also helpful, although much less recognizable as such in earlier days. Sure, everyone enjoys being thrilled, including our lady friends. Nevertheless, to what extreme are Hollywood producers entitled to transform worthy literature into nonsensical garbage, solely to make the box office receipts climb?
When dwelling upon this far too lengthy string of sickening James Bondist glamor/violence, a person might be tempted to watch Shakespearean classics rescripted in a similar vein. Wouldn’t it be great to see Hamlet having an Oedipus affair with his scheming mother, then destroying her with dynamite, MacBeth engaging in an extra-marital event on several occasions before having his head lopped off right before the camera, Romeo and Juliet jumping between the bedsheets a few times prior to their explosively exaggerated mutual suicide, or Portia sleeping around when not dishing out dynamic courtroom oratory?
Despite this seemingly endless stream of filmed trash, a few of us elder folk are still able to retain memories from the days when Ian Fleming (not just Ian who) offered us tasteful relaxed reading, and Mr. Connery’s antics paralleled the initial plots to an acceptable degree.
The Bond books provided easy reading, much welcome put-it-downness and pick-it-up-laterness, a tempting sex interlude every few chapters, and suspenseful plots, climaxing with justifiable, sometimes comedy-tainted bloodshed. Mr. Fleming did indeed manage to incite mass reader sensationalism in his prime composing years.
During the mid-1960s, a person who couldn’t hold his or her own in cocktail and dinner party discussion of almost any James Bond adventure simply didn’t belong among those who were “with it”.
Perhaps on a comparable basis with the revered football coach Knute Rockne, Fleming was cut down at the very height of his career. Unlike the fabled Notre Dame mentor, though, he hasn’t been remembered with pseudo-reverence decades thereafter. In fact, his literary contributions are virtually forgotten today by the less-aged generations. There happens to be a most unfortunate reason for that.
All thirteen Bond tales that stemmed from Fleming’s penmanship were turned into movies, with a series of extremely masculine heroes. The initial productions launched Sean Connery into stratospheric stardom. Others have followed in his wake, all adequate, but none quite so exclamation pointy. British actor Bernard Lee also enjoyed top support ratings in his continuing role as “M”, James’ iron-jawed, authoritarian, anti-espionaging boss. The girls who came and went from film to film didn’t necessarily damage their careers by hitting the sack with our ubiquitous rogue either.
Now, as one often says, that was the good news. It’s time to proceed with the bad.
The novels were published between 1953 and 1962, the last two after Fleming’s demise in 1964. The first four, beginning with 1963, made reasonable viewer sense, as Connery globe-hopped, caressed a series of fair maidens, and wiped out nasty blokes by increasingly unimaginable means. The remaining nine, since supplemented by an apparent eternal string of lower class writers’ copycat efforts, warrant description in no terms other than repulsive to the hilt. The disappointing cumulative result to date has been an utter wipeout of any and all tastefulness once exhibited by the original author.
Doctor No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, despite a few spice-adding script deviations from the books, did stick fairly close to the original stories. From then onward, the plots have featured a consistent pattern of sex, ultra-modern technological gimmickry, more sex, more technological gimmickry, and finally blowing the arch villains’ structures for foul evil-doing plumb to hell. Even Fleming’s off-beat tale The Spy Who Loved Me was converted into the same mess as the other eight stinkeroos.
Despite middle or advanced age, most of us fellows can remember taking our girls to the movies and seizing the opportunity to grip them tightly whenever suspenseful terror appeared on the screen. The love scenes were also helpful, although much less recognizable as such in earlier days. Sure, everyone enjoys being thrilled, including our lady friends. Nevertheless, to what extreme are Hollywood producers entitled to transform worthy literature into nonsensical garbage, solely to make the box office receipts climb?
When dwelling upon this far too lengthy string of sickening James Bondist glamor/violence, a person might be tempted to watch Shakespearean classics rescripted in a similar vein. Wouldn’t it be great to see Hamlet having an Oedipus affair with his scheming mother, then destroying her with dynamite, MacBeth engaging in an extra-marital event on several occasions before having his head lopped off right before the camera, Romeo and Juliet jumping between the bedsheets a few times prior to their explosively exaggerated mutual suicide, or Portia sleeping around when not dishing out dynamic courtroom oratory?
Despite this seemingly endless stream of filmed trash, a few of us elder folk are still able to retain memories from the days when Ian Fleming (not just Ian who) offered us tasteful relaxed reading, and Mr. Connery’s antics paralleled the initial plots to an acceptable degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
