< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
While the Y2K problem gets all the attention these days,
as we wonder whether the world's computers will recognize
00
in the year field of a date entry as 2000 or
1900, many of us humans suffer from a similar problem that
doesn't get as much attention.
Our temporal malady lacks a spiffy title like Y2K, but
we could call it something like CY-1 Persistence,
where CY
stands for Current Year. It means that in
early 1999, you still write the date as 1998, just as in
early 1998, you wrote 1997, etc.
But the experts have offered us no assistance in this matter. Nor have we received much guidance from the authorities in another vital concern -- how to conduct disputes.
It is only natural that we disagree with each other, but the way that such discourse is conducted often leaves me baffled. Somebody has to issue some rules, and so duty calls:
1) A moratorium on the use of the word
pathetic.
I receive much correspondence from people who take issue with me, and generally it's welcome. I like to argue.
All too often, though, the writer moves from the issue
at hand, and instead indulges in describing perceived
personal attributes. In formal logic, this is called
argument ad hominem
-- that is, an attack on the
person offering the propositions rather than an analysis of
the propositions -- and it's not allowed.
Until the past year, the preferred illogic was to inform
me that You just don't get it, do you?
Well, no, apparently not, and if you're the one who
wants me to get it,
then it should be your job to
express clearly what it
is, so that your audience --
me -- can get it.
As soon as that awful locution faded, along came
pathetic,
as in you're really pathetic.
My daughters, both college students, use pathetic
frequently, whereas my cohort of graying Baby Boomers seems
to prefer jerk,
idiot,
fool,
dolt
and similar terms, many of them unsuitable for
this family publication.
So I suspect that the current pathetic
phenomenon
originated with Generation X (or Y, or Z -- how can I keep
these straight when I can't even remember what year it
is?), and has been spreading into common discourse.
The word comes from the Greek pathos,
which means
suffering. A dictionary at hand provides two definitions
for pathetic: worthy of pity or sympathy, and distressing
or inadequate.
So when someone says I'm pathetic, I don't know whether
I'm being called a rotten and inadequate writer, or a human
who deserves kindness and consideration. Since the two
meanings are almost contradictory, it's time to retire
pathetic.
2) Quit using sacred
to describe secular, mundane
objects.
We can start with flag desecration,
which implies
that the stuff of Caesar -- a national emblems -- is
somehow sacred. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is
a form of idolatry, forbidden by the Ten Commandments just
as much as the adultery and bearing false witness that our
Congress now takes so seriously.
We can move to discussions of public lands, which I saw
described as sacred places
in an essay condemning
marijuana cultivators. And I have known people who refer
to that herb as a sacred plant.
Most recently, there was a reference to impeachment as a
sacred process.
Sacred, in these contexts, has nothing to do with being
blessed or holy. It seems to mean something I don't
want you to mess with.
So if we eliminate sacred
from public discourse,
perhaps it will force people to be more honest.
3) Before embarking on a dispute, determine whether it's worth winning.
The latest example is the two young women who were denied membership in their high school's chapter of National Honor Society because they had given birth out of wedlock.
The NHS is supposed to consider character, and few would define bastardy as noble. The girls' argument is that boys are not refused membership for the same misdeed (they would be, perhaps, if it were detected), and so this is sex discrimination.
Maybe it is.
But why worry about it? I was tapped for NHS in high school, and the little gold pin has never made the slightest difference since then. It never sold an article or made a house payment, improved a college grade or allowed me to make bail.
In other words, NHS membership doesn't matter, so why bother taking it to court? Why not spend that time studying calculus, assembly language or architecture?
These are three simple measures, and I hope American
society as adopted them as New Year's resolutions that will
be kept. Otherwise, I might have to sue those pathetic
creeps who keep misusing sacred.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >