Public Comment

The King's English 

No one can deny that English is a beautiful language -- granted that it lacks the cadence and lyricism of French and Italian. But with its broad spectrum of accents and colorful dialects (Southern, Texan, Brooklyn and Boston), when spoken properly, English is indeed a lovely language. 

Unfortunately, our language is marred by the repetitive use of metaphors and cliches which drive me up the wall. (Oops, there's one right there!) Listed below are some of my pet peeves, the ones I find most offensive: 

Number One: "To make a long story short." If ever there was a misnomer, brother, this is one! In most cases, the story is excruciatingly boring, of interest to no one but the speaker and should fall on deaf ears. 

Number Two: "We have breaking news." Now there was a time when listening to the evening news, such an announcement would cause me to grip the arm of my chair, fearing a catastrophe, such as an earthquake, assassination, or nuclear attack. So what is this "breaking news?" It's probably that Lindsay Lohman and Paris Hilton are in rehab for use of illegal drugs. 

Number Three: "You guys." I absolutely cringe when I hear a TV anchor man address Supreme Court Justices and other dignitaries with, "What do you guys think of....? UGH! 

Number Four: "You know." It would appear that the most eloquent and articulate of speakers (Presidents, Senators, university professors) are incapable of completing a paragraph without several "You knows" punctuating their speech. I have to confess that this -- you know -- irritates me no end. 

Number Five: "When push comes to shove." So, what in blazes does this mean? 

There are, of course, countless other meaningless metaphors and cliches that do little to enrich our language. I offer these examples merely to illustrate my dismay that the King's English has fallen on hard times! 

Dorothy Snodgrass 

* * *
Exploiting Prejudice


Exploiting prejudice for profit should not be a business model.

The Arizona’s prison industry’s role in drafting SB1070, the law requiring police to imprison people who can’t prove legal citizenship, has strong parallels in the Bay Area.

The prison industry stood to profit directly from building new prisons for the detention of men, women, and even children who were caught without documentation. Their draft language surfaced essentially unchanged at the legislative level, despite the conflict of interest.

San Francisco’s “sit/lie” legislation, which scapegoats sidewalk-sitters, implies that sidewalk-sitters inhibit profits, and that business would thrive without the post-beat, post-hippie, post-punk generation of itinerant travelers sitting in commercial zones. Just as in Arizona, the legislation came straight from the business interests which stand to profit, at least in theory, from the ordinance.

But Berkeley’s similar measures in 1994, only partially trimmed by the courts for unconstitutionality, didn’t cause a business boom. Berkeley’s current election rhetoric continues to blame the least powerful, most vulnerable people in town for the fact that business is down, and some candidates argue for even more restrictive measures.

Well-connected business interests get a big slice of any politician’s time, but taxpayers who enjoy meeting travelers on the street, who feel enriched by their music, their stories, their creative spirit, need a place at the table where costly, potentially unconstitutional legislation is passed around like peanuts.

A city’s welcoming attitude toward strangers, travelers, and the poor might have its costs. But so does constantly circling vulnerable people through court. I’d rather give a dollar to a stranger than play any role in yet another unconstitutional law. 

Carol Denney  

* * * 

Library Meetings Hard to Find 

As usual, Gene Bernardi "Library Trustees Rubber-Stamp Costly New RFID System" (Oct. 26 Planet) reports on important relevant-to-everyone events. Her observations are so right-on.  

Helen Rippier Wheeler  

* * *