C1N.TV Network News
This is C1N network television news, newspaper and columns from around the world by our reporters
Stop Saying “Take a Look”!
Jan 30th
The three most overused and unnecessary words you ever hear on television are “Take a look.”
Take a look at this.
First of all, except for blind people who only listen to the television set, we are already looking at it, and so people on television don’t have to tell us to look at it!
Take a look at this.
And for all we know, blind people might get offended by being reminded all the time that they can’t see anything whenever told to “take a look.”
Take a look at this.
Second of all, what does saying “Take a look” add that a simple “Look” doesn’t convey?
Take a look at this.
And third of all, the expression in either its shortest form of “Look,” its longer form of “Take a look,” or even its longer forms of “Take a look at this,” “Take a live look,” or “Taking a look at the temperatures” are all just a lazy way of introducing what the meteorologist, traffic reporter, or any other on-camera person wants to talk about next. Much worse is “take a listen.”
Take a look at this.
I first became aware of this lazy crutch of an expression back in the past when I would attend a presentation by a programmer I worked with, and he would mangle it by saying “Take and look” instead of “Take a look.”
Take a look at this.
For example, he would have a visual aid displayed before us and say something like, “If we take and look at the coding, we can see how the reverse Polish notation affects all the lines that follow.”
Take a look at this.
Then I began noticing that the weather girl on the local news that I watch every morning was saying “Take a look” much too often and even more much too unnecessarily.
Take a look at this.
Then I began to notice that the traffic reporter who would follow her weather report was using “Take a look” in his reports, too, and sometimes even saying “Take a look” twice in the same sentence.
Take a look at this.
And then I began to notice that national reporters on television and hosts on national talk shows were being lazy and using the expression, which, when you think about it, doesn’t add anything to the introduction of whatever follows that we are being told to look at.
Take a look at this.
Rather than saying “Take a look at these temperatures,” the weather girl could simply tell us that the temperature in Denver is a pleasant 65 degrees, compared with the temperatures in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City.
Take a look at this.
Rather than saying “Take a look at the traffic map,” the traffic reporter could simply say “The traffic is heavy on the Interstate highway, so you might want to avoid it.”
Take a look at this.
And rather than saying “Take a look” when a national reporter or a talk-show host wants to introduce a piece of video footage, a simple description of what is going to be shown would suffice or even a simple “Play it” when the person might not know what is about to be shown.
Take a look at this.
Now that I have made you aware of this excessive and unnecessary overused expression on television, start counting the number of times you hear it said, and if you use social media to follow either the person you hear say it too much or the program on which you heard it said or even the network on which the person or program appears, write using either of the more popular social-network tools directly to the person, program, or network and encourage them to stop using that now offensive, unnecessary and overused expression.
Take a look at this.
Unfortunately, this might turn out to be a lost cause. Emphasis on good language and effective communication might have been lost ever since the Baby Boomers became a major influence in society in the Sixties.
Take a look at this.
I don’t watch religious shows on television, and so I don’t know if televangelists use the expression in their sermons or requests for money, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, because I am hearing the expression almost every time I turn on the television.
Take a look at this.
The same goes for politicians.
I rest my case.
My Cold, Dead Fingers The Naked Curmudgeon by Dan Culberson
Dec 22nd
Here’s what gets me.
Does it have to take an English major to explain the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and put to rest this unjustifiable crutch of the right-wing, gun-toting fanatics and their conservative supporters?
For those of you who don’t remember, Amendment II states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even for those of you who do remember, Amendment II states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That is what it says word for word, comma for comma, capitalization for capitalization. Notice that the subject is “Militia,” the verb is “shall not be infringed,” and the sentence becomes “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”
“What about the bits between commas?” you say? Those are two appositional phrases, and an apposition is “a grammatical construction in which a noun or pronoun is followed by another that explains it.”
The subject, a noun (See how it works?), is followed by “being necessary to the security of a free State,” and it is followed by “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in order to explain “a well regulated Militia,” the subject of the sentence.
The subject cannot be “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” because you cannot put a single comma between the subject and the verb of a sentence. You cannot write “The dog, ran around the yard.” You can write “The dog, being frightened by the gunfire, ran around the yard,” because now we have two commas separating the subject and the verb. You can also write “The dog, being frightened by the gunfire, the pet of the neighbor, ran around the yard.”
That sentence is not “The pet of the neighbor, ran around the yard,” because that would be ungrammatical, just as “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is ungrammatical and therefore not the sentence of Amendment II.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is an apposition that explains the subject, “a well regulated Militia,” just as the other apposition, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” does. It is a “Militia” that is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” which is necessary to the security of a free State and which shall not be infringed.
In other words, the citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear Arms in “a well regulated Militia,” not to stockpile weapons at home and to carry a gun around with them in some Old West mentality.
And what did the sheriff in the Old West do to maintain order? Do the words “Check your guns at the door” strike a familiar note? That didn’t mean “Inspect your guns to ensure that they are in proper working order.” That meant “Turn your guns in at the door. It’s too dangerous for you to carry guns here.”
Now, the possibility of everyone having a concealed weapon might deter a few criminal acts, but the probability that hotheads and teenagers carrying a weapon could use it in a moment of unbridled emotion is far greater.
Sir William Blackstone (1723-80), a British jurist and Oxford instructor who was the first at a British university to teach English law as opposed to Roman law (See how those appositions work?), wrote in his great work Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69), “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”
I believe it is better that ten crimes be committed than one innocent victim be killed by a convenient handgun.
Luke Woodham, a teenager in Pearl, Mississippi, who is spending the rest of his life in prison for murdering his mother and two fellow students in October 1997 when he was 16, kept a map on his bedroom wall with the slogan “One Nation Under My Gun.” Do we want our immature, impressionable children growing up and believing this heinous claim?
We used to see so-called Amendment II supporters brag “I’ll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”
After a moment of rage, I don’t want those cold, dead fingers to be mine.
I rest my case.
Trust in Santa Claus: Naked Curmudgen by Dan Culberson
Dec 2nd
Here’s what gets me.
Trust in God is no more realistic and rewarding than trust in Santa Claus.
After all, the concept of God and believing in God’s existence is merely childhood fantasy grown up, because God is nothing more than Santa Claus for adults.
Think about it. Occasionally, some very old people will be singled out on television, and many times one of them is likely to say, “I attribute my long life to clean living, good health and trust in God.” If they are born-again Christians, they might say “trust in Jesus” instead, but think how substituting “Santa Claus” for either one makes absolutely no difference to the validity that the trust had anything to do with the person’s longevity and absolutely nothing to the validity of the existence of any of those named individuals.
Look at the similarities: Santa Claus, Mrs. Claus and all of Santa’s elves live up at the North Pole, and their only reason for being is to reward good little boys and girls one night a year by giving them presents. And when does Santa do this? On Christ’s birthday!
God, Jesus, the angels and every good person who has ever been rewarded with eternal life lives up in Heaven just waiting for new souls to come on up and live forever. And when does this happen? On each “saved” person’s death!
Depending on the religion or denomination, people are rewarded with an all-expenses-paid, free trip to Heaven for their good deeds on earth, for “accepting Jesus Christ as their savior” or merely for believing that God exists.
Santa Claus keeps a list, checks it twice and knows who has been naughty or nice in the past year, which he uses to reward those who have been “good” with presents and to punish those who have been “bad” with either no presents or a lump of coal in some cultures. And what do we associate coal with? Hot burning fire!
Have you ever known anyone who actually did receive only a lump of coal for Christmas, or is that just an empty threat that parents use to try to keep their children in line?
Santa Claus has lots of impersonators during the Christmas season standing on corners ringing their bells and collecting money and sitting in malls in order to let little children sit on their laps and tell them what they want for Christmas.
God has lots of churches throughout the year on practically every corner collecting money every Sunday or whenever a service is held and plenty of representations of either Jesus nailed to a cross or the Virgin Mary, Christ’s mother, God’s concubine, to which people can pray and tell them what special favor they would like.
This is where the Santa Claus myth is lacking. Astute creators and perpetuators of the myth should have thought to have given Santa a son so that Santa Jr. and Mrs. Claus could stand on corners and sit in malls to relieve some of the burden during the holidays, which, of course, comes from “holy days.”
Santa Claus uses the parents of the children to make them be good for their rewards, punish them as need be throughout the year, make empty promises about what they might get on Christmas morning and then make the actual purchases, hide them in closets, wrap them neatly and finally place them underneath the tree for the excited and eager children to find on Christmas morning.
God uses priests, preachers and other self-anointed representatives to “guide” the people, relay God’s words and intentions to them throughout the year, convey special requests if need be back up to God, make empty promises about what they might expect upon their deaths and then finally perform the memorial services for those people when they do die.
Trust in Santa Claus is expedient for parents to encourage their young children, because the promise of presents for good behavior and threats of no presents or that lump of coal for bad behavior is another tool in the parents’ bag of parenting tricks.
However, when children reach the age of about six, they should be clever enough to figure out on their own how all the contradictions and illogical details in the Santa Claus myth enable them to conclude that there is no Santa Claus and their parents have been misleading them all those years, even though their parents will claim that it was “for their own good.”
I rest my case.
Amen.