Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by! If you like what you read, tell your friends! If you don't like what you read, tell your enemies! Either way, please post a comment, even if it's just to tell us how much we suck! (We're really needy!) You can even follow us @JasonBerner! Or don't! See if we care!







Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Great Moments in Branding

The Ford Motor Company has announced that it will soon offer a new light truck that will be " the first-ever EcoBoost®-powered sport truck"--whatever that means.  The truck will go on sale this fall and it will be named. . . the Tremor.

Keep an eye out for a related story, in which the Ford Motor Company lays off its director of marketing--or whoever thought it a great idea to name a truck after a symptom of Parkinson's Disease.  What names did they reject?  The Ford Rigidity? The Ford Incontinence?  The Ford Bradykinesia?  (Look it up!)  This undoubtedly marks the worst instance of vehicle branding since General Motors started naming its luxury fleet after major figures of the Third Reich.  I've been trying to unload my Chrysler Ribbentrop for years!

Monday, April 30, 2012

Monday Miscellany

You know that "Flintstones"-based cereal "Fruity Pebbles"?  Named after Fred's adorable daughter ("na pa goo wa Da-da?")?  In the store today, I noticed a "spin-off" cereal: "Pebbles' Boulders."  Somehow, this made me feel dirty.

************************************************
If you want a job done right, do it yourself.  Except, in my case, if the job is automotive repair.  Then, you're better off leaving things to professionals.  Else you might end up with three tires and an extra muffler.

*************************************************
Today's Times provides a wealth of vocabularical inspiration.  First, an article about neglect and/or mistreatment of thoroughbreds at casino-affiliated racetracks, led me to investigate what, precisely, constitutes the difference between "necropsy" and "autopsy."  Turns out a "necropsy" is an examination of dead tissue, specifically non-human animal tissue, while an "autopsy" is what happens after your car finally breaks down for the last time.

Ba-dum-bump!

No, but seriously, the two words are theoretically interchangeable, as they both mean an examination of that which is dead.  However, "necropsy" generally refers to animals, whereas "autopsies" are generally performed on humans.  The "auto" in "autopsy" means "self," and so an "autopsy" is something people perform on "themselves," i.e., other humans.  Given the meaning of "auto" as "self," though, one could conclude that "necropsy" would, in fact, be a better term for what is done to human bodies, as very few people--only about six in recorded history--have actually conducted autopsies on themselves.

The SAT word of the day comes from an article about American forces participating in the search for accused--well, acknowledged--war criminal and lunatic Joseph Kony:
The Central African Republic would be an excellent place to disappear. Its national army is one of the region’s smallest and weakest. Its terrain is primordially thick. And its infrastructure is shambolic.
In case you're wondering (and let's face it, you are), "shambolic" means "completely disorganized" or "chaotic"; I suspect it may be related to the word "shambling."  So, why not just say "completely disorganized" or "chaotic"?  The former would be perfectly appropriate in any mainstream newspaper, and the latter satisfies the requirement to be Times-ily literate without causing people to rush to their dictionaries.  Perhaps the use of arcane diction is meant to suggest the extremely complicated nature of the task our soldiers' face?  Or perhaps the writer is just showing off.  Somhow, I suspect the latter.

In the excerpt above, given the sentences leading up to it, readers can assume that "shambolic" means something negative, but that's about it.  There's no reason for one to assume it means "chaotic": It could mean "deteriorating," "non-existent," "sub-par," or a number of other things.  I don't mind the use of complicated verbiage that contributes to a sesquipedalian vocabulary.  Nevertheless, if a writer wants to employ words that are likely to be unfamiliar to most readers he or she should make sure that the context clearly reveals the word's meaning.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Another Day at Solipsist Central

WOS: How'd everything go?

SOLIPSIST: Oh, fine.

WOS: You got the oil changed?

SOL: Yeah, it was kind of expensive.  You needed transmission fluid, too.

WOS: Oh, OK.

SOL: And I also had them replace the air filter.

WOS: OK, thanks.

SOL: There was something else, too. . .  I can't remember what he said.  It was something they couldn't do there, though.. . .

WOS: Oh.  Was it something important?

SOL: Um. . . I don't think so. . . I wish I could remember. . .

WOS: Brake fluid?

SOL: Maaaay-be. . . . I don't think that was it.

WOS: 'Cause that's important.

SOL: Yeah. .  .It wasn't coolant!  He told me that the coolant was fine.

WOS: OK, but what WAS it?

SOL: I don't remember!  But the guy didn't sound overly concerned, like it wasn't urgent. . .

(Two hours or so later)

SOL: STEERING FLUID!

WOS (starting awake): Wuzza?

SOL: That's what you're low on.  Steering fluid.

WOS: Well, that's important!

SOL: Well, yeah, but not important important.

WOS: It is!

SOL: Only if you steer!

WOS: And you don't steer, I suppose.

SOL: I go straight on!  Turning just means you're going out of your way.

WOS (mumbling): Wish you would go out of my way.  . .

SOL: Hm?

WOS: Nothing.