Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Putting the "Un" in unwieldy

One can wield a gun. One can wield sword. Even more mightily, one can wield a pen.

If something is unwieldy, does that make it impossible to wield? There's no such word as "wieldy," and yet things can be "unwieldy."

There are thoughts that are fathomable. That does not indicate that one swims into the fathoms to ideate (or even ponder) them. Some things are unfathomable.

Being wieldy seems unfathomable. Let's deep-six this discussion.

Oh, by the way: Kudos to Annette Kramer for spelling wield correctly. "I before e, except after c."

Sunday, October 09, 2005


A phrase was used this morning in the course of conversation: "throwing one's weight around." Just what does this really mean? Does it connote an overweight person, shifting body mass from left to right, and/or up and down? Is the literal meaning that of a person taking a lead weight they own (after all, the phrase refers to their weight) and launching it into the air, shotput style, or to a buddy, playing catch with it?

We understand what it means to shift one's weight, as in leaning on one leg and then the other. Or on an airplane, where load balancing might be of concern, and some of the baggage might be moved from one cargo hold to another.

Where, exactly, does this phrase come from, "throwing one's weight around?" Is it a wrestling or boxing term?

One can "throw a game," or "throw in the towel." None of this should be confused with being n the throes of a dilemma.

From the throw we scale it back a bit to the toss. One never "tosses one's weight around." One can toss a ball round, or toss something into a trashcan. Toss also can be used to indicate upchucking (which has nothing to do with how much wood a woodchuck would chuck, as per below). There is the figurative toss, as in tossing around an idea. One can also toss a salad, but it is highly unlikely that one would toss a salad to another.

And then we have trifecta: the literal, figurative, and computerspeak toss, as in, say, tossing one's cookies.

If one eats too many cookies, one might just have to toss them, or to put it another way, throw one's weight around. Or is that throw-up one's cookies?

That might be properly described as being in the throes of nausea.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Can one be "ILL-KEMPT?"

We all know the term "ill-fated." The Titantic was ill-fated. Howard Dean's campaign was ill-fated (and to some, a real scream).

We know what it means for someone (or perhaps something) to be unkempt, as in Einstein's hair-do. But is there a hair-don't? One can have a bad-hair day, but is that hair-don't? Is bed-head a hair-don't?

If Einstein's hair was unkempt, is Trent Lott's hair, then, kempt? Is Jack Kemp's hair kempt?

Does reading this make you verklempt?

And does reading an entry that uses the names of Einstein and Trent Lott in one place, as well as a little Yiddish in the item, make you want to just plotz?

Is this a plot to get you to plotz?




Friday, October 07, 2005


Should I rename this blog? What to call it? Dean's Really Silly Blog? DeanLand tries out Goooooogle Adsense? A Yuk A Day?

How about: DeanLand/Is There Any Money In an Inane Blog

Or maybe we should get truly sardonic, and call it: DeanLand Discusses The Meaning of Life.

Hmm, doing this when "money changes everything" and unsettling thoughts are going 'round my head about how money is the metric by which many people measure personal value. Getting the value construct confused with the human thing.


But, then again, if a boatload of money were to befall me, I 'd certainly welcome it. So please, do your part . . . go ahead: click on a blog ad. Even the public service ones, they deserve it as well. I thank you, as do, I trust, the people and institutions behind the public service ones.

Your thoughts?

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Time, time, time

Time is short. There's no time like the right time. Time waits for no-one. The time has come today. Does anybody really know what time it is?

Your time is up.

Time, these days, is the ultimate premium commodity. There's not enough time for . . . you name it. Running out of time, needing more time, wishing there was enough time to --- you get the picture.

Even the so-called newspaper of record (and now of Select) is called the Times.

We perceive (measure?) time in more ways than one.

There is the passage of time, the sense of time, the time of one's life, and so forth.

Oops, looking at the, uh, time, I realize there are pressing obligations, and I will run out of time if I don't stop this and pay attention to them. Time, obviously, to go.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Colonel -/- Kernel

Is there a kernel of truth in the tale that Colonel Kernel of the 5th Division told his troops to pop some corn, and to save him the unpopped kernels, so he would have something to snack on as he did some open source programming work and released the kernel of his program to the public domain?

When the Colonel became a father was he Pop the Kernel?

Kernel. Colonel.

Okay, no discussions of Kentucky Colonels or Sargent Shriver. Enough is enough for one little post on a blog of such magnitude, importance, and cha-chinging blog ads. Speaking of those, please do click on that ad up there. It puts a few cents in this blogger's pocket, and every penny counts. Each adds up to a small kernel of . . . oops, never mind.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Plying one's Wood

Speaking of wood (see below),what exactly is the deal with plywood? Apparently some plywood has no wood at all in it. And if it is plywood, shouldn't we be thinking along the same lines as tissues and toilet paper, and wonder how many ply, not whether or not the wood in plywood is really even wood at all?!

Woodchuck? Would Chuck?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? And what if the woodchuck's name was Woody, or Chuck?

And just what does it mean, to "chuck wood?"

Does this have anything to do with upchucking? Are thse questions better suited for February, when we have GroundHog Day? Is a groundhog a woodchuck?

Language Question

If one is upset with another, the issue being that they feel the other is too nonchalant, does this mean they would prefer that the other actually be more chalant? Or just chalant, as opposed to nonchalant?

Chalant, of course, not to be confused with Challah, a popular eggy starch eaten before weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, and such. But not before the seder, except at the houses of heretics.