Search This Blog

Monday, June 12, 2017

More popcorn, please

Okay, guys. what's in a name, anyhow?  The name Guy precedes that Fawkes fellow by quite a few years, but it never gained much popularity.  Not a lot of guys named Guy these days but I remember a guy named Guy in high school, but his name was really Gaetano, so it doesn't count.

Some names have always sounded cooler than others, but the coolness factor changes with the times.  Why do some names sound wimpier than others?  Is it the combination of vowels and consonants, with harder sounding phonemes indicating more rugged names, like Rocky being tougher than Willy?   It's curious how we form mental images based solely on a name.  Tony Curtis sounds more manly than Bernie Schwartz, but they're the same guy.  Likewise with Roy Rogers sounding more like a cowboy than Leonard Slye, but again, the same guy.  Clint Eastwood really lucked out; that's his real name.  But if his parents named him Larry, for instance, would he have become the legend he is today?

One of the coolest names I know of today is from my brother in law's side of the family.  His nephew's last name is Ronzi (Italian) and he named his newborn son Rocco,  Rocco Ronzi, a hell of name to live up to.  I figure he'll either be a prizefighter or a crime lord.

-----

Some folks like to think that "they" are out to get them, and those folks may be correct but I wish the claim was more specific.  Damn, it's hard to differentiate the different "theys."  I usually follow the context; if someone says "they raised my taxes" I assume they mean legislators.  Or if "they arrested my mother" I'll assume the police were involved.   But when folks claim "they are ruining the country" I lose interest; in that context "they" could be anything, or nothing.  Blaming "them" is a cop out when the actual causes can't be identified.  We know something is wrong, but we can't quite put our finger on it so it's all "their" fault, it's always been their fault.  Mu.

-----

According to my entertainment schedule, this week's circus continues with testimony of one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions before tomorrow's Intelligence Committee.  Will any truths be revealed, or new insights gained?  Don't hold your breath.

I don't think that Trump understands the Streisand Effect: the more you try to deflect interest the more attention you draw to the matter.  Nothing makes you look more guilty, or stupid, than firing the investigators.  Now that the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland are investigating his financial emolument shenanigans, with the possibility of subpoenas for tax records, the entertainment will reach a new level.  Push is coming to shove and it should be quite a show.



But there's a new coal mine in Pennsylvania, so it's not all bad news for Trump.  And he is sure to find comfort in the loving arms of the First Lady as she arrives at the White House.

No comments:

Post a Comment