Literally incorrect

One of my pet peeves is the rampant incorrect use of the word "literally." It has become the standard adjective for emphasis, and in general use today, is almost always used incorrectly and just as filler, not adding anything to what's being said. People have forgotten that "literally" is intended to modify an idiomatic phrase when it describes something in a literal sense, rather than its usual figurative sense.

For example, the only correct interpretation of the sentence "The woman literally lost her mind" is that she misplaced her brain. If she went crazy, then she figuratively lost her mind.

These incorrect uses, especially in the professional media, bother me so much that I now try to find the humor in them by mentally picturing what the literal translation would be.

Here's another: the sentence "John is literally dying to see the new movie" could be correct if John is on a hunger strike because his parents won't let him go to the movies.

I would start tracking down and pointing out more of these abuses, but I was very happy to find that someone has already started a blog dedicated to this subject.

Problems with movie ratings

I am bothered by the current state of affairs of the content ratings for movies handed out by the Motion Picture Association of America. You know, the PG, PG-13, R thingys. The PG-13 rating may have sounded like a good idea, but I think it's turned into a terrible thing. These days, it seems all studios point their aim very strongly toward achieving a PG-13 rating; they say it generally leads to the widest audience for a film.

But the problem is that parents often automatically assume a movie rated PG-13 is appropriate for teens; however, films with a PG-13 rating can encompass such a wide range of content. The rating is really quite useless and contradictory regarding what content is permitted. For example, one utterance of "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (generally meaning the "f" word) is permitted. If you allow it once, what's the difference to allowing it multiple times?? Do they think if you say it only once, it might not be noticed??

Violence is permitted in a PG-13 unless it becomes "too rough or persistent." The problem is the definition of violence--it seems to require harmful human to human action to qualify. I have seen so many PG-13 movies that have had such an intensity and "fear factor" that it concerns me that teens are regularly being exposed to these films. A good case in point is this summer's War of the Worlds: sure, humans weren't generally being violent to others, but geez, aliens were vaporizing humans! I was emotionally exhausted after that movie; what's it doing to our teenagers? There are many other examples of films with this sort of intensity that still managed a PG-13 rating.

I miss R-rated movies. A common theme heard on DVD commentaries is how the director ended up very frustrated at how the movie had to be chopped down to achieve a PG-13 rating rather than just sticking with the R it really deserved based on the script.

I wish studios would just stop using the rating system. Instead, upon release of a film, publish a content guide for parents that describes the questionable elements. Let's not try to fit everything into neat ratings categories--just tell us what's in the movie and let us decide what's appropriate for us and our children to watch.

I'd like to think that as movie viewing continues to shift from the theater to home, the standard ratings system will become less important and eventually go away.

UPDATE 9/13/2005: I found a very interesting article describing a study analyzing the MPAA ratings in correlation with those from a couple of online ratings systems (Kids-in-mind and ScreenIt.com). It found "ratings creep" in the MPAA ratings, meaning each year, more and more violence, sex, and adult language is permitted in a particular rating so that a PG-13 movie released today probably contains more potentially inappropriate content than one released ten years ago. This was particularly true with the violence category. The other significant finding is that there is a huge variability in content within each MPAA rating. Some PG-13 movies are tame while others have more violence than many R-rated movies. It was also seen that a lot of violence is allowed in G-rated movies as long as it's animated. If you're interested in this subject, check out the article on the study.

More reading on the Katrina entitlement issue

It seems I'm not alone in my thoughts about how Katrina has exposed the horrible effects of our entitlement society in America (see previous post). Here is a list of some additional articles and blogs on the subject:

Robert Tracinski: "An Unnatural Disaster"
Lex E. Libertas: "Poverty Kills"
Fred Butler: "The Horde of Lies"
Jonathan Leffingwell (quoting Rush Limbaugh): "The Failure of the Government Entitlement Mentality"
JMS: "New Orleans a Model of Liberal Ideas Among Minorities"

The FairTax Book

I just finished reading The FairTax Book by Neil Bortz and John Linder. It gives a pretty good overview of the FairTax plan (see previous blog entry) and is a fun and quick read. I've been excited about how well the book has been selling (was #1 on both the New York Times and Amazon.com bestseller lists). I'm hoping that means there's a lot of grassroots support for a national sales tax just waiting to explode into action.

I encourage you to pick up a copy of the book, read it, and then carry it around visibly as a conversation starter. The more people we can make aware of this plan, the better its chances of succeeding. There is really not much bad to be said about the plan once you understand it.

Katrina exposes the ugly side of America

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the Southern U.S. is exposing the effects of today's prevalent entitlement mentality. Do you remember accounts of disasters from decades ago, hearing how everyone was pulling together to get through the crisis by supporting each other? Not anymore. This week, while watching news of people crowding in the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, everyone seemed to be upset because they haven't been helped by the government. What happened to picking yourself up and finding a solution? What happened to counting on your neighbors, friends, and family for help?

Someone pointed me to an article that describes other countries' reactions to scenes of how the hurricane victims are dealing with their situation. Once again, fuel for the further decline of our reputation in the world.

Welfare and the other socialism of today's America has changed the public's mentality to expect the government to provide medical care, food, shelter, and all other needs. I dream back to the days in the U.S. when people hit by a catastrophe would be gracious to receive my aid or donation rather than simply expecting that half of my paycheck should be stolen by the government to fix their situation.

I understand how difficult it can be to recover from a horrible event like this. But you are arrogant and rude (and a thief) if you demand I (and all American taxpayers) pay to help you put your life back together. Perhaps you shouldn't have built your city on a lake, or at least you should have evacuated when the storm was on its way. Now don't sit helpless down there; get up and figure out a plan. There are plenty of compassionate people out here willing to help if you just ask rather than assuming you're entitled.