Measurables; True Freshman 2

This is the weekend of the NFL draft. I have spent several hours in front of my big screen television watching talking sports heads modify the English language. The college guys are just as bad.

How about “freshman” instead of “true freshman”?

This whole “true freshman” thing comes from the fact that the NCAA expects that a college athlete should have no more than four eligible years to play a sport. Sometimes, a football player out of high school will not be ready to play at the college level, so the athletic staff has the choice of developing the kid, while not allowing the player to actually play in a real game. The athlete does not lose any of the four years of sports eligibility, and advances to the sophomore academic year.This process is called, redshirting.

Thus, an academic freshman can be a football redshirt. Because of this, when the kid is finally allowed to play, he may be an academic sophomore, but in his first year of sports eligibility, or a freshman athlete. When an academic freshman is allowed to play in a varsity game in first year of sports eligibility, he is called a “true freshman”.

Do you see how long it took me to explain this? It would be so much easier to understand that if a player is on the field, and is in his first year’s eligibility, just call him a freshman regardless of his redshirt situation.

Freshman is all you have to know. If used in the context of sports eligibility, the athlete is in the first of four years of eligibility, a freshman. If used in the context of academics, the student is a freshman in the first year in college.

How about “metrics: instead of “measurables”?

During the NFL draft, you hear tons and tons of statistics on college players. How many passes completed, tackles made, speed in the forty-yard dash, etc., etc, are the lingua franca of the talking sports head. They also talk about the physical attributes like height, weight, arm strength, hand spread, and any other physical attrite that can be measured.

So, the dummies call them, “measurables”. OK. We all get it. However, the word, measurable, is an adjective. So, here we have another word morphing into something else because sports jocks don’t have measurable vocabularies.

Try the word, metrics. Yes. A metric is a measurable attribute. It is a characteristic describable with numbers.

Oh, there’s so much wrong in this world, and there’s so little time to correct things.

Word Of The Day – MEH, meh, Meh, mEH 4

I am probably the only person in the world to not know what was meant when I saw the letters, meh, in a blog. Apparently, this is a Simpsonian word meant to convey the meaning, meh…

Yep! It means, nothing. Well, nothing in the sense that you don’t think much about the subject at hand. We have all used it in one version or another all our lives, but the Simpsons defined its post modern usage. In my experience it should be used along with a smirk on your face to indicate the senselessness of the situation. Or, not.

Here is Wikipedia‘s take on the word.

Here is an example of the actual usage.

So, what do I think?

meh

Sustainability – The New Buzzword 6

picture of polar bears

Polar bear population is greater now than fifty years ago.

Welcome to the newest meaningless buzz word, sustainability.

We hear the word being bandied about all the time, but have you ever really sat down and thought about what it really means?  Our environmental kooks have given the word, sustainability, the following definition.

From Dictionary.com : Sustainability – Environmental Science . the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance: The committee is developing sustainability standards for products that use energy.

There you have it. Something that is sustainable supports ecological balance. The problem is that nobody knows what ecological balance is. They just make it up as they go.

The World Wrestling Federation  World Wildlife Fund demonstrates this ability to make stuff up with the following.

Ecological Balance:  Ecological balance has been defined by various online dictionaries as “a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable, subject to gradual changes through natural succession.” and “A stable balance in the numbers of each species in an ecosystem.”

First of all, equilibrium as postulated does not exist. Relative numbers, and the stability of populations change all the time, especially if viewed from a historical standpoint. The problem, here, is that the WWF nutto’s have created something that does not exist, dynamic equilibrium. There is no guaranteed, or normal, state of equilibrium in  nature. All we see, now, are simply snapshots of nature at a given time, and we don’t even see or understand the whole picture.

The eco-whacko’s tell us that the use of oil as a primary energy source is unsustainable. OK. I will buy that. But, it is sustainable for at least the next century.

Where did I get the 100 years? Well, some sources say it will be only twenty or thirty years before oil gets so expensive we cannot afford it. However, we have recently discovered major reserves in the oil sands beneath Canada and the United States. Great Britain has discovered huge amounts of natural gas in shale rock formations.

Here is the problem with the sustainable idea, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to see it. Nothing in this world is sustainable forever. Even with the eco-whacko definition of sustainability, the environment changes so much naturally, that we cannot define the equilibrium points.

So, the word sustainable in the environmental sense is a contrived concept that conveniently fits into a Marxist agenda.

In the long-term, nothing is sustainable. In the long-term we are all dead.