Good Job!

Ned would like to take the opportunity to warn any and all of his many friends NOT to ever use the cretinous phrase 'Good Job!' within his hearing, especially if it originates from an "adoring" parent or a hanger-on of same, to an infant or child who has just performed a task that, at any scale of complexity, ranks around that required to breathe in or out. Ned witnessed such a revolting display this morning while at his gym, er--sports club. He saw a woman apply that idiotic phrase to an infant in a swimming pool, held tightly by the creature's father, who had just completed the arduous task of throwing a rattle about a foot away upon instruction. It seems to be almost universally applied to any child who has performed any task whatsoever without breaking anything or making a mess. Perhaps this is part of the reason why we have a generation of young adults, having been told 'Good Job!' their entire short lives, believe as a result they are the most brilliant creature in Creation, and deserve to start any employment at the level of, at least, executive vice-president.

More irritating phrases from idiots

Ned's friend and associate Misterjimmy has from time to time taken Ned to task for a seeming inattention to the many annoying phrases that have crept like caterpillars into our speech. Ned has experienced two such phrases, one hallowed and one new, and is moved to rise from his rum-induced torpor and rage, rage against them. The old one is "bragging rights." Ned has no idea where this annoying and even idiotic phrase arose, but asks his many friends to avoid its use whenever possible, especially within Ned's hearing. Indeed, as Ned is convinced by his attention to Holy Writ that bragging is a minor no-no, he encourages all who aspire to a Reward in the Afterlife to avoid the phrase for that reason as well.
The second, and to Ned's experience, new source of irritation is the many variants on the phrase "pushback", apparently referring to the response of an unoffending person to aggressive and untoward behavior on the part of another, or something similar. The variant that Ned finds particularly annoying is "give push back", meaning a response to inappropriate behavior.
From this latter phrase one can move on to others in which one word has been found to be insufficient to describe a phenomenon, and must be replaced by two or more, thus lengthening the talker's or writer's hold on the listener or reader. Ned would offer as an example, "brave troops" for the old word "troops" which to Ned seemed complete and appropriate. One could also recall the old chestnut "all new", for "new", which always seemed sufficient to Ned.
And, "me, myself, personally" comes to mind as particularly egregious.
Ned invites his readers to offer their own examples, and may, with Q A Wagstaff, FRS, devise an Award for the Most Outrageous and Offending Useless Phrase, should public interest require it.

Signing off on

Ned sometimes wonders what is happening to American English. The 300,000 or so words of the language seem sometimes to serve only to confuse and muddle most topics to which they are applied, or perhaps that is because most Americans' vocabularies are closer to 300 words (mostly monosyllable) than 300,000. However, what is angering Ned is not the poor vocabularies of Americans, lamentable as that is, nor even the increasing punctuation of what passes for conversation with "like" and "unh" and "you know", all of which simply serve as space fillers to be used when someone's desire to talk exceeds their ability to think.
No, Ned is talking about the advertiziation of speech--the tendency of our quotidian conversation to sound more and more like an ad for crotch-itch medication or the latest acne cream. This tendency has even taken over the pages of the nation's most staid organs of record, including the New York Times.
Ned is referring to such cringe-inducing complex words like "signed off on", which is perhaps the poster child of the entire dumbing-down vocabulary movement. Note the negation of the complex "off on", so the entire phrase simply means
"signed." Now, Ned's more perceptive readers will ask, why say "signed off on" when you can say "signed?" Since Ned cannot find a logical reason that would not be disrespectful to users of this abhorrent phrase, he will leave the analysis of motive to his readers. Ned will content himself with admonishing anyone using this term in his presence.
But there are many more: Ned would point out such annoying uses as "scrambling", for any activity when the perpetrators are trying to do more than chew gum and walk at the same time: to wit, "BP was scrambling to address government demands that it provide documentation of blah blah blah."
Another phrase which annoys Ned is "all new", which has become de rigeur ever since use of "new" has been applied to every product available, except for those that are "new and improved", an interesting if oxymoronic combination.
Ned also finds the use of such sanctimoniously hypocritical complex words as "brave troops" where in the past "troops" would have sufficed. Now, every mention of servicepersons must have the obligatory "brave" in front of it, even if the persons in question were paper pushers in some supply outfit. Such use, annoying as it is, has arisen Ned feels because this country no longer has a draft, and is thus seemingly content to have the children of poor and minority persons turned into cannon fodder for the amusement of presidents from Carter to Obama, most egregiously to settle scores by George Bush, whose explanation for the Iraq invasion and occupation included "(Saddam) tried to kill my dad."
But the debasement of the language has started more and more to include terms that would have made George Orwell proud. Whence the conversion of "War Department" into "Defense Department" in 1947. Since then we have fought no defensive wars, but that makes the name change even more lip-smacking good in its hypocrisy.
Lastly, let's see how the debasement of the language and the abandonment of any attempt to analyze complex issues to Ned's newest bete noire, the Gulf of Mexico oil blowout. Most stories use the phrase "up to" or "as much as" to describe the amount of oil entering the Gulf. This is standard misleading advertising fare, whence the use of "as much as 90% OFF!", when the actual discount if any is probably closer to 10%. Or the use of "starting at $99!" for a price range that may have one item at that price with the rest at hundreds more. Ned would argue it's one thing when advertisers do it since most of us know their job is to mislead, but when the users are NBC News and the New York Times, we are all in trouble.