Phraseological Fun

I have an ongoing series of blog posts entitled "As They Say in Zanzibar," quoting interesting and odd sayings from around the world. Similarly, this post is the second in this series and it explains the origins of common terms and phrases.

Bull Pen
Why is the spot where a pitcher warms up called a "bull pen"?
The term comes from the fact that in newspaper reporting a pitcher whose delivery is hit hard is said to have been "slaughtered." This led to comparing pitchers with bulls and the game with a bull fight. When one pitcher was hit out of the box and another sent it, the reporters wrote "another bull was led to the slaughter." At a bull fight, there is a "bull pen" close to the arena where the bulls are kept, waiting their turn. Thus, the place where the relief pitcher warms up, waiting to be called, is named the "bull pen."

Crocodile Tears
How did false emotion get the name "crocodile tears"?
The expression comes from what was once believed to be a fanciful tale of ancient travelers who said that the crocodile weeps over those he eats - and isn't sorry at all. But a crocodile does cry as it eats. For when a crocodile's mouth is full of food, the food presses at the top of the mouth and this releases tears from the lachrymal glands.

Funny-Bone
What is the reason the spot at our elbow is called a "funny-bone"?
It's a pun. This spot not only give us a "funny feeling when we hit it; it's also located at the enlarged end of the bone known to medical science as the "humerus."

Minister
How did a "minister" come to be called that?
The word literally refers to an "inferior person" or "servant." The original idea was that a minister was supposed to serve the parishioners. This idea has not yet completely disappeared.

Quiz
How did "quiz" come into the English language?
Because of a bet. A man named Daly, who was manager of the Dublin Theatre, made a bet that he would introduce into the Enlgish language within twenty-four hours a new word that had no meaning. Accordingly, on every wall in Dublin and every other place accessible, Daly had chalked up the four mystic letters Q-U-I-Z. That day all Dublin was inquiring what they meant, the people saying to each other: "Quiz? Quiz? What does that mean?" Daly won his bet - and the word has remained in our language to this day. It is quite probable, however, that his choice of letters - or at least, the continued popularity of the term - was influenced by the similarity in sound and meaning to the word "inquisition."

Tip
What is the reason we call a gratuity a "tip"?
Years ago in English inns and taverns it was customary for the patrons to drop a coin for the benefit of the waiters into a box placed on the wall. On the box was a little sign which said: "To insure promptness." Later, just the initials of the phrase were put on the box - T.I.P.

Source: "Why Do We Say It?" Published by Castle Books, no author listed.

Pushed Around

Most people get pushed around at some point. Eventually, you're ordered to do something that you really don't want to do. Such is life.

Maybe we're at work and we're given the duty of cleaning bathrooms - or worse yet, answering the phone. We have a boss or manager to whom we answer. We might have a little wiggle room but in the end, the boss is the boss. What they say goes.

Maybe we're at church and we get burned by a pastor. It happens to almost every church member somewhere along the way. A little misunderstanding here, a smudged reputation there, a disagreement over some issue et voila, we're removed from leadership or we're reprimanded. You don't have to volunteer for too long before you realize that everyone has someone to answer to.

Everywhere we go, there's a hierarchy in life. Even in some homes, the father's word is law and if the kids get out of line too often, it's gonna get messy. Volunteer at a soup kitchen and you quickly learn your place in the pecking order. Hang out with a random group of friends and try to decide which movie to see, and we'll see who is the most influential person.

So how do we respond to these situations? There are a few options...

We accept it. It doesn't matter if that's because we're faithful and obediant or because we're powerless and fearful. Either way, we accede and give up control. We support the very people that tell us what to do and we thank them for it. Maybe we're just stuck in a job because we need the steady paycheque, or maybe we're true believers and we think that this is how things are supposed to be. We love it or we live with it.

We move on. We refuse to accept this hierarchy, whether it's justifiable or not. We get angry with our pastor for what he did, or we become increasingly frustrated with our boss. Maybe we're attracted to another church that seems to suit us better, or maybe another attractive job comes along. Either way, we're easily pursuaded to pack up and go. Sometimes this response works out well for us and sometimes we learn that the grass isn't any greener elsewhere. It's just funny how we always end answering to someone else, and we're simply hoping that we like what we're told to do.

Those are two most common options. I don't think that really makes a major difference in our lives, though. The overall pattern is established and we support it. We want someone in charge, we want a strong leader, we want a great boss. We expect it. I suggest that there is one other option, though...

We change the rules. In our careers, we take the chance and become an entrepreneur. In our spiritual lives, we decide to focus on relationships and place the strict requirements of church as a secondary priority. In our families, we decide to build our relationships on something other than the parent-child hierarchy and we look for real one-on-one friendship and respect.

I've shown three main options and in each of these cases, we can do them well or we can do them poorly. On the negative side, we can cower and give up, we can rebel and fight, or we can run and escape. We can be passively aggressive or actively aggressive. On the positive side, we can be humble and submit, or obey and honour, or we can leave with tears and and farewells. The motivations of our hearts can colour any of these choices in black or white.

I'm simply suggesting that this pattern of power, this greater-lesser dynamic, this hierarchy of obediance, does not have to be a fact of life. There are ways to be employed, to be a church member, to live in your parents' home, without making us all fit into little boxes of rules and roles. We can be employed as equals, we can work together as a church family, we can make our parents into our friends.

Such is life? It doesn't have to be that way...

Emperor Of These United States

Joshua Abraham Norton was a fascinating man. He lived from 1819 until 1880, spending his latter years living in San Francisco. An immigrant from South Africa, he became a successful businessman but he lost his entire fortune on a rice deal gone wrong and he became quite insane - or perhaps just weird, depending on your point of view.

He formally declared himself to be "Emperor of these United States." His local neighbours liked to humour him and play along, and gradually he became famous within the city for his eccentricities and kind heart. Tourists would visit just to meet him. As for his income, he often traded official certificates with his country's currency for regular American money, and eventually many of the local establishments treated these papers as legal tender. He would publish official edicts in the local newspapers, decreeing that a bridge be built across the bay and that U.S. Congress be dissolved.

At one point, the local police arrested him with the intent of forcibly admitting him to an insane asylum. However, he was so beloved by this time that there was a public outcry against this action, with many editorials defending him. As a result, this self-styled monarch was released with a formal apology which stated "that he had shed no blood; robbed no one; and despoiled no country; which is more than can be said of his fellows in that line." From then on, the local constabulary made a point of saluting whenever they came across him.

Upon his death, a local businessman's club funded a dignified funeral. Thirty thousand people lined the streets to pay their respects to this once-and-only Emperor of these United States.

Source: Wikipedia. I learned of this real man because of a story in the Sandman comic series by Neil Gaiman entitled "Three Septembers and a January."

GroupThink

I was sitting in church this past weekend and the service was emphasizing a recent initiative for church members to become more active in our communities. Soup kitchens, single moms, people with disabilities, a whole stream of things. Since it started in the fall, this initiative seems to have been wildly successful. It's really helped a lot of people become aware of various groups and needs in our city, and it has encouraged many people to step out of their comfort zone and reach out to people in personal, tangible ways. (For more info, check the Engage website.)

Four people gave their testimonies about their recent experiences. Two of them, in particular, contrasted quite a bit. One of them was from a middle-aged guy that was impacted by the book God In The Alley, which he read two years ago. Ever since then, he has been making an effort to learn about homelessness and other issues and step out to contact and help these people personally. He was already doing things like helping at the soup kitchen and he thought this new church intiative simply helped him learn and grow more in this area.

The other person was a leader of a women's group and she helped organize all of the mothers into one united team. For the entire fall season, they were able to supply necessities like twice-weekly meals for mothers with cancer, and socks and underwear for the men's shelter. They started this stuff based on the official guidebook that the church supplied but they expanded beyond it to start helping single mothers that they just knew personally. During her talk, she mentioned how little time mother of several children have and how effective this program was in harnessing what few resources this group had.

She also said something else: If often feels like we can't make a real difference by ourselves. Like, providing a meal a couple of times for someone has only limited value, but supplying two meals a week for three and a half months can really do something.

It's a subtle state of mind that creeps in, I think. As Christians, or as employees, or as people that just want to do some good, we feel like we're so limited. We feel powerless or restricted or ineffective and we often opt for apathy instead of change. Or worse yet, we opt to defend this system that created these feelings of uselessness in the first place and we won't rock the boat.

We like to think that we need a strong leader to direct the charge. Or we wait for someone to enlist us into some bigger group. Or we move to another church or business and hope that things will be better there. We come to accept the idea that we're just one little, busy person and there's only so much that we can do...

I suggest that we can have a great amount of influence even by ourselves. We can effect real change at work and at church and in our homes. We can have dramatic impacts on the lives of our friends, and we can find new friends and new needs anywhere.

If we choose to let the group define us, we can only do as much as the group allows. Sometimes we need to be willing to break through those walls a bit and challenge ourselves and the rules. We make a mistake when we assume that the group is more important that the individual, and especially when we support one at the cost of the other.

Yadda Yadda: I happen to like this church initiative and it seems to have been remarkably effective, well beyond the pattern of normal church programs. It's a great and useful tool, and being part of a larger group is also good. I'm just saying that we often give ourselves licence to be limited, rather than challenging ourselves to grow and change. And if that means going solo for a bit then so be it...

Top Ten Movies of 2007

At the end of each year, I like to pull together my personal Top 10 list of movies. This list only accounts for movies that were officially released in 2007, and I did managed to see all but two of the Top 20 this year. I only considered the movies that I actually saw, which was about fifty of them, so there may be a few good movies that I missed...

[10] Fracture (Link)
I expected a tight drama with plenty of head-to-head scenes between Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, and I got it. I've been a fan of Gosling since Breaker High and I think that he's a great actor that can more than hold his own. Nothing like an old-school locked-room murder mystery with some court-room twists and turns to mix things up.

[9] Sicko (Link)
In Michael Moore's latest rant, he focuses on the pathetic health care system in the United States. He runs through Canada, then England, then France and progressively compares each of them. (Yes, I'm jealous of France's full-service system and England's cheapo drug costs.) Moore intentionally takes himself out of the central lens and lets the stories of others take centre stage. Anyone burned by Canada's health care system won't care for the lofty compliments he offers for our system but it's still infinitely better than that of the USA. And you've got to hand it to a documentary that can keep us entertained, eh?

[8] Across The Universe (Link)
This is a little-seen musical that incorporates Beatle's songs with a storyline centred around the Vietnam War. The songs are sung well and are meaningful to the story, and it made me appreciate the Beatles all the more. Beautiful.

[7] Stardust (Link)
Take The Princess Bride, add much improved special effects instead of muppets, take away the quotability factor, and you have Stardust. I actually watched Bride again shortly afterwards and the characters in that movie are definitely much more likeable and memorable, especially since Claire Dane's character in Stardust is a whiny brat and the hero is a naive idiot. However, it has the same sort of sensibility, the fantastical premise and setting, and the same amusing sense of humour.

[6] The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Link)
I saw this shortly after watching 3:10 to Yuma, which was the (only) other major Western of the year. Yuma had the benefit of two great actors and a lot more action but I opted to put this Brad Pitt flick in my list instead. It's based on the real events of Jesse James' life, which I find fascinating. The final "confrontation" between Jesse and Robert Ford still sticks out in my mind months after I saw it, and the final commentary on modern celebrity is downright brutal.

[5] The Bourne Ultimatum (Link)
The best action movie of the summer, so says me. (Only bested by 300 in September.) Up until this was released, I thought that the fourth Die Hard movie held that title. It encapsulates parts of the previous two movies in the Bourne trilogy, which is certainly a unique approach, but taken by itself it actually ends up as the best of the three.

[4] American Gangster (Link)
Based on the true story of the rise of a black mob boss, this pits Denzel Washington against Russell Crowe. What more do you even need to know? From the outset, it makes it clear that Denzel is a bad, bad man. And yet, he cherishes self-discipline and family in a way that Crowe's cop character can't live out in his own life. It's a great dynamic and while the ending kind of fizzles, it's still a great dramatic movie.

[3] The Transformers (Link)
As a life-long fan of the original Saturday morning cartoon and the comics, this was my most anticipated movie of the year. (My favourite comic has them teaming up with Spider-Man.) This had the original narrator from the cartoon movie, a few bursts of the original sound effects, and even some classic lines from the cartoon. ("Once again, Starscream, you have failed me.") The fact that they had product placements everywhere and all of the vehicles were from GM didn't detract too much, though John Turtorro's silly role was insipid. Some people derided the focus on the human characters but I thought that gave the audience someone to root for and it fit well with the Tranformers philosophy. All in all, I was definitely that annoying audience geek that cheered and clapped all over the place.

[2] Dan In Real Life (Link)
After all of the big blockbusters of the summer and fall, I'm surprised that this small flick rated so highly for me. I saw this mostly because my sister wanted to see it so badly, but it's also the type of character-driven pic that I have always appreciated. Steve Carell is a bundle of supressed nerves and pain, and the family angst and paternal relations strike a real chord. And I have really enjoyed Dane Cook's work this year, both here as the main brotherly foil for Steve's character, and in Mr. Brooks earlier this year.

[1] 300 (Link)
I liked the original graphic novel and I loved the movie. I like that it relates to real history, even if the facts are askew. Each small battle, with the increasingly crazy setups, was a pleasure to cheer. Frank Miller's unique comic perspective was translated perfectly. Best movie of the year, be it action or otherwise.

Honourable Mentions:
Children Of Men
Ratatouille
I Am Legend
Beowulf
Amazing Grace

My Previous Top 10 Lists: 2004, 2005 & 2006
Reference: Top Grossing Movies of 2007