Words Are Funny

I've long had a fascination with words. It's a personality trait I can trace back to when I was young, specifically after having watched an old Gallagher sketch. Yes, the comedian who's most famous for smashing perfectly good watermelons and various other forms of produce with a giant mallet. He, rather eloquently (he has a degree in chemical engineering, believe it or not), discussed the oddities of the English language and how baffling the variances in annunciation of similarly spelled words can be. Comb, tomb, and bomb, for example - even words as simple as do and go are totally different in terms of phonetics. When you boil it down, the fact of the matter is that the English language is just plain weird but so too are the kinds of words we use to express ourselves and the connotations society applies to them.

The concept of curse words and vulgarities amuses me. You know the words I'm talking about - the ones that TV censors have conniption fits over. Who came up with these words to begin with? Was it their purpose to make something obscene, and if it wasn't who decided these words were "cursed"? Why is it that we try to keep children from hearing these words altogether instead of  telling them about the importance of recognizing conversational context?

Case in point, lets take a look at three words (PARENTAL ADVISORY - salty language ahead!) we use as slang for feces: Poop, crap, and shit. Why were these words developed? I have no idea, I can only assume feces was too proper; rebellion seems to be as good a motivator as any when it comes to this sort of thing. Poop is definitely the least demonized of those in terms of its societal impact. It's a word that is welcome around children. It has a jovial, comedic sense to it. You can say poop in front of your Grandma and she'll probably laugh at how silly you are. Crap steps things up a notch. Suddenly we've moved away from using a word that's just interchangeable with feces to one that can imply the conditions of a given scenario. "How'd this dog crap get on my shoe?" and "Crap, I forgot my homework!" are both justifiable uses of the word. From an audible standpoint, crap sounds bad. If you use crap while talking to your Mom, she might start to wonder about the kind of people you're hanging out with. The worst one of all when it comes to fecal slang is shit. When I was a kid, being caught saying that within earshot of a teacher would earn you a date with the paddle which is ironic because some of those teachers would literally beat the shit out of you. That made for a shitty day, needless to say.

I'd love to know how shit came to exist, as a word I mean. I'm up to speed on bodily functions; I took a biology class in college after all. I imagine two chaps from merry old England, drunk and on their way home from the pub, when one of them trips and falls into a pile of horse manure (which is entirely plausible because they didn't have cars back then, you know), and the rest is history. I imagine all the other vulgarities common to our culture have similar stories behind them. That's the sort of thing that needs to be documented, in my mind, if for no other reason than shits and giggles.

From a Biblical standpoint (talk about changing gears - this is a bit like going from reverse to third without so much as braking), there are plenty of passages which convey a message that moral individuals and Christ-followers should abstain from using such language. (I know most folks are their own moral compass these days but in the realm of humanity, the Bible is the foundation of this world's sense of morality and it bears including in this discussion.) In Ephesians 5:4, the apostle Paul writes "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking..." That's about as straightforward as could be, in my opinion. However, it begs the question: What defines an element of language as being filthy, foolish or crude? I don't know who gets to make that decision, quite frankly, but I think it's fair to say that they've had their hands full over the years. One thing us humans seem to be exceedingly skilled at is coming up with new ways of defiling ourselves, be it through actions, opinions or anything in between.

This blog entry isn't just about why foul language is foul, it's about how seemingly random words come to prominence as part of our everyday vernacular. Here are two words which I've noticed have gotten a lot of usage lately.

Premiere - By definition, premiere refers to the first artistic performance of theatrical, musical or other cultural presentations. "There's a movie premiere tomorrow", "Lion King is premiering on Broadway next week", and "Metallica will premiere their new album later this year" are all valid uses of the word.

Be that as it may, premiere has taken on the connotation of representing the quality of a product or service. When used in that context, premiere isn't an indication of a debut so much as it is a marketing tool to say "We're awesome!" Case in point, last year there were billboard ads around our neck of the woods for a local bank touting their loan department and two employees making up said division both of whom were pictured on the billboards, dressed nicely and standing in front of a topiary. "Orangeburg's Premiere Lenders", the sign read, an obvious effort at promoting the quality of work they are capable of producing. This was particularly amusing to me because the paperwork for our mortgage was handled by this same bank and we had worked with one of the individuals pictured on the ad. We had to come into the bank 4 times to sign off on affidavits regarding corrections because that "premiere lender" botched the paperwork.

Premium - The only usage of this word people see for the most part is premium-grade gasoline but it's not a consistent product descriptor with the petroleum industry anymore seeing as how various vendors may tag that same octane as "super" or "plus". It all depends on whether you're gassing up at a BP, Exxon, or what have you.

McDonald's uses "premium" in a lot of their advertising, but they've gone so far as to copyright the term for what's known as the McDonald's Premium line. (Seriously, this is the kind of thing you learn by doing research for your blog.) Any time they feel like they've put together an especially worthwhile sandwich or beverage, they're likely to tag it with the "Premium" prefix, as is the case with the new Premium McWraps. Is the food worthy of being called premium? I couldn't tell you because I haven't eaten anything other than a sausage biscuit from there in years. I guess the Premium line is too good for my beloved sausage, egg & cheese.

What I get such a kick out of with words like this (as well as words like best, greatest, etc.) is that they are ultimately gimmicks - shiny titles emblazoned with neon and pretty lights, used in absolutely unquantifiable statements. There's no way of measuring what they're promoting as having been measured, in other words. It's one of the cheapest methods of promotion imaginable and it's a little offensive to me. Why? Because it's advertising that assumes the audience isn't smart enough to make a logical conclusion on their own. That's the way of all media and state-sponsored education, though. "Now you be a good little consumer - trust us and go buy what we tell you to!", they seem to say.

This is a discussion, like a lot of observations I make, which isn't going to make any kind of a difference to the world. It's really just about me taking the time to point out something that strikes me as being too absurd not to talk about. I know other people see the sort of things that I recognize but I guess I've spent so much time in my life looking for ulterior motives that reading between the lines of something like words, their usage, and meanings only comes natural. I'd hope at the very least that if you're reading this you'd question what's going on the next time you see a word that looks out of place or like it's being taken advantage of in how it's being manipulated. Words can't protect themselves, after all, so someone needs to look out for them.

When did using the word "wrestling" become a no-no to the WRESTLING business?

It was announced last week on World Wrestling Entertainment's TV programming that comedian Drew Carey would be inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame as part of the 2011 class of honorees to be presented during the festivities surrounding WrestleMania 27.  I know what you're probably thinking, "Wrestling?  What the hell does Drew Carey have to do with wrestling?"  In 2001, Carey was invited to take part in the Royal Rumble, an annual, live wrestling event held by World Wrestling Entertainment and broadcast to the rest of the globe via pay-per-view wherein as many as 40 wrestlers wrestle to become the last wrestler standing inside the wrestling ring.  Carey is being inducted into World Wrestling Entertainment's Hall of Fame because he was the first-ever celebrity entrant in the Royal Rumble wrestling match.

Not a "professional wrestling" event.

In case you weren't counting, I used the word "wrestling" (or some derivative thereof) 13 times in my opening paragraph.  I did so because of the fact that "wrestling" is apparently now a cursed word as it pertains to World Wrestling Entertainment.

Over the weekend, Chuck Ross - a managing director of TVWeek.com - published a piece relating how Kellie Baldyga, a publicist from WWE, had contacted him with demands to remove an article TV Week had put out about Carey's induction into the Hall of Fame (read Ross' full commentary here).  The article was titled "Drew Carey Inducted Into Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame. Huh? Drew Carey??!!"  In his recounting of the matter, Ross details a conversation he had with WWE's publicist; what follows are direct quotes from his write-up.

Ross: Your release says that Carey is being recognized as being an entrant in the 2001 Royal Rumble. I believe that was a wrestling event.

Baldyga: No, we don't do wrestling events. They're entertainments. And we don’t call them wrestlers. They’re superstars and divas.

Ross: Kellie, I really don't have time for this. WWE presents wrestling events. I'm not going to change the headline or anything in the item. If you'd like, I'll just remove it.

Baldyga: Huh? What?

Ross: Kellie, I don't have time for this. What do you want me to do?

Baldyga: Remove it.

Its been common knowledge to people who have followed the wrestling business in the United States for at least the past decade that the powers that be within World Wrestling Entertainment (read, Vince McMahon) have mobilized an effort for the company to broaden its horizons beyond just wrestling.  Movies, music, books, magazines, even a professional football league to rival the NFL - WWE has definitely tried to break the mold of their business model as it related exclusively to wrestling in order to create a much more diverse entity.  Most of these efforts have been met with mild success at best (the most glaring failure being the XFL, which I honestly thought was a decent idea in concept), meanwhile the wrestling-end of the company has thrived all along.  Why then would they want to make an apparent move away from what has been their bread & butter product, a product that they now govern over in a totalitarian methodology thanks to having consumed their primary competition years ago?

Money, of course.

Most states have licensing requirements imposed by an official government body such as the state athletic commission or division of labor, licensing, and regulation when it comes to sports like boxing and mixed martial arts.  These licenses are effective in that they insure athletes involved are healthy enough to compete. (Be that as it may, the licenses guarantee nothing in the way of a competitor's training or aptitude when it comes to their given combat art.) Stiff fines and other penalties can be dolled out if a person is found to be involved with a promotion but is not licensed.  Professional wrestling is generally recognized with similar requirements, however, some states don't mandate such things when it comes to wrestling.  Given that wrestling promoters are already required to go through the processes of obtaining a range of permits for their events, it stands to reason that they might want to avoid further expenses incurred by inadvertently (or purposefully) employing talent who do not have their licenses in order.

Another aspect to this argument is the fact that WWE classifies their talent as independent contractors and not employees of the company.  In doing so, WWE gets out of having to provide benefits to their wrestlers.  This is something that affects aging talent who have amassed years worth of injuries and who may not be able to afford the cost of treatment.  WWE does cover the cost of surgeries or procedures required as a result of injuries suffered by talent while they are under contract; likewise, they offer a wellness program for talent with substance abuse issues.  Be that as it may, many feel that WWE does just enough to get by when they could be doing much more to improve the lives of the men and women who have made the company into a billion dollar, publicly traded company.

Consider the quotes I referenced and how the publicist from WWE made a thorough effort to correct the reporter's every usage of the word "wrestling" in relation to the company.  "We're not a wrestling company, we're a global media company...They're not wrestlers, they're superstars and divas...We don't promote wrestling matches, we promote entertainments."  I'm trying to give this policy an ounce of credibility but that last bit is pushing it.  "Entertainments"?  I would've loved to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting in which that decision was made.

Truth be told, there's so little actual wrestling involved with WWE programming these days that I'm almost in agreement with the idea that WWE talent shouldn't be referred to as "wrestlers". (This is why if I'm going to attend a WWE event I prefer the non-televised events as they don't waste time with interviews, promos, replays, or what have you.) Sure there are televised matches but they typically run less than 10 minutes a pop - for example, on the March 14, 2011 edition of WWE's Monday Night Raw program (which has a running time of 2 hours) the average match length was just slightly greater than 3 minutes (the numbers don't lie).  Lou Thesz was a wrestler.  Arn Anderson was a wrestler.  Ric Flair was a wrestler.  Steve Austin was a wrestler.  What they did throughout their careers was vastly different than what the "superstars" of today are responsible for.

I'm curious as to whether or not McMahon & Co. believe that their legal team might be savy enough to actually convince a judge that their talent aren't wrestlers but rather entertainers, and that they aren't promoting athletic events at all but instead something more akin to a play, thereby skirting all matters relating to permitting and licenses.  It's semantics but it's a decent argument, and what's the harm in them trying?  I'd actually like to see it played out in court if only to learn about how sternly it gets shot down because the judge assigned to the litigation was a huge Blackjack Mulligan fan and refuses to let these tools ruin the professional wrestling business any more than they already have.

Quite a few people in and around the wrestling industry have said over the years that if Vince McMahon, Sr. knew what his son was going to do with the company he started way back when he'd have probably sold it to someone else.  As much as I am a fan of wrestling in general (WWE included), I have to admit that my frustration with the WWE product is at an all-time high.  I miss tag team wrestling.  I miss the days when a world title had meaning and didn't look like a hubcap.  I miss hard-nosed competitors who didn't have to have any reasoning for wanting to best their opponent beyond the fact that they just plain wanted to beat the snot out of them and anyone else who got in their way.  I guess it's a good thing, then, that a big part of WWE's business model is the sale of retrospective DVDs with content from bygone eras.  It seems like the only way I'll get to see the types of wrestling that I have grown to love is to look at items from the past, as if staring upon them from a display in a museum.

I like museums.