Groendyke

Groendyke


Try to sound this out:

 . . . "Grow-"
 . . . "Growin'-"
 . . . "Growin' Dyke"

Is that it?  Sounds right to me!  The word sounds like a butch lesbian that's getting bigger.

I see one of these trucks almost every time I stop for gas at QT and I snicker every time I see it.  (I know, it's childish.)  Part of me feels a little bit bad for making fun of someone's name, but . . . I'd probably make fun of my own name, too, if there were any potential.

Any other unfortunate names you can think of that you see used in businesses?

New Starbucks Logo

New Starbucks Logo


For its 40th birthday, Starbucks revealed that it will be changing its ubiquitous logo:

I worked for Starbucks for about 3 of those 40 years, so for what it's worth, I approve.  I like where this is going.  (Although, I also have to say.  I'm glad they made the freaky double mermaid less obvious but I personally think they should add the . . . um . . . lady parts back in.  Now the hair's in the way.  Just kidding.  Kind of.)

So my random mind got to thinking: what if when we all turned 40, we could change our logos, our names?  What would you change your name to?  Something famous?  Something obscure?  How about Ronald McDonald?  William Clinton?  How about Bree Van De Camp?  Coco Chanel?

Or would you have more of a sense of humor and change your "logo" to something like Richard Banger or Jenny Tull.  Just curious...

Juke

Juke

I have to start this out by saying that out of all of my blog posts to date, only about two or three ideas weren’t originally my own observation.  My lovely fiancé pointed those out to me.  Well, without knowing (and not having asked) if she would want to be specifically mentioned on Dry Humor Daily, I have simply beaten around the bush in those instances, carefully avoiding pointing out the inspiration as my own.  Anyway, she brought it to my attention last week and so now, whenever she inspires me, I promise to diligently deliver her due drollery distinction.  Thanks, baby!  (I know for a fact she gave me the ideas for both On the Bubble and Wet Roads.  I don't recall which others, if any.)

So we were watching something on TV, I don’t remember what, and a commercial played for a new car from Nissan.  It is . . . for lack of a better word . . . unattractive.  I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but, my eyes are telling me “ugly.”  Mandalyn (that’s her name, by the way) clearly felt the same way.

The commercial goes on and on telling you all about the new car, but doesn’t mention the name until the very end, “the all-new, Nissan Juke!” 

Mandalyn turned to me and said, “so is it a joke or a puke?  I can’t tell!  That thing is ugly!”

I said, “I couldn’t agree more!”  (Yes, we speak in exclamation.)  It was true.  I conjured up the same exact question in my head.  Not only is “Juke” a stupid name for a car, it’s ugly.  If you’re going to make an ugly car, don’t give it an ugly name.  And don’t try to make it look cool.  It’s not going to work.  The headlights look like they are smeared on the hood, the front of the Juke is way bigger than the back, and the doors open like a side by side refrigerator/freezer. 

Sorry, Nissan.  I think you missed the mark on this one. (What’s that, Nissan?  You wanted to capture the essence of a once-emo-but-now-college-graduate-wanting-to-personify-long-contained-but-never-outwardly-expressed-feelings-of-parental-rebellion-and-false-sense-of-longing-for-individuality-in-the-form-of-blending-twenty-first-century-artistic-flair-with-a-bit-of-foreign-vehicular-prowess-which-can-seat-four?  Oh. . .  Then, nice work.)

Seven Whys

Seven Whys

Kate, from I Dream Loudly, ceremoniously chose me to continue a trend of bloggers making lists of seven things.  (Thank you, Kate.)  No rules, just a list of seven things.  It’s something new for me.  I’ll take a crack at it!

So I thought, why not “whys?”  After all, it’s a good opportunity to use the word “whys” multiple times in the same post.  And I’m always having wandering thoughts which typically end in the same age-old question: why.  Without further ado, the following is a list of seven things I’ve just happened to be wondering about lately:

#1 Why don’t they just call polar bears “North Polar Bears?”  If you ask me, the current name is misleading.

#2 Why does the New York Times use the phrase “Best Seller?”  I mean, really, can’t there be only one book that is the best seller?  I think they should call them “Really, Really Good sellers.”

#3 Why is curiosity uniquely lethal to felines?  I don’t see a connection.

#4 Why do we still use the term “rush hour?”  Everyone knows that there is really only about one hour out of the day when you can drive freely.  3 AM.

#5 Why don’t we call laptop computers something more appropriate?  Like desktop computers.  (What?  Desktop is already taken?  Well, crap.  That was all I could think of…)

#6 Why don’t we all start calling airbags what they really are?  Gas bags.  Nitrogen is usually what inflates them, not regular ol’ air.

#7 Why are ice cubes designated as cubes?  Most of the ice I’ve ever seen is rectangularly prismatic or some other obscure polyhedron.  Or crushed.  (I know rectangularly isn’t a word, by the way.)

So there.  Straight from my brain to yours: my seven . . . things list.

Proofreading 101

Proofreading 101

Editing and proofreading isn’t always just about finding spelling errors in books and articles.  You have to check grammar, verb agreement, and verb tense consistency.  A document needs to stay true to the purpose behind writing it in the first place.  (This is why some people make a living doing it.  It’s harder than it sounds.)  Almost anything you could think of that has words should probably be proofread.  Fortunately for us, not everything is. 

Here’s something people don’t always think to review: Uniform Resource Locators.  (Uniform whaty-whats?)  URLs.  Website addresses.  (Like http://dryhumordaily.blogspot.com/).  We can even screw up something as simple as that.  Here, I’ve rounded up a few humorous examples of URL oversight.  All of these still work, by the way.  And they’re safe.

#1 www. whorepresents.com

-This is for that special someone on your Christmas list

#2 www.penisland.net  

-Probably not a good spot for a first date

#3 www.experts-exchange.com  (formerly www.expertsexchange.com)

-You don’t want just any guys off the street

#4 www.therapistfinder.com 

-Kind of like speed dating, except it’s a felony

#5 www.speedofart.com  

-It happens to the best of us

So if you’re thinking about writing something, have someone look it over.  (Especially URLs, which tend to mash words together.) A second set of eyes is always a good thing because what may sound good in your head may not come across the same to the rest of the world. 

Tuesday 7/27

Better Names 2

A couple of weeks ago, there was a post about things with mal-descriptive names followed by suggested (and slightly more accurate) ones.  The list is endless.  At the very least, it continues here:

Name Is:                                 Name Should Be:

Fruit Cake                              “Fruit” Cake

I don’t know if you realize this, but that’s not fruit in there.

Tooth Brush                           Teeth Brush

I brush more than one tooth at time.  That’s what you’re supposed to do, right?

Hot Dog                                  Mystery Tube

Hot?  Sure.  Dog?  Depends, where did you buy it?

Casserole                               Pan-amalgamate

First of all, it sounds like a “roll”.  And I’ve never eaten one in roll form.  I googled “Cass.”  That didn’t help explain it either.  (Actually, casserole is derived from the French word casse, which means “saucepan”… still doesn’t help.)

Glasses                                   Plastics

Glass glasses lenses are becoming sort of a novelty.  Plus, they can charge you more for super plastic.  Might as well call it what it is.

Restroom                                Business Room

Does anyone really find rest in the rest room?  I certainly don’t find it relaxing.  And neither the smell of ammonia nor bleach put me to sleep. 

By: S. Cole Garrett

Tuesday 7/13

Better Names

Sometimes, the names we use for things really miss the mark, don’t they?  They should invite more people to these imaginary naming conventions because I think, collectively, we could do a lot better.  Here are a few examples among the thousands upon thousands out there:

Name is:                                 Name should be:

Rubber Cement                     Rubber Glue

-There’s nothing “cement-y” about it.  It’s just rubbery.

Peanut Butter                        Peanut Spread

-Butter?  Last time I checked, peanuts don’t come from cows.

Cursive                                   Socially acceptable sloppiness

-They should stop making kids learn cursive in elementary school and just move the curriculum to med school.

Refried Beans                        Mashed beans

-They’re not even fried once.  I mean, come on…

Highlighter                             Yellow marker

-I’m just calling it how I see it.

Sport Utility Vehicle              Utility Vehicle

-Bottom line: not sporty.  Maybe they should try “Small” utility vehicle.

By: S. Cole Garrett

Tuesday 5/25

Name Game

Most of the time, we never question why things are called what they are.  We just accept it and move on.  A road is a road.  A corkboard is a board made of cork.  I don’t how the stapler got its name, but I’m willing to accept its uniqueness.  Pretty straight forward, right?  But there are plenty of things out there which have names that don’t make much sense at all.  I’ve rounded up a couple and asked one of my favorite questions: Why?

Speaker

Why are speakers called speakers?  Mine don’t speak.  (And they certainly don’t make speeches.)  It’s a real odd ball because practically every other computer component and peripheral has a logical name.  The processor, the keyboard, and the monitor are all as clear as day to me.  Even the mouse at least resembles a small vermin.  Speakers, though, missed the mark.  Maybe they should be called “sounders” or “noisies.”  (I’m not in the business of making up names.  That’s the best I could come up with.)  We’ll never outlive this one, though.  They’ve been calling them speakers since the first telephone was invented.

Hot Dog

Trying to uncover the origin of the term hot dog is like trying to find the City of Atlantis.  We’re not even sure if it’s out there, and if it is, we sure don’t know where to look.  The term ‘hot dog’ is exactly 50% easy to understand.  It’s served hot.  But the other half is a head-scratcher.  Dog?  Well, it’s not made of dog.  It doesn’t look like a dog.  It doesn’t taste like a . . . not that I would know.  Sorry, but it looks like we’re going to have to live with this one, too.  I guess you could call it a ‘frank,’ which actually does make sense, but where’s the mystery in that?

Wi-Fi

This is a new one.  Wi-Fi is a play on the term Hi-Fi from the 1950s.  That being said, Wi-Fi would stand for ‘wireless fidelity.’  Okay, okay.  Wireless: check.  Fidelity: huh?  Yeah, fidelity as in ‘strict observance of promises, duties’ or ‘conjugal faithfulness.’  Here’s the kicker: the trade group that owns the Wi-Fi brand, The Wi-Fi Alliance, can’t even agree on the term.  The alliance has used ‘wireless fidelity’ in press releases and ads, but they’ve also made a public statement saying ‘wi-fi was never meant to mean anything.’  Sounds like a bunch of finger-pointers are running around that place.  Oh well, I’ll stick with Wi-Fi.  It’s kind of catchy. 

By: S. Cole Garrett

Monday 4/5

Snail Mail

What’s worse than becoming obsolete?  Becoming obsolete and being made fun of.  The term ‘Snail Mail’ is a prime example of this.  It’s hard to say snail mail without sounding snoody about it.  Think about it.  Snail Mail.  Audio cassettes and VHS tapes should be thankful they blew over gracefully instead of becoming a joke.  So why do some things get replaced and retired respectfully and others linger in laughable limbo?

My first thought is that regular mail is controlled by the government and therefore it’s just an easier target to poke fun at (Funny thing is, the government continues to lose money on the postal service because it’s out of control.  I guess ‘control’ is relative).  I can think of other very similar examples which have no government interest.  Take CDs for example.  MP3s and MP3 players are far superior to CDs and although slowly, everyone is making the switch.  But we don’t make fun of CDs like we do mail.  So if the government isn’t the reason we make fun of mail, then what else?

Maybe it’s because the US Postal Service is unionized!  Unions are easy targets, too, with their “competitive wages,” “work standard definitions,” and “tenure.”  (Need some job security and don’t want to work as hard for it?  Join a union.)  If you think snail mail is silly, you probably don’t care for unions, either.  After considering it further though, other unionized industries aren’t humor-ized.  Railroads, as a means of transportation, are very slow, but we don’t call it Snail Rail. 

Perhaps people laugh in the face of regular mail because you actually have to pay for it.  Email is FREE, after all!  And all email costs you is a little bit of your time and the wrinkle in your brain to learn how to use it.  You can use different fonts and colors with email.  You can send an email out to many people at once!  And you don’t have to lick an email to shut it! 

Pretty much anything you do via the postal service you could just as easily do online now: pay bills, read newspapers and magazines, send letters, etc.  Only some things still need to be manually sent, but even still, there are some hungry third party shipping services out there ready to beat the USPS rate.

What it seems to boil down to is just a recipe for ridicule.  It’s not that the mail is any of the things listed above, it’s that the mail is all of them: government controlled, unionized, costly, obsolete, and so on.  All that remains is the good feeling you get when someone sends you an honest-to-goodness card or letter with an honest-to-goodness stamp on it.  Ahh, nostalgia.  It’s a great benefit for mail, but a bad business plan.

By: S. Cole Garrett

Monday

Ham

When you want to insult or compliment someone, there are of course several ways to do it.  You can use actual descriptive words (which are boring).  For example, ugly, stupid, gorgeous, or smart.  Luckily, we have extrapolations of some words so that we have more to work with, like butt-ugly, and drop-dead gorgeous.  When that’s not enough, we can use action type descriptions to more emphatically illustrate someone in a positive or negative light.  You could call someone a bottom-feeder or heaven-sent.  Well, when that creativity runs dry, you can’t go wrong with a good old animal metaphor.  One of the most versatile of earth-dwellers is an adorable, pink ungulate called the pig.

The pig (and pig products) can be used to describe someone in so many ways!  When someone is dastardly, evil, or steals something, you might say, “You dirty swine!!”  It’s hard to call someone a swine and say it without squinting your eyes at them.  It comes from deep down and relieves a lot of tension.  It’s a good insult.  It’s also very unmistakable.  If one were to be accused a swine, they know exactly why, too!  (It’s also surprisingly inoffensive.  Have you ever seen anyone taken aback by such slander?  I don’t think so.)

Have you ever heard someone called a ham?  If somebody is the life of the party or tells jokes often, you might say, “Oh, you’re such a ham!”  I’m not exactly sure where this saying comes from, but I’m fairly certain it’s complimentary.  Perhaps one who can make others laugh so hard they snort is to be called a ham.  Pigs are innately social creatures, but I’ve never known one to be funny.  Then again, I’ve never really known one, either.

Here’s another scenario.  A man and his girlfriend/wife/whatever are out eating at a restaurant.  The smoking hot waitress takes their order and strolls away, and without realizing it, the man’s eyes are glued to her glutes.  His date catches him red-handed (or red-eyed, I guess) and says, “You pig!”  (There may be an accompanying face-slap.)  A well-deserved insult, indeed!  But are pigs really that adulterous?  Only farmer Joe knows.  Good-sounding insult, bad metaphor.

The poor pig (and pig products) can be used to describe many other qualities as well: sloppiness, over-eating, money-earning, dishonesty, etc.  Use your imagination.  So I’d like to extend a warm ‘thank you’ to you, pig, for providing this end of the food chain with a wealth of insults and compliments when we need you the most!

By: S. Cole Garrett

Wednesday

Chicken

Fear is a funny thing. It’s an emotion you can get from watching a movie. It can come from being chased by a large bear (or a serial killer, you know, just whatever). Fear comes in many varieties, too. It ranges anywhere from simple caution to paranoia. It can be derived from immediate and definite threat or even non-existent threats. Phobias and anxiety are often described as fears, but they may actually be illegitimate perceptions of danger rather than real danger. Perhaps one of the stranger associations we make with fear, however, is its animal: the chicken.

We use many different animals to describe human traits and sometimes for emotions as well. One could be stubborn as a mule or as sly as a fox. For some reason, cats and chickens are deemed the expressions of fear. Why is that, exactly? Are felines more often or more intensely frightened than other animals? Are chickens really that chicken?

The truth is, not really. Chickens (mostly roosters) are just about anything but chicken. In some cases, the chicken is a much more revered animal. Ancient Greeks, for example, even thought lions to be afraid of roosters. The devil supposedly flees at the morning crow of the rooster. Roosters are subjects of the very ruthless (and very illegal) cock-fighting sport. Even in Socrates’ dying words, he supposedly asked his debt (a rooster) be repaid for him. So why the negative connotation?

Most negative emotions come from the same gland in the brain, the amygdala, and from many factors like conditioning and different levels of cognition. Animals, too, have this gland which is of course much smaller, respectively. So yes, animals can be scared. Chickens flee from threats greater than they can tackle which is to most chicken farmers, a sure sign of intelligence. But when faced with danger at or below its level a rooster will fight to the death (fearlessly, I might add). Cats behave similarly, but the term scaredy-cat or fraidy-cat has a little more ground seeing as though cats seem to be universally afraid of water.

So be more refined in your insult-flinging! Besides, there are many other endearing terms for the chronically fearful. Try wimp, wuss, pansy, crybaby, weakling, scallywag, yellow-belly, pant-soiler, fright-fleer, danger-dodger, adversity-avoider, uncontrollably-unconfident, or just plain coward. Take your pick, but leave the chickens out of it!

By: S. Cole Garrett
3/15/10