This week my column will be a compilation of tips that I’ve given in the past along with some I’ve gained more recently. I hope they will benefit you as much as they have helped me. Some of these are not “killers” because they actually might save your life but who ever heard of “lifer tips”?
Tip 1 – The next time you’re at a pharmacy pick up a bottle of child strength aspirin, 81 grain, and place it either on or in your bedside table. These little pills could save your life if you ever experience any kind of pain during the night. Of course they are supposed to be used for heart attack symptoms, but those symptoms can come in any number of ways. One characteristic common to all of them is pain in some part of your body. Taking one or two of those baby aspirin might prevent a full-scale heart attack.
Tip 2 – That same bottle of baby aspirin can also be used by anyone—especially those over age 40—to maintain a healthy body. Take one of these little pills before going to bed every night. The half life of aspirin is about 12 hours, so nightly dosage benefit is twofold: It prevents cardiac events which recent studies have shown to occur more frequently in early morning hours, and it relieves those little aches and pains we sometimes get that prevent good sleep.
Tip 3 – If you are one of the many people who fear a major banking disruption in these fragile times, you probably have a “stash” somewhere in your house to use in emergency situations. It could be quite substantial. The problem is, with the amount of B&E that is taking place there are few places where you can secure your cash and valuables where the thieves cannot get them.
There are some safes you can buy that mimic a wall socket, or a food container or some other common household gadget. However, you can make your own safe by using any empty food container in varying sizes to hide your valuables in plain sight. What thief would spend the time to search your whole pantry or your entire clothes closet? Most want to get in and out as quickly as possible, and the pros know about the sugar bowl, the freezer and the china cabinet as the most common hidey-holes. If they don’t find anything there, they give up and move on. The oatmeal container in the rear on the middle shelf isn’t likely to draw anyone’s attention, nor is the high top shoe sitting in a pair in the closet. (Those are just examples, not necessarily my choice in case anyone reading this wants to rob me)
Tip 4 – I guess we are all capable of committing the error of locking a vehicle with the keys inside. I know that the companies that provide onboard services in newer makes and models use the problem to promote their services. I have AAA membership and I’ve had to call for roadside service when I locked the key inside my car.
A friend who is a locksmith gave me a great hint: Pay a couple of dollars for a valet key-one that only opens the doors but won’t start the car—and then put that key behind your license plate with one of the license plate screws through it. A coin can be used to unscrew and retrieve the key. No more service calls and delays waiting for someone to open the car.
Tip 5 – Always keep a tool in your car that can be used to break the side window in the event you ever are in a situation where your vehicle is submerged in water. I know, it isn’t something you would voluntarily do, but many accidents end with the car in deep water. There are multi-use tools sold at auto parts stores and online, but if you can’t find one, put a heavy-duty screwdriver or a small hammer in your glove compartment. Since many cars are equipped with electric windows that won’t work underwater, this can be a lifesaver.
Those are the first five tips, and I’ll have more next week, or within a few weeks if some topic comes up that has more value between now and next Saturday.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Back to the 1930s
I know before I write this column that at least two of my grandchildren would be up in arms over it if they could read it. And I know too that it is politically incorrect. I am going to dare to make fun of modern-day icons. For that I make no apology. So here goes…
Whenever I see pictures of life in the Depression Era I am struck by the ugliness of the fashions of that age. The clothes worn by men and women are probably utilitarian, but they are just plain, well… plain. The hats are especially hideous, those of the women being only slightly more so that the male headgear.
But what absolutely makes me gag is the idiotic design of the cars. They are square and boxy and black. Didn’t they have paint colors back then? With rare exceptions all the cars looked just about alike and they all showed a lack of imagination or nonconformity.
Oh there were a few people out there who designed cool cars, but those models cost more than the average guy made in a decade. Fully 99 percent of the automobiles on the road were interchangeable and indistinguishable from all the others.
World War Two changed all of that. After the war, carmakers started putting curves and colors on their creations, and boy did they take off! By the time we reached the end of the 1950s decade, cars had huge tailfins, bullet headlights and taillights and outrageous colors.
Well, maybe they went a little too far – though many of those same cars are considered “classics” today – and the fins and such disappeared by 1961. Even so, every kid could spot and name the make and year of a car from two blocks away. Each brand was a little different from the competitor.
By 1980 there was another trend, this time back toward the “standard” design again, but at least the standard was a fairly nice looking one. Who cared that you could buy nearly any brand and model and it would look pretty much like every other one. It got a lot harder to identify make and year too. The trend persisted for the next twenty or so years.
Then styles changed again along about the turn of the century. People started thinking “green” and the age of the hybrid was born. And along with the new age came a new design. Well, it was supposed to be new, but to my way of thinking it was a throwback to the Depression Era. Square, boxy cars were all the rage, cars with names like Scion, Element, Soul to name a few.
We were supposed to be more energy conscious, but did we have to sacrifice design and good taste to achieve that goal?
Now comes the real rub… Not only did we revert to the box-like, wind-resistant shapes of 1930, other models that had heretofore been pretty neat looking took on the same boxy look as the hybrids. Perfect examples are the Ford Flex and the Dodge Caravan. It seems that Ford and Chrysler took two great looking automobiles, the Ford Excursion and the Dodge Caravan (pre-2010 model) and chopped them up to make them look like the big brothers of the Honda Element and Toyota Scion. All I can say is UGLY!
Ford even makes fun of the “box look” in one of their commercials featuring a couple that bought a new Ford Sedan. In it the man says, “We wanted to get away from ‘buying a box’ and this certainly does that.”
Oh yes, and Chrysler recently announced that it is discontinuing the Dodge Caravan in 2012. Maybe the new boxy look didn’t impress many buyers. You sure see a lot of the older models on the road.
Can you say, “streamline”? Doesn’t that imply that wind will flow past with less effect? Isn’t that why Indy cars are built so sleek and low? Doesn’t energy efficiency depend in large part on less wind resistance? I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
Please, please go back to a car that looks nice and doesn’t resemble a railroad boxcar.
Whenever I see pictures of life in the Depression Era I am struck by the ugliness of the fashions of that age. The clothes worn by men and women are probably utilitarian, but they are just plain, well… plain. The hats are especially hideous, those of the women being only slightly more so that the male headgear.
But what absolutely makes me gag is the idiotic design of the cars. They are square and boxy and black. Didn’t they have paint colors back then? With rare exceptions all the cars looked just about alike and they all showed a lack of imagination or nonconformity.
Oh there were a few people out there who designed cool cars, but those models cost more than the average guy made in a decade. Fully 99 percent of the automobiles on the road were interchangeable and indistinguishable from all the others.
World War Two changed all of that. After the war, carmakers started putting curves and colors on their creations, and boy did they take off! By the time we reached the end of the 1950s decade, cars had huge tailfins, bullet headlights and taillights and outrageous colors.
Well, maybe they went a little too far – though many of those same cars are considered “classics” today – and the fins and such disappeared by 1961. Even so, every kid could spot and name the make and year of a car from two blocks away. Each brand was a little different from the competitor.
By 1980 there was another trend, this time back toward the “standard” design again, but at least the standard was a fairly nice looking one. Who cared that you could buy nearly any brand and model and it would look pretty much like every other one. It got a lot harder to identify make and year too. The trend persisted for the next twenty or so years.
Then styles changed again along about the turn of the century. People started thinking “green” and the age of the hybrid was born. And along with the new age came a new design. Well, it was supposed to be new, but to my way of thinking it was a throwback to the Depression Era. Square, boxy cars were all the rage, cars with names like Scion, Element, Soul to name a few.
We were supposed to be more energy conscious, but did we have to sacrifice design and good taste to achieve that goal?
Now comes the real rub… Not only did we revert to the box-like, wind-resistant shapes of 1930, other models that had heretofore been pretty neat looking took on the same boxy look as the hybrids. Perfect examples are the Ford Flex and the Dodge Caravan. It seems that Ford and Chrysler took two great looking automobiles, the Ford Excursion and the Dodge Caravan (pre-2010 model) and chopped them up to make them look like the big brothers of the Honda Element and Toyota Scion. All I can say is UGLY!
Ford even makes fun of the “box look” in one of their commercials featuring a couple that bought a new Ford Sedan. In it the man says, “We wanted to get away from ‘buying a box’ and this certainly does that.”
Oh yes, and Chrysler recently announced that it is discontinuing the Dodge Caravan in 2012. Maybe the new boxy look didn’t impress many buyers. You sure see a lot of the older models on the road.
Can you say, “streamline”? Doesn’t that imply that wind will flow past with less effect? Isn’t that why Indy cars are built so sleek and low? Doesn’t energy efficiency depend in large part on less wind resistance? I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
Please, please go back to a car that looks nice and doesn’t resemble a railroad boxcar.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Ave Maria Grotto
Can you guess what this is? Don’t cheat and use your zoom function. I’ll show you later what it is and why I took the picture.
On our recent trip through northern Alabama, we visited the St. Bernard College Campus in Cullman. It is home to a wonderful display of most of the world’s great cathedrals and churches created in miniature on a hillside. They are all the work of one man, the late Brother Joseph Zoetl (1892-1961). He was a Benedictine Monk and was the caretaker of the college.
On the grounds of the college, beginning in 1912 and continuing throughout his life, Br. Joseph built replicas of many religious sites from various materials native to the area and also donated by others from around the world. He named his creation the Ave Maria Grotto. It is a National Historic Site today and a “must see” if you are ever in or near Cullman, Alabama.
In all there are over 125 miniature stone and cement structures on the hillside, and all are easily accessible for viewing from a sidewalk that winds up and down the hill.
One of the classic structures in the grotto is St. Peter’s Basilica, a perfect replica of the one in Vatican City, including St. Peter’s Square. Alongside it to the right you can also see a replica of the Coliseum.
Not all of the buildings and shrines are religious in nature. Some are whimsical, and others are historical, such as the Leaning tower of Pisa. There is also a Temple of the Fairies with Hansel and Gretel as guests and a fierce dragon in the dungeon.
The main structure is the grotto, huge cave-like shrine 27 feet high, 27 feet deep and 27 feet wide.
A scale model of Jerusalem is perhaps the most ambitious project Br. Joseph ever attempted. It has many buildings and the Herod’s Gate at the very front.
As you can see from these few pictures, there is a lot of love and work that went into the making of this manmade wonder, and people from around the world come to visit it.
Now, back to that first picture… One of the more fanciful creations of Br. Joseph is this gate, ramps and a set of parallel lines painted on the walkway near the top of the hill. I enlarged a portion of the picture so that you can see what it really is: a chipmunk crossing.
I hope you enjoyed my preview of Ave Maria Grotto, and that you will be sure to include it on your itinerary if you ever get to Cullman.
On our recent trip through northern Alabama, we visited the St. Bernard College Campus in Cullman. It is home to a wonderful display of most of the world’s great cathedrals and churches created in miniature on a hillside. They are all the work of one man, the late Brother Joseph Zoetl (1892-1961). He was a Benedictine Monk and was the caretaker of the college.
On the grounds of the college, beginning in 1912 and continuing throughout his life, Br. Joseph built replicas of many religious sites from various materials native to the area and also donated by others from around the world. He named his creation the Ave Maria Grotto. It is a National Historic Site today and a “must see” if you are ever in or near Cullman, Alabama.
In all there are over 125 miniature stone and cement structures on the hillside, and all are easily accessible for viewing from a sidewalk that winds up and down the hill.
One of the classic structures in the grotto is St. Peter’s Basilica, a perfect replica of the one in Vatican City, including St. Peter’s Square. Alongside it to the right you can also see a replica of the Coliseum.
Not all of the buildings and shrines are religious in nature. Some are whimsical, and others are historical, such as the Leaning tower of Pisa. There is also a Temple of the Fairies with Hansel and Gretel as guests and a fierce dragon in the dungeon.
The main structure is the grotto, huge cave-like shrine 27 feet high, 27 feet deep and 27 feet wide.
A scale model of Jerusalem is perhaps the most ambitious project Br. Joseph ever attempted. It has many buildings and the Herod’s Gate at the very front.
As you can see from these few pictures, there is a lot of love and work that went into the making of this manmade wonder, and people from around the world come to visit it.
Now, back to that first picture… One of the more fanciful creations of Br. Joseph is this gate, ramps and a set of parallel lines painted on the walkway near the top of the hill. I enlarged a portion of the picture so that you can see what it really is: a chipmunk crossing.
I hope you enjoyed my preview of Ave Maria Grotto, and that you will be sure to include it on your itinerary if you ever get to Cullman.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Debate Format
Thomas Sowell had a column in Townhall Daily this week that was similar to the ones I publish under the heading “Random Thoughts.” In it he placed a paragraph that hit me harder than any of the others. Here it is:
Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised "debates" among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad -- damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.
I completely agree with his sentiments, and I want to add to them. I have not watched any of the debates fully and my reasons are perfectly clear and correct.
First, of course, is that in every one of the debates – including the one hosted by Fox News – the moderators were generally hostile to the candidates. They were disrespectful in their questioning, focusing on only the candidates they wanted to challenge, not for clarity, but to emphasize the moderator’s view, which differed from the candidate’s
Second, the debate turned into a match to see who could come up with the “wittiest” line or catchphrase. Huntsman: “I thought 999 was the price of a pizza.” The object of each moderator was to get the candidates into name-calling slugfest that will later be used by the Democrats to develop their campaign ads.
Third, there is no need to watch candidate debates unless you want to vote for the one who looks the best, or speaks the best. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is, I admit, good looking and speaks well – at least with a teleprompter and pre-screened questions. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on his job performance, however.
Fourth, Giving a candidate a minute to explain or detail an idea they promote is just ridiculous. Using Herman Cain as an example, his 9-9-9 Plan cannot be adequately illustrated in a one-minute sound byte. It takes at least 10-20 minutes to address all of the pros and cons of the plan, and anything less than that gives a distorted conclusion. The same is true with any of the proposed “fixes” the candidates posit.
Fifth, there are way too many candidates up there on the stage vying for attention. Most of them don’t get a fair shake, and only the more controversial ones even get a chance to participate. Unless a candidate wants to be rude and interrupt – a sure way to get put down – they get very little microphone time.
And sixth, all the bickering and verbal jousting is counterproductive. The contenders should be outlining and detailing what they would do differently from the present failed policies to get America moving again. We’ve had a bellyful of Perry’s forced inoculation and Romney’s Obama-like healthcare for Massachusetts. I want to know what they would do to create jobs and reform Social Security and Medicare and the banking system.
I have to tell you that I’ve changed my mind on who I would like to see win the nomination several times, but it hasn’t been as a result of the debates. It has been based on in-depth studies of the candidates’ biographies and past accomplishments. I know that I’ll vote for whoever the eventual candidate is, but I sure hope we don’t have another Bob Dole or John McCain clone.
Now, if you consider this to be a political (offensive?) column, then go ahead and fire away at me for upsetting your day. But know that I would have written the same column if it were a Republican incumbent and a mob of Democrats vying for office instead of the current mob of Republicans. My topic is televised debates, which I detest, not who I think deserves your vote next November.
Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised "debates" among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad -- damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.
I completely agree with his sentiments, and I want to add to them. I have not watched any of the debates fully and my reasons are perfectly clear and correct.
First, of course, is that in every one of the debates – including the one hosted by Fox News – the moderators were generally hostile to the candidates. They were disrespectful in their questioning, focusing on only the candidates they wanted to challenge, not for clarity, but to emphasize the moderator’s view, which differed from the candidate’s
Second, the debate turned into a match to see who could come up with the “wittiest” line or catchphrase. Huntsman: “I thought 999 was the price of a pizza.” The object of each moderator was to get the candidates into name-calling slugfest that will later be used by the Democrats to develop their campaign ads.
Third, there is no need to watch candidate debates unless you want to vote for the one who looks the best, or speaks the best. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is, I admit, good looking and speaks well – at least with a teleprompter and pre-screened questions. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on his job performance, however.
Fourth, Giving a candidate a minute to explain or detail an idea they promote is just ridiculous. Using Herman Cain as an example, his 9-9-9 Plan cannot be adequately illustrated in a one-minute sound byte. It takes at least 10-20 minutes to address all of the pros and cons of the plan, and anything less than that gives a distorted conclusion. The same is true with any of the proposed “fixes” the candidates posit.
Fifth, there are way too many candidates up there on the stage vying for attention. Most of them don’t get a fair shake, and only the more controversial ones even get a chance to participate. Unless a candidate wants to be rude and interrupt – a sure way to get put down – they get very little microphone time.
And sixth, all the bickering and verbal jousting is counterproductive. The contenders should be outlining and detailing what they would do differently from the present failed policies to get America moving again. We’ve had a bellyful of Perry’s forced inoculation and Romney’s Obama-like healthcare for Massachusetts. I want to know what they would do to create jobs and reform Social Security and Medicare and the banking system.
I have to tell you that I’ve changed my mind on who I would like to see win the nomination several times, but it hasn’t been as a result of the debates. It has been based on in-depth studies of the candidates’ biographies and past accomplishments. I know that I’ll vote for whoever the eventual candidate is, but I sure hope we don’t have another Bob Dole or John McCain clone.
Now, if you consider this to be a political (offensive?) column, then go ahead and fire away at me for upsetting your day. But know that I would have written the same column if it were a Republican incumbent and a mob of Democrats vying for office instead of the current mob of Republicans. My topic is televised debates, which I detest, not who I think deserves your vote next November.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Nature’s Wrath
My wife and I were on another road trip from October 1st until the 12th. We covered a lot of territory, and were going to spend the last two days sightseeing in Northern Alabama. However, the weather wouldn’t cooperate, and it rained both days so we didn’t get to see very much.
One thing we did see that was completely unplanned was the aftermath of a tornado that had gone through the little community of Phil Campbell – believe it or not, the town is actually named “Phil Campbell” – on the way to see a place called Dismals Canyon.
As we drove along the country road I noticed that lots of the trees were either “topped” or lying on the ground, and these were pretty large trees. In fact, the scene immediately reminded me of the destruction I saw near Mount St. Helens in Washington back in 2009. The only real difference was that the trees at that site all were pointed away from the open crater of the mountain, while these tree trunks were jumbled and pointing in all directions.
As we got closer to the town we could see buildings with roofs and siding torn off, and several were being rebuilt. The Tornado went through on April 27, 2011. We even saw a house being raised by a group of Amish men and boys, a sight you wouldn’t expect to see in rural Alabama.
The path of destruction stretched for several miles on both sides of the road. It must have been one heck of a storm, though I don’t recall hearing about it. I guess the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and in Joplin, Missouri eclipsed this one in the news. It did pretty well destroy Phil Campbell though, including the school, which was minus the roof and a whole brick wall.
It was quite a sight, and it was a good thing we got to see it, because Dismals Canyon had a sign that said it is open daily from Memorial Day to Labor Day and then only on weekends in the fall and spring and closed completely in the winter months. I’m sure the closing was a direct result of the tornado, which also hit the canyon. We were there on a Tuesday, so we never got past the entrance.
If you ever get the chance, take the short detour off Route 78 (east-west) or I-65 (north- south) and go see Dismals Canyon, which is not really “dismal”, but is named for the tiny bioluminescent creatures called dismalites which light up the canyon walls at night. I know we are going to return there sometime next year.
There are other worthwhile attractions in the vicinity, which you can preview at Road Trip America in case you’re interested. It might be best to wait until the area is fully restored to do it, however.
One thing we did see that was completely unplanned was the aftermath of a tornado that had gone through the little community of Phil Campbell – believe it or not, the town is actually named “Phil Campbell” – on the way to see a place called Dismals Canyon.
As we drove along the country road I noticed that lots of the trees were either “topped” or lying on the ground, and these were pretty large trees. In fact, the scene immediately reminded me of the destruction I saw near Mount St. Helens in Washington back in 2009. The only real difference was that the trees at that site all were pointed away from the open crater of the mountain, while these tree trunks were jumbled and pointing in all directions.
As we got closer to the town we could see buildings with roofs and siding torn off, and several were being rebuilt. The Tornado went through on April 27, 2011. We even saw a house being raised by a group of Amish men and boys, a sight you wouldn’t expect to see in rural Alabama.
The path of destruction stretched for several miles on both sides of the road. It must have been one heck of a storm, though I don’t recall hearing about it. I guess the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and in Joplin, Missouri eclipsed this one in the news. It did pretty well destroy Phil Campbell though, including the school, which was minus the roof and a whole brick wall.
It was quite a sight, and it was a good thing we got to see it, because Dismals Canyon had a sign that said it is open daily from Memorial Day to Labor Day and then only on weekends in the fall and spring and closed completely in the winter months. I’m sure the closing was a direct result of the tornado, which also hit the canyon. We were there on a Tuesday, so we never got past the entrance.
If you ever get the chance, take the short detour off Route 78 (east-west) or I-65 (north- south) and go see Dismals Canyon, which is not really “dismal”, but is named for the tiny bioluminescent creatures called dismalites which light up the canyon walls at night. I know we are going to return there sometime next year.
There are other worthwhile attractions in the vicinity, which you can preview at Road Trip America in case you’re interested. It might be best to wait until the area is fully restored to do it, however.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The Whole Nine Yards
While I was watching a football game, I heard an announcer use the term “the whole nine yards.” That phrase has always held a certain mystique for me. It sounded incongruous in the context of a football game, since ten yards is the distance required to gain a first down. “The whole nine yards”’ is a yard short of the marker.
In the past three weeks since I heard that discordant expression, I have heard it used several more times, including in the title of a movie starring Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry. I even ran across it in a book I was reading. I’m fascinated by etymology anyway, so I decided to Google the term and see where it originated. Boy, was I surprised!
I’m convinced that everybody thinks they know what “the whole nine yards” means, but there are a whole host of differing opinions as to where the term originated. To save you the time and effort, I’m going to summarize them for you.
1. It refers to the amount of cloth needed to tailor a three-piece suit of the finest quality. A gentleman who wanted to get “dressed to the nines” would order “the whole nine yards” from the tailor.
2. Nine cubic yards is the capacity of a ready-mix cement truck. A big job would require “the whole nine yards.”
3. Coal trucks in England supposedly had three sections, each containing three cubic yards of coal. If an especially cold winter were forecast, the customer would order “the whole nine yards.”
4. Three-masted sailing ships had nine yardarms, the horizontal poles that held up the sails. When the captain wanted to get full advantage of the wind, he would call for “the whole nine yards.”
5. The amount of material in a bride’s wedding train could be any amount, but if she were to have the finest wedding she would require “the whole nine yards” in a bolt of material.
6. The amount of dirt removed to dig a proper grave is said to be nine cubic yards. If a person goes “the whole nine yards” he has expired. (Interesting, that one)
7. As long as we’re on the subject, a funeral shroud is also supposed to be “a whole nine yards” of material. (Hmmm!)
8. Material used to come in bolts of nine yards at the general store. Embedded in the counter were brass nails spaced three feet apart to measure the material. When someone needed only a few yards, then they “got down to brass tacks,” but otherwise they requested “the whole nine yards.”
9. The term supposedly refers to a football team that didn’t play their best game. They went “the whole nine yards” and lost.
10. It refers to the length of a belt of bullets used in fighter planes (or bombers turrets, depending on who’s version you read) during the Second World War. If the enemy plane was really hard to shoot down, the gunner was said to have used “the whole nine yards.” Alternately, if the mission was going to be a long and difficult one, the gunners requested “the whole nine yards.”
Of all these definitions, the first and the last seem to be the most popular, although none of them, including those two, is entirely accurate. And surprisingly, the term, “the whole nine yards” only came into being sometime in the late 1960’s; the first printed reference was in 1967. Surely there would have been some reference to it in all the films, books and articles written during and after WW II if it had been a common term used by aviators.
I’m afraid the term, “the whole nine yards” will remain shrouded—Oh God, another pun—in mystery. In short, there is no definitive answer as to where the term came from or who originated it. It’s no wonder it covers a multitude of situations, and usually means “went the distance.”
If anyone out there knows the true origination of the term, please feel free to write back to me and clear it up. I’ll be happy to publish an addendum.
In the past three weeks since I heard that discordant expression, I have heard it used several more times, including in the title of a movie starring Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry. I even ran across it in a book I was reading. I’m fascinated by etymology anyway, so I decided to Google the term and see where it originated. Boy, was I surprised!
I’m convinced that everybody thinks they know what “the whole nine yards” means, but there are a whole host of differing opinions as to where the term originated. To save you the time and effort, I’m going to summarize them for you.
1. It refers to the amount of cloth needed to tailor a three-piece suit of the finest quality. A gentleman who wanted to get “dressed to the nines” would order “the whole nine yards” from the tailor.
2. Nine cubic yards is the capacity of a ready-mix cement truck. A big job would require “the whole nine yards.”
3. Coal trucks in England supposedly had three sections, each containing three cubic yards of coal. If an especially cold winter were forecast, the customer would order “the whole nine yards.”
4. Three-masted sailing ships had nine yardarms, the horizontal poles that held up the sails. When the captain wanted to get full advantage of the wind, he would call for “the whole nine yards.”
5. The amount of material in a bride’s wedding train could be any amount, but if she were to have the finest wedding she would require “the whole nine yards” in a bolt of material.
6. The amount of dirt removed to dig a proper grave is said to be nine cubic yards. If a person goes “the whole nine yards” he has expired. (Interesting, that one)
7. As long as we’re on the subject, a funeral shroud is also supposed to be “a whole nine yards” of material. (Hmmm!)
8. Material used to come in bolts of nine yards at the general store. Embedded in the counter were brass nails spaced three feet apart to measure the material. When someone needed only a few yards, then they “got down to brass tacks,” but otherwise they requested “the whole nine yards.”
9. The term supposedly refers to a football team that didn’t play their best game. They went “the whole nine yards” and lost.
10. It refers to the length of a belt of bullets used in fighter planes (or bombers turrets, depending on who’s version you read) during the Second World War. If the enemy plane was really hard to shoot down, the gunner was said to have used “the whole nine yards.” Alternately, if the mission was going to be a long and difficult one, the gunners requested “the whole nine yards.”
Of all these definitions, the first and the last seem to be the most popular, although none of them, including those two, is entirely accurate. And surprisingly, the term, “the whole nine yards” only came into being sometime in the late 1960’s; the first printed reference was in 1967. Surely there would have been some reference to it in all the films, books and articles written during and after WW II if it had been a common term used by aviators.
I’m afraid the term, “the whole nine yards” will remain shrouded—Oh God, another pun—in mystery. In short, there is no definitive answer as to where the term came from or who originated it. It’s no wonder it covers a multitude of situations, and usually means “went the distance.”
If anyone out there knows the true origination of the term, please feel free to write back to me and clear it up. I’ll be happy to publish an addendum.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Random thoughts
Every once in a while I have to relate my rhetorical musings, which I like to call “brain farts.” Here are some of them for your consideration or amusement, but no answers please.
Why is an Indian or Pakistani accent funny no matter what the person is saying in English?
On the subject of language, have you also noticed that almost every good video or slide show presentation you receive via email is in a foreign language, many without English subtitles? What is that all about?
Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Why do people–some very public, like George W. Bush and Rick Perry–use the word “nucular”? There is no such word. (Look it up in the dictionary, if you can find it)
Why does just about everyone call a realtor a “realator”? That is another non-word, unless you accent the second syllable and refer to someone as “one who relates”.
How does jewelry becomes jewlery?
There are two ways to spell and use the word i-t-s. If used as a possessive pronoun, it’s its, but if it’s a combination of the two words it is… well it’s kind of self explanatory.
The words they’re, their and there are not interchangeable, but many people seem to think they are. The same is true for were, wear and where.
Did you know that there are four syllables in comfortable? Most people pronounce only three, and make it “comfterbul.”
Two other words that are used wrongly are have and of, such as. “I should of known better.” No, you should have known better.
Then and than are two more examples of confusing words. Then is a ‘time’ word, while ‘than’ is a comparative word.
Here’s a good one… Why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? Is there an antonym using the root "flammable" or "inflammable"? Perhaps "unflammable", or is it "uninflammable"? Well, there's always "fireproof".
Less refers to an indefinite amount of something, while fewer denotes a smaller numerical quantity, such as “less money” but “fewer dollars.” However, the comparative use of ‘less’ would be ‘lesser,’ as in “the lesser of two evils.”
Why is a wise guy a derogatory term for an obnoxious know-it-all who makes annoying remarks, while a wise man is a very intelligent and learned person?
Why do “Fat chance” and “slim chance” mean exactly the same thing?
That's it for this week...
Why is an Indian or Pakistani accent funny no matter what the person is saying in English?
On the subject of language, have you also noticed that almost every good video or slide show presentation you receive via email is in a foreign language, many without English subtitles? What is that all about?
Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Why do people–some very public, like George W. Bush and Rick Perry–use the word “nucular”? There is no such word. (Look it up in the dictionary, if you can find it)
Why does just about everyone call a realtor a “realator”? That is another non-word, unless you accent the second syllable and refer to someone as “one who relates”.
How does jewelry becomes jewlery?
There are two ways to spell and use the word i-t-s. If used as a possessive pronoun, it’s its, but if it’s a combination of the two words it is… well it’s kind of self explanatory.
The words they’re, their and there are not interchangeable, but many people seem to think they are. The same is true for were, wear and where.
Did you know that there are four syllables in comfortable? Most people pronounce only three, and make it “comfterbul.”
Two other words that are used wrongly are have and of, such as. “I should of known better.” No, you should have known better.
Then and than are two more examples of confusing words. Then is a ‘time’ word, while ‘than’ is a comparative word.
Here’s a good one… Why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? Is there an antonym using the root "flammable" or "inflammable"? Perhaps "unflammable", or is it "uninflammable"? Well, there's always "fireproof".
Less refers to an indefinite amount of something, while fewer denotes a smaller numerical quantity, such as “less money” but “fewer dollars.” However, the comparative use of ‘less’ would be ‘lesser,’ as in “the lesser of two evils.”
Why is a wise guy a derogatory term for an obnoxious know-it-all who makes annoying remarks, while a wise man is a very intelligent and learned person?
Why do “Fat chance” and “slim chance” mean exactly the same thing?
That's it for this week...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)