Neologism
By Mitch Berg
“Employing weasel-speak as a roundabout justification to just keep on raising taxes”. It’s a long, cumbersome phrase.
So when I say “Sturdevanting”, you know that’s what I’m talking about. OK?
Speaking of which; I’ve noticed that a lot of car dealerships along University Avenue have closed in recent years. We’re in danger of losing those well-paid, skilled jobs, and the tax-paying employees that do them, to other states, unless we find a way to subsidize car lots with state money.
Sounds ridiculous?
No, don’t worry. I’m only Sturdevanting.
And so, as it happens, is Lori Sturdevant:
The president of a 160-employee engineering firm [demanded a hike in transportation spending] so forcefully at a state Chamber of Commerce Grow Minnesota! luncheon on Dec. 4 that some of his listeners likely had trouble swallowing their mousse dessert.
“We need to find a dedicated funding source for transportation” above and beyond the 20-cent-per-gallon gas tax, said Bret Weiss, president of WSB & Associates. “The governor needs to get behind it and get something done.”
WSB and Associates? And they are…?:
Last week at his Golden Valley office, near proud displays of his firm’s local work, Weiss elaborated: Minnesota is on the verge of losing a sizable number of good-paying construction and engineering jobs to other states.
Construction professionals stayed in Minnesota in recent years despite the state’s refusal to spend more on transportation, because a hot housing market and business boom kept them occupied. That changed with the economic cycle, he said. Unless the state steps up transportation funding in 2008, “it’s going to become very clear to everybody that there are no dollars out there” to sustain the industry.
So in other words: subsidize the construction and engineering industries.
Wait a few years to boost transportation spending, and contracts of necessity will go to national engineering and construction firms, he predicted. That won’t produce nearly the desired ripple through the Minnesota economy that spending now on locally based firms would.
“We need to be smarter about this,” he said. Smarter means not just more spending but the more-consistent spending over time that can anchor good jobs here.
So if the big worry is that out of state firms will come to Minnesota to bid on projects that don’t exist today, then why aren’t Minnesota firms bidding on out-of-state projects now?
“I’m not asking anybody to give me anything just because I’m a Minnesotan.
Well, let’s be clear; that’s exactly what you’re asking for! You want the state to pony up for transportation spending purely to keep jobs – and, incidentally, give your companies a ready, flush market – in Minnesota.
I’m saying: At least give me a shot. I can bring a lot of employees into this state, and those are great jobs. … Why not try to foster this industry here, as we do so many others?”
Translated: “This state got into the subsidy business decades ago. So even though the state has slowed down the giveaway machine, we want our piece of the pie”.
Shorter translation: “I’m Sturdevanting”.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
“Employing obfuscation to justify terrible, dishonest nepotism and crass croneyism while robbing the treasury” just seems too long, so when we say “Cheney-esque” you’ll know what we mean.
“Employing fact-immune, verbose and immature ‘logic’ to fan the flames of hatred, all while rebuffing counter-argument with absolutist claims of unproved omniscience” just seems too long, so when I use the word “Bergism”
“Employing personal attacks upon people’s families, all while claiming to be inherently civil, when all the evidence points to the contrary” seems too long, so when I say he’s being “Mitchey” again, you’ll know what I mean.
Gosh this is fun… go ahead Liliput, take your shots.. don’t worry, they won’t be read.
Conversely, AC – please feel free put me in my place, you’re one of the few commenters out there I’d consider criticism from to be something worth listening to, so if you think I’ve gone over the top here, let me know.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Not only is University becoming a car-dealer-free zone, it’s already a coffee-free zone. There isn’t a Starbucks, Caribou or Dunn Brothers from Rice to Fairview. That’s 3 miles of central urban corridor, decaffeinated.
And this is where the city dreams of building light rail to serve all the yuppies shopping at chic stores like Wicks and Sticks while sipping their lattes? I have bad news, guys . . . .
.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/pauls-issue-wit.html?loc=interstitialskip
Ron Paul speaks truth… you neo-nutzies are the only neo-facists really we should be fearing. Islamicists are neither facists, nor nazis, they do not favor hyper-militarism, hyper-nationalism, or corporate convergence.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
you neo-nutzies are the only neo-facists really we should be fearing.
Hey, way to elevate the discussion, there!
December 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Employing fact-immune, verbose and immature ‘logic’
See previous comment.
“Employing personal attacks upon people’s families,
Never happened.
Get over it.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Grow some skin, peevish.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
go ahead Liliput, take your shots.. don’t worry, they won’t be read.
“Peevish” is Nick Coleman!!! It all makes sense now!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“Long, non-sensical, vapid and inane diatribes just seems too long so we’ll call it “Peeving.”
December 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
disagree with peev=fascist. Me thinks you need a new dictionary.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Pee fish hunted and pecked: “Conversely, AC – please feel free put me in my place.”
AssClown is busy right now, buffing up the evening rush’s brogans. As soon as you finish your shift at McBurgers you can go hold his rag for him.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:20 am
“Hey, way to elevate the discussion, there! ” – Mitchey, you do such an admirable job of that, I don’t think I could possibly top it, I mean taking potshots at my marriage, wow, that’s some kinda class..
The vertical positioning of your blog’s rhetoric is for you to take credit for, lead by example, see what follows..
“Employing personal attacks upon people’s families,
Never happened.
Get over it.” (M.Berg 12/18/2008) – Well first off, go issue your demands to your kids – or as you said to me when I made the same sort of comment to you – I’ll do what I like (or some other bilge) – you can’t live by your own standards Berg, clearly.
Mitch – Kidding is defined as “good humored mocking… teasing done in fun” – you’ve spent two plus years doing anything but being good humored or fun toward me. Here you injected yourself into a conversation about 40 year (plus) women who are attractive to take a pot shot at me and my marraige. Now, I fully understood you don’t believe the comment, but that doesn’t make it a ‘joke’ it makes it a lowbrow, low class cheap shot. You can claim it was a joke, but that’s just cowardice on top of classlessness. Hiding behind rhetoric – it’s reminiscent of grade school behavior, insult someone and then attempt to absolve yourself of responsibility by claiming ‘It’s a joke.’
The point, lil fella, is you set some boundaries, which I’ve never recrossed, not out of respect, but because they were right not to recross. You, otoh, crossed those same boundaries. You also conflated my questioning your grasp of charity, with belittling Christianity or your amount of belief – you said I insulted your ‘faith’ – when I did no such thing. So now, I choose to infer an insult on my family -no, I don’t really believe that you meant to insult HER directly, any more than you believe you meant what you said as a joke or believed I insulted your faith. You stepped into a line of chat that had nothing to do with you to take a shot at my life, and at me, and indirectly at my wife, and given your penchant for vile slurs, no one but a fool would think it was said ‘in fun’ or ‘in good humor’. It may not have been meant specifically, but only a fool would take it specifically, and only a fool would think he could get away with hiding behind the rather transparent defense that it wasn’t meant “exactly.”
But… let’s go further, I’ve never once said anything about your marraige, or your kids… all your bluster and bloviating and undoubted threats to come about it aside, the reason is that it’s just dead wrong. It’s a line you don’t cross (kinda like doctoring pictures of your friend’s unborn) – it’s classless, even if you DID mean it as a joke, it was an utterly poor one, a complete lack of class, a very poor joke – at best.
At worst it represented your feeble attempt to wipe any respect for my marriage away, I suppose I could put “”. the simple fact is “Mr. Inherently Civil” you just don’t abide by lines of conduct personally. Only you can answer for yourself what was in your head and heart, but if you SERIOUSLY thought that was a joke or appropriate, then you’re about completely lacking in judgement, if not a fool.
And btw, suggesting my wife stays with me, even though I’m flawed, clearly wasn’t intended as a joke, but instead, I’ll chose to take as fine praise of her, I am clearly flawed, but I’m not the only one in that particular circumstance. So Mitch, actually, you did insult her, and I think you know it, it’s just you didn’t mean the “Stockholm” thing, directly, you just meant you wanted take a cheap shot that you could hide behind rhetorically whilse still meaning to demean my marraige and her, for staying with me.. pretty elevating stuff that.. kudos. Not clever, not classy, but certainly ‘elevating.’
December 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am
clearly wasn’t intended as a joke
Absolutely untrue.
I’ll chose to take as fine praise of her
As you probably should.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Mitchey, you do such an admirable job of that, I don’t think I could possibly top it,
Yeah, yeah, the old “I know you are but what am I” response, the one you use for everything. Got it. I can probably just fill it in for you.
Fact is, Peev, you add a nastiness, an arrogance, and (below) a whininess to the proceedings that used to be irritating, but is not just kind of sad.
I mean taking potshots at my marriage, wow, that’s some kinda class..
Look. I pointed out that I was kidding in the original. I pointed it out again, and apologized for the misunderstanding, and made a point of voicing my admiration for couples that can stay together that long. I’ve bent over 20 degrees beyond backwards to try to tell you – it was a josh. A joke. A gentle nudge in the ribs.
At this point, it is you that is insisting on making it into something else. Which is either a sign of gross immaturity, or of some deeper issue, but has nothing to do with my opinion of your marriage – which is both high, and immaterial!
The vertical positioning of your blog’s rhetoric is for you to take credit for, lead by example, see what follows..
That is utterly meaningless. I write my opinion. People leave comments. Discussion – or, in your case, puzzling recrimination and empty name-calling – ensues. Lather, rinse and repeat.
“Employing personal attacks upon people’s families,
as you said to me when I made the same sort of comment to you – I’ll do what I like (or some other bilge) – you can’t live by your own standards Berg, clearly.
What on earth are you talking about?
Kidding is defined as “good humored mocking… teasing done in fun”
Which was, in fact, what the “Stockholm Syndrome” remark was.
you’ve spent two plus years doing anything but being good humored or fun toward me.
No, Peev, I’ve spent almost six years writing a blog. On the other hand, you have spent two plus years injecting ill-tempered, frequently insulting, amazingly-selective (to say nothing of off-topic and rambling) comments into the fray. I’ve responded, depending on my mood, frustration and, after a particularly stupid or personal digression, level of anger. After which you get the vapors about incivility, and/or find some little bon mot of pique – or, in the case of the “Stockholm Syndrome” remark, of nothing at all – to latch onto to wave in everyone’s face to show what an aggrieved victim you are. Eventually, you get into accusations, even threats, and I ban you, partly out of fatigue and boredom with the whole stupid juvenile treadmill you put every discussion eventually into.
There has been no exception to this pattern.
Here you injected yourself into a conversation about 40 year (plus) women who are attractive to take a pot shot at me and my marraige.
No, I made a joke about you and – need I add – a woman I’ve never met for so much as a second.
Was it a “pot shot” at you? Only if you really really want it to be. What do you get out of that?
Now, I fully understood you don’t believe the comment, but that doesn’t make it a ‘joke’ it makes it a lowbrow, low class cheap shot.
No, it means you’re whining for the sake of whining. Get over it.
You can claim it was a joke, but that’s just cowardice on top of classlessness.
Oh, just shut up. Seriously. Shut up. Take your whining and your selective aggrievement elsewhere. You’re tiresome.
The point, lil fella, is you set some boundaries, which I’ve never recrossed, not out of respect, but because they were right not to recross.
Then until you can do it out of respect, take your “clairvoyance” and your assumptions and your whining elsewhere.
don’t really believe that you meant to insult HER directly, any more than you believe you meant what you said as a joke or believed I insulted your faith.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
So Mitch, actually, you did insult her, and I think you know it, it’s just you didn’t mean the “Stockholm” thing, directly, you just meant you wanted take a cheap shot that you could hide behind rhetorically whilse still meaning to demean my marraige and her, for staying with me.. pretty elevating stuff that.. kudos. Not clever, not classy, but certainly ‘elevating.’
Peev, I’m starting to think you’re worse than arrogant, irritating and overweeningly precious. Some of this shit is downright disturbing.
I’m going to ask you, nicely, to give this blog a vacation in your daily opinionmongering rounds. Go over to Anti-Strib – I send all my old commenters over there, they love ’em. Grow a thicker skin, of find another hobby, or something more ennobling of your spirit this holiday season.
I don’t want to go through the banal theatricality of “banning” you again, because really, all you’ll do is keep picking pseudonyms, and what’s the point.
I’m just going to ask you to take a few weeks and just don’t leave comments here.
Take a deep breath, don’t bother responding, and just do something else.
Thanks. Happy Holidays to you and your whole family.