Words for the Week
mess n. 1. A state of confusion and disorderliness
fix n. 1. a difficult situation 2. something craved ("I need my coffee fix!") 3. the act of putting something in working order again (repair, remedy) 4. A determination of the location of something ("I've got a fix on that Borg cube, Captain!")
faux pas n. [from French, "false step"] (fow'pa) A socially awkward or tactless act
voyeur (vwoyoor) n. [from Old French French, "one who lies in wait"] 1. A viewer who enjoys seeing the sex acts or sex organs of others 2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects
debacle n. [from Old French "de-bar, unbar"] (day+bawkle) 1.A sudden and violent collapse 2. A sound defeat 3. A total, often ludicrous failure
rendezvous (rawn+di+voo) n., v. 1.A meeting planned at a certain time and place 2. A place where people meet 3. A date; usually with a member of the opposite sex (tryst) 4. (v.) to meet at a rendezvous
raison d'etre [from French "reason to be"](rayzone+detra) n. reason or justification for existence
Some words sourced from The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bodega Bits: Mess
Bring Back Ben & Jlo
No, let's not.
Old news, but it's been on the local late night talk show replays. This has been Jlo's third marriage? I've lost count. It's been great as food for voyeurs and paparazzi, because of its high entertainment value. I'm wondering though: are we all getting our kicks, betting with ourselves yet again on another Jlo mariage going bust, because Jlo's previous marital messes are a sign that our own lives are comparatively better?
With respect for Mark Arthony's kids and Dayanara Torres's pain, I hope Jlo manages to make herself happy.
But what do I know anyway?
Lost in Vietraq
What more needs to be said about the Angelo De la Cruz mess?
Philippine support for this half-assed US war waged for nothing (pittance of US aid for us, supposedly the US ally in the Pacific; weapons, where?) = bad idea. Sending troops to US-occupied post-Saddam Iraq = further ticking off the very polarized and militant locals who, thanks to US abuse, have every right to be ticked off = bad idea. I'd go with the argument that one shouldn't encourage terrorists by capitulating-- but we, as part of the Coalition of the Willing, terrorized them first, in principle.
I won't pretend that Saddam would have been unseated, or the world would be safer from crazed zealots even if the war wasn't prosecuted (make note, the official raison d'etre for the war wasn't unseating Saddam). I'm glad Saddam's gone, nevertheless: though the cost may involve Iraq evolving into a very Talibanized militant Islamic State.
Let's just get De la Cruz and our boys back home. Shoulda sent a civilian contingent without the trappings of the military draped about them instead.
Related links: http://www.inq7.net/opi/2004/jul/15/opi_csdequiros-1.htm & http://www.inq7.net/opi/2004/jul/17/opi_editorial-1.htm