Highfalutin is a word with mysterious origins. Typically, the word means pompous, arrogant, haughty, pretentious or excessively ornate or bombastic, often in reference to a manner of speech.[1](1) However, how such a word came to mean such things is not known definitively. The alternative spelling of "hifalutin" doesn't offer any clues, either. It's common for dictionaries to claim it highfalutin is derived from the words "high" and "fluting". Although this may make sense, it is actually not likely according to other sources. Long before highfalutin was first recorded, another term meaning something similar already existed, "high flown". It seems more likely that highfalutin is a corruption of high flown. I've used highfalutin from time to time. However, my use of the work tends to carry an ironic tone. Between the spellings, ngram shows that highfalutin is a lot more common than hifalutin, these days. The rise in use of highfalutin also seems to roughly coincide with the reduction of usage for the term high flown.
|
Fussbudget Gobbledygook Highfalutin Malarkey Newfangled Roust Twitterpated Whatchamacallit Whopperjawed |
My personal glimpse into the first half of the 21st Century for some yet to be known future
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Fun and Important Words: Highfalutin
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Elite Dangerous Odyssey: Trying to start a bar fight, and figuring out free camera
Monday, May 24, 2021
The Balance Pin Incident: First CMDR in Elite Dangerous to Destroy His Own Ship from Another commander's Ship
Friday, May 21, 2021
I just stopped for a moment for a vista photo while farming materials at one of the Crystal Forests (Elite Dangerous)
I just stopped for a moment for a vista photo while farming materials at one of the Crystal Forests (Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CO_1Kmyly5g/)
Thursday, May 20, 2021
Crystal Forests have became Crystal Barrens in Elite Dangerous Odyssey
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Suburban bird of prey tries out a new hunting style - Hide-and-seek
Saturday, May 15, 2021
We, Terrorized Part 3 ~ Re-imagined Jack Nicholson's 1963 movie "The Terror" as a silent era film
Sunday, May 02, 2021
Whiteout (2009) needed some white-out on the script
I originally was going to write a very short review on IMDb for the movie Whiteout with Kate Beckinsale. It was going to something like "This is a movie that violates the laws of physics worse than most Sci-Fi's." However, as I typed, it turned in a reasonably long rant, so here it is.
Whiteout is a 2009 crime thriller film based on the 1998 comic book of the same name by Greg Rucka and Steve Lieber. Directed by Dominic Sena. The movie stars Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Columbus Short, Tom Skerritt, and Alex O'Loughlin. The movie was released on September 11, 2009.The movie is set in Antarctica, where Special Deputy U.S. Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale) is planning to leave in a few days. After finding a dead body, Stetko is attacked by a masked killer who is trying to get hold of the cargo in an old Soviet plane that crash-landed in the ice during the Cold War.
Somehow, this thriller demonstrates massive violations of the laws of physics worse than your average Sci-Fi movie. There is magic wind that only works when the plot needs it, and frictionless ground (sometimes, when the plot needs it). The escape from the buried Soviet plane is pure plot magic. That's not even getting into uncovered faces when characters spend a long length of time outside in -55°C (and worse) weather.
Worse still, the villains are completely illogical (magical), as though they are straight out of a horror flick. One of the villains (Russell Haden played by Alex O'Loughlin) keeps appearing out of nowhere and disappears into nothing, even though there's nowhere from which the villain could come nor is there anywhere for the villain to vanish in the small base camps. The main villain (and the associated reveal) makes absolutely no sense, even within the context of the story. It feels like the writers wrote themselves into a corner and decided, "Well, dang, I'll just make the base's doctor the secret villain."
Beyond that, the good guy (Robert Pryce played by Gabriel Macht) acts as the red-herring throughout the movie. He is found in such illogical situations near crime scenes, the only way he isn't the villain is because the writers decided he wasn't. For example, he was literally found hiding within feet of murders or life-threatening assaults multiple times, but he ignores the victims and just hides while rummaging around the scene until Kate's character discovers him. In reality, he would've been arrested (he being UN or not) after the first time he was found *at* the murder scene.
There's a bunch of other illogical stuff to, like taking a tractor out to a possible crime scene, when the plane that the heroes were already using would've literally been faster and safer. The movie already demonstrated earlier that you could take a plane to pretty much any location in Antarctica because it's so flat everywhere.
Then, movie twist... There's no logic for a Soviet plane to be carrying hand-carried nuclear materials in Antarctica; but the double-twist reveal is that the plane was actually carrying uncut diamonds; which makes even less sense!
Basically, in my opinion, this movie is a mess. The fairly unique setting of Antarctica is an excuse to create danger, but it does so in ridiculous ways. If you want to watch a horror flick set in a cold and isolated place, check out 30 Days of Night or The Thing. If you want to watch a murder mystery in a cold an isolated place, check out Fargo. If you want to see Kate Beckinsale naked, check out Uncovered. If you want to see people surviving the challenging Antarctica environment while investigating meteorites, check out Eight Below. If you want to watch a beautiful hero with special ice powers, see Frozen. Pretty much any thing Whiteout tries to do is done significantly better by another movie.
Saturday, May 01, 2021
Several great places around town this week
Friday, April 30, 2021
We, Terrorized Part 2 ~ Re-imagined Jack Nicholson's 1963 movie "The Terror" as a silent era film
Thursday, April 29, 2021
Fun and Important Words - Boondocks
Boondocks is a word that is borrowed from Tagalog, being carried over from the Philippines by US soldiers in the early days of US colonization. In Tagalog, the origin word "bundรณk" actually means "mountain". However, usage in the English language sees a meaning of a rural and sparsely populated area. Another word for this is sticks.[1](1) It is common to hear both "boondocks" and "sticks" used similarly, such as "out in the boondocks" and "out in the sticks".[2] Either word can have negative connotations, being used to refer to areas where the people are backwards and unsophisticated. However, when I occasionally use "boondocks", it's really just to describe an area that is out-of-the-way and deep in rural country. Although "boondocks" is often cited as entering English around the turn of the 20th Century, ngram shows it's use in writing didn't really take off until World War II.
|
We, Terrorized (Part 1) ~ A re-imagined of Jack Nicholson's 1963 movie "The Terror" as a silent era film
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Why I don't fear a US Constitutional Convention and yet still do not want one
Also read Article 1 section 2 paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution and why you aren't being represented! |
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V, The United States Constitution, 1787[1]
That is to say:
- 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has been used for 26 successful amendments.
- 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states. This process has been used for 1 successful amendment.
- 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress (House and Senate) to create a Constitutional Convention, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has never been used.
- 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress to create a Constitutional Convention, followed up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states. This process has never been used.
Guess what‽ It's actually harder to change the US Constitution via the Constitutional Convention method. Congress is still heavily involved in the process.
A Constitutional Convention doesn't get to magically change the Constitution at will. All the Constitutional Convention does is provide a forum separate from the US House and Senate to discuss a proposed Amendment, then vote to bring the proposal to individual states, with a 2/3rds super majority required to do so. The requirement for ratification of the Amendment is still the same. 3/4ths of all state legislatures or 3/4 of ratifying conventions from all states.
The Constitutional Convention is a very unstable route to take, as fundamental questions about the process are not addressed in the Constitution.[2] For example, there are no quorum rules for discussions once the convention is underway. Also, does each state get one representative at the convention, or is representation equal to the Electoral College with voting among the representatives of a state to decide their state's vote? Then, what happens if a state rescinds its application for the convention and the convention is no longer requested by the required 2/3rd of states? What happens if such an application is rescinded during or after the convention takes place? Since the convention is still organized by the US Congress, does Congress have the ability to limit the scope of the convention (i.e., "what's your hot take on this proposed amendment" as opposed to "go ahead and write a new amendment")? Do the state applications limit the scope themselves? If the scope is limited, could Congress or Federal Courts invalidate the convention approval if the scope is deemed to be exceeded? Etc.
Anyway, I foresee that we'd have nothing short of a political quagmire if a Constitution Convention is ever established. Most likely result is no changes will come of it, save for a bunch of lawsuits questioning every step along the way. Those lawsuits may answer some questions about the process by the courts, but that would only benefit future generations in their attempts to have their own Constitutional Conventions.
Also see: How to find your US representatives and tweet them