Nobrainer’s Think Tank

On Saturday November 19th of 2005, I realized how much I absolutely hate the now-typical use of these words in our lexicon. (Of course drinking was involved — this was well before I blacked out).

Nonetheless, at this point I cringe the majority of the time I hear these words used in non-technical conversation. I was reminded of this disdain on Fark a few days ago. Non-technical discussion is great, but these words have been bastardized beyond belief. Now, of course they are used to justify products/processes that often don’t make much sense.

“Natural” (variations typically include “all-natural”) - George Carlin once noted, and I paraphrase, that “everything comes from nature: everything is natural.” It seems this word comes up a lot in hair-care/beauty products. “Your skin will look 5 years younger thanks to our all-natural formula.”

Let’s also consider an exchange with a pothead I know from Ohio. For some pretext, I really don’t have any problems with people using marijuana as long as they do so in a way that doesn’t hurt other people. I haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me that it dangerous or addictive to the point that it should be illegal. But this pothead’s justification for legalization, “it’s natural.” Yeah it is. So is poison ivy. Ingest that regularly and see how well you do.

Note also, that oil is completely natural. Of course we typically use refined oil; I’m pretty sure my car runs a lot cleaner on 87 octane than light-sweet crude.

“Carbon”- Carbon, as we should all know is an element, a very abundant, versatile element. This word first started to bother me during my days working in restaurants. If for some reason the carbon dioxide tanks went empty, ignorant servers would explain to possibly ignorant customers that the Coke was flat because we “ran out of carbon.”

Now there are frequent news stories about the Kyoto treaty. These news reports typically use the phrase “carbon emissions.” Let’s clean up the science, a little bit, for the love of God well, SCIENCE!

Let’s at least throw in another modifier: “carbon-based emissions.” “Harmful carbon-based emissions” is even better. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Seriously, carbon exists naturally as coal, graphite, and diamonds. Yes that overpriced, clear piece of rock that you had to buy to get married is effecticely pure carbon. If your car was spitting out diamonds, only people named DeBeers would be complaining.

And carbon is the basis of a type of chemistry called…

“Organic”

How often are products, especially food, billed as safer/more effective/magical because they are “organic”? I don’t know exactly. But it is enough to piss me right off.

I don’t take issue with “organic” foods. If using compost and manure and whatever else produces a better vegetable than chemical plant fertilizers, great. But “organic” is a misnomer to me. The “organic” food folks need to find a better descriptor as well as marketing strategy.

The point I made on 11/19, was that the oil companies should jump on this bandwagon. Huge segments of the American population are so thoroughly ignorant/uninformed about the situation, that there are billions to be made. Oil is clearly both “natural” and “organic.” They just need a few good commercials that say something about deriving the “new” fuel from a “painstakingly long natural process” which provides a “completely organic fuel” of extremely high quality.

Instead of being an “oil company” become an “organic fuels cooperative.” The quasi-leftists will eat this shit up like “all-natural” “fair trade” whateverthefuckitisI’msellingatanunnaturallyinflated price.

[insert concise closing paragraph to tie everything together (but publish this sumbitch anyway before forgetting about it)]