Globally speaking

According to Jason DeParle, we can “pick any headline in the news, and between the lines, there is a chapter in the story of global migration.” This rather awkward sentence raises two questions: How can I find something “between the lines” of a “headline”? And what “chapter” am I supposed to find “in the story of global migration”? Of course, it is obvious that I am alerted to the fact that I could pick any news story and discover that it is somehow connected to global migration. Alas, it is the writer’s – often torturous – job to make a clear statement not the reader’s to sort it out.
Still, I took the author’s advice and two days later looked at some headlines. This is what I found: Efforts on Bicycling Also Attract Thieves and Effort Uses Dogs’ DNA to Track Their Abuser.

Dear New York Times,
there are no efforts on anything, and efforts don’t use anything either. Besides, although there may be efforts to promote bicycling that also attract thieves, and dogs’ DNA may be used in an effort to track their abusers, neither story included a line connecting it to global migration – unless some of the stolen bikes made it across the border.

Misspoken again

The present perfect (he has spoken) is used either to indicate that something which occurred at an unstated moment in the past is in some way related to the present or to express that something began in the past but still continues at the moment and, most likely, into the future. Thus, when Connecticut attorney general and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal says, "I may have misspoken, I did misspeak on a few occasions...I regret that I misspoke," he is sending a rather ambiguous message. Although he admits that he “did misspeak,” indicating that this is an issue of the past, he also says that he “may have misspoken.” Does he simply concede that his having misspoken contributes to his present troubles, or can we infer that his misspeaking, although it began in the past, continues at present and will go on in the future?

The vuvuzela makes quite some noise

What is a symbol, and what is meaning? A symbol represents an idea, and the meaning of something is the idea which this something represents. Thus, if the vuvuzela is “a symbol for cultural meaning,” then it is the representation of the cultural idea that it represents. Alas, there is not much to be gained from such a circular argument. Anyway, the vuvuzela’s meaning is still in the making and “will ultimately be shaped by the surprisingly heated disagreement” between those who claim that it signifies South African soccer fandom and those who belong to the “vuluzela-as-annoying crowd.” Exactly because the latter’s aversion to the instrument “has galvanized everybody," the blasting plastic horn has become “a cultural object,” “a South African commodity” and a “cultural signifier.” Clear as mud, but what this horn supposedly signifies remains, unfortunately, pretty evanescent. Maybe, it is nothing more or less than a noisemaker, and such flatulent “philosophical” discourse is just as “slightly silly" as its object.

Kosher or not, that is the question

Something is not quite kosher, if “Uncle Sam [is] munching on a Hebrew National beef hot dog as a heavenly voice assures him it is free of the additives and byproducts present in lesser processed meats” ("Red, White and Kosher"). After all, the higher authority knows – among everything else – that Hebrew National franks are “made with the finest ingredients and contain no artificial flavors, no artificial colors, no by-products, and no fillers” (HN). They are kosher, or “fit to eat,” because they don’t contain all the artificial stuff “present in processed meats of lesser quality.” That's what makes all the difference between kosher and not so kosher. Still, only franks made of meat even less processed would perhaps be accepted by orthodox authorities - obviously the highest authorities - and earn the label glatt kosher.