What Was Once Old... Is New Again

Have you ever heard the phrase "what was once old is new again"?   I'm here to tell you that that particular phrase is idiotic.  Just think about it... whoever started using that phrase is trying to suggest if you wait long enough that an old item will somehow become new, and I have to tell you based upon what I know of time travel and basic laws of physics that just isn't possible.

I understand why people use this phrase, but I just disagree with the premise.  For example someone might comment that teenage girls are now starting to wear leg warmers with their skirts, which as we all know was as style that was very popular in the 1980s.  So, it isn't surprising when someone utters the cliche that what was once old is new again, but in reality legwarmers aren't new.  The style of wearing legwarmers isn't new either, so really there is nothing new about it. 

This is just a matter of people revisiting an old style, but simply revisiting something does not in any way make it new.  If that were true, I'd be driving a new car every morning when I head to work.  So are we to believe if you do a specific act each day it becomes old, but if you wait a few months or a few years and then do that same thing again that it is new?  Hogwash.

Listen... things can only be new once.  Anything after that point is old.  I know this will pain many 40-something women out there who are starting to see gray hair and wrinkles when they look in the mirror, but it isn't meant to be mean.  It doesn't matter if we are talking about items, people, or styles... old is old, and new is new.  There is no such thing as old becoming new just as new cannot be old, so adapt and get over it.

Another thing that bothers me is this stupid word "renew".  You cannot re-new something.  It was once new... and now it is old.  If it was new yesterday you might argue it is almost new today (which holds up a lot better if you are talking about a car as opposed to a ham sandwich), but you can't just "renew" everything and pretend it is new once again.  It might be new to you, you might find a new way of looking at things, but if something existed or was done at any time in the past, it just isn't new anymore. 

I renew magazine subscriptions... does that mean the magazine is entirely new?  Of course not!  Although that particular issue of the magazine might be new, the magazine itself, and the subscription to said magazine is not new... so is it really possible to re-new something?  Not really.  The term re-new is just a fancy way of selling us something again without letting us know we aren't really getting anything new.

It all comes down to the fact that we as humans have a desire to have new things.  Whether they are really, truly "new", or just "new to us" doesn't seem to matter.  In fact many people collect antiques that they know are old, but they don't refer to them as old things or used things because that doesn't sound as nice as the terms vintage, antique, historic, or whatever label they choose to use instead of simply saying they are old.  So, we somehow are tricking ourselves into thinking these old things are actually new, and we use colorful language to make the differentiation in order to appease our own minds.

So now it all makes sense.  I realize not everyone feels the same way, but I have a new way of thinking about things.  Or is that an old way of thinking about things?

Cliché of the Day: You Get What You Pay For

Have you ever heard someone say "you get what you pay for"?  I may be naive, but for the most part when I pay for something... I do actually get something in return.  Thus if I paid for it, I would get it - and this phrase is essentially worthless.

I understand what people are getting at.  They are suggesting that if you spend a few bucks more, you will probably get a much better product, but does that really need explaining?  You mean to tell me if you spend MORE you get MORE?  You are also telling me if I buy the cheapest possible version of a product I will get the cheapest possible version?  Alert the media!

The whole idea of a tired cliché such as "you get what you pay for" is that it is used so often people fail to even take the time to really discern what the words actually mean.  Taken at face value it is mere common sense... you may as well hear people running around yelling "gravity exists" or "rain is wet". 

Of course when you start debating the merits of a cliché  there is always that one guy who has to proclaim "there is an exception to every rule".  I will admit there is an exception to "you get what you pay for" because in some cases you might actually get something for nothing, and therefore you actually got much more than you paid for.  In other cases you might pay for something and never actually get it... as is the case if you sent a check to a Nigerian Prince who promised you untold riches for a small fee to cover the import taxes.

However for the most part, the "exception to every rule"  cliché is no better than the "you get what you pay for"  cliché.  Frankly, there is an exception to the exception to every rule, which creates a double exception.  Does that mean they cancel each other out and create a positive exception?  What exactly is the opposite of exception in the first place.... is that an inception?  I suppose it could be a parcel (integral part) but that isn't nearly as interesting.

So let's discuss what is a rule and what isn't.  In the simplest example possible, we can look at the rule that states during a baseball game if the runner is tagged with the ball before they reach the base then they are out.  Is there really an exception to that rule?  Maybe some baseball expert will correct me, but I surely can't think of one.  If the defensive player doesn't have the ball or doesn't make the tag obviously it won't be an out, but that isn't the question being posed here.  Of course this is where someone will nitpick and suggest that if the umpire doesn't see the action properly they could make the wrong call and in that case the runner might be safe by mistake... but that is a stretch.  First of all what the umpire sees is a separate issue and we are merely focusing upon what the rule says, so for the sake of discussion we must admit the rule has no exception.  The rule itself is clear - the runner is out if the proper conditions are met, but there is no exception to that rule and allows the runner to be safe if some other condition is met.

Then again if there is an exception to it, is it really a rule or more of a suggestion?  Is a rule a fact, or just a general guideline?  It seems a rule should be clearly defined and not be open to interpretation... so then we start wondering who is doing the interpreting.  Clearly we need an expert opinion and we can't just take the word of anyone walking down the street... because most people offer their opinions for free and we all  know you get what you pay for.

Right?