If The Bird, Bird, Bird, The Bird's The Word...Then Why Can't We Tweet?"

There's probably nothing quite as reassuring as those who are in this world to protect us from ourselves.

The latest do-gooder is the standards editor from The New York Times.

(CNN) -- To anyone who uses Twitter, the word "tweet" is as natural as, well, a bird. But don't expect to see it in The New York Times.

"Someday, 'tweet' may be as common as 'e-mail,' " wrote Phil Corbett, the Times' standards editor, in a memo this week, according to The Awl. But, for now, Corbett has nixed further use of the word -- "outside of ornithological contexts," he wrote.

The Times will stop using the word because "tweet" isn't standard English, "and standard English is what we should use in news articles," Corbett said.

Corbett noted that not everyone uses the micro-blogging site and therefore may not be familiar with what a "tweet" is.

After all, The New York Times always uses words people are familiar with, like "louche" and "shibboleths."

So what will The New York Times be calling these Twitter updates now?

" 'Tweet' may be acceptable occasionally for special effect," Corbett said in the memo.

"But let's look for deft, English alternatives: use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update. Or, once you've established that Twitter is the medium, simply use 'say' or 'write.' "

I don't know about you but the first thing that popped into my mind as I was reading this story was that scene in the movie "The Paper" where Michael Keaton interviews for a job with the "big guys", the newspaper whose bow tied, suspendered, stick up the butt editor smugly reminds Keaton that "we cover the world".

The second thing that popped into my mind was my high school senior year journalism teacher, Mrs. Kiern.

And not because she had a stick up her butt, quite the contrary actually, but because I remember that she managed to teach us the fundamentals of good journalism while not coming off like a strident parent with, well, a stick up her butt. No easy task in the freewheeling days of the late 1960's as you might imagine.

I suspect two things about this guy with The NYT.

He didn't have a journalism teacher half as hip as Mary Kiern.

And I bet you my paycheck against yours that he wears either a bow tie or suspenders or both.

That said, it's probably only fair to give him the benefit of one doubt.

He is, however lamely the effort appears, trying to do his small part to stem the flow of the dumbing down of America.

Boy, you've chosen to tilt at quite a sizeable windmill, there, Phil.

In the spirit of good old American work togetherism, though, I'm ready to pitch in and offer up a few words/phrases that I think should be thrown on the bullshit bonfire on which word boy has thrown the troublesome term "tweet". Words and/or phrases that do nothing to either enlighten or inform us in any substantive way.

As for phrases...

At the end of the day.

Think outside the box.

Like.

Whatever.

You know.

My two cents.

Awesome.

My bad.

I could care less. (I once did a fun interview with Bill Cosby and he and I instantly shared a laugh about this one, because it's not only overused, but it's overused incorrectly. If what you mean is you could care less, what you REALLY mean is you COULDN'T care less...)

It is what it is.

As for words which neither enlighten or inform...

Congress.

Politician.

And, in tribute to Mary Kiern's teachings that brevity is no excuse for laziness...

LOL

LMAO

ROFL

Etc....

I imagine there's going to be a lot of snickering around the water coolers at The New York Times for a few days.

And probably rightly so because, I mean come on, Phil, loosen the bow tie and live a little.

But I do appreciate the spirit of your intent.

After all, it's a herculean task, trying to keep the bar of literacy from hitting the ground in this culture.

So, nice try, dude.

Oh...forgot to include one word, probably the most useless of all.

Kardashian.