For your consideration: Ian Ziering.

I was listening to NPR this morning, and I noticed that the news lady used the term “bad actor” in describing people who indiscriminately shoot people in Chicago (it was a story, I think, about a Pastor in a small neighborhood who apparently blames Rahm Emanuel for the fact that while gun violence is supposedly decreasing across the country, it hasn’t changed significantly in Chicago, and may in fact [if I had been listening more carefully I might have caught this more definitively] even increased due to his governance). Anyway, the NPR lady used “bad actor” to describe the people contributing to the uptick of gun violence in Chicago, and I started thinking about it.

I’ve heard it before, and it’s been bugging me. I think the first person I heard say it was Trump, while discussing the supposed rapists and murderers who come into this country illegally. So right away it rankled me because that guy has twisted and misspelled the English language in the worst of ways. 

The thing is, I like calling things what they are, not by euphemisms or trendy names. And what are we saying when say “bad actor”? To me, a bad actor is someone who moves their lips while another actor is speaking their lines. Google “bad actor” and photos of Nicolas Cage and William Shatner pop up (I would include Ian Ziering in the list, and could probably come up with more, but that would be mean).

However, that search also came up with the definition of “individual or entity with prior criminal convictions,” and right there I have a problem with it. It seems we’ve been using it to describe people who have either actually committed a crime (the aforementioned rapists and murderers) but it seems to me that people also lump in people who may have committed a crime, or have committed a crime more along the lines of “jay walking,” or "littering." Bad things, yes, but not exactly moral failings (well, maybe). In other words, I don’t think calling someone a “bad actor” is good enough. So and so is a bad actor? Really? Did you seem them on SNL? Maybe we're not supposed to categorize people by what they DO, and that's the problem, but saying a person is "bad" seems not that much better. Can't we just say, So and so is a convicted felon. Killer. Liar. Cheater. Embezzler. Perjurer (I’m surprised that’s a word). Child molester. Corrupt government official. Briber. 

Fishbone knew what they were doing and they called it correct:

The lyin', piss off, sack of shit
Slut trash can scumish
Dirt bag... bitch!

See? Those words have meaning. “Bad actor” is too soft. Yes, it’s mean to call someone working on the craft of acting a bad actor (some people just need to do more work. Some people need to work at Starbucks). But if that’s their only crime, who cares? It’s an opinion, it doesn’t stick, it isn't hard enough. Paul Manafort is a callous sleaze-bag, soon to hopefully be convicted of treason or some other high crime. He's not a "bad actor." Let's save that one for the people on TV.