Baffling, Massive Illiteracy

I don’t get people who say “calvary” when referring to “cavalry.” I mean, hello! One refers to horseback-mounted soldiers, and it ain’t “calvary,” because that has nothing to do with horses. Cavalry, however, entered English via the Norman French cavalier, from cheval (HORSE!), etc.

Of course, it takes a minimal literacy to get this, beyond simply reading the word and learning how to pronounce it from that. Confusing “cavalry” with “Calvary,” the famous location of Christ’s crucifixion? That takes both a failure of basic, extremely minimal literacy and a MASSIVE historical/cultural illiteracy as well.

Oh, self-made morons who make this astounding error do NOT get a “bye” because they mislearned it by hearing another self-made moron saying “calvary” when meaning “cavalry.” Nope. Even there I sneer at their empty braincases, because they are so very poorly read (no excuses; that’s their bad choice) and too butt lazy and self-enstupiated to remedy that problem.

OK, someone with an innate IQ under 70 might well get a bye. All others (and they are legion), nah.

Stupid Errors in English Usage: Profoundly Stupid Misuse of “I”

I/me: I just cannot get my head around people who can’t figure subjective/objective case and consistently use “I” improperly. This is not one of those confusing or difficult English rules; it’s really extremely simple to keep straight. The most common misuse is something like, “The dog followed John and I to the door.” Simple to see how very stupid that is: just take “John” out of the sentence. “The dog followed I to the door.” See? Really dumb.

In days of yore, when “literate” had a chance of connoting “well read,” this problem was at least uncommon in published works, but today? Nope. Writers and editors nowadays are, well, let’s be generous here, less than literate, and certainly NOT well read.

The Tueller Principle and the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment

NOTE: This is almost all speculative, just wool-gathering.

Having a sidearm on one’s person (CCW or Open Carry) does not necessarily imply competence in self-defense. It may be an indicator of the possibility of competence, but as numerous supposedly capable law enFARCEment ossifers have demonstrated over just the past few years, it’s not dispositive.

Many factors determine self-defense competence: proper practice (in two meanings of “practice” *heh*), attitude, situational awareness, physical limitations–both personal and situational. The one true First Responder in the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment was unarmed, save for his own body and mind. Did he throw a chair or desk at the attacker in preparation for his own physical attack? So far, no one has said. Did he even have a knife on his person? Apparently not.

Do note: the general “21-foot rule” on knife attacks would not have directly applied here. It was “clinically-established” in casual experimentation 30-some-odd years ago with a specific set of restricted parameters: trained law enforcement officers with firearm holstered were consistently unable to effectively engage an attacker armed with a (mock) knife before being “stabbed” if the attacker was within 21 (or variously, 22) feet. Simulated wounds received by the officers ranged from debilitating to deadly.

Of course, this demonstration did not just use officers who were supposedly trained in the use of their firearms and regs on the use of deadly force but a trained “attacker” as well. Had the former Army guy who was the real First Responder been trained in responding to an armed attacker, even though unarmed, things might have turned out a little different. Had he thrown one or more objects that could cause real harm to the attacker, things might have been different.

Do note that I greatly admire the courage and determination displayed. But it still, at least partially, came down to proper practice, attitude (OUTSTANDING!), situational awareness (?), and physical limitations–both personal and situational (particularly: he had already been targeted when he decided to act; he apparently didn’t even have a knife on his person).

“Crating” Dogs? Bad Owner!

bad_dog_owner_n

IF crates are used,

1. they should be sized appropriately,
2. used with an “open door” policy (the dog can go in and out to suit its need/desire for a sense of its own space IF a given dog seems to need such a thing)
3. Only closed with dog inside for safety reasons when traveling.

Frankly, there are much better alternative to crates, no matter the situation. Proper training is the best alternative–of owners as well as dogs.

(If my barebones usage guide stated above seems to be in any way an endorsement of “crating” dogs, please be sure that it is not. I despise the things, in general, except in the case of those long-legged rats called Chihuahuas. . . Best kept there before being used in stewpots or as chum.)

Yeh, yeh, I’ve probably read all the excuses for “crating” dogs, and they’re all B.S. I don’t care to read ’em again. In almost all cases “crating” boils down to owners who are badly trained and unsuited to having a dog.

Finally, the Trash Takes Itself Out

Goodbye John Boehner. Don’t let the door hit you where the Lord split you. Or do. I DGARA.

To the K-Street insiders and Beltway Brigands bemoaning the demise of John Boehner’s reign as Speaker as a rebellion against common sense and political expediency (though in more or less loaded terms), I have the same word I said to Tom Eagleton’s face in 1980: There is a vast chasm between what is right and political expediency, and those who try to straddle it _always_ fail. Boehner’s political expediencies always led him to “compromise” in a manner designed to fail whatever was right, just, for the benefit of the Republic in favor of temporary political benefit for himself and other lackeys of the Left.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yeh, It Seems I’ve Always Been This Way

There I was, seven years old, sitting in Dr. Job’s examination room, after a visit following up on some minor hand “surgery.” The lecture Dr. Job was delivering (at my mom’s behest, I had little doubt) was on not chewing my fingernails (which I only did to trim them, instead of using the implements my mom wanted me to use). Dr. Job, a family friend and our personal care physician, lectured me at length on harmful bacteria that could be lodged under my fingernails, making a point of the grime that was under them at the time and very authoritatively (I had GREAT appreciation for his authority) stressing what a fine habitat for bacteria that grime was.

I listened very attentively and heeded his words. Thereafter, before “trimming” my nails with my teeth, I scrubbed under them very, very well.

*heh* I don’t think that was the lesson my mom wanted me to learn. . .

Yet Another Head-Scratcher

I take one prescription med. I buy one year’s supply all at once. Keep it in the fridge. Pharmacist was aghast that I did so. Why? Because of the “moist environment” in that cold, dehumidifier. . . Oh, and the med comes packaged in foil-sealed blister pack dosages. *sigh* What do they teach in “pharmacy school” nowadays?

Oh, and in further conversation my tinnitus entered the picture don’t ask how–long evolution). He mispronounced it “tin-EYE-tis (AFTER I had already pronounced it correctly). I gave him the “kinder, gentler” correction: “I’m a bit nerdy about things that I’m interested in. The ‘itis’ suffix refers to inflammatory conditions like arthritis and is spelled differently, pronounced differently, and has entirely different etymology and meaning than the the ‘itus’ that is part of ‘tinnitus,’ since tinnitus is NOT an inflammatory condition.”

“Oh.”

Cats Are Strange

Two cats in the house. One is often a lap cat. The other? A “side cat.” Crowds in next to me (usually), wherever I sit. No lap–nuh-uh. “Side-crowding”? Yep.