Author: David

Over-educated Curmudgeon, Bit-Bucket Tuner and Budding Brewmeister.
Posted on

NOT “As Smart as a Fifth Grader”

“. . .[T]he economy sunk [sic] deeper into the red. . . ” was all that was needed to convince me to stop reading the article. If neither the writer nor any putative editor could bother to be more literate than a fifth grader, then buh-bye! (And yes, there were other such things before the last straw.) When a writer has no real respect for his readers (and apparently no self-respect at all) such that he does not even bother to learn standard conjugations for strong verbs (by reading literate text, if nothing else!), then why should I pollute my time with his dreck?

And no, I refuse to link the piece here. I’ll have a hard enough time erasing the experience from memory. *heh*

Just in case any reader who did not pass fifth grade should stumble on this, “Sank is the past tense (e.g., the ship sank to the bottom of the sea). Sunk is the past participle, so it’s used in the perfect tenses (e.g., the ship has sunk to the bottom of the sea) and as an adjective (the sunk ship is at the bottom of the sea).”1

Posted on

Interested in “Climate Change”?

If you have any interest in “climate change” at all, then you probably fall into one of two classes of persons interested in “climate change.” One class is comprised of folks who want hard numbers and replicable, real world research to verify or falsify hypotheses (or just refine wild-assed guesses so that hypotheses can be formed and tested). This class can contain both people whose personal inclination is to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and potentially catastrophic, and those who doubt such a proposition.

As long as the above class seeks to gather hard numbers and perform well-designed, replicable research, then their interest is legitimate and to be lauded, no matter what they are predisposed to believe.

Then there is the second class: those who seem to belong to the Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. CACA acolytes DGARA about facts, replicable testing, etc., but simply have “faith” that mankind is killing Mother Earth. Because dogma.

Now, it they weren’t trying to compel folks to conform to CACA dogma against their consciences, they’d just be kooks. But these kooks are dangerous. And to compel others to conform to their religious beliefs is evil. Since CACA acolytes almost uniformly seek to impose their indefensible (a fair description, because I have yet to see or hear a defense of CACA dogma using replicable research based on verifiable, undoctored facts) beliefs on those they deem to be unbelievers, regardless of any reasons for scepticism. Indeed. condemnation of scepticism alone is enough to condemn this class of persons, because science without scepticism is just. . . unfounded dogma.

Posted on

Illiteracy, Material Literacy, Subliteracy, and Formal Literacy

Literacy is a spectrum. Illiteracy–the inability to even puzzle out those funny lil squiggles on a page of text–is the on one end of the spectrum. Formal Literacy is on the other end of the spectrum. True illiteracy is an absolute. Formal literacy has no upper/outer boundaries. Material Literacy is being able to puzzle out those funny lil squiggles but having only a bare concept of their meanings. Subliteracy is just beyond that: having a material grasp of basic meanings imparted by those funny lil squiggles, but a poor grasp of historical or cultural implications and hence able to grasp only basic information in text, at best. There is quite a large overlap of Material Literacy and Subliteracy. Formal Literacy indicates a grasp of cultural and historical contexts, along with many different sorts of idioms, such that a simple citation of, say, Gresham’s Law by name only imparts a great deal of information or simply saying (or writing) “There is a tide [in the affairs of men]. . .” with no further citation calls to mind the context of that remark. Examples are legion, and my own attempt to attain formal literacy is always finding more such cultural enrichment to add to my lexicon.

Where folks who have never made the effort to even start becoming formally literate (As I implied, I’m still just past the starting blocks in my search for formal literacy, myself) demonstrate their failure to READ MANY BOOKS *heh* is in mangling idioms. Using “free reign” instead of the correct “free rein,” “come down the pipe” instead of the correct “come down the pike,” “chomps at the bit” instead of the correct “champs at the bit,” and other such things just indicates that whoever writes such things stopped expanding their literate vocabulary probably somewhere around fourth grade. Such folks write what they have heard (or misheard) from their (probably) similarly subliterate peers, and as an unwillingness to read well-written text seems endemic to society nowadays, I suspect subliteracy to remain ascendant.

(When commenting, please feel free to misuse words, abuse or neglect apostrophes, mangle syntax and grammar, or simply type, “TL;DR.” I wanna feel like I posted this on FarceBook.)

#le_sigh

Posted on

Plus ça change. . .

Strategizing my day.

Years ago, in my last 9-to-5 and spent a lot of time warming a seat in front of a computer, I used a one-cup coffee warmer because, while I needed coffee in copious amounts, I tended to be a “distracted drinker.” *heh*

Nowadays, that same effect has me drinking my last half of a mug cold. Switching to smaller mugs is fairly effective, though, and has cut down on my tendency to be distracted by computer time sinks from tasks I’ve assigned myself, since I reach the bottom of a cup more quickly and have to get up for a refill.

Posted on

I Believe This View Has Some Merit

Note again: I do not like TRump and would not invite him for dinner or even want to be invited to dinner with him. I don’t need to like him to note that he has done more good for common Americans than the last three or four presidents combined. Hate to admit it, but still, facts are facts. The post linked below was written almost nine months ago. I just saw it the other day, and I’ve taken a couple of days to digest it.

“Everyone Is Smart, Except Donald Trump:” Rabbi Dov Fischer

Read the whole thing.

Posted on

Darkness Hates the Light. . .

. . . even when light offers to hide under a basket.

Or, as Kurt Schlichter puts it,

They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm

Pull quote:

“It would be nice to have libs and their media goons not sliming us all the time with manifest falsehoods. It would also be nice to have a pet unicorn named Chet always ready to make a run to the liquor store to pick up a sixer of Dos Equis and some Doritos. Neither one is going to happen, and you can’t change that by giving in. No matter how much you abase yourself it will never be enough for them to not hate you. “

Yep.

Posted on

“Gun Violence” *mhwa*

[Extracted from a ub-thread of a discussion discussing the disparate topics of “mass shootings” and wrongful shootings by cops.]

To whatever extent wrongful shootings by police exists (and any is a Very Bad Thing, IMO), it can more easily be explained by Lord Acton’s pithy comment, Rudyard Kipling’s “General Summary,” or even the theological concept of universal moral depravity. Humans being what we are, any group of people is going to have apples that are, urm, “badder” than the norm, and unfortunately, there are bad apples in government jobs at almost any level (LEOs, run-of-the-mill bureaucraps, public “persecutors,” politicians, and corrupt judges), and they ARE be a problem, universally, to some degree or another. How to deal with the bad apples without crucifying the “less bad,” maybe even marginally OK apples? (“Marginally OK” because as long as their PEERS do not stop them, the “badder apples” will find it easier to abuse their authority.)

Well, that’s the nut, isn’t it?

Qui custodit ipsos custodes?

But as for being a “problem with guns,” well, it’s the same answer as to the issue of “gun violence.” Guns do not commit violent acts. People do. One way (really, AFAIK, the only legitimate way for governments that are not supposed to infringe on natural rights but protect them) is to make the punishments for serious violent acts serious punishment, pour encourager les autres, as it were, and those punishments should apply to ALL, with no weasel room for LEOs to argue “qualified immunity.” (“So I shot the guy seven times. I thought that UNARMED MAN SPREADEAGLED ON THE FLOOR was a threat, and how was I to know that I busted down the door at the wrong address? Qualified immunity” “Well, I thought that baby she was holding was a deadly weapons, so I killed her.” Qualified immunity. Etc.)

But, demanding that our faux “nobility” give up special privileges just isn’t going to fly, I don’t think. *sigh* Meanwhile, anti-gun folks argue that citizens should surrender their rights because of an almost vanishingly small number of bad actors. *smh*

Posted on

Thx for the info

Book begins:

“[Xx] didn’t like the [Yy], there were too many rules.”

Since the lede is a COMMA SPLICE, I have all the information I need to know the writer DGARA about killing readers’ brain cells, and was too cheap to pay a literate proofreader or editor.

Pass, because the book’s a FAIL.