After the Vigorous Attempts to Upsell, I Ought to Have Expected This

Bait and switch at the vet. Asked in advance what all the charges would be for some procedures. Asked specifically about meds, any additional recommended vaccines, etc. Came time to pay out and it was about 12% more. . . for charges not previously specified and agreed to. Irritating, but not worth hassling about, I suppose. Not a pleased puppy, though. If it were a mechanic, I’d have tried to negotiate a bit and if that didn’t work, I’d probably have burned my bridges and let ’em know they’d lost my future business and that of anyone I could influence. For my Wonder Woman’s cat? *sigh* No. But I will be on the lookout to change vets.

Fundamentals: Ethics v. Morality

“The ethical man knows it is not right to cheat on his wife; the moral man will not.”~Ducky Mallard

Parenthetically, I’d say remaining faithful to one’s wife is easier when one loves her and is convinced God has definitely joined one with one’s wife. Nearly four decades with my Wonder Woman has deepened my understanding of her beauty and irreplaceability.

Just One More Reason to Deplore the “New Truckers’ Version”

I’ve seen a few citations of John 3:16, as mistranslated by the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV), in the run-up to Xmas:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I deplore the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV) in part because of rather gross mistranslation like this. My only gripe with this is that “monogenes” does NOT mean “one and only son” but “only begotten son”. The two are rather profoundly different.

“One and only” is easily impeached by other scriptural passages, even without simply translating “monogenes” correctly. Adam is called a son of God; Israel is called sons of God, Jesus calls peacemakers sons of God; the resurrected, those who have faith in Christ, etc.: all “sons of God” according to scripture. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God: unique, no other like Him.

Yes, I know more and more commonly illiterate folks nowadays might stumble on “begotten,” but that’s just another reason for Xians to be more literate, so we can explain things like the virgin birth, the miracle of the Incarnation.

Or heck, give ’em a dictionary.

Yet Another Uncontroversial “Controversy”

Clip vs. Magazine: In personal conversations–either IRW or via social media/forums, etc.–I simply explain the differences when someone misuses “clip” when referring to a magazine. When it’s misused by someone who is or expects to be paid for their writing, I excoriate such morons for not doing their homework. Such misuse in print by people being paid (or expecting to be paid) for their poor work ethic is reprehensible.

For reference, here is one type of clip–there are many–and one type of magazine (in this case, a stripper clip for [likely] a semi-automatic rifle with an internal magazine, and an external magazine for a semi-automatic or select fire rifle):

glossary_clip-vs-magazine_01-300x264

Of course, magazines for pistols and moon clips (and half-moon clips) for revolvers look a bit different to the pics above, but the differences between clips and magazines are so very clear and simple that writers who expect to be paid (or who have accepted pay) for writing articles or books who misuse “clip” to refer to a magazine are disgusting, lazy slugs who disrespect their readers with their poor work ethic.

Ah, I really should have just linked this and let it go, I suppose. *sigh* Lazy, subliterate, disrespectful frauds pretending to be writers wouldn’t care, anyway, and ordinary folks who simply want to know would just click on through and. . . learn.


“Hickock45” does a great job (as always) explaining the terms:

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.

Musings. . .

“Civil Rights”–it’s a strange and highly loaded term. My own history with the term has been mostly as an observer. . . And “racial tension”? *sigh*

My maternal grandfather grew up “hardscrabble poor”. His family consisted of him, his father, and his mother. They lived as sharecroppers, growing tobacco in a county that had been shattered along a “North/South” fault line of sympathies, splitting communities and families, and the 30 that had lapsed between the end of Mr. Lincoln’s War and my grandfather’s birth had not healed all wounds.

So, divided communities, hardscrabble poverty, competition at the bottom of the economic barrel between poor “whites” and poor “blacks” for subsistence living: all just parts of his daily life growing up.

And then his father died, forcing him to leave school early to support his mother.

Between those early years and when I came to know him as a child, a lot of water under the bridge, a lot of growing. Yes, to his dying day he maintained some of the biased views that formed him as a child (don’t we all?), but. . .

When I spent summers with my grandparents as a child–one set and then the other–I experienced more education in life than in all my years of schooling. Some of the days I shadowed Dad-Dad at work (he was by that time a Southern Baptist pastor, and had been for decades), I didn’t give a thought to the things I learned, though they were planted deep within me. One of the things I learned unconsciously while shadowing him was learned during his perambulations downtown, visiting folks, mostly business people and their employees, in the area where his church was located. I didn’t think a thing about it at the time, but a couple of decades later, one of those business people brought it all back to me.

But before then, while in grad school, I lived and worked in a neighborhood its denizens labeled amongst themselves, “The Good Part of the Ghetto.” All my neighbors and friends in the area (save for a little “white” lady in her 80s who lived a block south of me and a Vietnamese family several houses north) were “blacks”. It was where I lived and worked. They were my neighbors. It just seemed natural to be friendly with friendly folks.

Several years later, I reconnected with one of Dad-Dad’s friends, while I was working with my Dad selling insurance and servicing clients’ needs. Part of that was simply calling on referrals clients made. One of those referrals led me to one of the two funeral homes that serviced mainly black folks in the community. I recall very clearly the moment the owner shook my hand and said, “You were that little boy that visited with Dr. Tom, weren’t you?”

Now, this man and his family had never been members of Dad-Dad’s church. He was “black,” Dad-Dad was “white”. Both had grown up in, frankly, bigoted environments. When I was a young lad visiting around with Dad-Dad, racial tension was rife.

This man and Dad-Dad were simply friends. As things progressed, I ended up having more referrals from that contact than any other in town. Why? Because my raised-to-be-a-bigot grandfather. . . wasn’t by the time he was my grandfather, at least not by the standards of his friend and his family and friends, all of whom remembered him with appreciation, at the least.

How did this color my own upbringing? Well, as I said, racial tensions were rife, in those days, but I never really noticed (I was just a clueless kid, after all, and the only black folks I knew were Dad-Dad’s friends), until I was laid up in the hospital for a month with little to do. . . and a black and white TV on the wall that could tune in soaps, game shows and. . . breaking news reports about civil rights clashes.

Blew. My. Mind. I had never been aware of racial tensions before. As I said, the only folks the prominent bigotry of the day was most likely to see as “other” were just like Dad-Dad’s friends, as far as I could tell.

Even before The Speech, family and life had just drilled into me the precept: People simply ARE NOT “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It’s just the way it is.

But yes, I have experienced racial bigotry–some by direct observation of both “whites” and “blacks” and some by angry, unthinking blacks who DGARA about anyone else’s character, just the color of their skin. But examples of racism personally observed or experienced have been rare for me.

I suppose nowadays, I am some sort of “racist” for embracing the concept of looking at people as people, members of the human race and not just this or that “race” based on physical attributes. *sigh* I look at or hear or read people who view “race” as the defining characteristic of a man’s existence as mentally and morally stunted, so in today’s parlance, yeh, that makes me a “racist.”

I don’t get it. Oh, I do understand that such stupidity exists–I’m not in denial–but it baffles me. Maybe I’m just to old to get it. . .