Category: I do these sorts of things so you don’t have to

Posted on

Viewpoint and Perspective

The Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind viewpoint exacerbated by an almost complete lack of historical knowledge and perspective in our society exaggerates the effect of reports of current events on public awareness and opinion. The Houston flooding is a current example.

There’s no doubt the flooding in the Houston area is devastating, and is comparable to some of the worst flooding the area has experienced in the last 100 years, but–and this is in no way intended to minimize the property damage and loss of life–while the flooding there has approached record levels, several floods in the past 100 years have had higher crests and been at least as widely spread and devastating.

Of course, Houston is more populous now than it was during what was arguably THE most devastating flood of the past, in 1935, but heck, even though I’m not really conversant in Texas history, I’ve had enough relatives from Texas (including grandparents who were Texas transplants in Oklahoma) to have been aware that Houston has experienced many floods in the past.

As always, when I hear of folks devastated by natural events in locales where such things are common, I have to wonder, “Why were folks so very unprepared for such an event?” (Let alone wondering, “Why live in a flood plain?” *heh*) Now, readers here may recall that in April we were surprised by a flood that affected our own property–even invading our basement, a flood that exceeded “100 year flood” levels and was widely, throughout the county, well above and beyond any flooding in the historical record, cresting over even a 100-year-old “historical” bridge that had never been flooded.

And yes, there were folks living in flood plains who were flooded far, far worse than we were, outside any known flood plain (and I have FEMA maps–outdated NOW!–showing we are not in a flood plain, for that matter). Yes, even with the commonsense precaution we took years ago to deliberately NOT buy a home in a flood plain, though we looked at some nice places that were in a flood plain–we experienced flooding, but. . .

Lil tidbit from the link above, for additional perspective:

“Dec. 8, 1935: Flooding to second and third floors of downtown buildings; Houston central water plant inoperable for weeks. . .”

  • My Wonder Woman had a bugout bag ready in case it got bad enough. We also had plenty of supplies on hand in case were had to “bug in,” as it were (including both wash water and potable water, as well as a means to filter and sanitize more, if necessary). Most folks I know were similarly prepared.
  • Most folks in the county handled things expeditiously, WELL before FEMA blundered in.
  • No lives lost. While some of that might be related to our sparse population, I suspect the most likely reason is that most folks didn’t need to be told when to seek higher ground, and also knew to not stupidly drive into high water.

Non-stupid behavior pays off.

While its nice to be able to depend on the kindness of strangers1, NOT having to depend on it is smarter, IMO. Just sayn’.

But, it’s so much better for Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind ratings to “celebrate” (as it were), or at least not condemn, mass stupidity.

Again, not minimizing the property damage and loss of life (stupid people are people too), just noting: no one who is at all aware of past events finds the Houston flood at all surprising.

1With a tip o’ the tam to Blanche DuBois. 😉

Posted on

Normals Seem to Do This a LOT

Here’s an example of Normals mis-hearing and mis-interpreting spoken terms that is particularly humorous to me: “two-trek road.” An amusing lack of thought went into that mis-interpretation, since a “two-track road” is definitive: the two TRACKS are made by wheels on axeled vehicles wearing a path, in much the same way that game trails are made (though game trails are almost always “one-track” trails, of course). “Two-trek” seems to indicate to me that the person who has written the term in this way has never even seen a two-track road, or if he has, has any understanding of how such a thing is made by the TRACKS of two wheels (and more, repeated by another one or two axles).

Understanding what one hears requires thought much more frequently than most Normals seem to be aware of.

Posted on

Don’t quit your day job

Note to aspiring writers: at least learn to write halfway sensible sentences before considering a career change, mmmK? For example, the writer of this lil gem among others in just the first few paragraphs of his “magnum opus,” needs to go back to Remedial English for a refresher:

“His secrets come under threat when he starts receiving anonymous messages.” Please complete that thought. Or. . . perhaps it’s better left incomplete and the rest of the book unread. Yeh, that’s the ticket.

Posted on

Understanding “Gender”

To properly understand the many different fantasy “genders” that have come about in recent years, a trip down etymology lane might be helpful:

“gender (n.)
c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups. ”

When speaking of _mankind_**, then, one can speak now of three specific “genders”:

male
female
batsh*t crazy.

The last class is the catch-all for all the delusional folks who are in denial of reality and claim to be some weird fantasy “gender.”
___________________________

**”mankind” here is a poke in the eye to snowflake “batsh*t crazies”

Posted on

Gibberish, Gobbledegook, and Glop

Economics. *sigh* Just another field that HAS to use words in idiosyncratic ways in order to attempt to make its jargon less acceptable to the hoi polloi. Example: in common speech “rival” and “competitor” are synonyms. In Economics, however, a good (yeh, another one, but with strong etymological roots) is rival if its use or consumption by one party denies another party its use or consumption.

Fugetaboutit.

Posted on

Apropos of Nothing in Particular

On another site, I read of a gal’s woes ordering lingerie from Amazon. Seems some bras that were delivered were. . . not exactly as ordered.

Off-the-wall and around the corner. . . and since I don’t wear a bra (*heh*), probably not germane, but. . .

I noticed recently that one of my Wonder Woman’s discarded bras might make a couple of good facemasks, with perhaps some added filtration material. Something to think about? *heh*

Aaaannnd,

Neon colors and psychedelic designs (the aforementioned gal’s complaint). . . Jimmy Durante said it best:

Posted on

Sometimes, Even Subliterate Writers Can Be Entertaining. . . Though By Accident

Sometimes, text written by a subliterate writer can lead to fun stuff. A silly, 20-something self-pub subliterate writer (whose “editorial” helpers are no more literate than he is) provided such a brief moment, before I ashcanned his stupid book.

“. . .tells me that a newly discovered landmark was uncovered by the storm and that the ruin is not in any kind of withered [sic] state.”

Oh, my. The subliterate writer was probably groping for “weathered,” but since

a. his ears are apparently dull and
b. he just flat-out doesn’t know the differences between “wither” and “weather,”

. . .he went with a near homophone that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But. . . then I paused and thought of the different meanings of wither, and their etymologies. (Yes, because I spent much of my youth reading dictionaries–and still do to this day, for that matter–and have a wide range of interests in disparate fields, I knew that the noun “wither” and the verb “wither” came from two very different roots. *shrugs* So? 🙂 ) So I had a bit of personal entertainment contemplating a horse’s withers and the withering of a plant.

And then, back to the Badly Written Text to a further description of the “ruin”:

“In fact, it doesn’t look “ruined” at all! It appears to be in perfect condition!”

*head-desk* Then why, oh why, did the “eminent archaeologist” initially refer to it as a “ruin”?

Because the writer had no appropriate vocabulary to describe it else, of course.

Well, this lil incident combined with four others in the two pages since I picked the book back up to convince me I needed to delete it from my library entirely, so as not to even accidentally pick it back up.

Oh, well. At least I managed to get all the way to 4% of the thing this time. . .