In public, sing out-of-tune wearing Union Jack hotpants.
Spice Girl Geri Horner (formerly Halliwell) has decided she's going to be remembered as a novelist rather than a singer. To that end, for the past four years, she's been writing a novel.
I suspect, as someone already famous, she'll find it a lot easier to attract publishers than the likes of thee and me.
AJ
(No thanks, I wouldn't like any cheese to go with this whine.)
Write a novel so offensive to a tribal group that their holy mission becomes a crusade to remove you from this life. That gets good press. And a good device for sequels, as you write your continuing adventures of flight and evasion.
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/blog/5-writers-who-were-probably-killed-because-of-their-books/
Be prepared for the potential consequences of doing that.
Be prepared for the potential consequences of doing that.
Good advice.
Except. At what point do we stop deferring to the rabid mob and instead stand up and point out their flaws...?
Or put another way...
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Good advice.
Except. At what point do we stop deferring to the rabid mob and instead stand up and point out their flaws...?
Or put another way...
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
John Stuart Mill, 1867: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
That was the original source of that quote. The rest are paraphrased versions.
I do agree with it. Being prepared does not mean do nothing.
Many people let their mouth overload their arse with no forethought to the consequences. When someone comes around to dispute their statements, they then turn around and play the victim, and or martyr.
Example:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/06/mexico-family-ambush-gunmen-carry-out-evil-attack/4170787002/
Mistaken identity? Bullshit. Same family, different times and locations. They were specifically targeted.
The three families were traveling on a rough rural road that leads from Sonora to Chihuahua when they were attacked, starting with the first vehicle about 9 a.m. The others were attacked around 11 a.m., about 11 miles away, Mendoza said.
It remains unknown whether the anti-crime reputation of the victims' extended family influenced the Monday attack. The victims were related to the LeBaron family, whose members have clashed with drug traffickers over the years. One of them, Benjamin LeBaron, was murdered by the cartels in 2009 after he founded neighborhood patrols against them.
Only a moron or a government; but I repeat myself, would believe it's unrelated.
Had the family prepared, i.e. getting the children to a safe place, they would still be alive. The LeBaron family had/has a history of pitting themselves openly against the cartel. They did not prepare.
We can all rattle on about the injustice of it all, but that doesn't bring back the dead. Fundementalist, radicals, narcos, all examples of animals prepared to kill you over words. Vague literary references mean nothing to them. Violence is all they understand.
Fundementalist, radicals, narcos, all examples of animals prepared to kill you over words.
In the UK, pointing out that a trans woman is still biologically a male can get you reported for a hate crime.
What started as a movement for equality and tolerance has resulted in a cure that's worse than the disease.
AJ
In the UK, pointing out that a trans woman is still biologically a male can get you reported for a hate crime.
That depends. If you preach that exact thing in a mosque... It's fine.
Only a moron or a government; but I repeat myself, would believe it's unrelated.
As proven time and again, only a fool believes that any government feels an obligation to protect him.
I live where not so long ago, a panicked man called the Sheriff's office to report that a deranged neighbor was chasing him with a gun. The panicked man repeated his call twice more while trying to evade his neighbor. Both the dispatcher and the SO had other priorities, and a deputy was eventually dispatched a considerable time later. By that time, the neighbor had caught and shot the fleeing man to death. Lawsuits followed. The usual happened. "We have no obligation to protect an individual."
It's become a staple of our society that major crimes often go unprosecuted because the agencies will not expend or do not have resources to protect witnesses. So common it goes unremarked.
By that time, the neighbor had caught and shot the fleeing man to death.
If the anti gun lobby ever wish to gain traction, they need to work out how to demonstrate to the public that they don't NEED guns, because the police will protect them, without exception.
That is the basic contract between authority and public, the police enforce the law, so the public don't need to. The further that contract breaks down, the closer we get to citizen justice and martial law (put in place to try to regain control).
That is the basic contract between authority and public, the police enforce the law, so the public don't need to.
The authorities argue endlessly that "vigilante" gun ownership in the interest of self-protection is illegal and unwarranted, as they are here to protect the public. Which is true, to a point. In this case, the Sheriff did arrest and prosecute the deranged neighbor -- which I'm sure served as a deterrent as NO deranged neighbor shootings have occurred since, in that rural area -- but it was scant satisfaction to the panicked man who was unable to defend himself and thus was forced to rely on local law enforcement response. He be dead, and of no concern to the law any longer.
And of course those witnesses who feel intimidated by gang retaliation also feel secure in the notion that if gang-bangers show up firing into their home or car, the cops will come a'running to save them.
If the anti gun lobby ever wish to gain traction, they need to work out how to demonstrate to the public that they don't NEED guns, because the police will protect them, without exception.
Except the police are as subject to corruption as any other position of power/authority.
The response to such an argument by the gun control crowd should be: And who protects us FROM the police.
I'll buy the argument that people don't need guns to protect themselves when the police decide that they don't need guns to protect themselves.
Except the police are as subject to corruption as any other position of power/authority.
I've come to believe that corruption is not the problem as much as FEAR and PARANOIA are now driving police responses. (Caps for emphasis) Officers are trained to believe that every encounter with the public (that they're sworn to "protect & serve") is a possible threat to their life. So they spend hours and days and years believing that the very next encounter might be their last. So we get such aberrations as police being called to answer a witness report of a prowler, and within minutes of arriving, they shoot and kill the woman who called them. Or a neighbor calls to report concern for the next-door resident whose door is open, and within a minute of walking down the side of the house, an officer fires through a bedroom window and kills the woman inside who was unaware of the police presence.
These incidents and many more are a reflection of total fear and paranoia among our gun-packing police. None of these incidents would occur if the cop would take a moment to think and consider, but apparently their training doesn't allow for that. Nor does it seem to allow for empathy and compassion and incident de-escalation.
I've come to believe that corruption is not the problem as much as FEAR and PARANOIA are now driving police responses.
I view that fear and paranoia as a form of corruption, because without the effective power/authority to use lethal force with out and kind of effective accountability, the fear and paranoia wouldn't be the kind of problem it is.
The response to such an argument by the gun control crowd should be: And who protects us FROM the police.
I don't think being armed actually enhances an individuals protection FROM the police. Then again there are far too many instances of police shooting unarmed citizens.
Perhaps the most effective way to ensure a good police department is to screen potential members more effectively instead of hiring to fill quotas.
Perhaps the most effective way to ensure a good police department is to screen potential members more effectively
Ha, ha, ha. This is the government we are talking about.
Aside from the issues with current training that Graybyrd pointed out, the power/authority devoid of effective accountability is something that would be highly attractive to sociopaths and psychopaths.
I don't care if it something is an "honest mistake". Even honest mistakes that result in dead bodies ought to have career ending consequences.
Real accountability for Law Enforcement Officers would by itself go a long way towards cleaning up the mess, and any attempt to fix it without real accountability on the back end is likely to prove futile.
Real accountability for Law Enforcement Officers would by itself go a long way towards cleaning up the mess
If US history is any guide, we're baying at the moon. There's a multitude of reasons why attempts to hold police agencies accountable fail, including institutional wagon-circling and police union shields, but state legislatures are perhaps the main problem. For example, here in WA state, up until this past year, it was legally and historically IMPOSSIBLE to convict a law officer of wrongful death. Why? The law stated that one had to prove "malicious intent," which in practice was an iron-clad shield against conviction. It was simply impossible to prove, and all such suits failed as a result.
The situation finally got so egregiously unreasonable that a ballot measure was brought, and passed, to expand the scope of liability, so now it is merely "difficult," rather than impossible to charge an officer for wrongful death.
Care to enrage a police department administration, or a police union? Simply start a call for a community-based ombudsman office with real authority to review and rule on wrongful police actions. Be sure to wear earplugs to guard against screams of protest.
If US history is any guide, we're baying at the moon.
I'm well aware of the roots of the lack of police accountability.
However other solutions proposed: Better training, better policies and procedures, etc. None of it will work unless they can be enforced on the back end.
Step one of enacting real accountability for police would have to be killing the police union.
Step one of enacting real accountability for police would have to be killing the police union.
I was thinking more in terms of eliminating the state legislature; rather, send them all home. We'll call them back when we miss them.
- - -
If all news is fake, then everything we think we know is false; except of course, for what Dear Leader tells us is true.
The news is as reported by the reporters management. It's been that way for a very long time. I won't say it's all fake news, but a good portion of it is.
That btw was happening long before Trump, or dear leader as you call him, was ever in office. The general public has long been lead about by the nose by the fifth estate. The news is the easy button for them. Why bother with such things as research and critical thinking when the media can spoon feed them their opinion?
Trump, or dear leader as you call him
So perhaps I was referring to that fat caricature of a human in North Korea who is currently overseeing their next mega-death famine. Trump's pen pal.
So perhaps I was referring to that fat caricature of a human in North Korea who is currently overseeing their next mega-death famine. Trump's pen pal.
Nope, you've used that term in previous post and threads where the context was Trump.
Nope, you've used that term in previous post and threads where the context was Trump.
Well, what can I say. If the foo shits, wear it.
If the foo shits, wear it.
"www.10000funnyjokes.com/jokes-miscellaneous-41...
He hollered at the boy, "I must have some water right away to wash this mess off. The boy said "Oh no! To wash the crap of the foo bird off means sudden death immediately! Again the hunter ignored his advice, found water and got cleaned off. Sure enough he dropped dead then and there. The moral of this story is "If the foo shits, wear it."
"www.10000funnyjokes.com/jokes-miscellaneous-41...
Sorry, misbegotten me... all I had was my crumbling memory to recall that joke's punch line. And by crackey! I got it right.
Step one of enacting real accountability for police would have to be killing the police union.
How about removing ALL possible protections a member of the police has? After all, if they can be persecuted (not a typo) for anything they do/don't do etc, you'd feel 'safe' from them, right?
The one tiny snag might be finding anyone stupid enough to actually join the police under those circumstances...
The one tiny snag might be finding anyone stupid enough to actually join the police under those circumstances...
Anyone who desires power / authority is unworthy of it.
Anyone who wants to be a cop is not someone we want to have as a cop.
Anyone who wants to be a cop is not someone we want to have as a cop.
So who would you have as a cop?
So who would you have as a cop?
Well, as the hobo folk ballad "Big Rock Candy Mountain" sings, "...and the cops all have wooden legs."
Other than that? Dunno.
So who would you have as a cop?
It's a conundrum to which I do not have an answer. This is why I think real accountability for police, as difficult as it will be to accomplish is so important.
So who would you have as a cop?
The problems with law enforcement do not begin with the police officers. They begin with the laws and the society that created those laws. Sounds simple, but it's far from it.
Not all law enforcement officers are bad. However, the good ones face a difficult task of upholding laws that should never have been; in a society that expects no personal accountability for the citizens, while at the same time being expected to protect the people.
Nanny-state protection comes at the cost of freedom.
In short, it's an untenable situation. Only a complete tear down and build up can fix it.
Only a complete tear down and build up can fix it.
Let's have a convention in which every American citizen is required to participate and decide how to do that. Or did you have in mind, maybe, a republic in which we elect representatives to make decisions for us?
Let's have a convention in which every American citizen is required to participate and decide how to do that. Or did you have in mind, maybe, a republic in which we elect representatives to make decisions for us?
Any organization will eventually be taken over by those who serve the organization and it's interests above the mission for which the organization was formed.
Governments will eventually be taken over by those who seek power for it's own sake. Any government no matter how limited will grow like a snowball rolling down the side of a mountain.
If you desire liberty, the specific form of the government is less important than making sure you periodically tear it down and make it start over from zero.
Any organization will eventually be taken over by those who serve the organization and it's interests above the mission for which the organization was formed.
Governments will eventually be taken over by those who seek power for it's own sake.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."
Lord Acton 1834-1902
"and there is no new thing under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9
There is nothing new to say or do, only new ways to say or do it.
Me
Let's have a convention in which every American citizen is required to participate and decide how to do that. Or did you have in mind, maybe, a republic in which we elect representatives to make decisions for us?
Not an American but as a soft start I would begin with eliminating the legalized bribery called "lobbying".
eliminating the legalized bribery called "lobbying".
I strongly suspect (lets change that to believe) that it isn't possible to stop "lobbying". People want something from government, from specific people who are responsible for regulating behavior, and they will tell them either in person or by message delivered in numerous ways (cash may be the most effectual) what they want or sometimes don't want. No abortions, no immigrants, no rules preventing mergers, etc. No or lower taxes are a favorite. With elections and particularly re-election required to be in government, it is not surprising, at least to me, that helping the governors (representatives, senators, presidential candidates) becomes important to getting their acceptance of your requests. And they call that Lobbying. I think the term started by people greeting government people in a Lobby. Back before there were a lot of other communication methods. Here is what I found online.
"lobbying | Definition & Facts | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com ' topic ' lobbying
Lobbying, any attempt by individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of government; in its original meaning it referred to efforts to influence the votes of legislators, generally in the lobby outside the legislative chamber. Lobbying in some form is inevitable in any political system."
(Its even constitutional, seeking redress of grievances is protected.) Again from my online searches:
"Lobbying in the United States could be seen to originate from Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States, which states: Congress shall make no lawβ¦abridging the right of the people peaceablyβ¦to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There may be methods of lobbying that can be controlled. Laws against "bribery" can help. But why would legislators pass laws against help with paying for the legislators getting re-elected?
But why would legislators pass laws against help with paying for the legislators getting re-elected?
And there you have the hearth of the problem. It's all about getting re-elected, not about governing the country. That comes as a second thought, maybe third or fourth. Lobbying nowadays is nothing less then big companies getting laws pushed through that benefit them, not the people in general. "Bad" government started the day that politicians were "grown" instead of first having normal jobs where they excelled to make them fit for specific government functions.
"Bad" government started the day that politicians were "grown" instead of first having normal jobs where they excelled to make them fit for specific government functions.
Absolutely..!!!
Then make each candidate declare their nett worth at the time they standing for office because that (plus standard interest) is all they are allowed when they leave office. If those elected can't profit by being elected they might just concentrate on doing what they are supposed to. Those who see politics as a money making concern will no longer stand.
If those elected can't profit by being elected they might just concentrate on doing what they are supposed to. Those who see politics as a money making concern will no longer stand.
Won't work. There office gives them power, power to do things for people. Don't pay them and even more then now, they will find other ways to profit from their office.
other ways to profit from their office.
Lady Bird Johnson, the wife of Senator and Vice President and President LBJ because Kennedy was assassinated (in Texas, LBJ's home state), received numerous licenses to run broadcasting frequencies that made her/them extremely wealthy. Biden's son got a very profitable job in the Ukraine that is being investigated as part of Trump's impeachment trial. Even if the legislator or other office holder is held to very limited wealth increases, there are others whose money can be adjusted due to favors back and forth.
Even if the legislator or other office holder is held to very limited wealth increases, there are others whose money can be adjusted due to favors back and forth.
And that can simply be resolved by meticulous investigation of all those favors and follow up with appropriate punishment and pay-back. No matter how you look at it, it's abuse of office which should never be allowed. It's how corruption creeps deeper and deeper until you get what you have now.
And that can simply be resolved by meticulous investigation of all those favors and follow up with appropriate punishment and pay-back. No matter how you look at it, it's abuse of office which should never be allowed.
Expecting the government to honestly investigate and punish corruption by government officials is foolish if not delusional, you are leaving the fox to guard the henhouse.
Where it gets investigated and punished it's for another officials political gain.
And that can simply be resolved by meticulous investigation of all those favors and follow up with appropriate punishment and pay-back.
And then some of the favors and money are deferred until out of office. Write a book and get lots of copies sold to people who owe you favors. Make speeches for large fees once out of office. Get a job with limited duties and high pay, maybe as a director for some corporations that owe the former office holder. Become a professor at a university where your job is funded by contributors. Many former Presidents have made a lot of money once out of office.
Not an American but as a soft start I would begin with eliminating the legalized bribery called "lobbying".
Lobbying exists because the government is big and powerful. It can give people "free" stuff and affect who wins and who loses in business.
Make the government weaker and smaller, make it so the government can't give people free stuff and can't affect economic outcomes and lobbying goes away because there is no point in doing it.
How about removing ALL possible protections a member of the police has? After all, if they can be persecuted (not a typo) for anything they do/don't do etc, you'd feel 'safe' from them, right?
Thanks for that absurdity. I'd come to expect better, ma'am. Truth is that US police have more than ample protections. Actually, that's a large part of the problem.
How about this thought: cops are given extraordinary authority and protection to perform their duties. In fairness and balance, there should be equivalent extraordinary accountability for their actions.
Reasonable, right? Hmmm... didn't think so.
Thanks for that absurdity. I'd come to expect better, ma'am. Truth is that US police have more than ample protections. Actually, that's a large part of the problem.
Hey, sometimes I'm obtuse... :)
On the few occasions I've had to interact with the US police the officers concerned were one of two basic types;
1. Those that feel the need to display their badge and authority. (Usually with hand on sidearm whilst speaking) Deeming themselves above the law.
2. Those who don't need a badge. (Think blazing saddles) Who exemplify the law.
Funny thing is that type 1 almost always react to my English accent and like to show off their knowledge by mispronouncing English place names etc.
Funny thing is that type 1 almost always react to my English accent and like to show off their knowledge by mispronouncing English place names etc.
Points well taken. My early years in a rural mountain community led me to believe the local city marshall, the county Sheriff's deputies, and our regional state highway patrolman, were "peace" officers (that would be your 'Type 2' officer.) That was our everyday relationship with them. I don't think any of them ever pulled their gun, or even stood around with their hand on the gun butt, except for cleaning and shooting qualifications. This was in the mid-50's.
My first encounter with the 'other' kind of officer came in the mid-60's, when a small group of us sailors on liberty with our girlfriends was standing around in El Cajon, CA and a CHP officer drove by, stopped, got out of his cruiser, and questioned a few of us. I cracked a joke, just like I'd grown accustomed to with our peace officer types from my home town, and I quickly learned that I'd crossed some sort of line. I was put down, hard, with obvious hostility. That was the beginning of my 'attitude adjustment.' Nothing's happened since to dissuade that opinion.
Also note, I was for many years a newspaper journalist in rural communities, and worked closely with Sheriff's offices and city police. While the relationship was generally good, I quickly learned that there is a distinct attitude among law officers of "them" vs. "us", the cops vs. the civilians, and the attitude of "citizen encounters involve perps or potential perps, until proven otherwise" is more common than not. And lets not talk about the difference in attitude between Canadian border officials vs. their US counterparts, here where I live and whom I've experienced in numerous border crossings. Honestly, I've also come to believe it's a basic defect in our national culture. Seriously.
So, there's over half a century of personal experience. Thankfully, there's a good chance I'll soon lose it all and won't care much anymore.
Oh, my original point: do the world a favor and encourage somebody to publish a pronunciation guide to all those illogical English place names, okay? Like "Worcestershire," maybe?
While the relationship was generally good, I quickly learned that there is a distinct attitude among law officers of "them" vs. "us", the cops vs. the civilians, and the attitude of "citizen encounters involve perps or potential perps, until proven otherwise" is more common than not.
That is very much a true attitude among police departments. The problem is, until the attitude of certain sections of society change regarding the police, it's not going to get any better.
Around here, if there was an officer in trouble on a call, you'd find a lot of armed civilians there to back him or her up. Seeing the garbage piled on the police cruiser in NYC shows their complete disrespect for civilized behavior - which means officers there expect no backup from civilians.
I'm not going to say there's not bad cops out there - we all know there are. There's a lot more just trying to do their job and go home every night to their family.
The problem is, until the attitude of certain sections of society change regarding the police, it's not going to get any better.
That's a tragic circumstance. Reference "self-fulfilling prophecy" so see how downward-spiraling that situation has become. Expecting public attitudes to change is much like expecting the cops to give up their guns.
And it's a helluva lot easier to explain why you taser'd the 68-year-old man laying in a rest-home bed than it is to fill out reports after shooting him. (Oh, drat... there I go again. But doesn't all of these incomprehensible [fake news?] reports stir the slightest FUD* in folks concerning our civil law enforcement system? Even the tiniest bit?
*What else, but Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
Oh, my original point: do the world a favor and encourage somebody to publish a pronunciation guide to all those illogical English place names, okay?
A pointless exercise.
Proof?
Al-u-min-i-um.
Creating the 'murican language consisted mostly of bugging up perfectly good English words.
:)
Creating the 'murican language consisted mostly of bugging up perfectly good English words.
Well when the US was created, English was the most common language in the new nation, but we were pissed at the English, so we deliberately fucked with the language. ;P
consisted mostly of bugging up perfectly good English words.
I thought you meant to say "buggering up"... but that's obviously not correct. "I" would say buggering; "you" would more lady-like say bugging.
As for that shiny metal, who came up with the word first? The Brits, or ALCOA? Although I tend to support your version. After all, why settle for a plebian four-syllable word when there's a nifty five-syllable tongue-tangler at hand.
And we Yanks are exempt from criticism; who could possibly confuse our national language with English?
I thought you meant to say "buggering up"... but that's obviously not correct. "I" would say buggering; "you" would more lady-like say bugging.
Actually I did mean to say "buggering up". I'm only a lady in the drawing room... :)
As for that shiny metal, who came up with the word first? The Brits, or ALCOA?
English Chemist Sir Humphry Davy coined the term in 1812. It was based on the French word alumina.
English Chemist Sir Humphry Davy coined the term in 1812. It was based on the French word alumina.
And "Brits vs. ALCOA" was really meant as sly humo[u]r. Like the Russian claims of days past [they invented televison, after all], we now live in an age where the Corporations of America are the source, nay, the fount of all things great and small. Hence, the ALuminum COrporation of America was without doubt the valid source and securer of the proper name.
Like the Russian claims of days past [they invented televison,
Not only that - among the many claims they made was that they invented the Edsel - and America quickly agreed.
Supposedly Davy first called it aluminium, in 1808 when he first discovered it and in line with all the other -ium metals he discovered. But when he went to publication in 1812, he changed the name to aluminum.
AJ
Supposedly Davy first called it aluminium, in 1808 when he first discovered it and in line with all the other -ium metals he discovered. But when he went to publication in 1812, he changed the name to aluminum.
Aluminum has an interesting history. Davy did not discover it btw, although he was the person to coin the term, and the partial isolation of it by electrolysis.
Most people are unaware of its value back before the mid 1800's. That is exemplified by many stories here. Back then, it was valued higher than gold. Until Martin Hall came up with the electrolytic process of extraction, it was extremely difficult to extract it out of its ore, thus it's high value. Something I've yet to see in any stories here. A portal travel/time travel story where the MC carried back aluminum and objects thereof would be interesting...
Early examples of Alum (aluminum potassium sulfate, KAl(SO4)2) and Anhydrous aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3) date back 5,000 years.
who could possibly confuse our national language with English?
At least some of the blame belongs to Noah Webster whose early dictionary deliberately made changes.
"Noah Webster (1758 β 1843), was a lexicographer and a language reformer. He is often called the "Father of American Scholarship and Education". In his lifetime he was also a lawyer, schoolmaster, author, newspaper editor and an outspoken politician.
Noah Webster was a very learned and devout man, and his ideas about language in his long introduction to his dictionary make for interesting reading. The frontispiece gives us a wonderful portrait of Webster. He presents as a man of strong will and determination, qualities he would have needed to push his great project to a conclusion.
In 1807 Webster began compiling a fully comprehensive dictionary, An American Dictionary of the English Language; it took twenty-eight years to complete. To evaluate the etymology of words, Webster learned twenty-six languages, including Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Greek, Hebrew and Latin.
Webster completed his dictionary during his year abroad in 1825 in Paris, France, and at the University of Cambridge. His book contained seventy thousand words, of which twelve thousand had never appeared in a published dictionary before. As a spelling reformer, Webster believed that English spelling rules were unnecessarily complex, so his dictionary introduced American English spellings, replacing colour with color, substituting wagon for waggon, and printing center instead of centre. He also added American words, like skunk and squash, that did not appear in British dictionaries. At the age of seventy, Webster published his dictionary in 1828, registering the copyright on April 14. Webster did all this in an effort to standardize the American language.
Noak Webster's House
Webster's New Haven home, where he wrote An American Dictionary of the English Language. Now relocated to Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan.
Though it now has an honored place in the history of American English, Webster's first dictionary only sold two and a half thousand copies. He was forced to mortgage his home to develop a second edition, and his life from then on was plagued with debt.
In 1840, the second edition was published in two volumes. On May 28, 1843, a few days after he had completed revising an appendix to the second edition, Noah Webster died."
At least some of the blame belongs to Noah Webster whose early dictionary deliberately made changes.
Ummm... Richard, thanks for that. But seriously, all I meant to say was that we've gleefully corrupted the language (to hear them across the pond say it) and we've taken considerable smug joy in the doing.
But answer me this, if you will: how in 'ell did Worcestershire ever come to be pronounced 'wooster' except from the mouth of a post-stroke victim of a wisdom tooth extraction suffering a head cold? Hmmm? And that both in Merry-Old-Over-There and in MassaScrewsIt on our side. Curious minds, and all that... really don't need to know, but it would be nice to use at Trivia parties.
we've taken considerable smug joy in the doing.
You claim you've taken me...?? Really.....?
And how very dare you say I'm smug...??!!
:)
You claim you've taken me...?? Really.....?
"Taken" is hardly the proper verb; "smug" is not at all appropriate. "Joyfully enjoyed" may come close. That and a huge cheroot with brandy (and her sister) at day's end.
enjoyed
There are lots of en words. Enrich (unfortunately there is no enRichard), entranced, endured, enlivened, entrapped, and lots of others.
Its not too bad to be enJoyed.
Its not too bad to be enJoyed.
The prefix en- is often more-or-less interchangeable with in- eg ensured and insured. Does enjoyed mean the same as injoyed, and how does Joy feel about it?
AJ
Off the top of my head and falling back on how I use the words, I'll say that "en-" and "in-" are not interchangeable. For example: "en"sured means 'you can be assured,' to be certain. On the other hand, "in" sured means you've got insurance, "you're insured and the doctor will proceed with your gizzardectomy."
Big difference.
On the other hand, "in" sured means you've got insurance, "you're insured and the doctor will proceed with your gizzardectomy.
That's the British way, but from many examples in stories on SOL, the opposite seems the norm in the US.
I was trying to be humorous at Joy's expense, but the en- (em-) and in- (im-) prefixes can both have a 'put into' meaning.
AJ
That's the British way, but from many examples in stories on SOL, the opposite seems the norm in the US.
I've seen many examples in SOL stories where the author writes, "he insured that the gun was loaded"... and that is wrong, just plain wrong. It should be "he ensured that the gun..."
I'm not aware that we need refer to a Brit dictionary vs. a Yank dictionary to determine "insure" vs "ensure."
An advanced search for '2019 insure' in story text returned 15 results. From the preview, 14 used the word 'insure' where a Brit like me would have used 'ensure'. (The other story was Arlene and Jeff and the word 'insure' was not in the preview and I'm definitely not going to the trouble of tracking it down.)
Either there's a cultural difference or a lot of authors need a good proofreader.
AJ
Either there's a cultural difference or a lot of authors need a good proofreader.
Indeed there are significant cultural differences, but in this case, there's a crying need for a good proofreader. It always bugs the shite out of me (grin).
I'm not aware that we need refer to a Brit dictionary vs. a Yank dictionary to determine "insure" vs "ensure."
I don't even think Brit dictionary vs. US dictionary would help.
Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-to-use-insure-vs-ensure-vs-assure
Do you find yourself jolted awake in the middle of the night, seized with the paralyzing dread that you may have used either ensure, insure, or assure when one of the others was called for, when writing a letter to a very important person? We hope not, as it isn't really worth losing sleep over (but good on you for still writing letters). Furthermore, not only is there a good chance your reader also confuses these three words, but there are many circumstances in which they are in fact interchangeable.
Before we get into an examination of what the differences might be, it is worth noting that this is one of the many areas of English where there is no unanimity of opinion as to what is correct. An optimist might view this as 'no matter which one I pick some will think me correct.' A pessimist will instead think 'no matter which one I pick some will think me wrong.' And a cynic will think 'I do not believe that anyone truly cares about these matters, and therefore it makes not a whit of difference which one I choose.'
The cynic would be mostly right, at least for much of the history of English, as for hundreds of years insure and ensure were simply spelling variants, and had no more difference between them than theatre and theater. It is not uncommmon to find them used in much the same manner, even within the same sentence.Such an introduction, though it may ensure success, does not necessarily insure a rapid or brilliant one, and for a considerable time his character stood much higher with the profession than with the publick.
β The Gentleman's Magazine (London, Eng.), Oct. 1823
However, in the middle of the 19th century some began to find fault with this, and proposed assigning meanings to ensure, insure, and assure in more orderly fashion.
An instance of such differentiation, when a new word arises, may be found in the word 'ensure,' formerly spelled indifferently 'ensure' and 'insure;' whereas, at present, the latter mode refers properly to the periodical payment of a sum of money during life, in consideration of a larger sum being paid to relatives at death; a person doing this is said to 'insure' his life; but to 'ensure' his life is admittedly beyond any man's powerβ¦.and here we may remark, en passant, that the words 'assure' and 'assurance' are wholly incorrect as applied to life or fire insurance.
β Chambers's Journal, 23 Nov. 1867
We propose no innovation, except that of so limiting the significations of ensure and insure, enure and inure, that each of these words in en shall become a distinct word, instead of being as now a various spelling.
β Benjamin Drew, Pens and Types, 1871
Very well; useful info. We shan't be entimidated farther by meagre one-litter defferences in werds and phrazes. It's good to insure piece of mind.
We shan't be entimidated farther by meagre one-litter defferences in werds and phrazes. It's good to insure piece of mind.
Ha, ha, ha. The point of that is that while they aren't fully interchangeable today, they were fully interchangeable once upon a time and that the change in that crosses both US and British English.
No, indeed you're perfectly correct. Earlier, I'd basically meant to say that -- somehow -- I'd... adopted, I guess... the "e" and "i" versions having distinctly different meanings and not interchangeable. So I've learned something, again.
Point in fact, the language changes quite rapidly (looking backward) and even reading classics from the turn of the century can be quite jarring.
How expensive are the insurance premiums?
Depends on how large a piece you want to insure.
I've just perused a recent copy of a Brit tabloid from the weekday it includes a personal finance section. I found half a dozen instances of insure/ensure, and they were all used as I would expect. I think that indicates the Brits have accepted the split in meaning.
The following is for amusement only:
"Why did you take the girl?"
"I needed her as insurance, to ensure her parents do as I want. I assure you I don't intend to harm a hair on her head. Snip off a pinky perhaps to encourage the parents, but her hair stays intact."
AJ
I think that indicates the Brits have accepted the split in meaning.
Most of the US has as well. However, that split is only around 150 years old, and some individuals get confused over it.
It doesn't help that the spellings differ by only a single character between insure and ensure and spell checkers can't tell if you used the wrong one.
From the Merriam Webster link I posted above:
Many usage guides have suggested restricting the use of insure to financial matters, and employing ensure in general uses where you mean "to make sure, certain, or safe." And we often do this; when examining the things that we insure they tend be much more of things that may be assigned some remunerable value: cars, homes, ourselves. The things that we ensure, on the other hand, are more frequently accountability, control, and outcomes. Assure is differentiated from these two words in that it may have the specific meaning of removing doubt (or attempting to) from someone's mind.
Perhaps the most effective way to ensure a good police department is to screen potential members more effectively instead of hiring to fill quotas.
Cressida Dick was screened very thoroughly even before she joined the police. A certain dead Brazilian might argue that the thorough screening wasn't effective.
AJ
Cressida Dick was screened very thoroughly even before she joined the police. A certain dead Brazilian might argue that the thorough screening wasn't effective.
I wasn't aware that CD shot him.
I wasn't aware that CD shot him.
The police's finest gun cops shot at him from point blank range and mostly missed. CD, who was supposed to be in control of the operation, bungled things so badly that she implicitly gave the order for him to be murdered.
AJ
In the same vein as poly ticks, po lice can be explained as a combination of po, an abbreviation of poor, and lice. "Lice are tiny, wingless, parasitic insects that feed on your blood."
Alternate meanings of po from Merriam-Webster follows:
"po abbreviation
Definition of po (Entry 1 of 4)
by mouth; orally
Po symbol
Definition of Po (Entry 2 of 4)
polonium
PO abbreviation (2)
Definition of PO (Entry 3 of 4)
1petty officer
2postal order
3post office
4purchase order
Po geographical name
ΛpΕ
variants: or ancient Padus ΛpΔ-βdΙs
Definition of Po (Entry 4 of 4)
river 405 miles (652 kilometers) long in northern Italy flowing from the slopes of Mount Viso east into the Adriatic Sea through several mouths
History and Etymology for po
Abbreviation (1)
Latin per os"
First let me say I believe a law abiding person should be able to own a gun for protection provided they pass a background check and has training to use it. I find it ironic that those people who argue that good people should have guns are against a law that would make it possible that only good guys can buy guns. Every illegal gun on the street started out as a legal gun owen by an idiot who didn't secure it.
I also find it ironic that Texas which has the least gun control laws including open carry of AR15's and who's motto is "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." seem to have the most mass shootings where no good guys can be found.
On the open carry law besides making the person look like an impotent idiot the law in reality only seems to apply to white people. In a recent study a white guy walks down a street with a AR15 across his chest, one cop pulls up and gets out of his car with his hand resting on his gun but never pulls it asks what's up and the white guy say's he is invoking his open carry rights. A black guy walks down the same street and 5 cops show up and jumps out with guns drawn and orders the guy on the ground and cuff him all the while the guy is saying he is only invoking his rights.
My last thought on guns. If a person who is legally carrying a gun comes upon a robbery and goes all John Wayne and starts shooting and hits or kills a bystander should he be arrested? Remember the Amadou Diallo case where 41 rounds were fired and only 19 rounds hit him by 4 cops who were trained how to shoot.
Remember the Amadou Diallo case where 41 rounds were fired and only 19 rounds hit him by 4 cops who were trained how to shoot.
Let's not, okay. Sheesh, I'd finally forgotten it. T'was a comb, or a cell phone, or a wallet he reached for, as I recall. Some form of deadly weapon like that, and it only took three reloads and an order from a late-arriving commander on the scene to stop firing and checking to see if he finally died and was no longer an immediate threat to their personal safety. The great tragedy of the incident was that none had thought to bring a 'throw away gun' to drop by the body. Hence all the embarrassing questions that followed.
Yep, an all-time classic in the annals of American law enforcement. Near as good as choking a man to death for peddling a single cigarette. Laws will be enforced, have no doubt.
(Today's news includes the gem that two women were detained for speaking Spanish in Montana. Profiling? Nope, never happen. Now if they were speaking Farsi, that's a different thing altogether. Ironic: 'montana' is derived from a Spanish root. Think 'mountains.'
I also find it ironic that Texas which has the least gun control laws
Like pretty much everything else Texas brags about, that's false. Texas's gun laws are more restrictive than Vermont's. Texas makes it easy to get concealed-carry permits. Vermont doesn't have concealed-carry permits... because it doesn't require them.
First let me say I believe a law abiding person should be able to own a gun for protection provided they pass a background check and has training to use it. I find it ironic that those people who argue that good people should have guns are against a law that would make it possible that only good guys can buy guns.
It would accomplish no such thing.
1 at best it would only stop bad guys who have previously caught and successfully prosecuted.
2.https://reason.com/2019/11/11/biker-gang-leaders-diy-guns-are-part-of-a-predictable-prohibition-story/
3. Guns can be and have been successfully smuggled into the US from foreign countries.
Cops are now detaining people who record them on their cell phones for having a deadly weapon. So of course someone started selling phone cases shaped like a hand gun.
IMO anyone who buys one should be shot for gross stupidity.
IMO anyone who buys one should be shot for gross stupidity.
NO, no, no. Don't bother. This is a classic 'Darwin' opportunity. 'Self-correcting' one might say.
I have been pulled over more then 30 times on my motercycle without ever getting a ticket because I never did anything illegal but mainly for how I looked. The best reasons given so far are twice because they were bored and hoped I would run and once because my sunglasses were illegal (which believe it or not they were because they had leather sides) only problem was he came up behind me so he didn't see them till after he stopped me.
A smart working girl will always use a condom to ensure there is little risk of catching an STI, she also pays a stiff (pun intended) premium on her policy to insure against loss of earnings should the condom fail to do its job.
Why this example?
Because I was taught that 'insure' is used in the commercial context, and 'ensure' elsewhere. Thus I pay insurance not ensurance. I wrap up in cold weather to ensure, not insure, I stay warm.
I wrap up in cold weather to ensure, not insure, I stay warm.
If I read the Merriam Webster quote that Dominions Son posted it should be "I wrap up in cold weather gear to assure I stay warm. (i.e 'make sure')
If I read the Merriam Webster quote that Dominions Son posted it should be "I wrap up in cold weather gear to assure I stay warm. (i.e 'make sure')
You aren't reading the Merriam Webster quotes correctly.
Assure is differentiated from these two words in that it may have the specific meaning of removing doubt (or attempting to) from someone's mind.
So unless you are trying to talk yourself into the delusion that you are warm, ensure is the correct word for the context.
So unless you are trying to talk yourself into the delusion that you are warm, ensure is the correct word for the context.
Good thing that I'm not an author. I would have written "I dress in cold weather gear to make sure I stay warm." Just taking the easy way out to avoid the in-, en-, as- choice :D
If I read the Merriam Webster quote that Dominions Son posted it should be "I wrap up in cold weather gear to assure I stay warm. (i.e 'make sure')
I would use 'ensure' in that circumstance. 'Assure' has the connotation of removing doubt from somebody's mind. However Merriam Webster assures otherwise and we all know how wonderful Merriam Webster is ;)
AJ
Except they don't in this case.
I read the Merriam Webster entry for 'assure'. They ascribe more meanings than my desk diction from Oxford.
AJ
I read the Merriam Webster entry for 'assure'. They ascribe more meanings than my desk diction from Oxford.
They tend to continue to list old meanings that are obsolete. Might be important for someone reading historical documents.
About the INsure ENsure issue:
When I was in school back in the 1960s I was taught ensure is about you making an effort to have something done or happen, while insure is about making an effort to reduce the chance of something happening or to increase the chance of someone else doing something. However, since then I've not seen the second meaning of insure used anywhere.
Thus I can ensure my car is ready for the long trip, while I can insure my car against damage on the trip, and I can do all I can to insure the others on the trip have what they need for the trip by regularly telling them what to bring. - NB: I'd not consciously use the last usage today, except in an example like this.
At least no one is talking about the to-two-too mistakes in so many stories.
To men walk in too a bar two watch a game.
To men walk in too a bar two watch a game.
A man walks into a bar, rubs his head and says "Ouch!".
A man walks into a bar, rubs his head and says "Ouch!".
Unlike the dyslexic who walked into a bra...
to-two-too mistakes
And then there is the ballerina costume, the to-to. Oops, although it is pronounced that way it is spelled tu-tu. However that is/was a band named Toto, and also the dog in the Wizard of Oz was Toto.
With 2 there should always be at least 2 options.
In my school introduction to French textbook, there was a boy named Roger who had a dog named Toutou.
AJ
