Thanksgiving 2008, Tom and I were supposed to go spend the week in Virginia with my dad. Plans were – somewhat – changed at the last minute when Tom got a promotion. The kids and I still wanted to go, so my dad paid for round trip tickets on the Amway Train. (Yes, I know it’s actually Amtrack, it’s malapropism – deal with it.)
Tom put us on the train in Atlanta where we traveled all night and arrived in Fredericksburg around 8:30am. For the most part, the boys slept. I dozed some, but not real soundly. Mostly I read.
Then the Monday after Thanksgiving, we came home – still traveling all night – and arrived in Atlanta at around 8:30am on Tuesday morning.
On the return trip, when our seats were assigned to us, they had me in a seat behind the boys and not next to them – which I didn’t like – so we leaned the seats back and all three sat in the seats where the boys were assigned.
There was only one other person in any of the seats directly around us, but it was clear the other seats were occupied. The occupants just happened to be elsewhere on the train.
Well into the evening, or morning rather, around 3am, two of the four occupants, two black women, returned. Stating the race of someone when telling a story isn’t something I usually do, because 9 out of 10 times it’s inconsequential. This time, however, the fact that they were black is pertinent. Of all the people in the train car we were in, we were 3 of the 7 people who weren’t black.
So anyway, they returned to the train car. They reeked of alcohol and couldn’t walk without stumbling or running into someone or something. Their seats were across from where the boys and I were sitting.
Apparently, alcohol is served on the train in the snack car.
I did not know this.
When they got to their seats, they didn’t sit down. One of the ladies decided to stand in the aisle and lean on the seat she was assigned. Then they proceeded to do what every person who gets stupid drunk does. They started talking smack. Mostly it was the lady in the aisle smack talking.
Smack talk that was filled with language so colorful it hurt my ears.
Smack talking, filled with colorful language, in front of my kids and LOUD. The boys were asleep, but they could have woken at any time. Especially with how loud the lady was…
A couple times, a person or two from the back of the car yelled out for them to sit down and shut up. This only got the one lady to become louder and and then express her disgust with a fellow black person trying to shut her up. From there, she decided to give a speech educating everyone within earshot on all the wonderful things Obama was going to do for her… As if the foul language wasn’t enough to make me sick…
In times past, it’s been pointed out to me that when I want to speak up about something – but don’t or can’t – for whatever reason, I get fidgety. More so than usual. Most of the time it’s my leg. It bounces – fast. Tom can always tell when I’ve had enough and don’t plan on keeping quiet any longer. When I get like that, he puts his hand on my leg and gives it a very firm squeeze. Which, it usually works. It sort of ‘grounds’ me. However… Tom wasn’t with me.
So, I was fidgety. Very fidgety and getting more so as she went on.
With every foul word that came out of her mouth, I winced and my body physically contracted. I’d glance over at the boys every once in awhile to make sure they were still asleep.
How they slept through that I’ll never know…
I’d considered getting up and finding a conductor, but if I did I’d have to leave the boys or have to wake them up and take them with me. I was just sort of stuck. So, there I sat, praying she’d shut up soon and go to sleep, still wincing with each colorful word expelled from her mouth.
She noticed my wincing and discomfort.
She looked down at me and said “You got a problem?”
I was sitting there, already having a hard time keeping my mouth shut. It was extremely hard for me to begin with. Her asking me if I had a problem didn’t help.
The *only* reason I hadn’t said anything up to that point was because the boys and I were alone. Plus, you never know what a drunk is going to do. I didn’t want to risk anyone getting violent.
She’s still looking at me and says “Well, do you?”
I looked up at her and said “Yeah, I do. I have a problem with your mouth, the words coming out of it and the fact it won’t shut up.”
She said “Oh, you don’t like the bad language? Your babies are asleep. They can’t hear me.”
Of course, I’ve cleaned up what she said. It was more like “Oh, you don’t ******** like the bad ******* language? Your babies are asleep. ******. They can’t ***** hear me.”
I said “No, but I can.”
“So.” she replied “Why does it ******* matter to you? ******* you.”
And then I’ll never forget what she said next.
She said “I bet you voted for McCain. You voted against Obama. Didn’t you?”
I said “What difference does it make who I voted for? You, your extreme foul mouth and disrespect for those around you has nothing to do with the election. I have a problem with you and your mouth. I could not care less about who voted for or against whomever. This is about you using filthy language in front of me and my children and how you need to stop.”
“Yeah. You voted for McCain. Not Obama. There’s not a ********** thing wrong with my saying ******** or ********. You can either go find a ******** conductor or you ********* need to get the ******** over it.”
So, that was pretty much all I was going to put up with from her and her mouth. I had to make a decision. Wake and take the kids, or let them sleep? I decided they’d be okay – sleeping, trusting that someone would intervene should she or anyone try and hurt the kids. At this point, waking them would probably scare them.
I went down 5 train cars before I found a conductor. I told him what was going on – as I turned to go back to the boys because I didn’t want to be gone any longer than I had to be.
He got up, put his uniform coat on, and followed me.
I got to my seat, said “This is the lady…” while pointing her out.
The conductor made her and her friend get their stuff and escorted them off the train.
As they left, every person in that train car started clapping.
That made her more mad – and she threatened me. Which, was stupid because after that she had a permanent chaperone until she was off the train.
When we arrived in ATL I had a couple people thank me for getting the conductor because they were tired of listening to her smack talk too.
But, to this day I have yet to figure out how if you don’t like foul language it means you voted against Obama… 😉
Unless you live in a very deep hole, you’ve no doubt seen or heard all the hullabaloo about the poor misunderstood dog, Mickey, and the mean nasty 4 year old, Kevin, who was mauled – nearly to death – by Mickey. At least that’s the way the animal rights cuckoo birds are telling it. Kevin shouldn’t have taken the dog’s bone and the babysitter should have been watching Kevin closer. Right?
Wrong.
Lets go back a bit and do a brief coverage of things based on official reports and not things found on Facebook. A lady, and the boy – Kevin – in her care, go to a neighbor’s house for a play date with other kids. The neighbor has a dog named Mickey, who is chained up 24/7 because six months or so ago it killed a puppy.
Kevin and the other kids were playing in the back yard, while being watched by the sitter and other adults that were there. Kevin unknowingly came within reach of the chain that Mickey was on. He had his back to the dog, and the dog, unprovoked, tackled and mauled Kevin.
Kevin did nothing more than get within the 12 foot radius of the dog. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Kevin was rushed to the hospital where the nurses and doctors state he was so horribly disfigured they could barely stand to look. The whole right side of his face was hanging off and he’d lost so much blood he was in shock. He’s had several surgeries, a feeding tube and a breathing tube, and will have to have more surgeries for years to come.
Fast forward to now and you find that there is a campaign by animal rights activists to keep Mickey from being euthanized, a fund started in order to raise money for Mickey’s legal fees and Mickey has, somehow, hired a lawyer.
You’ll also find that there are double and triple the number of people who support the dog and its behavior, fighting to keep it from being euthanized, than there are who support the child and his family.
More money has been sent in the dog’s defense than to help Kevin’s mom, a single mother with no family, pay for the surgeries he’s had or the hundreds more he’ll need.
It’s rather disgusting really. Disgusting and sick.
I do not understand – and I will never understand – why anyone values an animal’s life over a human’s life. Many have said it’s not about valuing the dog’s life over Kevin’s, I disagree, but even if that were the case the dog’s life is, obviously, still valued more. Keeping the dog alive puts people at risk and wanting to keep him alive means you don’t mind that the hundreds or thousands of people he’ll come into contact with will be at risk.
Truthfully, the dog should have been euthanized after it killed a puppy, but it wasn’t. It was put on a chain – where it only made the dog more aggressive.
Some have said that they don’t value animal life more than human life, but value animal life more than I do. Color me confused on that one. I don’t value animal life, why? Because I think euthanizing a dog is a better alternative than forcing it to live life on a chain?
You may have heard of Tillikum, the killer whale that killed the Seaworld trainer in 2010. Many were dumbfounded and confused by this horrific accident at the proverbial hands of such a “gentle giant”. What people didn’t realize, because it was covered up, Tillikum had already killed twice before.
As a result of the last incident, Tillikum is now kept in isolation (most of the time) from other whales and isn’t allowed in the water when people are. He is tended and cared for from platforms and gates and the only physical contact he has is with the pressure washers the trainers use to pet and massage him. He is still used for breeding purposes – even though he, clearly, is aggressive – and has sired 21 offspring, 11 are still alive and all are in captivity.
No one wants to say it, but he is kept in isolation and denied any contact, rather than freed or euthanized, because his sperm is worth millions. He’s successfully sired more ‘cows’ than any other in captivity.
It makes no sense to me why people feel keeping an animal in (almost) complete isolation is a more desirable option than euthanization. I’m cruel and don’t love animals because I’d rather seen one dead than held in isolation? How is what they’re putting Tillikum through *not* cruel? How is it okay to keep him alive but deny him any sort of physical contact?
It’s the same with Mickey. What’s going to happen to him if he isn’t euthanized? Is he going to go back to a chain? Is he going to have to be kept in isolation away from other animals? Away from human contact?
Mickey’s attorney, John Schill, states that Mickey is the victim in all this – which is perverse and sick. He, and others, say Kevin provoked the dog. I guess that means he had it coming…? He wants the dog put into some rehabilitation program and then into a home that doesn’t have children.
That’s all well and good, but how successful has dog rehabilitation, with a dog this violent, been in the past? And putting him in a home without children doesn’t mean he won’t attack children in the area or even the adult whose care they are in. Dogs have turned on and killed their owners before. It’s nothing new.
One person, who later claimed they were joking said:
Joking, or otherwise, about euthanizing the babysitter is one thing. What confounds me about this comment is the fact that the blame is being displaced from the dog – because it was chained – to the babysitter.
Clearly, people who want to blame the sitter do not have children. You can’t possibly watch a child 24/7 and never take your eyes off of them. Which, is moot anyway when the report shows that she and other adults were watching him when it took place. A person is no match for a dog on the attack. A dog moves much faster.
No one places blame on the dog. I’m not sure I do either. I know I wouldn’t be very happy if I was forced to wear a collar and only given a 12 foot radius to move around every day. Keeping dogs chained make them more aggressive. Who can blame them? If blame is to be placed on a person, it should be placed on the owners of the dog for not eradicating him from the face of the earth after his first kill.
Six or seven months ago, when the dog killed a puppy, it should have been rewarded with a bullet in the head. Not punished to a life on a chain. The death of an animal isn’t cruel when human life is at stake or when the alternative is living life on a chain. Besides, dogs on chains have killed many times before.
The Humane Society website states that approximately 3-4 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year. Why is the whole world focused on this dog and saving it? Why are they so quick to send money to defend a dog that has a history of attack and killing when perfectly innocent dogs – that have harmed no one and just want to be loved – are killed daily?
What’s interesting is that in many cases it’s the same people who say the dog isn’t to blame that want to blame guns when a shooting takes place. An inanimate object is at fault when used for murder, but it’s the fault of the person watching the kid when a dog attacks?
That’s equivalent to blaming teachers for students getting shot. How does that make sense?
I was just reading an article about a man who shot his neighbor’s dog when it came onto his property. The comments on the article are filled with people outraged at the man’s behavior. Which I can understand. He could have handled the situation much better. I’m not saying I think he was right. However, the number of people who want to shoot him, is not only… stifling, it’s dumbfounding.
It’s dumbfounding because an idiot shoots a dog and everyone wants him to pay, but an idiot goes and shoots a group of innocent movie goers or children, everyone wants wants the gun to pay.
I can’t possibly imagine what would happen if a group of children were to kill a dog. I can guess though… The same people who say “Think about the poor innocent children” when talking about banning guns would be saying “Those sick and twisted children should pay for what they did!”
Those that defend the dog say that dogs are a product of their environment. I tend to agree, but when the pro-gunners make that same assertion for a kid that takes his mom’s guns and shoots up a school, they’re made to feel like heartless people who don’t care for the safety of children.
When did this world get so upside down? I mean, I know it’s been coming for awhile, but this is so far past upside down it’s almost right back up again.
There is something, clearly, mentally wrong and unstable about a people who are okay with the murder of innocent babies or simultaneously fight against the euthanization of vicious dogs and for the euthanization of elderly people or people with illnesses.
The dog has representation and several thousand dollars raised for its defense. The attorney should do the case pro bono and send the money to pay for the boys surgeries. If not, the family of the boy should sue the dog in civil court for duress and the cost of medical bills.
My thoughts, love and prayers are with Kevin and his mother.
In the meantime, maybe Michael Vick is interested in adopting a dog that’s in need of a home…
When I sat down to begin this post I couldn’t settle on a name for it. Two were appropriate: The Grammarian’s Nightmare – or – A Dissertation on Blogger’s Rights
I went with the first. I decided it was more appropriate because it would likely peak the interest of a grammarian and no one is better suited to read this post than *most* ‘grammarians’. Other possibilities were A Plea From a Reformed Grammar Nazi, An Open Letter to Grammar Snotzies or Why I Enjoy Annoying Grammarians.
At any rate, the point is – if you are a grammarian, I am speaking to you.
I should warn you – there will be grammar errors, spelling errors and improper punctuation on this post. Most will be by accident, others intentional. Errors are not made to annoy you. No, not at all – this time. The fact that they’ll annoy you is just a bonus. They’ll be here because I am human, because I make mistakes and because I like to have fun.
The biggest reason they’ll be here is because, contrary to popular belief, YOU don’t own words, the English language or grammar. It’s a shock. I know…
I never thought I’d say this, but I have found a new and great respect for Stephen Fry. The man can be, and has been, vulgar and crass and – in most cases – completely opposite from me in beliefs. However, there have been a few times now that he’s said something that really impressed me… The first was when he made the point about people today announcing they’re offended. He said “…It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I’m offended by that.’ Well, so *** what?” More on that in another post, perhaps.
My most recent discovery, was a quote about language and grammar. Stephen Fry, the guy that has such a commanding voice and grasp of the English language, spoke out against ‘grammarians’ – referring to them as ‘pedants’ – a word I will use regularly now…
He said:
“…Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people’s usage and in which they show off their own superior ‘knowledge’ of how language should be. I hate that…”
If running a blog and Facebook page, that is seen by less than 0.01% of the world, garners as much attention from these pedants as it does, I cannot imagine what life must be like for broadcasters and journalists. They must get tons of letters and emails from people letting them know they used an apostrophe where one wasn’t needed, used ‘badly’ incorrectly or any other thing under the sun.
“…[Pedants] are too — busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well, sod them to Hades. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dog kind.”
I’ve even heard where church secretaries get calls from passers by letting them know of a mistake on their sign – by people who don’t even GO to the church or to church at all. I always feel compelled to ask “Who died and left you in charge of grammar?” Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know… You love the language and the use of language, so you want to protect it or spread your love of it to other people. To that I say “Poppycock!” That is complete bull malarky¹and most of you know it.
The fact that errors and typos are made – and sometimes overlooked by proof-readers –Â hasn’t occurred to the pedants. They don’t allow for typos or the fact that you are in such a rush and panic to get out of your head and into words means you will unknowingly use the wrong ‘their’ or forget the apostrophe in ‘it’s’. Even more so, they confuse your Facebook post, silly picture or personal blog with the speech of a Nobel Prize winner or the latest printing of the Grapes of Wrath. They make no allowance for relaxed and lighthearted posts or comments.
“…‘He actioned it that day’ for instance might strike some as a verbing too far, but we have been sanctioning, envisioning, propositioning and stationing for a long time, so why not ‘action’? ‘Because it’s ugly,’ whinge the pedants. It’s only ugly because it’s new and you don’t like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once thought ugly and before them Monet, Mahler and Baudelaire.”
It makes me wonder if, while on a play date at the local park, they correct the adult that’s sharing what happened the night before at their mother-in-law’s home. (Actually, I know one that does. Or I should say ‘did’ as it is one of the many reasons I no longer associate with them.) I wonder if, while a doctor is explaining to them their child’s illness and course of action, they interrupt the doctor mid-sentence saying “you mean my nurse and I” or “You mean, ‘couldn’t care less’, right?. Not could care less.” as though they weren’t clear on what was meant. I’m just waiting for the opportunity to use the “and I”/”and me” rule incorrectly. When it gets me a “you mean…” remark from a pedant, as though they need clarification, I’m going to turn it back on them.
Me – “Tom and me are going to the movies.”
Pedant – “You mean ‘Tom and *I* are going to the movies’…”
Me – “Really? When are you and Tom going to the movies?”
“…Pedants will also claim, with what I am sure is eye-popping insincerity and shameless disingenuousness, that their fight is only for ‘clarity’… The claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water.”
And that’s reason #2 for why I hate Grammar Snotzies. (The first being it’s just rude.) They knew perfectly well what was meant. It’s not that I have enissophobia and I’m not sophophobic. Granted, I don’t want to be corrected in public – as though I’m six and haven’t learned about dangling participles. It’s condescending, regardless of the tone, and doesn’t help anyone. It only makes me want to speak wrong² – by purpose³. But, I digress…
When someone says “I went to lay down” the pedants know perfectly well what was meant before they ever say “Did you mean you went to ‘lie’ down?” There is NO other reason, especially in a relaxed environment, for correction like that. The meaning of what the person was saying was received. The correction, even though presented as a question – as though they needed clarification – wasn’t for clarification. It was for themselves.
What is even more annoying is when a child or teen corrects and adult’s grammar. I don’t care if I say the sky is purple. A child has no right to correct me. None. I absolutely abhor that from the bottom of my feet to 6 feet above my head. The things they have a right to correct me on is their name, address or birth date.[4]
I was once on a road trip with another mom and her 8 year old child. On the highway, I was a bit close to the center line and the semi-truck coming in the opposite directions was also close to the center line. It was a bit scary, so I jerked the wheel a bit to the right just on reflex. Harrison asked what happened. My friend’s 8 year old said “Your mom went over the center line.”
I said “No I didn’t.”
The 8 year old said “Yes you did.”
I said “No. I didn’t.”
The 8 year old said “Yes you did.”
I said “NO. I did NOT cross the center line.”
At which point the 8 year old did not respond and the mom said “Well, I guess she wasn’t that interested in being right.” (This is, by the way, the same mom I mentioned above who corrected my grammar all the time.) The fact that the child was wrong about what happened, not withstanding, had my child said “Yes you did” that first time – I would have corrected them, apologized to the mother and my young’un wouldn’t have been able to sit for a week. Again, I digress…
“…No, the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water. Nor does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrates clarity of thought and intelligence of mind. You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you’re at home or with friends… But that is an issue of fitness, of suitability, it has nothing to do with correctness. There no right language or wrong language any more than are right or wrong clothes. Context, convention and circumstance are all.”
That’s the third reason I loathe hyper-correctors. They infer[5] that those who use bad grammar- especially in a relaxed social environment – are unintelligent, stupid or too lazy to learn the correct usage of words.
Sure, when you’re on a job interview, at school, taking tests, having a meeting, etc. your grammar shouldn’t be as silly and relaxed. You should put forth some effort to sound intelligent. But, just as I don’t wear business clothes while I’m hanging out at home or when I go to the movies with friends, I’m not going to use business words either. I’m going to just be comfortable. Why should my words not be comfortable as well?
Facebook is an extension of that. Facebook isn’t a novel that needs to be proofed and edited before printing. It’s not a classroom where people go to learn. There’s Kindle Books and Khan Academy for those things. My Facebook is my online home. It’s were I go to relax and hang with friends. However, continually being evicted from my online home makes me want to move, but that’s a whole other post…
I once, when talking with these captious people, would bring up how they have no idea if they’re correcting someone with a learning disorder, like dyslexia. Correcting a dyslexic – when they struggle already – was discouraging, not encouraging. It may convince them to give up or quit trying. But, the pedants reply with complaints about how whoever is being corrected should understand their need to correct and just allow it.
Ludicrous.
It’s not like I asked that you change the way you speak or type. I didn’t ask that you start using smaller words with letters that are less likely to be confused. No. I just asked for a little compassion. That’s it. Then I’m met with “Why should we? You don’t have compassion for us…” Of course I don’t. Why would I? You’re bullies that prey on those who you think are less smart because it makes you feel smarter. This is liberal territory right here. “You should tolerate my need to correct and be okay with it!”
“…They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dog kind.”
There’s the fourth reason I loathe these self appointed Grammar spokespeople is because they claim the language is changing and then what would we have? According to them – Chaos.
Again, nonsense.
If we didn’t allow for changes in language we’d still be speaking like Shakespeare and King James. Or maybe farther back than that. I get the exasperation one might have over words like ‘bootilicious’ making it into the dictionary and I understand why using text speak -when not on a phone to save time- isn’t something we should embrace. But the language changes. It evolves. We can still have form and flow. We can still balk at b4 becoming an acceptable spelling for ‘before’.
We shouldn’t, however, balk at scarfs being an acceptable alternate spelling of scarves. Or cancelling and canceling both being correct. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things – it doesn’t matter! We’ve not complete changed it to the point it looks like something else, so it doesn’t matter. Enjoy the language! Oh, and just so you know… ‘literally’ being used when ‘figuratively’ was meant is now in the dictionary as a definition and acceptable use of the word.
“…There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? I doubt it. They’re too — busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe.”
Truly, if you’re so in love with the language – do something with it. Use it to bring joy, stories and happiness in the world. Not as a tool to puff yourself up.
And here’s the thing… Hyper-correctors want to be given a license to correct when they feel they need to.[6] I wonder, though, how they’d feel if an artist looked over their shoulder at the doodle they drew in their notebook and critiqued it. “Your doodle doesn’t make sense. You improperly shaded the focal point of your doodle because of the relation and location of the doodled sun and the focal doodle…”
Not only was the advice the artist gave not requested or needed, they may have succeeded in seeing that person never doodle again. Which may prevent them from pursuing the art of drawing through classes where a TEACHER will explain to them how to properly shade.
Honestly. It’s a doodle. It’s not the Mona Lisa!
[1] “Malarky” or “malarkey” is acceptable.
[2] Yes, “Incorrectly” should be used here instead of wrong. [3] “On accident” is considered incorrect. Therefor “on purpose” is also incorrect. If it’s done “by accident” then the same holds true for “by purpose”
[4] I know that “Are” is probably a better form of the verb for this sentence.
[5] Yes, the correct word should be “imply”
[6] It’s only wrong to end a sentence with a preposition when the sentence would mean the same thing without the preposition.
Life of a Nut, Shell 