Speed Bump

…and so say all of us.  What you should do, Gentle Readers, is not tarry here pondering such weighty grammatical sins;  rather, you should speed over to Mr. Ishmael’s to see the rest of his excellent rant about, well, everybody.  (He had me at “That Albino Cunt Johnson”, a.k.a, the soon-to-be-ex-BritPM, but it’s not the only gem.)

Invective at its very finest.


Read these two headlines — the first using standard pronoun terminology, the second the woke version — and see which one is more comprehensible.

So… being sexually exploited caused Doug Hutchison to get breast implants too?  I am SO confused…

Here are the objects in question, by the way:

I report, you decide.

Speed Bump

In an otherwise good article, American Greatness‘s Edward Ring states:

But the exception proves the rule.

It is a statement that makes no logical sense.  Any exception to a rule actually disproves the rule, as a moment’s thought will show, because a rule is that which applies to all relevant circumstances.  If there are any exceptions, it’s not a rule but a guideline.  (/Captain Barbosa)

So where did this contradictory statement come from?  Originally, the verb to prove came from the Latin word probere, which means to test.  And yes, that was the word’s original meaning, for example when one “proves” (or tests) a mathematical theorem by subjecting its hypothesis (or theory) to a multitude of conditions.  If all the conditions generate the same outcome, the hypothesis/theory becomes a theorem (or rule), and its “proof” means “having been tested”.

I’m probably wasting my time on this, because the phrase has become nigh-ubiquitous, and seldom called into question except during angry rants like this one.

For me, though, it’s still a speed bump.

Speed Bump #7,659

In an otherwise decent article,  Brandon Morse writes this howler:

“In today’s society, emotion is increasingly valued over logistical thinking.”

Really?  Emotion is placed higher than thinking about how to move stuff from one place to another?


JHC… it’s way too early to have yet another gin, but WTF.

Bowdler’s Dash

In an otherwise good article, Naomi Wolf (or maybe her editor) falls prey to the regrettable sin of using dashes to purge “objectionable” words of their, well, objectionableness.  It’s in the headline, even:

I’m Not “Brave”; You’re Just A P—y

If one were even less of a pussy, one might use the word “pussy” (or insist on its use, rather than the removal of sufficient letters to readers to play the “what does that spell?” game).  What’s really interesting about this particular bowdlerization is that “pussy” in this context is short for “pussycat”, i.e. small, skittish and fearful, rather than referring to a “vagina” — which it does not mean here, for obvious reasons, but the word is doomed by its dual meaning.

If we were talking about a farmyard rooster, would we refer to it as a “c*ck”?  Of course not.  We would only insert the  asterisk if we were talking about Willie Brown inserting his c*ck into Kamala Harris’s c*nt.  (Well, I wouldn’t, but you get my drift.)

If you really want to be “brave”, write the word “nigger” instead of “the n-word” — the other night, I read that Joseph Conrad’s excellent novel is now called “The N-Word of the Narcissis”, and my howls of enraged laughter woke up the neighbor’s dog and got him barking.

When I do the News Roundup feature, I spend an inordinate amount of time editing the headlines by removing “a**hole”, for instance, and replacing it with its proper spelling.  (No small feat, because of the multitude of fonts and backgrounds used, by the way.)

Note to the editors of all the rags I link to:  if you’re quoting someone who called someone else a dickhead, for example, you’re allowed to use the actual word instead of Mrs. Bowdler’s dashes or asterisks.

I know, I know, people are going to complain about the foul language.  Then use different words, or don’t quote them at all.

But to be honest, “wimp” just does not have the same scornful impact as “pussy”.