Molly Ivins

Taking A Stab At Our Infatuation With Guns

March 15, 1993

AUSTIN - Guns. Everywhere guns.

Let me start this discussion by pointing out that I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife.

In the first place, you have catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.

As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly what it says: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.

I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson's heart that teen-age drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channelling?

There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.

The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven't got enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven't outlawed cars yet.

We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.

In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns - whether for target shooting, hunting or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) - should be subject to the same restrictions placed on gun owners in England - a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.

The argument that "guns don't kill people" is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a good footrace first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.

Michael Crichton makes an interesting argument about technology in his thriller "Jurassic Park." He points out that power without discipline is making this society into a wreckage. By the time someone who studies the martial arts becomes a master - literally able to kill with bare hands - that person has also undergone years of training and discipline. But any fool can pick up a gun and kill with it.

"A well-regulated militia" surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psycho-sexual hang-ups - always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.

I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don't know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have to have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

Ban the damn things. Ban them all.

You want protection? Get a dog.

A new survey by Nielsen shows that 50.4 percent of U.S. mobile phone users now have a smartphone! Only three months ago, the same survey showed 47.8 percent. Mobile devices, particularly smartphones, have become an essential part of our daily lives—* 

*http://www.fieldassignment.com/2012/05/ag-media-mobile-marketing.html

...and I still don't own a smart phone.  
Because...

1. I still don't know how to use my dumb phone.  If you could measure it as a percentage, then I would guess that I'm currently using less than 2% of the features and functions on my current idiot phone.  Which means I'm probably too much the moron to be trusted with any kind of upgrade, let alone one that takes a quantum leap into smart.

2. I don't like using my phone for anything other than phone calls.  "Not even texting?" you ask?  "Especially not texting", I reply.  I haven't yet written one text requiring more than 10 characters without mis-typing at least half of them.  I don't like making mistakes. And I don't like making the same mistakes over and over and over again.  That's why I don't play much golf.  That's why someone else does my taxes.  That's why I stopped having kids.  (That last one is to see if my practically perfect sons are reading this)

You've heard of Dante's Inferno?
This is Drifter's Inferno.

3.  I'm Shopaphobic.  A trip to any store, to purchase anything, for any purpose is anathema to me.  I will shave with the same razor blade for months and suffer countless nicks, cuts, and bloodied shirt collars before conceding defeat and spending 3 minutes at the nearby CVS.**

**(where I could also get a new stick of deodorant to replace the one with the tiny little concave sliver that has been popping off for the last two weeks) 

4.  I want to be alone.  Not all the time mind you, but how bout just a little of it? I work every day with other people, I'm traveling, eating, socializing and in frequent conversation, collaboration and negotiation with other people.  With a smart phone I would be less likely to spend the precious little time left  enjoying the much needed and rejuvenating benefits of peace, quiet and reflection.

5. Size matters.  I'm in awe of the technology that makes it possible to do tens of thousands of things on a device that fits snugly in the palm of my hand. I just don't want to do them. And things I want to do, I want to do on something that doesn't make me feel like Gulliver in Lilliput.  I'm in awe of Ant Farms too, but that doesn't mean I want to live on one.

6.  It's glowing.  That thing in your pocket is glowing!  What's the matter with you? Haven't you ever heard of Madame Curie?  Maybe lightning bugs and phosphorescent fish are benign, but who knows what risks we're running in the name of progress here?  And between the time I spend in front of computer screens and TVs I don't think I need to spend any more time staring at another glowing rectangle. (Thank You Eli for that perfect two word description) 


7. I'm a contrarian by nature.  Like Groucho, "Whatever it is, I'm against it".  

8. I'm a writer.  I can't speak for all of us, but I think most writers are more Luddite than not.  We're people who live in our heads a lot, and we also like words and are often persnickety about how we use them.  Hence, we're the most likely to experience discomfort with things like texting, tweeting, chatting, IM-ing, emoticoms...but not blogging.

9. I'll start when they stop.  I'm done trying to keep up.  No sooner did I get an Apple computer and amass a mountain of software then they went and changed everything.  I've repeated the process 4 times in the last 10 years.  I've learned my lesson.  When they announce the final one, I'll buy it.

10. Speed kills.  Literally and figuratively, I'm convinced of it. Too much, too fast, too easy, its all too seductive and ultimately unsatisfying.  How am I gonna keep my brain cells working if I don't give them a work-out?  If I'm struggling with the cross-word puzzle, I could easily go online and get the answer in seconds--and then what?  I don't want fast answers, I want slow questions.  If it's the journey that counts and not the destination then why go faster?  I knew by the time I got to 10 here I would start getting earnest--so I'm gonna stop, cause I don't believe in the importance of being earnest.

Another busy day, so here's something from the Drifter files.  Among my many shortcomings is my woeful ignorance of Jewish History--and the further back that history goes, the greater is my cluelessness.   Having been raised in an internationalist/secular/atheist (In a word: Commie) household that celebrated few holidays (except  May Day) I've tried over the years to do some catching up, though I still have large gaping holes to fill. So when Brooks wrote this a few years back, I found it particularly interesting.  I guess I could have just furnished a link, but then this post would appear even leaner than the last--and as Oscar Wilde observed: "Only shallow people don't judge by appearances."

December 11, 2009

The Hanukkah Story

By DAVID BROOKS

Tonight Jewish kids will light the menorah, spin their dreidels and get their presents, but Hanukkah is the most adult of holidays. It commemorates an event in which the good guys did horrible things, the bad guys did good things and in which everybody is flummoxed by insoluble conflicts that remain with us today. It’s a holiday that accurately reflects how politics is, how history is, how life is.

It begins with the spread of Greek culture. Alexander’s Empire, and the smaller empires that succeeded it, brought modernizing ideas and institutions to the Middle East. At its best, Hellenistic culture emphasized the power of reason and the importance of individual conscience. It brought theaters, gymnasiums and debating societies to the cities. It raised living standards, especially in places like Jerusalem.

Many Jewish reformers embraced these improvements. The Greeks had one central idea: their aspirations to create an advanced universal culture. And the Jews had their own central idea: the idea of one true God. The reformers wanted to merge these two ideas.

Urbane Jews assimilated parts of Greek culture into their own, taking Greek names like Jason, exercising in the gymnasium and prospering within Greek institutions. Not all Jews assimilated. Some resisted quietly. Others fled to the hills. But Jerusalem did well. The Seleucid dynasty, which had political control over the area, was not merely tolerant; it used imperial money to help promote the diverse religions within its sphere.

In 167 B.C., however, the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, issued a series of decrees defiling the temple, confiscating wealth and banning Jewish practice, under penalty of death. It’s unclear why he did this. Some historians believe that extremist Jewish reformers were in control and were hoping to wipe out what they saw as the primitive remnants of their faith. Others believe Antiochus thought the Jews were disloyal fifth columnists in his struggle against the Egyptians and, hence, was hoping to assimilate them into his nation.

Regardless, those who refused to eat pork were killed in an early case of pure religious martyrdom.  As Jeffrey Goldberg, who is writing a book on this period, points out, the Jews were slow to revolt. The cultural pressure on Jewish practice had been mounting; it was only when it hit an insane political level that Jewish traditionalists took up arms. When they did, the first person they killed was a fellow Jew.

In the town of Modin, a Jew who was attempting to perform a sacrifice on a new Greek altar was slaughtered by Mattathias, the old head of a priestly family. Mattathias’s five sons, led by Judah Maccabee, then led an insurgent revolt against the regime.

The Jewish civil war raised questions: Who is a Jew? Who gets to define the right level of observance? It also created a spiritual crisis. This was not a battle between tribes. It was a battle between theologies and threw up all sorts of issues about why bad things happen to faithful believers and what happens in the afterlife — issues that would reverberate in the region for centuries, to epic effect.

The Maccabees are best understood as moderate fanatics. They were not in total revolt against Greek culture. They used Greek constitutional language to explain themselves. They created a festival to commemorate their triumph (which is part of Greek, not Jewish, culture). Before long, they were electing their priests.

On the other hand, they were fighting heroically for their traditions and the survival of their faith. If they found uncircumcised Jews, they performed forced circumcisions. They had no interest in religious liberty within the Jewish community and believed religion was a collective regimen, not an individual choice.

They were not the last bunch of angry, bearded religious guys to win an insurgency campaign against a great power in the Middle East, but they may have been among the first. They retook Jerusalem in 164 B.C. and rededicated the temple. Their regime quickly became corrupt, brutal and reactionary. The concept of reform had been discredited by the Hellenizing extremists. Practice stagnated. Scholarship withered. The Maccabees became religious oppressors themselves, fatefully inviting the Romans into Jerusalem.

Generations of Sunday school teachers have turned Hanukkah into the story of unified Jewish bravery against an anti-Semitic Hellenic empire. Settlers in the West Bank tell it as a story of how the Jewish hard-core defeated the corrupt, assimilated Jewish masses. Rabbis later added the lamp miracle to give God at least a bit part in the proceedings.

But there is no erasing the complex ironies of the events, the way progress, heroism and brutality weave through all sides. The Maccabees heroically preserved the Jewish faith. But there is no honest way to tell their story as a self-congratulatory morality tale. The lesson of Hanukkah is that even the struggles that saved a people are dappled with tragic irony, complexity and unattractive choices.

And on a lighter note, I'll leave you with some more typical Drifter silliness.

Feelin Hungary.  

Heat Turkey Chile in China bowl.  

Brew some tea, Sweden with honey. 

Tune in SportsCenter to Czech scores. 

See Knicks in Seoul possession of first. 

See Rex Ryan (what a Laos) Thai himself up in knots. 

See Jose Reyes is now Ghana go to Toronto.  

Finnish tea as wife Wales, 

"Why do you care?"  

"Oman! " I Russian to answer, 

" Cause sports news is the only news that Israel."

Maybe I shouldn't of gotten into wasting my time with such nonsense, (like I have time to think about such things 24/7) but at this moment in time, I personally feel that it's time to say a few words in defense of top ten lists.  For at the end of the day, and with all due respect to those immune to their charms, most people love lists. Okay, it's not rocket science, but for a light diversion, they're harmless.  They're a fairly unique way of celebrating our preferences and priorities--and as David Letterman has proven, an absolutely sure-fire way to get laughs.  By the way, have you seen Leno show lately? It's a nightmare. 

Sorry, and can only hope that you were momentarily horrified--but couldn't resist the urge to preface the following by tossing the top ten most irritating phrases (as compiled by group of researchers at Oxford U and featured in the book on left) into one most irritating paragraph. The title of the book refers to the misuse of the expression Damp Squib, which refers to a small explosive device rendered useless by moisture.  The Book, being Brit based, skews toward peculiarities of usage on their side of the pond, but interesting to me how this list corresponds quite well with prevalent stateside annoyances. 

The top ten most irritating phrases:

1 - At the end of the day

2 - Fairly unique

3 - I personally

4 - At this moment in time

5 - With all due respect

6 - Absolutely

7 - It's a nightmare

8 - Shouldn't of

9 - 24/7

10 - It's not rocket science

The researchers who compiled the list monitor the use of phrases in a database called the Oxford University Corpus, which comprises books, papers, magazines, broadcast, the internet and other sources.

Admittedly lean and lame post, but busy day as last minute Holiday season "where's my stuff?" missives  go whizzing through the digital ether and I await with crossed fingers news from the field of  missions accomplished. 

So I'll keep this one short and forward something...

...sent to me by someone (Thanks GG) I would never suspect had a single sentimental bone in his body. But upon watching it, I realized that if sentiment is (so aptly defined by Arthur Miller) unearned emotion, then this is anything but sentimental since this kid has earned every bit of my affection.  I'd embed it here, but they don't allow it...so here's the link. Mute the sound if Queen track grates on you as it does on me.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-MjUC4f9k&feature=player_embedded

Well, maybe not always, but there certainly was one in this true Sandy storm story.

Friend told me about friend of his whose house was badly damaged by flooding in Storm. House completely water logged.  Local authorities somehow arranged for equipment to be set up at the house to accelerate drying.  So to the rescue comes a crew with big power blowers hooked up to generators and all was going well...   until there was a short in the wiring that sparked a blaze that spread and burned (or burnt?) down the entire house.  A week later, the twice cursed homeowner wins 2 million in NY lottery.

And while on topic of Silver Linings...new David O. Russell movie, Silver Linings Playbook get a thumbs up from the Drifter.  Flirting With Disaster, Three Kings, I (Heart) Huckabees, and now this one makes a pretty impressive career quartet. 

Total receipts for the value of a single day's trade on the block average $400 million. There are 2,600 independent businesses located in the district, nearly all of them dealing in diamonds or jewelry. Most are located in booths at one of the 25 "exchanges" in the district. Many deals are finalized by a simple, traditional blessing (mazel und brucha) and handshake.  Wikipedia.

I've walked this stretch of West 47th St.  practically every day for the last ten years, and though called a district it's really just one block long. And every time I take that short stroll, I see or hear something that makes my imagination run wild. 

  Even if you know nothing about the world that the hustling, bustling people there inhabit, there is a palpable sense of the secrecy, tribalism, urgency, and cut-throat deal-making that powers the pump of a world-wide gusher of glitter.  I've seen men shouting and arguing with each other from opposite sides of the street, I've seen others pushing, shoving and even come to blows.  I've been accosted by street hustlers, some clearly in desperate need of switching to herbal tea and/or getting on some strong anti-anxiety medication.  And what you can see on the street and through the doors and windows of the businesses that line it merely hints at what is happening out of public view and presumably out of sight of the law.  It's like a modern metropolitan Jewish Dodge City behind steel, stone and glass.  I understand that this book is the definitive "Big Picture" account, and I already know a little about the South Africa/mining/evil empire history but not much about the marketplace--so maybe I'll read it and return later to report on what I've learned.  Meantime, I'll keep strolling down the street on my way home  hoping to stumble upon more evocative drama, or maybe a mislaid allotrope of carbon.

Still following the Knicks and still toying with Triolets

Measure for Measure on a hard wood floor

Much ado in pursuit of a fine winter’s tale

No more comedy of errors for the loyal hardcore

Measure for Measure on a hard wood floor

Tyson, Kidd, meshing, Novak going air-mail

Felton, J.R. and Melo learning less can be more

Measure for measure on a hard wood floor

Much Ado in pursuit of a fine winter’s tale

I've been working on a speech for someone who is getting (actually, he's only accepting on behalf of an organization)  an industry award. Considering that I have a hard time acknowledging the purpose or value of any kind of award (other than a pay raise), I usually try to make quick work of this speechwriting chore and go searching to steal whatever I can to get it off my desk.  Here's some of what I found that I liked--and therefore will probably not be approved for (re) use.

I don't deserve this award.  But I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either.

Jack Benny

People with honorary awards are looked upon with disfavor.  I mean, would you let an Honorary mechanic fix your car?"

Neil Simon

And this, which I think stands as a pretty good argument for making the case that comedy is basically just laying bare the truth. 

... In which the Drifter uncovers the secret to his success by revealing some of the sources that have provided the brick and mortar that has kept this digital edifice standing for over a year and made it appear to be made of sturdier stuff. 

http://www.aldaily.com/  

Arts and Letters Daily.  Self described as home to articles, essays and criticism related to : philosophy, aesthetics, literature, language, ideas, criticism, culture, history, music, art, trends, breakthroughs, disputes and gossip.  Left side column of links alone makes it an absolute treasure. My internet default page since it began in 1998. Site survived bankruptcy of Parent company Lingua Franca  when  Chronicle of Higher Education bought them. Founder Denis Dutton (died last year at age 67 of cancer) wrote a fascinating book entitled "The Art Instinct".  

http://www.refdesk.com/   

If you think this site has neglected to include anything--and I mean anything- chances are you're mistaken. 

http://www.loc.gov/index.html

The Website is just about everything you would expect it to be, and then surprisingly a whole lot more. Access to  original manuscripts is one thing, access to dozens of related documents and presentations and photos and the like is reason enough to raise a toast to Al Gore in thanks for having invented the internet.


http://www.wikipedia.org/

Hate to admit it, but how can one avoid it?

And like any source, it's gonna be imperfect, though not all sources provoke the paranoia that comes with the suspicion that your information may have been born in ignorance, arrogance and chaos.  Search: Phillip Roth vs. Wikipedia for apropos story...very funny. 

http://manybooks.net/

One of many (emanating from Project Gutenberg and seems like another pops up everyday) free book sites online.  It's where I discovered and devoured Chesterton, Melville, Voltaire, early American West novels, Seneca, who was the early Roman equivalent of (actually more like inspiration for) Shakespeare and most entertainingly of all, site has enough great reads from long forgotten masters of pulp, mystery and noir to satisfy anyone with  appetite for the rarest cuts of raw meat from the literary stockyards. Did I mention that it's all free?  First year I started downloading I felt like a kid set loose in a toy store with an unlimited gift card.  Now I take it for granted...which I shouldn't because did I mention...?  IT'S ALL FREE!

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/
Fascinating premise: Cover current topics in the news by finding appropriate historical antecedents.  You can read a recent "Tea Party" manifesto then read an almost identical one dating back to Revolutionary War era.  Read a  current "Global Warming" warning, then read another from 43BC.

In their own words:
"Not to know what happened before
one was born is always to be a child."—Cicero

Lapham's Quarterly embodies the belief that history is the root of all education, scientific and literary as well as political and economic. Each issue addresses a topic of current interest and concern—War, Religion, Money, Medicine, Nature, Crime—by bringing up to the microphone of the present the advice and counsel of the past. Valuable observations of the human character and predicament don't become obsolete. 

http://www.youtube.com/

At first it was dancing cats, "Jackass" stunts, and trained babies being abused by offscreen stage parents.  But when I first discovered a long lost video of Wes Montgomery, I knew a revolution was happening. This is real "Public" Broadcasting.  Today I'm a frequent visitor for reasons mostly related to my guitar studies, and hardly a week goes by that I'm not astonished and touched by some of what I see and hear from dedicated musicians  around the world who would otherwise be (like me) limited to an audience of a tolerant spouse and dog with no choice. 

special mention to:

http://www.straightdope.com/
Their motto is...

Fighting Ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought) 

http://thebrowser.com/
Their motto is:

Writing Worth Reading.

And then there's...

 http://failblog.cheezburger.com/thereifixedit

I check this out every once and a while, cause I don't know about you, but I can't resist a photo collection called  ThereIfixedit

with such stunning examples of wit, diligence and resourcefulness as ....

 

And in the blogosphere, I just gotta wave my flag for...

http://www.randomactsofcommentary.com/

Yes, I'm biased . 

TeddyVegas (blogging handle) was a colleague of mine eons ago when we were both practicing Madison Ave.witchcraft and cooking up stews of bull and baloney for mostly low-nutritional products from the american film, TV and theatre industries.  He is without question the most gifted wordsmith I know.  And it's no wonder.  He's an award winning poet, a natural born as well as well read social/political/cultural philosopher, a true scholar of the games of basketball and tennis, a razor sharp wit of laugh out loud brilliance and a helluva great guy. Reading his blog day in and day out for years is what ultimately gave me the courage to take my own shot. (The house in the Springs adventure was just the thematic spark)

I've sent you his way before, so I'll only add that if you follow NBA basketball, he's a must read.  BTW, I don't think he comes here often, if at all, so rest assured, this is no back-room blogger quid pro quo deal, I just really like his stuff.  

Just  remembered, I've posted all (or almost all) of this before. 

But what are the chances any of you noticed it? 
I almost didn't notice it myself.

So why even bother to mention it?

Because I would feel remiss if even--

 only one of you had noticed it.

 But the chances of even one of you noticing it
 are virtually the same as the chances 

of any of you noticing it.  

 So, never mind. 

First, you leave the office and start wandering Times Square without coat, scarf or gloves on the first truly frigid day of the season.  Then, between mouthing silent epithets at the ruthless producer (only in show business does the person who produces nothing of value end up with the title of Producer) with whom you just concluded a particularly unpleasant meeting (which prompted your hasty coatless winter stroll) and dodging the cheap thrill seeking hordes-- you find yourself wondering why there's a ruthless and no ruthful?  And knowing you won't  know till you get back to your desk, you amuse yourself (which also serves to distract you from  that little crackling noise  coming from the frozen nipples on your chest) by trying to think of other "less"  suffixed words  that pose a similar question, (which as it turns out, there're very few) and make your way back to the office with chattering teeth and words like reckless and feckless running through your head, until you're safely thawing out and embarking on your etymological mission. 

Ruthless.  
The word  is middle-English in origin, referring to the biblical story of Ruth*; the theme of the story being kindness, love, and redemption.  To say someone is ruthless is to literally say that that person is unlike Ruth; to wit: Not nice. And I found this little ditty:

Ruth rode on my motorbike

Directly back of me;
I hit a bump at 65,

And rode on Ruthlessly. 

Copy on movie poster reads: 

From pagan idolatry to the worship of one God...from untouchable priestess to woman immortal!

Wow, some days I'm just so proud to be an entertainment copywriter.
http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/7936086063
* I guessed this during my walk.  I swear. 

Reckless

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary(1977), reck is a verb that means "to have care or concern (for)".  The adjective reckless is formed on that base.  

Then reck I not, when I have lost my life. --Chaucer. [1913 Webster]

I reck not though I end my life to-day. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

Of me she recks not, nor my vain desire. --M. Arnold. [1913 Webster]

Can't seem to find anything in the way of modern usage, seems like Reck just rode off  into the sunset while its antonymic sidekick stayed around ...I reckon. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recklessness

http://definitions.dictionary.net/reck

Feckless. 
In the 1500′s, Feck appeared as a dialect word in Scotland and the north of England to mean “the purpose, drift, tenor, or substance of a statement.” It was also used to described “efficacy, efficiency, and value.” This is the obvious root meaning of the word feckless - being devoid of feck.

Feck can also be used as a slang verb for “to steal.” James Joyce uses it in Portrait of an Artist as Young Man; “They had fecked cash out of the rector’s room.” The similarity in sound between feck and fuck has also lead to it being used as a euphemism. It inflects in the same way fuck does, hence its value. The Urban Dictionary suggests that this meaning originated in Ireland although this may be due to the frequency of its use in the mid-90′s UK sit-com, Father Ted. I couldn’t find any sources to say when the euphemistic feck first appeared but it is clearly a phonetic derivation.
http://etyman.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/feckless-fɛkləs/

And in typical internet search fashion, I stumbled upon: 

Obama And Iran: Reckless Or Feckless?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/obama-israel-iran-reckless-feckless/

 Regardless v. Irregardless

Irregardless is a word, but it's not a proper word.

In the immortal words of Douglas Adams:  Don't Panic.  Regardless or irregardless of how a word that is not a word can be a word, all you really need to know is that for all intents and purposes (as well as for the "experts" I consulted in last 5 minutes) there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means without regard. The —ir prefix is redundant

The speculation among accessed references is that it may be a blend, or portmanteau word, of irrespective and regardless, and it just stuck and hung on (or is that hanged on? Hmmm, see below.)

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/irregardless.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

LEFTOVERS FROM STUFF FOUND ON SIDE OF THE ROAD 

DURING ABOVE MISSION

Hanged vs. Hung.
Simple.  People are hanged, curtains are hung.  Oh, wait a minute, not so simple, cause I don't believe you fell off your step ladder while you were hunging your curtains. I'll leave it up to you to find out more, I'm hanging up on this one.

Sneaked vs. Snuck
Sometimes, two forms of a word may be correct. For example, both sneaked and snuck may be used as the past and perfect tenses for sneak.Example: She snuck up on him. OR She sneaked up on him.Example: She has snuck up on him twice while he was napping. OR She has sneaked up on him twice while he was napping. Snuck” is still considered slightly less than acceptable, but according to Harvard researchers (can't argue with them) , 1% of the English-speaking population switches from “sneaked” to “snuck” every year, with the shift being most powerful in America. How they came up with that data is probably the more interesting story:  "Hello, Mr. Drifter, I'm calling today to ask you a few questions about your use of sneaked and snuck...did I catch you at a good time?" 

Lighted vs. Lit
Sometime after 1800, people began to prefer the irregular verb “lit” to the regular past tense “lighted”. “Lit and “lighted” both currently exist as fully acceptable past-tense forms of “to light.” 

Burned vs. Burnt
First, verbs don’t always evolve at the same rate in different countries.  Also, though it seems like nobody knows why, British English speakers have held on to irregular verbs more than American English speakers, which is why they say “dreamt,” “burnt,” and “learnt” in Britain, and we say “dreamed,” “burned,” and “learned” in America.

Ellen reminded me this morning to include:  Flammable v. Inflammable.

They are both proper words and mean the same thing.  And were both used interchangeably until the 1920s when the National Fire Protection Association promoted usage of flammable because of a concern that people would interpret the "in"* in inflammable to mean "not".  But they were only marginally successful and the two words continue to duke it out today.

*Actually, the -in, in inflammable was derived from the Latin preposition meaning en-(like enflamed) and not the Latin prefix meaning un.

http://chemistry.about.com/b/2011/01/08/flammable-versus-inflammable-what-is-the-difference.htm

Other References of note

 “English Irregular Verbs,” Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_irregular_verbs
 McWhorter, J. Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue, Gotham Books, 2008.
 Stephen Pinker “The Irregular Verbs,”http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2000_03_landfall.html
 Gellene, D.  “How English adds the '-ed'” Los Angeles Times,  October 11, 2007. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/11/science/sci-verbs11
Yong, E. “The Culture Genome: Google Books Reveals Traces of Fame, Censorship, and Changing Languages,” Discover Magazine.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/16/the-cultural-genome-google-books-reveals-traces-of-fame-censorship-and-changing-languages/