Amen To That

SOTI, Chris Cypert talks approvingly about revolvers as self-defense weapons:

I set out to learn all I could about revolvers, their strengths and weaknesses, and how to use them effectively for self-defense. Did I learn that revolvers are obsolete relics of the previous century? That’s what I expected, but instead I learned that revolvers are still more than sufficient for self-defense and can even be the optimal tool in certain contexts. Let’s examine the strengths of revolvers for armed citizens and self-defense.

And then he goes on to list all of them.

As most Readers know, I keep a S&W Mod 65 next to the bed — my “bedside” gun — because in any kind of bad situation, a revolver is like a fork:  you pick it up, and it works.

No scrabbling for a safety, no racking of a slide, none of that.  You get it in your hand and pull the trigger… bang!  and it’s all over.  (Okay, bang! bang! bang!  etc. as the need arises.)

It’s that instinctive action that makes me do the above.  Gawd knows that I have practiced for countless hours with my 1911, and its operation is by now about as automatic and instinctive as I could possibly get it.  And it’s the reason I keep it under the revolver… as a backup, because I do believe that by the time I’ve emptied the Model 65’s cylinder, I’ll be awake enough to grab and operate my 1911 (which is always kept cocked and locked anyway), should I need more than six shots.

This is my way, and if yours is different, that’s fine — whatever works for you, works for you.

But just as Cypert learned about the excellence of the revolver as a self-defense piece, maybe my argument will help you, and perhaps at a time of the direst emergency.

Think about it.

News Roundup


So from a nostalgic look back at the past, we return (very unwillingly) to the bullshit of today:


...I would suggest one-way tickets to Palestine (specifically Gaza) for all the above, but no doubt I would be labeled Krool & Hartless.  And speaking of those Muslim assholes:


...and you can quit that unseemly sniggering now.

From Airstrip One:


...like all socialist/Communist governments, they are happiest when persecuting their own citizens.


...as if persecuting the “Right-wing thugs” wasn’t enough, now they’ll jail you for calling some termagant bitch a cunt.

On a lighter note:


...couldn’t find any virgins, huh?

And in Parish News:


...hardly surprising, considering that the DNC are a bunch of godless assholes.

In Automotive News:


And in The Great Cultural Assimilation Project©:


...and of course, he’ll no doubt be released again so he can ummmm post hateful messages on Facebook.  That’ll settle his hash.


...he’s not going to be deported or jailed, either.  You heard it here first.

In Travel News:


...and in other news, water is wet, Custer didn’t make it out alive, sharks are dangerous, etc.

And in Nature News:


...with a very simple solution:

And it’s time for some silly 

 

And as we stroll down  :


...welcome back, me old darling;  it’s been far too long since we saw you last.  And by the way, “balloons” isn’t too bad a nickname for you.

And on that bouncy note, we end the news roundup.

Young Blood

I love the fact that Pussydom is always harping about how BAAAD ol’ Leo DiCaprio is just because he trades in his girlfriends for newer models when they reach the ripe old age of 27.

However, when it’s Teh Grrrls going after toyboys, it’s suddenly just peachy:

It’s one reason why many midlife women are discovering the joys of dating someone much younger than them – and there are many more.

Two in five women on the dating app Feeld are now open to meeting members who are 15 or more years younger than them.

US Census data shows the percentage of marriages between older women and younger men has grown in the past two decades: 14 per cent of marriages of women over 50 was to a partner younger by least five years.

Not only is it easier for women to date younger men, those that do are happier. An American study of 300 women found women with a partner at least ten years younger are happier than those with partners their own age or older.

So why would a younger guy go for the Saggy&Baggy option by traveling on the Grab-A-Granny Trail?  From the horse’s mouth:

‘The first young guy I went out with was also the only decent guy who responded to my profile. At first, I thought it was a joke – why would a guy that young and good-looking want to date me? We arranged to meet, and I was convinced he’d either not turn up or run once he saw me in real life. He did neither. We had a brilliant evening and there was no pressure for sex at the end of it.
‘I asked why he chose me over a younger woman, and he said he was tired of their “dramas and insecurity”.’

Well, yes.  I can certainly see that.  Most young men in the target market (so to speak) would probably agree with him, because if ever there was a generation that has their collective head firmly buried up their collective anus, it’s the current 20-30 crop of wimmyns, fresh from their five-year-stint at university and its courses on FemLitEmpowerment and MenArePigs 301.  These are the same chicks who are the bane of companies everywhere, moaning about “work-life balance” and demanding psychological counseling every time a superior asks them to meet a deadline to which they already agreed before taking on said task.

Not that their male counterparts are much better, mind you, but at least some of those Young Penis People are ahem mature enough to attract Older Women, and let’s be honest, for a guy looking for an easy lay with no issues like childbearing hovering over the bedroom, the Saggies are low-hanging fruit — not only for the sex, but also because the oldies are probably somewhat more together than the weenies from their Sociology class.

Of course there are downsides for the cougar-bait;  I don’t call them the Saggies for nothing, but as long as they are reasonably personable and not too manatee-like, it’s probably not a problem. From the above article:

The type of woman who’s inclined to go out with a younger man is usually better than average looking. Let’s be brutally honest here: physical appearance is nearly always the initial attractor. These women don’t necessarily look younger than their age, but they do have buckets of sex appeal.

The best part is that over time, when the Saggies start to get unhinged — and they will — the toyboys can leave them cold with the excuse of “settling down and starting a family”.

Fucking hell, what a shit show.

What’s In A Name?

It’s small wonder that I tend towards the irascible, having the name that I do.  Because, quite frankly, it’s a fucking pain in the ass.

Let’s start with the first (Christian) name.  Kim.  Easy to spell, easy to say, mostly it’s pronounced as written.  (There’s the occasional “Kym”, but that’s — I think — an affectation, like Tyffynny instead of Tiffany.)  My parents named me thus because they wanted a single, easy-to-pronounce, easy-to-spell appellation and in that, they were largely successful.  However:

“But that’s a girl’s name!”

This is the first of the many crosses I have had to bear, and my personal history is replete with stories of me taking a swing at people — okay, boys — who taunted me thus.

In fact, “Kim” is one of those gender-free names, in that it’s not a name, but a title.  In most versions of the early Anglo-Saxon language, “kim” means “chief” or “chieftain”, and as those ancient Anglo-Saxons didn’t care whether their ruler was male or female, the title bears no gender.  (Boudicca, she of the anti-Roman rebellion, was actually “Kim Boudicca” because the tribes of those days had no monarchy:  chiefs were elected leaders, not always hereditary ones.  (Mostly, but let’s try to avoid wandering down that branch line.)

And that’s just my first name.  (Also, in traditional English parlance, it’s my Christian name, but gawd forbid Americans are so intolerant as to use that when there are Muslims etc. in the populace who might take offense.  In addition, there’s no established church, so despite the “Under God” and “So help me God”, anything Christian is doubleplusungood, government-wise.)

Also, because my parents saw no need to give me one, I have no middle name, which causes endless issues with U.S. officialdom.  When I fill in the foul ATF 4473 form, for example, I have to put the idiotic “NMN” (no middle name) acronym, because to leave it blank or put in a “–” might screw things up totally.

And on we go.

My surname (“last” name in Murkin) is Du Toit.  So my full name is “Kim du Toit”, because if the name is preceded by a name or “Mr.”, the “d” is not capitalized.  But that’s only the beginning, because now we get to the Space Issue.

You see, there’s a space between the “du” and “Toit”.  (However, in modern-day France, it’s mostly spelled “Dutoit”;  go figure.)  But there has to be a space, as you will see.

An aside:  “toit” in French means “roof”, so my name literally means “of the roof” — perhaps because back in the mists of time, there was a Pierre who was a roofer, and so the family name might have become “Pierre of the Roof” (e.g. the Carter, Smith, Mason or Wainwright surnames).  However, as far as I can make out, the family originated in the south of France near the Pyrenees mountains, so “toit” could also mean “high place”, and the “de/du” has an alternative meaning of “from”.
The family motto, by the way, is “Dios y El Rey”, a Spanish term meaning “God and the King”, making the Pyrenees origin still more plausible.

Back to the pesky last name.  All my South African documents (birth certificate, passport, I.D. etc. are spelled “du [space] Toit” or if capitalized “DU [space] TOIT” (see the family crest).  So when I came Over Here in the Great Wetback Episode of ’86, that’s how I continued to spell my name.

Which is where the problems began.

You see, a great number of databases don’t like a space appearing in a name field — and by “don’t like” I mean they fall over or reject the spelling.  Worse still, it depends on which entity’s database we’re talking about.  The DMVs of Illinois, New Jersey and Texas will not accept the space — so my name always becomes DUTOIT on my driver’s license, except in Illinois where it’s DU_TOIT (!) — but the State Department has no problem with the space, probably because they have to deal with all sorts of strange names, so in my naturalization certificate and passport it’s spelled correctly:  DU [space] TOIT.  Ditto the IRS and SocSec, thank gawd.

Another aside:  some time ago I had occasion to visit the friendly folks at the local Social Security office (no kidding, they are totally unlike other government apparatchiks) and just for the hell of it, I asked to see my personal details.  Imagine mu surprise when the SocSec screen showed my birthplace as “Johannesburg, Saudi Arabia“.  I shared a merry laugh with the person on the other side of the counter, and luckily (for no reason I can explain) happened to have my passport with me, which showed my birthplace as Johannesburg, South Africa.  The guy laughed, and said, “So which one is it?” whereupon I offered him $10,000 if he could find in any atlas a town named Johannesburg in Saudi Arabia.  Then I asked to see the data input screen, and lo! “South Africa” appeared just below “Saudi Arabia” in the “check appropriate box” section.  He changed it on the spot.

Now let’s talk about other entities, e.g. banks.  You guessed it:  on a couple of bank cards, the space is elided, and on others, the space appears without any issue.  The problem comes, however, when I’m buying something online and have to enter my name As It Appears On The Card — because woe betide me should I add the space where there is none, or leave out the space when I shouldn’t.  So every online purchase necessitates me asking (usually out loud, with only a few Bad Words) “Now which [insert Bad Word here]  card am I using now?”

Finally, there’s the matter of its pronunciation.  Oh FFS. In South Africa, it’s pronounced “doo toy” because over time it’s become an Afrikaans name, and the Dutchies never found a French name they couldn’t fuck up.  Seriously:  “François” (“frahns swah”) becomes “”Franche Wah” and “Labuschagne” (pronounced like champagne) becomes the awful “Laboo-Skachni” — the -ch pronounced like the Scottish “loch”.

When I came over to the U.S. I decided to revert back to the (correct) French pronunciation because nobody could spell it anyway, and I happened to prefer the French manner because it sounds kinda classy and it’s all about branding, folks.  Also, the chicks thought it was super-sexy, and that’s all that counts, really.

On the day I was sworn in as a proud U.S. citizen, the clerk at the federal court asked me, before printing out my certificate, whether I wanted to change my last name.  Clearly, this would be popular with someone named, oh, “Krmczyl” or “Psmith” — or “du Toit”/”Dutoit”, for that matter.  Had I known this was possible ahead of time, I might have considered it quite seriously:  Dutton?  Dawson?  but that would have created problems should I ever have to get access to any South African documents (as I did, much later).  For continuity’s sake, therefore I said, “No, let me keep it just the way it is.”

So here we are.

And people wonder why I swear so much and am perpetually irritable.


Update:  a couple of folks have asked for a phonetic pronunciation of “Du Toit”.

Doo Twah (with a short “ah”)