Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Katherine and I have tickets for the Texas 500 on 6 November. Neither of us has been to a NASCAR event. If you've been to such a race and have tips for us, please pass them on. (I'm pretty sure we need ear protection, though I don't know exactly what sort.)

These are some of the British notes I purchased (obverse and reverse) before departing for Scotland. Click to enlarge.

Here.

Here.

To the editor:

Meghan Daum describes “problematic” as a weasel word. I have issues with other words and phrases. (“Why the weasel word 'problematic' should be banned,” Opinion, July 21)

So, first, there’s the very common and inappropriate use of the word “so” when a person is answering a question. There’s also barking the word “listen” while answering a question and beginning a response with “sure.”

Also, I’m tired of people who believe that using youthful jargon makes them seem hip, as in “takeaway” instead of “what I learned was.” Even the word “conversation” has become the only word used to describe talking between two or more people.

There’s also the ubiquitous use of the word “folks.” I suppose that folks forgot the word “people.” It came from the mouth of President George W. Bush when he referred to terrorists as “folks”—such a casual, cozy term for “terrorist.”

The act of talking has become lazy.

Lynn Leatart, Sherman Oaks

Note from KBJ: Barack Obama uses the word "folks" far more often than George W. Bush did (and always condescendingly). But of course the letter writer would never point that out, because it goes against the narrative of "Bush dumb, Obama smart." While I'm at it, let me condemn the following usages:

• "Concerning," as in "Your tardiness is concerning."
• "Grow the economy" or "grow my business." You grow tomatoes; you don't grow the economy or businesses.
• "Impact" as a verb. What's wrong with "affect," as in "The way I was raised affected me greatly."
• Starting a conversation with "I mean." How can you mean something when you haven't said anything?
• Starting a sentence with "well." Television news reporters are the worst culprits. For example, when Wolf Blitzer introduces Jeff Zeleny, Zeleny says, "Well, Wolf, . . . ."
• "Like," as in "He was like, 'You're not going with us,' and I'm like, 'Why not?'"
• "Sooner rather than later." Whoever thought of this should be disemboweled.

As you were.

No Rest for the Wicked (1988). Zakk Wylde on guitar.

I routinely tip 20% here in the states (sometimes significantly more). In Scotland, people seemed surprised to receive a 20% tip. One cab driver refused to accept the tip I tried to give him. I'm serious! He said, "That's too much." I protested, but he insisted. I reluctantly took the "excess" amount from him. To me, it was only a couple of extra dollars; to him, it was a matter of principle. I think it mattered to him that he not gouge tourists.

I hope to God I'm dead before a Millennial becomes president.

George Will is morally retarded. He claims to be a "constitutional conservative," but he supports an individual (Hillary Clinton) who will appoint activist Supreme Court justices. Please don't tell me that he doesn't support Clinton. If you're not supporting Donald Trump, you're supporting Hillary Clinton.

Addendum: Ol' Batshit Crazy Bill Kristol is now a conspiracy theorist. Reading this man's columns is like watching a train wreck. I can't turn away!

Addendum 2: Kristol is Stephen Hayes's boss. Guess what? Hayes is also batshit crazy (or at least pretending to be, so as to keep his job)! Here is how Hayes ends his column:

Trump supporters would pretend that your refusal to support Trump means you're backing Hillary Clinton. It's an absurd argument, of course. There are other options. This election is not a "binary choice" as Trump backers claim. If the top candidates are, on the one hand, a congenital liar who jeopardized national security in service of her own ambition, and on the other, an unstable conspiracy theorist, the best choice is none of the above—a non-endorsement, a third party candidate, a write-in.

Doing this would be risky and perhaps costly. It'd also be right.

In the law, a person is presumed to intend the natural and foreseeable consequences of his or her act. If a wild dog is running toward me and I shoot at it with my rifle, I will not be allowed to claim that my intention was only to stop the dog, not kill it. The natural and foreseeable consequence of shooting a rifle at a dog is its death. The natural and foreseeable consequence of not supporting Donald Trump is the election of Hillary Clinton. If this happens, Hayes and his ilk are responsible. Conservatives must never forget this selfishness and perfidy.

Here.