Music and Language

My sister and I are a bit competitive in "being good at things." Well, we used to be, at least. There's still some banter back and forth, but we're both getting old enough that such things don't matter. As much.

For the most part, whatever it is we decide to pursue, I tend to pick things up more quickly than my sister. She hates it. I love it. But, like I said, we're not as competitive as we used to be.

There are, however, several things she hands-down kicks my ass at. Math being one. Yes, algebra is ridiculously easy for me, and trigonometry isn't much of a stretch. But give me a geometry or calculus proof and I guarantee I'll celebrate a few birthdays before I ever come close to figuring it out. My sister, though, will knock it out and go take a nap. Yeah, fine. I'll give her math. Since the only math I've ever really needed in life has actually been algebra - and some basic business mathematics - she can have this one.

But then there's music. There's a bit of a dichotomy with this one. I can score, arrange, and orchestrate far better than she can (I still suck, though... which means she REALLY sucks at it), but I can't play shit. A bit of piano, maybe a bit more trumpet, and the slightest modicum of saxophone and guitar.

My sister, though, can pick up an instrument like it's a toy. She doesn't have to beat a key, strum a string, or hold an embouchure very long before she just "gets it." Seriously, as one of the few talents I actually want to have, this pisses me off to no end.

Sure, I'm better at trumpet than she'll ever be, but that's only because I played for a decade and she never cared for the instrument. All I can play on piano is "Let it Be" by The Beatles, "Imagine" by John Lennon," and "Axel F" by Harold Faltermeyer. I'm currently learning "Misery" by The Beatles and I can play along with "Your Ghost" by Greg Laswell, but in the amount of time it will take me to learn these two simplistic songs, she could easily learn any concerto by any classical composer.

Argh!

And then there's language. My sister is competently trilingual. English, French, Japanese. And she's making a concerted effort to pick up Spanish. Hell, even my mother is bilingual (Japanese and English) and my father spoke a bit of Turkish back in the day.

Me? Well, there's English... and American. I took formal German lessons for 3 or 4 years, formal Spanish lessons for far longer than that, lived in Korea for a year, and have been exposed to Japanese for decades. And I can't speak a lick of any.

Oddly enough, I'm a little better at reading foreign languages than my sister is, but so what? I want to speak! Me talkie-talkie! Alas, no joy. How an entire subsection of my friends thinks I'm some master foreign linguist is beyond me. What? I'm lying about it? C'mon.

Anyway... I just felt like ranting. Screw you, genetics (it is genetic, isn't it?)!

Irrewind, 20100515: Language

I sometimes write about language (specifically English) because, well, I use it. Mostly I write about language because I have a covert desire to study linguistics (strange, though, that foreign language proficiency escapes me) and an overt desire to be a smartass (is smartass one word or two?) (hyphenated, perhaps?) (I bet you just love these rampant parentheticals). Yes, that is a warning not to take any of these seriously.

"Strange Afterthoughts of Language"
1) "I've caught a cold" - First of all, who catches a cold? It's not like my cold dug out under the backyard fence and I have to run him down with a milkbone and a leash. Or my partner and I held a stakeout at a house where a suspected cold might be selling drugs. The damn phrase should be... Read More

"Namely Neologisms"
Neologisms, for those who don't know, are "new words" created to, well, replace old words and phrases. For those who don't get it: neo = new; logo = word; hence, "neologisms," the "s" being an indicator for plural.
And, since I don't have anything better to do, here are eight neologisms that we should adopt into our... Read More

"The First Day of English Class"
 The second thing I would do is make each and every student write a book report on a venerable British classic: Where's Spot? That's right, assholes... you'll be doing a book report on "see spot run." And the caveat? Simple sentences only. Subject. Verb. Object. That's it. Anybody who breaks that rule fails miserably... Read More

"He and She Presents: Xhe!"
One of English's great shortcomings, from a grammarian's perspective, is its absence of neutral-gender singular pronouns. While most are blissfully unaware that the use of "they" or "their" as a singular reference is entirely incorrect, such use remains a bane for those who are actually schooled in the tongue. It's not really a big deal... Read More

"A Thousand Words"
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. They say a lot of things that are bullshit. What does a picture of bullshit say? Not much; it's just an image. Maybe it connotes what it smells like, but what does it do for someone who's never seen a cow? Nothing. It's just a brown blob melting its way into grass. It's possible that it's still worth a... Read More

A Thousand Words

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. They say a lot of things that are bullshit. What does a picture of bullshit say? Not much; it's just an image. Maybe it connotes what it smells like, but what does it do for someone who's never seen a cow? Nothing. It's just a brown blob melting its way into grass. It's possible that it's still worth a thousand words, but those words would be worthless. A picture is worth a thousand words? Bullshit, I say.

A thousand words are worth a thousand words. Nothing more, nothing less. As the word count of these random thoughts approaches four figures, can you think of a picture that could accurately represent them? I doubt it. If anything, you're still thinking of the image of bullshit lying in a field. Which, though the connotation is there, is little more than metaphor in this instance, and has nothing to do with the ultimate meaning behind these random thoughts.

Do authors communicate more clearly than photographers? Of course. Imagine a fax that reads:

-The United States elects its first black President.

Think about it. Eight words. And they say something.

Now imagine a fax that's simply a picture of Barack Obama.

What does it say? It's a picture of a black man in a suit and tie. What good are these thousand words? You'd be as ignorant as you were yesterday... because you just interpreted a thousand useless adjectives. Why do you think the writings of Herodotus are more valuable to archaeologists and anthropologists than the carvings on a vase?

Because they actually say something.

A picture may be a thousand words. Or more. But it probably isn't worth it.

Grammar War VII: Words from Poe

For a rather unusual reason, I've been reading a lot of Edgar Allan Poe lately and can't help but notice the plethora of words that many probably don't recognize. Maybe I'm being paranoid (as with "sagacious), but I just feel the need to share some definitions here.

Long story short, this is less a traditional "Grammar War" entry and more just a list of uncommon words that were apparently beloved by the great Poe.

beetling - to scurry like a beetle

ephemeron - something short-lived or of no lasting significance

habiliments - the dress characteristic of an occupation or occasion - usually used in plural

ineffable - incapable of being expressed in words

lustrum - a period of five years (the Roman census)

mummer - a performer in pantomime

pertinacity - adhering resolutely to an opinion, purpose, or design (perversely pertinent; stubbornly tenacious)

sagacious - keen in sense perception

tinctured - to tint or stain with a color; to instill or infuse with a property or entity

And, for a bonus word, a word I learned from Mr. Alan Burnett (and not from Poe):

cordwainer - shoemaker

He and She Presents: Xhe!

One of English's great shortcomings, from a grammarian's perspective, is its absence of neutral-gender singular pronouns. While most are blissfully unaware that the use of "they" or "their" as a singular reference is entirely incorrect, such use remains a bane for those who are actually schooled in the tongue. It's not really a big deal, really, or shouldn't be, at least. But in this confusing era of the politically correct, the formerly accepted use of "he" to reference people of both genders has led to the revolting proliferation of he/she in writing. Even worse, there are those who use the absolutely puke-inducing s/he. Um... okay.

As a language, English is constantly evolving, and we see new words snake their way into dictionaries pretty much every year. Indeed, some of these new words are so specific and temporal, they beg questions of why they were included in the first place. Strangely, we rarely ever get to see words that have any grammatical usefulness outside of their limited meaning. Case in point: neutral-gender singular pronouns. Damn near every other language has them... but for whatever reason, English did away with them centuries ago.

We have he. We have she. We have it. I suppose that "it" is technically the neutral-gender word so many of us grammar nit-pickers wish for, but most take issue with "it" being used to refer to a person. Why? Who knows? But I don't much like it, either.

So, I'm proposing a new word (a word I've proposed once before): xhe.

Imagine the ability to write the following: When a person wants to refer to a generic person, xhe needs to use a neutral-gender pronoun.

This would be in lieu of: When a person wants to refer to a generic person, he or she needs to use a neutral-gender pronoun.

I'm certain that most of you are reading this and asking yourself what the big deal is, and I'm equally certain that those asking that question don't know the difference between "you're" and "your," but whatever. There is a big deal, and again, you can blame the politically correct for it.

Even though I'm the one proposing it, I'm not a huge fan of the word, but I do recognize its need. Keep in mind that I have no problem with using "mankind" over "humankind," but some people like to whine about such words. Even though those same people probably don't give the words "dog," "cow," "lion," etc., a second thought. There's irony in ignorance, but I'm getting off-topic.

Basically, instead of proliferating absolutely ridiculous words such as "bling," why aren't we coming up with words we actually need? Now, when a person uses such aesthetically inane language, I don't hold it against them (ah ha! see?), but it does bring up certain notions of grammatical incompleteness.

Of course, as I just showed, we also need one for "him and her," but I'll let someone else come up with that one.

Grammar War VI: First and Foremost

I've been remiss in helping to expose the illiterate as of late. It's time to fix that.

1. The difference between "capital" and "capitol" - CAPITAL is either a noun or an adjective while CAPITOL is just a noun. As a noun, CAPITAL is a financial word indicating a net work or a stock of useful assets, or is a city serving as the seat of a government. An an adjective, CAPITAL refers to something that is the worst or the most prominent or important (CAPITAL crime, CAPITAL ship) or, yes, an upper case letter. A CAPITOL is an actual building which contains a seat of government. Example: the morons traveled to the CAPITAL and conducted their legislative arguments in the CAPITOL.

Subtle, I know. Get over it.

2. The difference between "affect" and "effect" - AFFECT is a multi-function word, being a noun, verb, and transitive verb all rolled up into one. For the sake of this rant, however, we'll concentrate on the transitive verb, as that's where most people make their mistake. AFFECT means to produce an effect upon. EFFECT is both a noun and a transitive verb. Again, to avoid too much confusion, we'll concentrate on the noun. EFFECT is the end result. EXAMPLE: The weather's AFFECT on traffic led to the EFFECT of gridlock.

Again, very subtle. Eat it.

3. The difference between "principal" and "principle" - PRINCIPAL is either a noun or an adjective, both of which indicate a chief of some kind. As an adjective, PRINCIPAL refers to something of the utmost importance (similar to capital), while the noun refers to the person in charge. PRINCIPLE, meanwhile, is a noun indicating something fundamental or primary. Example: The school PRINCIPAL often reminded his illiterate students of the PRINCIPLE of education. That is, to say, you need one (an education).

Words you probably don't know:

facile - easily accomplished or attained

jussive - a word, form, case, or mood expressing command

parol - word of mouth

The First Day of English Class

A while ago, the world's hottest English teacher asked me how I would go about teaching an English class. I answered simply... I would berate the shit out of my students, starting on Day One.

The first thing I would do is make them read one of my old Grammar War blogs (this one). Naturally, I would expand and expound on the topic, but you get the point.

Well, in case you don't get the point: I will promptly inform each and every one of my students that the very language they claim to know and love is as Greek to them as, well, Greek. 'dey no English lyk 'dey no 'da bak uf 'der handz.

The second thing I would do is make each and every student write a book report on a venerable British classic: Where's Spot? That's right, assholes... you'll be doing a book report on "see spot run." And the caveat? Simple sentences only. Subject. Verb. Object. That's it. Anybody who breaks that rule fails miserably.

Why would I do this? Well, because I highly doubt many incoming Freshmen even know what a subject, verb, and object of a sentence actually is. Never mind a direct object, or a gerund, or even a fucking pronoun.

Day Two would only get worse and by then, hopefully, I'll be down to six or so students, earning the same pay for less work. Why teach 20 stress-inducing losers when I can whittle it down to a handful?

Oddly enough, there are supposedly a few teachers at a North Carolina community college that are going to attempt this method. We'll see, though, as public school teachers tend to be a cowardly lot when it comes to pushing envelopes.

The moral of this rant? Find out where this method is being used and sign the fuck up.

If you're not afraid, that is.

Grammar War V: He, She... Shit

English, as most of us know, is a strange, erratic language. It almost completely lacks the masculine and feminine distinctions found in most other languages, particularly those of the Romance/Neolatin family. When it comes to singular pronouns, we have "he," we have "she," and we have "it". He, obviously, refers to males. She to females. And it to everything not human.

In this frightening age of political correctness, many parties take issue with the sole use of "he," even when prefaced by disclaimers found in the forewords of several texts. As a result, we often find the unnecessarily uneconomic use of "he or she," "he and she," he and/or she," and the absolutely ghastly "s/he."

Honestly, in my opinion, we need to figure out a solution before many grammarians (including myself) go stark raving mad.

Here are some proposals:

1) They - seriously, it's already colloquially accepted, with only the most involved text-Nazis pointing out the improper use of "they" as a substitute for "he or she." I'm perfectly fine with this, and I don't point it out in edits unless I'm specifically asked to. I use it, you probably use it, and given the proper use of antecedent, it's not going to confuse anybody.

2) The - this one would be hard to swallow, as it's already one of our two most common words used. But the logic is there. He, she, they. Simply drop the y, and we'd have a gender-neutral pronoun that follows the same pattern as the other two.

3) Person - while technically correct, it is, admittedly, a bit awkward. Instead of "if he or she decides to continue," we have "if person decides to continue." Many get around this by using "said person," but that's quite unnecessary. Just for the record, I don't like this option.

4) Phe - another awkward one, but one that also follows the pattern. Based on the word "hermaphrodite," this also offers a certain logic.

5) Shit - no, I'm not joking. Why not legitimize the word? Think about it. Our three singular pronouns are he, she, and it. Look closely. See the logic? Okay, so I am joking, but the relation is quite evident.

6) Xhe - a completely baseless modern "cool" word that uses an underachieving (yet overexposed) letter of English language. On top of that, in speech, it would be pronounced like a Chinese combination of "she" and "jee." And since I made it up, I quite like it and will use it from here on out. Nyah.

Words you probably don't know:

allopatric - occuring in different geographic areas or in isolation

fulvous - of a dull browny yellow

lustrate - to purify ceremonially

Grammar War IV: Stupid Words

Have you ever heard or read a word that you wondered why it existed? Or heard or read words that you wonder why are still around? Or hear or read words that don't exist, yet people use them anyway?

I fucking hate those words. Hate 'em.

And here's a list:

1. amidst - a real word meaning "in or into the middle of." Which is also what "amid" means.

2. amongst - a real word that basically means what "amidst" means. Which means it's a synonym for "amid." And let's not forget "among."

3. decimate - I hate this one. As English apparently doesn't have enough words pertaining to destruction, stupid people have usurped this word to simple mean "to cause great destruction or harm to." Only, it actually has a specific meaning: "to select by lot and kill every tenth man of." "Deci," right? Meaning tenth. Hello!

4. dosage - look up "dose" and you'll get the idea.

5. incinerary - a completely made up word that signifies its user is a complete and utter moron, and can't properly pronounce "incendiary."

6. normalacy - only in dictionaries thanks to American President Warren G. Harding, who felt the need to add an unnecessary syllable to "normalcy."

7. orientate - a word existing to alleviate confusion for people who wanted to convey that, instead of turning Asian, they were getting the bearings. See "orient."

8. preventative - seemingly another President Harding word (but isn't), some jackass again decided to add another syllable. See "preventive."

9. usage - guess what? Yeah, you've figured it out.

Words You Probably Didn't Know:

cacography - bad spelling; bad handwriting

munificent - very liberal in giving or bestowing

saltire - a heraldic charge consisting of a cross formed by a bend and a bend sinister crossing in the center

Namely Neologisms

Neologisms, for those who don't know, are "new words" created to, well, replace old words and phrases. For those who don't get it: neo = new; logo = word; hence, "neologisms," the "s" being an indicator for plural.

And, since I don't have anything better to do, here are eight neologisms that we should adopt into our vocabularies. Why? Because I fucking said so.

bin Laden
Function: verb
Replaces: taking a shit
Use: "Where have I been? Bin Laden."

Cruise control
Function: noun
Replaces: psychological examination
Use: "My boss recommended me for a Cruise control after I jumped up and down on couch, professing my love for a girl who reminds me of Sloth from The Goonies."

Janet tab
Function: noun
Replaces: pasty
Use: "It's a good thing that teeny-bopper was there to cover me after my boob popped out. All I had on was a Janet tab."

Juicers
Function: noun
Replaces: glove and knife
Use: "Yeah, I whacked my ex-wife. But I left my juicers at the scene. I hope I don't get caught."

Kate baby
Function: noun
Replaces: infant - specifically, an infant born solely to protect the sexuality of a parent still in the closet
Use: "You see that guy from Top Gun? I hear he's about to have another Kate baby."

Lewinsky
Function: verb
Replaces: blowjob - specifically, a blowjob received in an attempt for the giver to obtain a promotion or other special recognition
Use: "Yeah, she gave me a Lewinsky. And I almost got impeached for it. The bitch."

Rocket
Function: noun
Replaces: steroid - specifically, a steroid used to enhance athletic prowess
Use: "No, I never used Rockets when pitching in the Major Leagues."

Stevens tubes
Function: noun
Replaces: Internet
Use: "Oh, yeah. I travel through Stevens tubes all the time. I especially like Wikipedia."

And there you go... write Merriam-Webster today and get these words into our official lexicon.

Advice for a Horrifically Bad Poet

I have officially been thrown off the deep end. Remember that bad poetry I hinted at in an earlier blog? He just keeps coming, and for whatever reason, I can't fucking avoid him.

Dude, if I'm going to be stuck reading your crap for the rest of MySpace eternity, the least you could do is learn how to write. This includes learning how to spell, and how not to overuse commas, but you're driving me so fucking crazy, I'll settle for a simple development of your talent. A talent, by the way, which wouldn't be allowed in the door of an American Idol for Poets contest.

I must apologize to my friend who is going to take offense or otherwise get mad at me for this... but like I said, nails on a chalkboard.

On to the advice... let's start with something your simple, underly-overly educated dumbass can pick up without too much thinking, eh?

Piece of Advice 1: Words you shouldn't use when writing poems:

Lucid – And don't use "liquid," "solid," or any other descriptor that ends in "id." Unless, of course, you're describing your own bad poetry, which is "flaccid."

Demon or Angel – Can we say BORING? Yeah, the Bible beat you to this, and Milton perfected it. Someone of your low level of talent doesn't have a chance. In other words, you have not been "blessid."

Hawk or Dove – Can we say STUPID? Of course, a hawk will represent violence, a dove peace, a hawk comes from "below" because a dove, naturally, must come from "above." Lord have mercy, STOP! The only bird reference that you fit is that you're like a pigeon taking a shit on my car.

Babel – Yet another Biblical reference that only becomes more obscure with poetry. Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you just write the lyrics to "Stairway to Heaven" and try to claim them as your own, you talentless moron?

Fire – Yes, the old, trusty "flame" of flammable, inflamed passion is heavily overused. Of course, it's usually only heavily overused by people who write bad poetry. A ha! I'm on to something. Fire of love? Check. Fire of lust? Check. Fire of desire? Oh, shit, check. Fire of time? That's a new one, still crappy, check. Fire of YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE. Definitely check.

Piece of Advice 2: Structure

Vary it up a little. When a chapbook is full of 100 poems that all sound the same, look the same, read the same, rhyme the same, and have the same words (those listed above, plus a few other culprits that I really didn't feel like getting into), YOU SUCK!

Change it up! Move a fucking comma! Give me a fucking limerick once in a while!

Piece of Advice 3: Learn to spell

There's nothing worse than a poem about love and lust than a poem about love and lust with fifteen misspelled words in as many lines. Your spelling is so bad, I'm surprised I haven't mistaken your poetry for being written in Latin.

Piece of Advice 4: Quit writing

Please. And for Heaven's sake, never, never, never, write a song lyric again. It almost lobotomized me.

Grammar War III: Wh Th?

More correctional training for you illiterate idiots:

1) Everybody's favorite: the difference between "who" and "whom" - WHO and WHOM are both pronouns used to reference a specific person. The difference in use lies solely in intent. WHOM is used when the "who" follows a direct object or a preposition. I realize that those of you who don't already know the difference probably also don't know what a direct object or a preposition is, so I'm guessing that I'm wasting my time here.

2) The difference between "where," "wear," "were," and "we're" - WHERE is a multi-function word referring a specific place. Examples: WHERE are we going and I know WHERE he's at. WEAR is a multifunction word indicating the act of bearing or having on object on your person or the act of deterioration. Examples: I am going to WEAR a jacket today or the rocky road causes a lot of WEAR on my tires. WERE is a past form of "be." Example: They WERE here (instead of they "are" here). WE'RE is a contraction representing the words WE and ARE. Examples: WE'RE so stupid and WE'RE incapable of proper grammar. Keep in mind that WHERE and WEAR sound alike in speech, while WERE and WE'RE sound entirely different.

3) The difference between "then" and "than" - THEN is a multi-function word indicating time. Examples: Back THEN, people thought you were smart, but THEN you grew up. THAN is a multi-function word indicating an order of preference or a comparison. Examples: I'd rather date a brunette THAN a blonde or I'm definitely smarter THAN you.



More words you probably didn't know:

sommelier - a waiter in a restaurant who has charge of wines and their service

bifurcate - to cause to divide into two branches or parts

solipsism - a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

Grammar War II: Regarding Words

Let's just cut to the chase you illiterate donkeys...

1) The difference between "there," "their," and "they're" - THERE is a multifunction word indicating a place or a point. Examples: THERE is the school where we learn grammar or stand right THERE and look stupid. THEIR is an adjective indicating THEY as a possessor. Examples: THEIR brains have higher capacities than yours and THEIR minds aren't dumb like yours. THEY'RE is a contraction representing the words THEY and ARE. Examples: THEY'RE intelligent; you're stupid and THEY'RE capable of functioning on their own. Of course, to understand those last examples, one would need to understand the difference between "your" and "you're."

2) The difference between "lose" and "loose" - LOSE is a verb indicating the absence of possession and sometimes the destruction of something. Examples: You LOSE your keys or the idiot acted as though he'd LOSE his mind. LOOSE is a multifunction word usually indicating something not confined, restrained, or otherwise tied down and secured. Examples: Her shoelaces were LOOSE or she's got a few LOOSE screws.

3) "Irregardless" IS NOT A WORD, so please quit using it. The word is simply REGARDLESS. REGARD plus LESS effectively means without regard. The prefix "ir" also means without. Which means that "irregardless" would probably mean without without regard, which would ultimately mean just REGARD (two "withouts" equal "with," no?)... are you understanding this?

New words for your simple minds:

rococo - excessively ornate or intricate

ombudsman - one that investigates reported complaints (as from students or consumers), reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements

commingled - to blend thoroughly into a harmonious whole

Grammar War I: Speak English? Write English, Too

Not too long ago, I heard some jackass complaining about immigrants not knowing how to speak English. Yeah, fine, I'm all for having English proficiency a requirement to be a citizen, but for fuck's sake, make sure YOU know proper English before you yell at some poor soul who's trying to grasp our highly illogical language. After all, "Y'all need to learn to speak American" is NOT a convincing argument.

Anyway, the point of this blog is that I'm sick and tired of all the illiterate schmucks out there screwing up my beautiful tongue. So, I'm going to be nice and summarize a couple of lessons in grammar.

1) The difference between "your" and "you're" - YOUR is an adjective indicating YOU as a possessor. For instance, YOUR IQ is very low or YOUR mental capacity is rather pathetic. YOU'RE is a contraction representing the words YOU and ARE. Examples include YOU'RE stupid and YOU'RE a fucking moron. Other than the occasional accidental mix-up, there is NO excuse for fucking up the use of these two words... except that the person making the mistake is, well, probably stupid.

2) The difference between "its" and "it's" - ITS, like YOUR, is an adjective indicating a possessor (in this case, IT). For instance, ITS color is red or ITS crap stinks. IT'S is a contraction representing the words IT and IS. Examples include IT'S smarter than you and IT'S not as stupid as you are. However, given that the rule of possession usually includes 's somewhere, this is a much more forgivable error.

Some new words I learned recently:

askance - with a side glance OR with disapproval or distrust

Eocene - of, relating to, or being an epoch of the Tertiary between the Paleocene and the Oligocene or the corresponding system of rocks

senescence - the state of being old OR the process of becoming old

Have a nice day.

Strange Afterthoughts of Language

Everybody knows that English is a highly illogical and fucked up language, but we don't care. We rule the fucking world, and that's how it's going to be.

Anyway, there are two phrases that tend to bug me whenever I hear them:

1) "I've caught a cold" - First of all, who catches a cold? It's not like my cold dug out under the backyard fence and I have to run him down with a milkbone and a leash. Or my partner and I held a stakeout at a house where a suspected cold might be selling drugs. The damn phrase should be "A cold caught me."

2) "I have to take a shit" - Okay. Has anybody actually ever sat down on a toilet and sucked a piece of shit INTO their ass? I haven't, and other than some kinky German women I know, most people usually don't. Verdict: change the phrase to "I have to give a shit."

Bonus) "I don't give a shit." - Really? Even if you did, I wouldn't want you to, because I'm not too particularly fond of the smell. Save it for the toilet (or kinky German women).