what crack are these editors on?

Yes, I am a grammar nag. No, I am not perfect at grammar, but I am
better than average. Yes, I consider wrong word usage to be grammar
errors. On that note...

Lovers can be found "in the throes of lustful passion," not "in the throws."

Accountants "pore over spreadsheets," rather than "pouring over
spreadsheets." Pouring what? Maple syrup?

I can't say that book was well-written in any other aspect, but those
two errors glared at me in neon. The tab a, slot b sex was just the
icing on this uninspiring cake.

To, too and two. To is a preposition, used to start a prepositional
phrase, such as "to the window." Too, on the other hand, is an

adverb, used to add emphasis to something, "That environmental policy
isn't too bad," or used to replace also, as in, "She wanted to go to
the beach, too." Two is a number, the number that comes after one and
before three.

So, "She wanted him to bad to tell him no," is definitely not correct.
She wanted him to bad. To bad what? How do you bad something? If
he bads, it'll tell him no? No wonder men never know what women want.

These errors were in published books. So why is it that the people
editing/proofreading books nowadays do not have to adhere to proper
grammar rules? Is there some shift in the grammar paradigm about
which I have not heard? My head is spinning. What the hell are the
schools teaching our kids, if not proper grammar? How hard is it to
catch errors like this while proofreading a galley? I always catch
them, both when proofreading and when reading for (dubious, in this
case) pleasure.

/end grammar rant - for today, anyway lol