Stanch vs. Staunch

I work as an editor. I am an amateur (very amateur) linguist. I think that people should care about how they use words.

Thus, I get upset when authors and editors can't tell the difference between "stanch" and "staunch."

to stanch -- to stop or check the flow of. The doctor was unable to stanch the blood, and his patient died.

staunch -- firm and steadfast. The Brits were staunch allies of the US during the Second World War.

I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. Languages change, usage changes but I like the distinction and think it should be maintained (even if my American Heritage dictionary gives "staunch" as an alternative to "stanch" -- ugh!).

[The same goes for the distinction between compose and comprise. A whole is composed of its parts; a whole comprises its parts -- sigh :-(]

And what's up with the serial comma? I thought the comma replaced the "and" in a list; it doesn't reinforce it.

[Added later that same day] And then there's obscene neologisms like "incentivize"; or using "pressurize" when you really want to use "pressure."