Last week I shared some words we all need to learn to survive in the Bush years, and many of you suggested some additions. Here are some that a friend pointed me to that are from the TOP SECRET REPUBLICAN DICTIONARY.
alternative energy sources n.-New locations to drill for gas and oil.
bankruptcy n.- A means of escaping debt available to corporations but not to poor people.
“burning bush” n.- A biblical allusion to the response of the
President of the United States, when asked a question by a journalist who has not been paid to inquire about non-issues.
Cheney, **** n.-The greater of two evils.
class warfare n.- Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.
climate change n- Progress toward the blessed day when the blue states are swallowed by the oceans (Also: global warming).
compassionate conservatism n.-Poignant concern for the very wealthy.
creation science n–Pseudoscience that claims George W. Bush’s resemblance to a chimpanzee is totally coincidental.
DeLay, Tom n.-Past tense of De Lie.
extraordinary rendition n.-Outsourcing torture.
faith n-The belief that the Beatitudes (statements made by JC) include “Blessed are the rich” and “Blessed are the war-makers.”
free markets n.- Halliburton no-bid contracts at taxpayer expense.
girly-men n.-Men who neglect opportunities to grope unwilling women.
God n.-Senior presidential adviser.
growth n.
1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich.
2. What happens to the national debt when policy is made according to Definition 1.
healthy forest n.-No tree left behind.
honesty n.- Lies told in simple declarative sentences
(e.g., “Freedom is on the march”).
House of Representatives n.- Exclusive club; entry fee: $1 million to $5 million (See: Senate).
insanity n.-See: staying the course.
laziness n.-When The Poor are not working.
leisure time n.-When The Wealthy are not working.
liberal(s) n.-Followers of the Antichrist.
No Child Left Behind riff.-There are always jobs in the military.
ownership society n.
1. A civilization where 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth.
2. A political system where all power is in the hands of the owners.
Patriot Act n.
1. Pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to prevent the terrorists from destroying them first.
2. The elimination of one of the reasons why they hate us.
Patriotism n.- Blindly supprting the actions of the government without question.
pro-life adj.-Valuing human life up until birth.
Senate n.- Exclusive club; entry fee: $10 million to $30 million. (See: House of Representatives).
simplify v.-To cut the taxes of Republican donors.
staying the course interj.; colloquialism.-Continuing to perform the
same actions and expecting different results (See: insanity).
stuff happens interj.; colloquialism.-I don’t have to live in Baghdad.
voter fraud n.-A significant minority turnout.
woman n.-
1. Person who can be trusted to raise a child but can’t be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have a child.
2. Person who must have all decisions regarding her reproductive
functions made by men with whom she wouldn’t want to have sex in the
first place.
April 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Fantastic
April 14, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“Person who can be trusted to raise a child but can’t be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have a child.”
Actually, once a pregnancy occurs, the child already exists, and the choice is no longer to have a child but to kill a child. If the leaders of your party believed in scientific fact, they would have told you that.
April 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm
1) What is MY PARTY?
2) A pregnancy is not a child at the very beginning.
3) What about emergency contraceptive before it is a pregnancy?
4) How much do you care for the children after they are born?
April 14, 2007 at 10:36 pm
1.) Juging by the solidly-Left tenor of your dictionary, I’m guessing Democrat.
2.) That’s scientifically incorrect: human life begins at the moment of conception. That is when a new, unique, genetically-complete individual is formed, and when growth begins. The following link explains it rather well, and links to several embryology textbooks that accept the fact:
http://coulternation.townhall.com/g/06c52b30-e30c-4778-bb2e-264b665d4398
Also, you really owe it to yourself to look at these amazing ultrasounds:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ultrasound
3.) Contraceptions that prevent sperm & egg from joining should be legal. Methods that kill an already-created person should not.
4.) I care a great deal for them.
April 14, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Calvin Chimps are about 99% human yet we kill them all the time even though chimps can talk in sign language at the level of a young child. If a fetus can’t survive outside the womb whats wrong with ending a life that is not aware or fully aware that its alive. Besides the left thinks birth control to prevent pregnacy is a good idea, we think condoms are a good idea if you want to have sex but don’t want no disease. If anything the Rights no sex before marriage policy results in more forced unhappy marriages,divorce and infidelity. Take a look at the Democrats vs the Republican Presidential Candidates Rudy 3 marriages how many affairs? McCain one divorce,Newt 3 marriages affairs? his church raised a collection for HIS KIDS because Newt wasn’t supporting them. Mit Romney clean a WINNER!. Obama No divorce or affairs a WINNER, John Edwards Another WINNER, Hiliary wait she forgave her husband after he had an affair a SUPER WINNER. My point is when your leaders STOP saying don’t do as I do, Do as I say then your movment might regain some creditabilty. Until then this is AMERICA PAL YOUR YOU DON’T GET TO PUSH YOUR GOD’S WILL ONTO THE REST OF US. People came to America to escape stupid religous wars. Spanish Inquistion ring a bell, St Bartholomews day Massacure of the Hugenots, The Guy Fawkes day Catholic TERROISTS attempt to BLOW UP THE ENGLISH PARLIMENT! CHRISTIAN FundeMENTAList have a lot more incommon with the Taliban than with Real Americans.
April 15, 2007 at 6:57 am
Ultimately, chimps are a different species from Homo sapien. I can understand why somebody would use that 99% line to argue for LESS killing (i.e. stop killing chimps), but I think it’s deeply troubling that you use it to argue for MORE killing.
Let’s see what other innocent people should be killable under your standards: people in iron lungs, dialysis machines, oxygen tanks, etc. (can’t survive on their own), and people who are asleep or in comas (they aren’t aware that they’re alive).
Actually, I don’t want Rudy, McCain or Newt to be my presidential candidate, so take the hypocrisy argument somewhere else.
I’m not pushing God’s will on anyone; I’m pushing human rights as defined by scientific fact.
April 15, 2007 at 7:54 am
What scientific fact? When does a fetus in their mom’s womb become more aware their alive than a chimp who can sign? When does a mass of cells grows enough to become aware? Now if the child can survive outside the womb then there shouldn’t be an abortion. By the way speaking of science with cloning do not all the cells in my body have as much potential to be a baby human as a fertilized egg. Conception is way to high of a standard don’t most pregnantcies end naturally by your defintion every woman even married ones would have to stop drinking, smoking, eating fast food if they are having sex because they risk hurting a baby.
April 15, 2007 at 9:30 am
Both the Catholic church and Jewish law say that it is not a baby until 40 days ater conception.
Also conception is not pregnancy. In my biology class we learned that pregnancy is after it attaches to the uterus.
April 15, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Undone:
“What scientific fact?” That conception is the point at which a new human life exists. I already linked to quotes from four scientific textbooks that say so. And I already addressed why “awareness” as the criteria for human rights is inhumane, and I see that you didn’t address my other point about surviving on one’s own, so I’ll restate it: if the fact that a human needs biological life support (womb & umbilical cord) means that human doesn’t deserve to live, then why does a human with artificial life support (iron lung, pacemaker, dialysis machine, feeding tube, oxygen tank, etc.) deserve to live?
Any cell? I’d love to see how a hair cell could become a human being! Seriously though, it’s not about the potential to become life; it’s about the fact that it is ALREADY life.
“Don’t most pregnancies end naturally?” Maybe, maybe not. It’s irrelevant. Just because people after birth die of natural causes doesn’t make it OK to deliberately make people after birth die!
Obviously, nobody should be smoking anyway. And as for drinking & fast food, it’s my understanding that it’s how much you ingest that can cause problems, so if somebody is having sex, then yes, they should stop activities which could harm their child.
Cassie:
I don’t know that that’s the Catholic Church’s modern position, or the Jews’ position. If it is, then science says they’re both wrong.
Whatever the terminology is, it doesn’t change the fact that a new, genetically-complete individual has been created at the moment of conception.
Both of you:
Even if you aren’t convinced by anything I say, surely you must admit that there’s a CHANCE that I MIGHT be correct. If so, then don’t we have a moral responsibility as humane people to err on the side of caution & choose life?
April 15, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Sigh! Where to begin?
Calvin: “That conception is the point at which a new human life exists.” Just how wrong would you like to make me prove that you are? Do we hold funerals for spontaneous abortions i.e., miscarriages? Do you have any concept of the number of women who aren’t even AWARE of the fact that they are pregnant and end up having a spontaneous abortion? Remember, this is all post-conception. How about abortions of fetuses that are non-viable (i.e., anencephalic fetuses)? Certainly, SOME anencephalic fetuses may even survive some time (usually minutes, rarely hours) postpartum but in a condition “…usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.” Even in the best of circumstances where an anencephalic fetus is successfully born, it is born with a “…rudimentary brainstem, which controls autonomic and regulatory function, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness.”
So, now we have something (definitely not someone for it will NEVER achieve consciousness) that will for its few brief moments drawing breath, be infinitely inferior not only to a chimp, a gorilla or an orangutan, but even to my pet cat. Yet, in your skewed universe, you would force the carrier (for, by your lights, the woman is merely a vessel infinitely inferior in rights to the mass of cells she carries) to go to term with this monstrosity, incur the risks (yes Virginia, there are serious risks in going to term and giving birth) and humongous costs involved birthing this creature and deal with the inevitable emotional baggage incurred with having the fetus, if live born, die.
My, aren’t you just the sweet, caring person. Pity you care more about a mass of undifferentiated cells that you do about a living, breathing, feeling human being.
I pity you!
April 15, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I love how people resort to overconfident rhetoric when they don’t have an argument!
“Do we hold funerals for spontaneous abortions i.e., miscarriages?” Many don’t, but I’ll bet there are a few families out there who do.
“Do you have any concept of the number of women who aren’t even AWARE of the fact that they are pregnant and end up having a spontaneous abortion? Remember, this is all post-conception.” Whether or not we’re aware that a death has occurred doesn’t change whether or not it has happened (a death in the middle of nowhere is still a tragedy, even if we never hear about it). Again, we don’t have the right to induce some cases of death just because other cases happen naturally.
“How about abortions of fetuses that are non-viable (i.e., anencephalic fetuses)?” On the bioethics of killing babies who’ve been born in the severely-disabled ways you mention, and in that debate too I come down on the side of life. What gives mere mortals like us the right to say, “Your life will only be useless suffering, so we’ll just end it now?” Haven’t you seen the almost-miraculous stories of babies who defied all the medical odds and went on to live wonderful lives? Do a little digging; they’re out there. Once upon a time my grandmother was told she would die if she carried her son to term. Being a courageous, humane woman, she refused to have him killed. Thirty-some years later, my uncle Matt & his wife are very close to me, and their two little girls, my goddaughters, are one of the joys I hold most dear in life. Oh, and my grandmother is very much alive, as well. Deciding which humans are “unfit” to live smacks too much of some decidedly-rotten folks who ran Germany many years ago (and I seem to recall there was something against “playing God” in the Hippocratic Oath…)
But more importantly, such cases are largely irrelevant to this debate, because the overwhelming majority of abortions are ELECTIVE: cases in which the pregnancy was not threatening, and the mother’s choice to have her son or daughter killed was not based upon health concerns.
“So, now we have something (definitely not someone for it will NEVER achieve consciousness)…” When we’re asleep, or in a coma, or have been knocked out by a blow to the head, we don’t have consciousness, either. Does that mean we’re temporarily someTHING? That we all of a sudden become expendable? What a disgusting standard!
“…that will for its few brief moments drawing breath, be infinitely inferior not only to a chimp, a gorilla or an orangutan, but even to my pet cat.” Do you realize how callous and heartless you sound? Do you realize how much in common your rhetoric has with the “doctors” of Auschwitz (or early American plantation masters, for that matter)? Here is a child that has been born with terrible hardships, and instead of the pity & compassion most people would feel, you call it a “monstrosity!” A “creature!” I honestly can’t understand what could possibly have led you to grow so cold & heartless.
“By your lights, the woman is merely a vessel infinitely inferior in rights to the mass of cells she carries.” Tell me, do you regularly demagogue those who disagree with you? In my prior posts, I went out of my way to give you and Undone the benefit of the doubt and treat you with respect, even though your support for such a barbaric practice frightens me every bit as much as Klansmen & homophobes. Your obnoxious response discredits you more than I ever could, so thank you. No, I do NOT see women as mere “vessels.” I see EVERY human being as equally precious, every life as having infinite value. In the event of a medically-dangerous pregnancy, I want doctors to do everything they can to save BOTH of their patients. You’re the one who’s disagreeing with Martin Luther King’s belief that we’re ALL created equal.
“Pity you care more about a mass of undifferentiated cells that you do about a living, breathing, feeling human being.” And it’s a pity you think nothing of demonizing & lying about people with different opinions. You know NOTHING about me or about all the things I’ve done to help people & give back to my community: crisis pregnancy centers, Salvation Army kettles, charities for soldiers, Christmas gifts for impoverished children overseas, Adopt-a-Family…but you don’t care. You don’t care whether or not I really care about human beings after birth, because somewhere along the line, your hatred has overshadowed your soul. That is a tragedy for which I pity YOU. I hope you believe me when I say that for that, you have my prayers.
April 15, 2007 at 8:00 pm
What is in the best interest of a child assuming you are right on the biology question? Should a woman who does not want a kid be forced to carry a child? Do you want to raise the suicde rate for young women into double digets? Should we trust women who don’t want a kid to take care of themselves? What about societies obligations for example as a former McDonalds Manager 2 girls 18 -20 got knocked up the girls were poor so they worked every day of their pregnancy surounded by food. Imagine the movie “SuperSize Me ” filmed with pregnant women. Now as a Lefty I support higher wages, women getting paid maternuity leave (France gives women 16 weeks PAID LEAVE) I also support free healthcare something every pregnant women needs and paying more in taxes to pay for it. But I also support a woman having a choice. I want every child brought into this world to be because somebody wanted that child.
April 15, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Jonathon Swift “A modest proposal” a twisted tale but of particular bearing on this issue.
April 15, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Attention, passengers: Things Come Undone has initiated the “Disjointed Rambling” portion of our trip; please fasten your seat belts….
It would be nice if there was a way rape victims could get out of pregnancy without killing their son or daughter. But guess what? Here on Earth their isn’t, and you still haven’t been able to put together a decent case for why killing children is OK. And admit it: that IS what you’re arguing for.
Are you even bothering to digest my arguments? Because you sure as heck ain’t rebutting them.
April 16, 2007 at 12:20 am
Calvin,
Now listen here, you brainless baboon! My mother was one of those in the camps and I’ll have none of your lip about something YOU know absolutely nothing about!
You have absolutely no concept of anything other than what you have been brainwashed with. You are attacking me (BTW, this was my first post on this topic), grossly (and intentionally, IMHO) twisting what I am saying and purposely missing the point.
When I was talking about anencephalic fetuses you went on some idiotic rant about people when they are asleep or in a coma. Don’t you get it? IF YOU DON’T HAVE A HIGHER BRAIN you cannot have consciousness…PERIOD! That has absolutley no relationship to sleep! Nor to a coma! YOU DON’T HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, AT ALL! Period. Nada. None. Zip. Zilch. About as much consciousness as Schiavo had!
Gad, perhaps you are talking up for the brainless because YOU are anencephalic! Your arguments have the same weight as one!
April 16, 2007 at 1:23 am
What argument what scientific facts or principles are mentioned for me to rebuke. Just to be nice I even conceded your point “assuming you are right on the biology question” and I tried to take the debate to the next step. Which I see as Society has to become a lot more child and mom friendly if we were to go along with your idea. But if you want your argument refuted fine until such time as a fetus is aware they are alive they are literaly part of the mom. The mom can get this part removed for any reason she wants. Why because the part is not alive, has never been alive, and only in the future might be alive. Until might changes to IS the fetus has no rights. The Mom however has to ask herself can she afford to take car of a child. Is she ready to be a mom (and to be quite honest lots of willing moms are not ready), does she want a child if she doesn’t how do you plan to force her to be a good mom. The point is the Mom decides Science, God whatever you use to justify your idea does not give you the right to force a woman to live her life by your ideas.
April 16, 2007 at 6:39 am
Cossack: once again, your hysterical anger discredits you more than I ever could. Keep up the good work. My point was that if consciousness is our criteria for humanity, then we’re starting on a pretty dark path. And you still haven’t addressed the heart of the issue: ELECTIVE abortions. Oh, and if your mother faced that suffering, then your obvious disdain for human rights is all the more frightening.
Things Come Undone: “What arguments?” Let’s see….my explanation for when life begins….the embryology textbook explanations I linked to….
Your new response does nothing at all to explain why abortion is OK; it simply asserts that the right to choose must exist. Au contraire: if the term “life” has any meaning at all, then that “part” is indeed alive. Go back and read my point about life support.
The only ideal I’m forcing women to live by is that killing babies is bad. YOU, however, want women to force innocent babies to die by YOUR ideals (and your scientific ignorance).
Why is it so hard to understand that distinct, individual lives have their OWN rights?
April 16, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The question is when does the fetus have a life apart from the mother I agree that the fetus is alive but as part of the mom. When a fetus is able to live apart from the mom and or is aware of itself is when I think it becomes a person. You have a differnt view. As far as scientific ignorance I’m sure if someone creditable had put your “scientific facts ” in a peer reviewed journal Medical Journal with your interpreptation and had gotten even some approval from his peers then this would have made the news. Regency University Science Dept spin on science to give the pro life people the same creditabilty as Creation “Science ” might work for Cool Aide Drinkers. Why haven’t the Main Stream Science Comunity rushed to publish such a hot topic. Heck Cold Fusion has gotten more media attention than your equaly startling conclusions. Maybe because even the Scientists who doubt global warming and worked for the tobbacco institute have doubts about publishing these ideas. It seems even those guys have standards!
April 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm
As far as science goes, tell me if you think the following sound credible:
From “Human Embryology, 3rd Edition,” by William Larsen, Lawrence Sherman, S. Steven Potter, & William Scott: ““In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”
From “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th Edition,” by Keith Moore & T.V.N. Persaud: “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
From “Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd Edition,” by Ronan O’Rahilly & Fabiola Muller: “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
From “Developmental Biology, 8th Edition,” by Scott Gilbert: “Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents.”
From “Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 7th Edition,” by Douglas Considine: “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”
From “Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th Edition,” by T.W. Sadler: “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
From “Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th Edition,” by Bruce Carlson: “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
Are all of these fringe extremists? The essential flaw in your argument is your assumption that the mainstream media is independent-minded. Much of the media is solidly Left, and they’re not about to give attention to something that undermines a major Democrat position so dramatically.
April 16, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The Media is not solidly left Judy Miller of the supposedly left New York Times got a Pulitzer for her Iraq war stories hyping the Weapons of Mass Destruction angle which nobody has found yet. Nobody in the MSM Main Stream Media (a term the left uses as an insult) is calling on her to give back her Pulitzer because if she were to lose her Prize then bush would be asked a lot of questions he couldn’t answer at his next press conference. The facts are there in the papers you cite. I am just wondering why nobody is puting your spin on these facts to the press. After all if your right this would sell papers. Even if you turn out to be wrong this would sell after all the “bell Curve” sold very well. The “bell curve wars” a book that reviewed their findings took those guys apart.
April 16, 2007 at 8:10 pm
It’s not my spin; it’s basic science from nonpartisan textbooks written by serious scholars.
April 18, 2007 at 6:44 am
Yeah right and the” Man ! ” is so intent on keeping the TRUTH! from the people that you have to appear on a small political blog in order to be heard. Because nobody else will listen perhaps? I hang here and on a few other blogs I hear lots of tin foil hat conspiracies from the left and right you are new and I’m guessing don’t have much confidence. For if instead of shouting from the rooftops posessed by the spirt of a truth that could save millions of the unborn you debate on a small traffic political blog. I assume you are trying to build up your confidence by Wowing the small crowd here before you go to the bigtime Righty Blogs like Atlas Shrugs, Michelle Malkin, or Little Green Footballs.
April 18, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Also let me know when you escape from your parallel universe in which the media plotted with Bush to start the Iraq War.
“Why haven’t the Main Stream Science Comunity rushed to publish such a hot topic?”
Do you ever bother to read or think for yourself? Scroll up a little; I just showed you SEVEN CASES in which it was published IN the “Main Stream Science Community.” And considering how easy it was to find those, I’ll bet just about every embryology or human biology textbook would tell you the same thing.
*sigh* In one ear & out the other….
(by the way, where’d Cossack go? Hopefully he checked himself into Anger Management….)