That Word Does not Mean…
Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) earlier this week on the floor of the House in regards to the ongoing crisis of under-age immigrants at our southern border:
Madam Speaker, the World English Dictionary defines “invasion.” Among the definitions is: invading with Armed Forces; but it is: any encroachment or intrusion; the onset or advent of something harmful, as in a disease; pathologically, the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues.
Under Random House Dictionary, the definitions include: the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease; entrance, as if to take possession or overrun–and it gives the example, the annual invasion of the resort by tourists–and also, infringement by intrusion.
When I heard this quote earlier this week, my mind went to this meme I created to illustrate a problem I constantly encounter when grading:
Substitute “theoretical concept” for “sociological and policy problem” and the meme sticks.
What do you expect, Louie Gohmert is a moron!
I’m one of those (speaking as a physicist turned engineer) who think if you come up with a refinement of a concept, it makes more sense to create a new word than to modify the existing (dictionary) definition.
That way people can happily use the dictionary definition for the general case, and the expert can then point out that a different word should be used in its place.
The only downside is you end up with a lot of jargon (engineering is particularly bad for that), but the upside is you have less confusion.
Yea @Ron Beasley has it right. It’s generally a mistake to try to find anything rational about anything Congressman Gohmert says. After all, this is the guy who once went on an irrational rant over “Terror Babies”
@Doug Mataconis: On the one hand, true. On the other, he isn’t the only one I have heard use this term in this context…
Nothing causes me to roll my eyes and reach for the remote control mute button more quickly than a person who uses “the dictionary defines {—} as {blah blah blah }.” That rhetorical gimmick removes seriousness from the discussion. Also, as Ron said earlier, Gohmert is maxing out his abilities by just reading from the dictionary.
I found the phrase for stupid that I like best in JJ Salkeld’s novel, Pale Horse, Dark Horse — used in regard to a low-level criminal:
“If his brains were dynamite, he couldn’t blow his ears off.”
Just the other day I saw one of Sleepytown’s dwelling challenged citizens with a cardboard sign that read…
I almost gave the guy some change…
@Steven L. Taylor: No one said that Gohmert was the only moron in the House. His fellow Texas congressman, Blake Farenthold is probably even dumber.
@george:
This touches on one of my biggest bugaboos – the redefinition of the word “Conservative”
Instead of meaning prudent stewardship and traditionalism, we, in America, now use “Conservative” as the term for reactionary, Right-wing radicalism. Radical and conservative are antithetical.
In my mind, there is nothing “Conservative” about Gohmert.
Hey Louie? As long as you are looking stuff up in books, look up this:
Matthew 19:14
@de stijl:
Agree completely.
@de stijl:
Yes, yes you do. American ‘conservatism’ is rather anything but now. Pity reallly.
And they’ll both easily be re-elected. How do we run a democracy with an electorate like that?
@gVOR08: Perhaps we should request that Texas succeed from the United States but let the city states of Houston and Dallas remain in the union.
@Ron Beasley:
and Austin
San Antonio would also probably demand to stay with the U.S.
@Ron Beasley: I lived in suburban Dallas for a couple years in the 70s. Unless it’s changed a lot, Texas can take it with them.
whoa … gonna have to steal this 🙂