When I was young I wondered where new words came from. Was there, I wondered, some bench of judges with furrowed brows who pored over immense tomes and eithe ratified new words or coined them personally?
Apropos of nothing, I still wonder about the process now that I am approaching (some would say have already entered) middle age. Apparently there is a Latinist in the Vatican who comes up with Latin versions of new words, and the French regularly make the news by their protestations at the invasion of some Americanism or other into their pristrine Gallic tongue. And one must acknowledge the mainstreaming of, say, a slang term once it appears in the current edition of the Oxford English Dictionary or even Webster's. But who creates - say, in the English-speaking world - new words?
My wife's family has a word I'd never heard anywhere else: "gription". Its meaning may not strike you at first if you read it, but try saying it aloud. "Gription". A combination of "grip" and "traction". While it has many applications in the parlance of the Archlaical in-laws I've always thought it would be the perfect word to use in a ad for high-performance tires - or even snow tires. "Buy Badrich Vulcanas - 50% more gription than Michelin".
Sometimes propective words come from strange sources. Boston's mayor, the aptly-nicknamed "Mumbles" Menino, is a constant source of mispronunciations, malapropisms, and mangled syntax. And yet even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn. A couple of years ago, at a press conference discussing allegations that two public safety employees had been under the influence of various substances while on duty, Mistah Mayah promised an overhaul of the department in question - including "Randatory testing". Perfect! Now that the concept of random drug testing has become mandatory in certain fields, why should we waste two words when one will do? Everyone laughed when he said it, but I'm expecting it to work its way into the vernacular sooner or later.
I invented a word of my own a couple of years ago, during one or another of the public embarrassments visited upon a wealthy and oversexed wastrel whose name I originally confused with that of a hotel in the principal city of France* and who is mainly famous (or notorious) for being famous (or notorious). After several days of news stories about her latest travails, a word popped into my head: "megaslut". It succinctly described the magnitude of her notoriety and the depravity of her lifestyle. It's taking a while to catch on, perhaps because I have so little occasion to use it in polite company, but I expect it to someday be a fixture in the gossip columns!
*One day several years ago a co-worker asked at lunch whether anyone had seen the "Paris Hilton Video" Never having heard of the individual in question I wondered what sort of video about a hotel would have such interest and currency amongst certain of my perpetual adolescent co-workers. I finally decided that it must be footage of some sort of controlled demolition. Imagine my surprise when I dicovered what it really was!
26 May 2010
24 May 2010
Prayer Request
It is very probable that a large percentage of my small readership are also readers of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog, What Does the Prayer Really Say? For those who aren't regular readers of Fr. Z. I commend to your attention this post, in which prayers are asked for a young man - a seminarian and a Naval officer - who is battling a brain tumor.
Please read it and storm Heaven with your prayers.
Please read it and storm Heaven with your prayers.
16 May 2010
They Have No Shame
For many years The Boston Daily Worker (whose publishers refer to it as "The Boston Globe") has seen fit to employ a bitter ex-priest and writer of fiction named James Carroll. Mr. Carroll, whose politics are hard-left and whose Catholicism (such as it is) is of the arch-dissident flavor, nowadays writes opinion columns which appear regularly in the pages of that benighted broadsheet. Mr. Carroll is their kind of Catholic, a man whose chief problem with the Church is that it dares to try to remain true to itself rather than changing its teachings to suit contemporary mores.
Just as some men and women retain a particularly intense animus toward their ex-spouse after a failed marriage, Mr. Carroll reserves and nurtures a particularly virulent hatred for the Catholic Church. This week he has trotted-out one of his longtime hobbyhorses, priestly celibacy. His main contentions are:
If you are of a nervous or choleric temperament, I suggest you refrain from reading the original article. If, however, you want to see what the principal newspaper in Boston feels is appropriate in an opinion piece about the Catholic Church, read it and gnash your teeth. But don't say I didn't warn you...
Just as some men and women retain a particularly intense animus toward their ex-spouse after a failed marriage, Mr. Carroll reserves and nurtures a particularly virulent hatred for the Catholic Church. This week he has trotted-out one of his longtime hobbyhorses, priestly celibacy. His main contentions are:
- "Celibacy cuts to the heart of what is wrong in the Catholic Church today",
- Celibacy might be OK for monks but the only way for a parish priest to live a celibate life is through "repression",
- "Celibacy does not 'cause' the sex abuse of minors" you see, it just creates a "homophilic world", an "inbred culture" of a "repressively psychotic" nature which caused "stresses" and "irrepressible urges", leading to... you know,
- The Church is obsessed with sex as a means of control - hence the birth control ban for the laity and the celibacy rule for priests and religious,
- The Council would have revisited both and probably changed "the rules" but "conservative" and "insecure" Pope Paul VI unilaterally reserved the decisions to himself (how dare he?),
- "Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality" plue "Lies, denial, arrogance, selfishness, and cowardice" are the fruits of a celibate priesthood,
- "The people" understand all of this and agree with... Jim Carroll on all of it!
- Was Jesus Christ sexually "repressed"? "immature"? "Narcissistic"? "Misogynistic"? "Incapable of intimacy"? Full of "illusions about sexual morality?
- Which priest-saints showed signs of "Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality"? Which ones exhibited "Lies, denial, arrogance, selfishness, and cowardice" as a result of their celibate lives?
- What else did that arch-conservative Pope , Paul VI, stop the Council from doing to fix the Church? Which of those negative personality traits did he suffer from?
- Why wasn't this a significant problem in the Church until the latter half of the twentieth century?
- Why is the percentage of men who sexually abuse minors much higher amongst the ministry of the (non-celibate) protestant sects?
- Is the fact that all of this has coincided with the period in the Church which brought us the Second Vatican Council just a coincidence, or would it have been much worse without the Council?
If you are of a nervous or choleric temperament, I suggest you refrain from reading the original article. If, however, you want to see what the principal newspaper in Boston feels is appropriate in an opinion piece about the Catholic Church, read it and gnash your teeth. But don't say I didn't warn you...
14 May 2010
What a Breath of Fresh Air!
Wow! Here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts we have a choice this November between our sitting governor, a.k.a. 'Obama Lite'; a RINO who makes Mitt Romney look like Ronald Reagan; and an opportunistic independent, the incumbent state treasurer who bolted the Democratic party last year. Not much of a choice, and it's looking like the lamentable Deval Patrick has a real chance of winning re-election with a plurality in the high 30's.
But it's nice to keep hearing more and more about the guy they elected in New Jersey last November - where voters had a real choice - Governor Chris Christie.
Imagine if you will, a politician in a liberal-dominated East Coast "blue" state who acually has (gasp) convictions, and the will to follow them in governing! When's the last time we had someone like that around here?
More on Governor Christie in good time, but meanwhile you may enjoy this little performance. Again, it's wonderful to see an elected official who doesn't quail before the media:
But it's nice to keep hearing more and more about the guy they elected in New Jersey last November - where voters had a real choice - Governor Chris Christie.
Imagine if you will, a politician in a liberal-dominated East Coast "blue" state who acually has (gasp) convictions, and the will to follow them in governing! When's the last time we had someone like that around here?
More on Governor Christie in good time, but meanwhile you may enjoy this little performance. Again, it's wonderful to see an elected official who doesn't quail before the media:
| Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone' |
08 May 2010
(Un)Happy (No)Birth Day
There was an AP article in the Boston Daily Worker* today about the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of "the Pill". That's not an insignificant milestone, and all of us ought to take note of it. Fifty years of smaller families - and shorter marriages. Fifty years of women "taking control" - and dying early or suffering horribly from breast cancer. Fifty years of being free to "act like men" - and wondering why men don't treat them like ladies any more.
The author of this article, however, seems to think that it's all good. Let's take a look:
America’s favorite birth control method reaches its 50th year
US spends $3.5m on ‘the pill,’ in dozens of brands
By Carla K. Johnson, Associated Press
May 8, 2010
CHICAGO — A world without “the pill’’ is unimaginable to many young women who now use it to treat acne, skip periods, improve mood, and, of course, prevent pregnancy. They might be surprised to learn that US officials announcing approval of the world’s first oral contraceptive were uncomfortable. Of course they'd be surprised - the MSM has been the captain of the cheerleading squad for the 'sexual revolution' - why would they bother to tell the other side of the story?
“Our own ideas of morality had nothing to do with the case,’’ said John Harvey of the Food and Drug Administration in 1960. Because... morality is subjective?
The pill was safe, in other words. Don’t blame us if you think it’s wicked. "Safe" is not the opposite of "wicked" - this is a sort of straw man. Is the author not demonstrably sympathizing with the proponents of 'the Pill'? And do you suppose the AP - or the Boston Daily Worker - will tell us WHY anyone might think this novelty was "wicked"?
Tomorrow, Mother’s Day, is the 50th anniversary of that provocative announcement that introduced to the world what is now widely acknowledged as one of the most important inventions of the last century. The mind boggles - is the irony of 'Mother's Day' completely lost on Miz Johnson?
The world has changed, but it’s debatable what part the birth control pill played. Debatable? Perhaps for one who is used to believing what she reads in the pages of The New York Times...
Some specialists think it gets too much credit or blame for the sexual revolution. After all, sex outside marriage wasn’t new in 1960. 1.) And some "specialists" think that the Nazis got a raw deal at Nuremburg. Bravo sierra. 2.) Who could possibly think that a product that dramatically altered the rules of Nature and seemingly nullified the consequences of illicit sexual intercourse might lead to a dramatic increase of that sort of behavior.
The pill definitely changed sex, though, (she is forced to admit it) giving women more control over their fertility than they had ever had before (not quite - the option of keeping ones legs closed has always been effective) and permanently putting doctors — who previously didn’t see contraceptives as part of their job — in the birth control picture. Strange, this; but again Miz Johnson misses the irony - these days a doctor can lose his job for refusing to prescribe perhaps the only pharmaceutical which "treats" a normal, healthy organic bodily process by disabling it.
But some things haven’t changed. Now as then, a male birth control pill is still on the drawing board. Why not - at $3.5M per annum for 'the Pill' there's got to be a market for this.
“There’s a joke in this field that a male pill is always five to seven years away from the market, and that’s what people have been saying since 1960,’’ said Andrea Tone, a history professor at Montreal’s McGill University and author of “Devices and Desires: A History of Contraception in America.’’ And this is funny... why? Perhaps a 'news' article by a 'news service' published in a 'newspaper' would consider explaining the history of the attempt to develop a male version of this wondrous pill.
The pill is America’s favorite form of reversible (except for the irreversible consequences) birth control. (Sterilization is the leader overall.) Nearly a third of women who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies use it. “In 2008, Americans spent more than $3.5 billion on birth control pills,’’ Tone said, “and we’ve gone from the one pill to 40 different brands.’’
There are Yaz (I cringe every time I hear this. I hope Carl Yastrzemski sues them for every cent they've ever made), Yasmin, Seasonale, Seasonique, and Lybrel — all with slightly different packaging, formulations, and selling points.
In the 1960s, anthropologist Ashley Montagu thought the birth control pill was as important as the discovery of fire. Turns out it wasn’t the answer to overpopulation, war, and poverty, as some of its early advocates had hoped. Nor did it universally save marriages. The four big lies we heard over and over again about 'the Pill' - do you supose there will be anything forthcoming about those who opposed 'the Pill', or their predictions?
“Married couples could have happier sex with more freedom and less fear. The divorce rate might go down and there would be no more unwanted pregnancies,’’ said Elaine Tyler May, 62, a University of Minnesota history professor who wrote “America and the Pill. Married couples might be having "happier sex" but not with each other - the divorce rate has increased nearly TENFOLD. As for "unwanted pregnancies", the failure rate of artificial birth control was a primary argument in favor of legalized abortion, of which we have over a million a year.
“None of those things happened, not the optimistic hopes or the pessimistic fears of sexual anarchy,’’ she said. Huh? Nice of her to admit that the 'experts' were wrong, but insofar as the "pessimist[s]" predicted "sexual anarchy", isn't that what we have now?
And it didn’t eliminate all unwanted pregnancies either. Nearly half of all pregnancies to US women are unintended and nearly half of those end in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which has gathered data on abortions for years. Quelle surprise.
The pill is often associated with the women’s movement of the 1970s. Because it IS associated with it. That's like saying that Babe Ruth is often associated with baseball!
But the two feminists behind the pill, the ones who provided the intellectual spark (like Hitler provided the "intellectual spark" for The Holocaust?) and the financial backing, were born a century earlier, in the 1870s.
As suffragists worked for the vote, renowned birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger distributed pamphlets with contraceptive advice and dreamed of a magic pill to prevent pregnancy. It is amazing to me that Margaret Sanger is still uncritically held up as a paragon of virtue - personally she was a libertine, and her "Birth Control League" was a eugenicist organization seeking to limit childbirth amongst the "inferior" races, e.g. blacks. (Her sentiment, not mine!)
Katharine McCormick, a philanthropist with a science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ("science" automatically = good) bankrolled the work of Gregory Pincus, the man Sanger convinced to develop the pill. “It was my grandmother’s idea and Katharine McCormick’s money,’’ Alex Sanger said, now chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council. And we all lived happily ever after. What this article omits is mind-blowing, it just goes to show that media bias need not consist of slanted assertions or opinion masquerading as news, omission can be just as powerful.
*In fairness, its publishers refer to it as "The Boston Globe". What, exactly, would be different about its content and positions if it were published by the Communist Party I cannot discern.
The author of this article, however, seems to think that it's all good. Let's take a look:
America’s favorite birth control method reaches its 50th year
US spends $3.5m on ‘the pill,’ in dozens of brands
By Carla K. Johnson, Associated Press
May 8, 2010
CHICAGO — A world without “the pill’’ is unimaginable to many young women who now use it to treat acne, skip periods, improve mood, and, of course, prevent pregnancy. They might be surprised to learn that US officials announcing approval of the world’s first oral contraceptive were uncomfortable. Of course they'd be surprised - the MSM has been the captain of the cheerleading squad for the 'sexual revolution' - why would they bother to tell the other side of the story?
“Our own ideas of morality had nothing to do with the case,’’ said John Harvey of the Food and Drug Administration in 1960. Because... morality is subjective?
The pill was safe, in other words. Don’t blame us if you think it’s wicked. "Safe" is not the opposite of "wicked" - this is a sort of straw man. Is the author not demonstrably sympathizing with the proponents of 'the Pill'? And do you suppose the AP - or the Boston Daily Worker - will tell us WHY anyone might think this novelty was "wicked"?
Tomorrow, Mother’s Day, is the 50th anniversary of that provocative announcement that introduced to the world what is now widely acknowledged as one of the most important inventions of the last century. The mind boggles - is the irony of 'Mother's Day' completely lost on Miz Johnson?
The world has changed, but it’s debatable what part the birth control pill played. Debatable? Perhaps for one who is used to believing what she reads in the pages of The New York Times...
Some specialists think it gets too much credit or blame for the sexual revolution. After all, sex outside marriage wasn’t new in 1960. 1.) And some "specialists" think that the Nazis got a raw deal at Nuremburg. Bravo sierra. 2.) Who could possibly think that a product that dramatically altered the rules of Nature and seemingly nullified the consequences of illicit sexual intercourse might lead to a dramatic increase of that sort of behavior.
The pill definitely changed sex, though, (she is forced to admit it) giving women more control over their fertility than they had ever had before (not quite - the option of keeping ones legs closed has always been effective) and permanently putting doctors — who previously didn’t see contraceptives as part of their job — in the birth control picture. Strange, this; but again Miz Johnson misses the irony - these days a doctor can lose his job for refusing to prescribe perhaps the only pharmaceutical which "treats" a normal, healthy organic bodily process by disabling it.
But some things haven’t changed. Now as then, a male birth control pill is still on the drawing board. Why not - at $3.5M per annum for 'the Pill' there's got to be a market for this.
“There’s a joke in this field that a male pill is always five to seven years away from the market, and that’s what people have been saying since 1960,’’ said Andrea Tone, a history professor at Montreal’s McGill University and author of “Devices and Desires: A History of Contraception in America.’’ And this is funny... why? Perhaps a 'news' article by a 'news service' published in a 'newspaper' would consider explaining the history of the attempt to develop a male version of this wondrous pill.
The pill is America’s favorite form of reversible (except for the irreversible consequences) birth control. (Sterilization is the leader overall.) Nearly a third of women who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies use it. “In 2008, Americans spent more than $3.5 billion on birth control pills,’’ Tone said, “and we’ve gone from the one pill to 40 different brands.’’
There are Yaz (I cringe every time I hear this. I hope Carl Yastrzemski sues them for every cent they've ever made), Yasmin, Seasonale, Seasonique, and Lybrel — all with slightly different packaging, formulations, and selling points.
In the 1960s, anthropologist Ashley Montagu thought the birth control pill was as important as the discovery of fire. Turns out it wasn’t the answer to overpopulation, war, and poverty, as some of its early advocates had hoped. Nor did it universally save marriages. The four big lies we heard over and over again about 'the Pill' - do you supose there will be anything forthcoming about those who opposed 'the Pill', or their predictions?
“Married couples could have happier sex with more freedom and less fear. The divorce rate might go down and there would be no more unwanted pregnancies,’’ said Elaine Tyler May, 62, a University of Minnesota history professor who wrote “America and the Pill. Married couples might be having "happier sex" but not with each other - the divorce rate has increased nearly TENFOLD. As for "unwanted pregnancies", the failure rate of artificial birth control was a primary argument in favor of legalized abortion, of which we have over a million a year.
“None of those things happened, not the optimistic hopes or the pessimistic fears of sexual anarchy,’’ she said. Huh? Nice of her to admit that the 'experts' were wrong, but insofar as the "pessimist[s]" predicted "sexual anarchy", isn't that what we have now?
And it didn’t eliminate all unwanted pregnancies either. Nearly half of all pregnancies to US women are unintended and nearly half of those end in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which has gathered data on abortions for years. Quelle surprise.
The pill is often associated with the women’s movement of the 1970s. Because it IS associated with it. That's like saying that Babe Ruth is often associated with baseball!
But the two feminists behind the pill, the ones who provided the intellectual spark (like Hitler provided the "intellectual spark" for The Holocaust?) and the financial backing, were born a century earlier, in the 1870s.
As suffragists worked for the vote, renowned birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger distributed pamphlets with contraceptive advice and dreamed of a magic pill to prevent pregnancy. It is amazing to me that Margaret Sanger is still uncritically held up as a paragon of virtue - personally she was a libertine, and her "Birth Control League" was a eugenicist organization seeking to limit childbirth amongst the "inferior" races, e.g. blacks. (Her sentiment, not mine!)
Katharine McCormick, a philanthropist with a science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ("science" automatically = good) bankrolled the work of Gregory Pincus, the man Sanger convinced to develop the pill. “It was my grandmother’s idea and Katharine McCormick’s money,’’ Alex Sanger said, now chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council. And we all lived happily ever after. What this article omits is mind-blowing, it just goes to show that media bias need not consist of slanted assertions or opinion masquerading as news, omission can be just as powerful.
*In fairness, its publishers refer to it as "The Boston Globe". What, exactly, would be different about its content and positions if it were published by the Communist Party I cannot discern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)