During the 1800's using actual human bodies for training doctors in anatomy classes was illegal and against the current ethical and religious standards.
Medical schools hid that they were actually using human cadavers and the only way they could obtain them was through grave robbers who followed funerals to the cemetery to know where to dig.
However, they really didn't dig up an entire casket. What they did was dig a hole above the tombstone down to the coffin, broke off the end, and pulled the body out.
To transport the body to the medical school, they often placed it in barrels of whisky that would not only preserve the body but look like they were transporting alcohol.
After delivering the body, the grave robbers would then sell the whisky to the medical students, some of whom were actually engaged in grave robbing themselves....
So you can see that though this is really disgusting, it is etymologically possible that is where the term rot gut came from.
Of course another possible way the term came about is what whisky can do to your innards.
that's why i drink gin...
it only rots your brain.
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
19 October 2008
17 September 2008
an explanation...
i frequently, no always, refer to the current president as Tsar George. there are reasons for this.
while working on my B.A. i majored in History. my main focus was on constitutional history, but since i was also taking Russian Language classes, i took a number of classes dealing with Russian history. one of my Russian teachers actually was a member of the Romanov family and had gone into exile; so she had fascinating stories. i was entranced by the years leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and it's precursor in 1905. in my opinion the entire fault can be laid at the feet of the Romanov's.
there is a quote about Tzar Nicholas II that explains my feelings on the point:
the only thing i see Tsar George being decisive about in the last eight years was going to Iraq. there is another parallel between George II and Nicholas II in this:
so, hopefully, you can see why i have referred to Mr. Bush as Tsar George Bushanov. not because of the autocracy he tries to enforce but because as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." [i even have it at the top right of this website...]
you may also be able to tell my connecting Dick Rasputin as Tzar George's sidekick. you can read about Grigori Rasputin and see the parallel's.
while working on my B.A. i majored in History. my main focus was on constitutional history, but since i was also taking Russian Language classes, i took a number of classes dealing with Russian history. one of my Russian teachers actually was a member of the Romanov family and had gone into exile; so she had fascinating stories. i was entranced by the years leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and it's precursor in 1905. in my opinion the entire fault can be laid at the feet of the Romanov's.
there is a quote about Tzar Nicholas II that explains my feelings on the point:
though no one can attest to Barbara Bush being dominating, the rest of the quote hits home about the last eight years.
In reality, he was a weak and indecisive man dominated by his wife and isolated from the socio-economic problems of his own country.
the only thing i see Tsar George being decisive about in the last eight years was going to Iraq. there is another parallel between George II and Nicholas II in this:
The Russians had no contingency plans for a partial mobilization, and on 31 July 1914 Nicholas took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilization. Nicholas was strongly counselled against mobilization of the Russian forces but chose to ignore such advice.sound familiar?
so, hopefully, you can see why i have referred to Mr. Bush as Tsar George Bushanov. not because of the autocracy he tries to enforce but because as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." [i even have it at the top right of this website...]
you may also be able to tell my connecting Dick Rasputin as Tzar George's sidekick. you can read about Grigori Rasputin and see the parallel's.
28 February 2008
denounce or reject: there is a difference...
Obama supporters, and I include the MSM in this, are making a big deal out of Tim Russert's question to Senator Obama in Tuesday night's debate about Louis Farrakhan giving his support to the senator. Farrakhan has a long history of making anti-semitic remarks and the question was based on these statements. There also is a long history of resentment and anti-semitism in the African-American community, of which, to his credit, Mr. Obama has pledged to bring that gap to a close.
For anyone who didn't see the debate or doesn't recall it, the question was,
Senator Obama chose to answer that he denounced Minister Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks.
Russert followed up with
Obama continued to parse on the word denounce.
Russert persisted on the word reject. Mrs. Clinton shared that when she ran for the Senate from New York, she was approached by a very anti-semitic group that told her that they would throw their support to her as long as she took certain stands. She rejected the group outright.
The final statement by Mr. Obama was
There is a huge difference between denounce and reject and I don't think Obama, if he understood the difference, would have really wanted to go the way he did. He would have been better off to say reject and left it at that.
So, let's look at the import of the differences between the two words and the impact of them on the question and the answers.
The Catholic church denounced Martin Luther because they believed him reprhensible and evil to question its authority. They rejected his 95 Theses as defective because the theses questioned dogma and belief.
Mr. Obama made a value judgment about Minister Farrakhan. In effect, Obama said that the minister was evil and reprehensible. He would have been better off saying that he refused to accept (rejected) Farrakhan's support. Now, Obama runs the risk of alienating a group of people who support him, and not just Farrakhan followers. The minister is very highly regarded in the African-American community for his service, even if they don't agree with his religious beliefs.
In addition, the exchange has gathered a lot of controversy and Obama supporters are attacking Tim Russert for his tactic and keeping the matter in the media's sights. They are basically saying it was an unfair attack on the Senator.
huh?
People are starting to ask the hard questions of Mr. Obama. It's natural; he's the front-funner; most people believe he is already the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States. To me (in my opinion that is) this reflects a fervent religiosity in protecting the candidate who they see as their rescuer from the thralldom of the last 40 years.
If Mr. Obama is, in fact, nominated as the Democratic contender, he's going to have to get used to attacks and some that will be vicious. The Republicans are not about to concede the Presidency and they will do anything and everything to make sure they have a man in the White House and (I will say what others don't want to say) a white man.
Whether it's Obama or Clinton, I think we can guarantee that the Republicans are in a lose-lose situation - a black man or a woman.
...shoots the Bible all to hell and their core conservative fundamental beliefs.
...and to make things worse, neither Clinton nor Obama are overtly religious.
we're all going to hell...
oh, wait, not me. i have the get out of hell free card. so, you all are going to hell...
For anyone who didn't see the debate or doesn't recall it, the question was,
"On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: 'Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago.' Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
Senator Obama chose to answer that he denounced Minister Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks.
You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
Russert followed up with
"Do you reject his support?"
Obama continued to parse on the word denounce.
"Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments."
Russert persisted on the word reject. Mrs. Clinton shared that when she ran for the Senate from New York, she was approached by a very anti-semitic group that told her that they would throw their support to her as long as she took certain stands. She rejected the group outright.
The final statement by Mr. Obama was
Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
There is a huge difference between denounce and reject and I don't think Obama, if he understood the difference, would have really wanted to go the way he did. He would have been better off to say reject and left it at that.
So, let's look at the import of the differences between the two words and the impact of them on the question and the answers.
reject (rĭ-jěkt') tr.v. re·ject·ed, re·ject·ing, re·jects
1. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
2. To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
3. To refuse to recognize or give affection to (a person).
4. To discard as defective or useless; throw away.
denounce (dĭ-nouns')
tr.v. de·nounced, de·nounc·ing, de·nounc·es
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible. See Synonyms at criticize.
2. To accuse formally.
3. To give formal announcement of the ending of (a treaty).- American Heritage Dictionary
The Catholic church denounced Martin Luther because they believed him reprhensible and evil to question its authority. They rejected his 95 Theses as defective because the theses questioned dogma and belief.
Mr. Obama made a value judgment about Minister Farrakhan. In effect, Obama said that the minister was evil and reprehensible. He would have been better off saying that he refused to accept (rejected) Farrakhan's support. Now, Obama runs the risk of alienating a group of people who support him, and not just Farrakhan followers. The minister is very highly regarded in the African-American community for his service, even if they don't agree with his religious beliefs.
In addition, the exchange has gathered a lot of controversy and Obama supporters are attacking Tim Russert for his tactic and keeping the matter in the media's sights. They are basically saying it was an unfair attack on the Senator.
huh?
People are starting to ask the hard questions of Mr. Obama. It's natural; he's the front-funner; most people believe he is already the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States. To me (in my opinion that is) this reflects a fervent religiosity in protecting the candidate who they see as their rescuer from the thralldom of the last 40 years.
If Mr. Obama is, in fact, nominated as the Democratic contender, he's going to have to get used to attacks and some that will be vicious. The Republicans are not about to concede the Presidency and they will do anything and everything to make sure they have a man in the White House and (I will say what others don't want to say) a white man.
Whether it's Obama or Clinton, I think we can guarantee that the Republicans are in a lose-lose situation - a black man or a woman.
...shoots the Bible all to hell and their core conservative fundamental beliefs.
...and to make things worse, neither Clinton nor Obama are overtly religious.
we're all going to hell...
oh, wait, not me. i have the get out of hell free card. so, you all are going to hell...
15 January 2008
"vitriol"...
def: vit·ri·ol [vi-tree-uhl]
noun, verb, -oled, -ol·ing or (especially British) -olled, -ol·ling.
I am to the point where I find myself tuning out people like Andrew Sullivan and Chris Matthews because of what is appearing to be a personal vitriolic hatred of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Sullivan and Matthews are just the most prominent; there are many others. It's to the point that they should consider taking some sort of medication before they give themselves a stroke or heart attack.
I also wonder if they realize that they are not "reporting" but have gone beyond being part of the fourth estate and are actually influencing people by spewing the things that they say?
noun, verb, -oled, -ol·ing or (especially British) -olled, -ol·ling.
–noun
1. Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc.
2. oil of vitriol; sulfuric acid.
3. something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.
–verb (used with object)
4. to treat with or as with vitriol, esp. sulfuric acid.
figrative: cruel and bitter criticism
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME [Origin: 1350–1400; ME < ML vitriolum, vitreolum, equiv. to L vitre(us) vitreous + -olum, neut. of -olus -ole1]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
I am to the point where I find myself tuning out people like Andrew Sullivan and Chris Matthews because of what is appearing to be a personal vitriolic hatred of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Sullivan and Matthews are just the most prominent; there are many others. It's to the point that they should consider taking some sort of medication before they give themselves a stroke or heart attack.
I also wonder if they realize that they are not "reporting" but have gone beyond being part of the fourth estate and are actually influencing people by spewing the things that they say?
27 November 2007
Article II section 2 - U.S. Constitution...
He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
New York Times headline, 27, November 2007 - U.S. and Iraq to Negotiate Pact on Long-Term Relations money quote -
The “Declaration of Principles” signed Monday via video link by President Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, does not specify the eventual number of American troops nor the length of their deployment. That issue is certain to be central in the 2008 presidential campaign that will be under way as American and Iraqi negotiators work toward a July deadline on a treaty governing relations between the two countries.
The question -
Does this, then, mean when the negotiations are completed [projected for July 2008] that the treaty will be presented to the Senate for the mandated two-thirds majority?
or...
will we see some finagling* by the Bush/Cheney administration?
just asking...
*fi·na·gle (fə-nā'gəl); verb: intransitive: 1. to use crafty, deceitful methods; 2. to get or achieve (something) by guile, trickery, or manipulation
we've not seen any of this for the last four years, have we?
06 October 2007
how stupid are these people?
...and how stupid am i for asking such a silly question?
Another GOP toilet-tapping incident is reported in the Times-Picayune.
DiFatta twice detained in lewd conduct in restrooms
First, in the bathroom again - ick!, second, more interference of privacy, third...
oh, hell. what third?
I'm going to repeat this one more time. When I was teaching, the kids would call each other ignorant. I told them that there was nothing wrong with being ignorant. It only meant that you didn't know something and you could find it out by asking questions, reading books, etc.
Stupid, on the other hand, was knowing better and doing something wrong anyway.
When a fourth grader asked what an idiot was, we came up with this definition:
So, I correct myself. These people are not stupid - They are idiots!
Another GOP toilet-tapping incident is reported in the Times-Picayune.
The report states that DiFatta watched a man use the bathroom while peering through a hole in a bathroom stall. The man held DiFatta until police arrived, at which time he was issued the misdemeanor summons and ordered to appear in court.
First, in the bathroom again - ick!, second, more interference of privacy, third...
oh, hell. what third?
I'm going to repeat this one more time. When I was teaching, the kids would call each other ignorant. I told them that there was nothing wrong with being ignorant. It only meant that you didn't know something and you could find it out by asking questions, reading books, etc.
Stupid, on the other hand, was knowing better and doing something wrong anyway.
When a fourth grader asked what an idiot was, we came up with this definition:
An idiot is someone who is too stupid to know that they're ignorant.
So, I correct myself. These people are not stupid - They are idiots!
15 August 2007
the everything test...
I've always liked these silly things on the internet - What Color Are You?, What martini are you [Sapphire, twist, blue cheese olive], etc. They are all kind of fun and can make you think about things sometimes.
Well this one is supposed to be the daddy of them all - The Everything Test. This one purports that all the questions affect all the results....
Here are my results. It actually gets a lot of things correct. The only one that is totally wrong is my being more lazy than workaholic. Of course, that may be from my answering the work questions being retired rather than actually having a job right now [and even that may change in the near future]. As far as being more engineering mind than artistic mind, it makes no sense. As a learner I am what is known as an abstract random, meaning that anything that is in highly sequential order totally throws me for a loop. Blast me with everything all at once and I can almost instantly make heads and tails of it. I hated math until I was forced to teach it.
Traditionally, online tests would ask certain questions about your musical tastes or clothing for a stereotype, your experiences for a purity test, or deep questions for a personality test.We're turning that upside down - all the questions affect all the results, and we've got some innovative results too! Enjoy :-)
TAKE THE TEST
brought to you by thatsurveysite
The thing I agree with more than anything else with my results? cynical. Through and through. Though I much prefer the word sardonic: grimly mocking or cynical; trenchant.
The sex part is interesting. Though we all like to think of ourselves as adventuresome, romantic and kinky, I think we not only tend to exaggerate but are really quite conservative for the most part.
try the test. have fun...
Well this one is supposed to be the daddy of them all - The Everything Test. This one purports that all the questions affect all the results....
Here are my results. It actually gets a lot of things correct. The only one that is totally wrong is my being more lazy than workaholic. Of course, that may be from my answering the work questions being retired rather than actually having a job right now [and even that may change in the near future]. As far as being more engineering mind than artistic mind, it makes no sense. As a learner I am what is known as an abstract random, meaning that anything that is in highly sequential order totally throws me for a loop. Blast me with everything all at once and I can almost instantly make heads and tails of it. I hated math until I was forced to teach it.
The Everything Test
There are many different types of tests on the internet today. Personality tests, purity tests, stereotype tests, political tests. But now, there is one test to rule them all.Traditionally, online tests would ask certain questions about your musical tastes or clothing for a stereotype, your experiences for a purity test, or deep questions for a personality test.We're turning that upside down - all the questions affect all the results, and we've got some innovative results too! Enjoy :-)
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||
| Politics Your political views would best be described as Liberal, whom you agree with around 86% of the time. | Socioeconomic Your attitude toward life best associates you with Upper Class. You make more than 91% of those who have taken this test, and 28% more than the U.S. average. |
| If your life was a movie, it would be rated PG-13. By the way, your hottness rank is 57%, hotter than 37% of other test takers. |
TAKE THE TEST
brought to you by thatsurveysite
The thing I agree with more than anything else with my results? cynical. Through and through. Though I much prefer the word sardonic: grimly mocking or cynical; trenchant.
The sex part is interesting. Though we all like to think of ourselves as adventuresome, romantic and kinky, I think we not only tend to exaggerate but are really quite conservative for the most part.
try the test. have fun...
11 April 2007
new blog title...
kinda, sorta...
I've been debating for awhile about changing the title of the blog. I've been blogging no matter what... since January 2005. The content has evolved. My cynicism has reawakened, dozed off and then reawakened again.
When I looked back over the last two year's of blogs, I realized that in addition to adhering to my intitial goal of spreading my belief that everyone has the right to be, say and do whatever is right for them - as long as it does not physically harm another person - there has been a current of seeking out the hypocrisy and getting people to ask questions by thinking about things in ways from many and different perspectives, not just one.
Rather than changing the title completely, I realized that the one I was considering actually fit with no matter what.... Hence the original title + the new one =
no matter what... eschew obfuscation
So, what does it mean?
The phrase eschew obfuscation is a bit esoteric and arcane, and that's the point of it. A little vocabulary lesson:
and have we had a time dealing with that for the last several years. As a point of reference: April 9, 2003. The reasons for invading Iraq are the height of obfuscating, lie after lie, spin after spin, revision after revision.
The phrase eschew obfuscation has personal history also. Working in education, one of the biggest problems of teaching is making things clear for all students. When you have students gaining information in different modalities, processing it in several learning styles, and understanding it with different abilities, it can be very difficult when there are 25 - 30 kids in front of you.
Also, if you stop and think about it, relationships rely heavily on eschewing obfuscation. When two people, or more for that matter, are being unclear either inadvertently or on purpose all kinds of misunderstanding can happen. So, yeah, I've obfuscated at times and paid the price. [I have the t-shirt to prove it!]
In a way, whether it's a personal relationship or a problem between two countries, obfuscation of some sort will probably be at the base of it.
What we need then is to eschew obfuscation.
and they still have that bridge in New York for sale...
I've been debating for awhile about changing the title of the blog. I've been blogging no matter what... since January 2005. The content has evolved. My cynicism has reawakened, dozed off and then reawakened again.
When I looked back over the last two year's of blogs, I realized that in addition to adhering to my intitial goal of spreading my belief that everyone has the right to be, say and do whatever is right for them - as long as it does not physically harm another person - there has been a current of seeking out the hypocrisy and getting people to ask questions by thinking about things in ways from many and different perspectives, not just one.
Rather than changing the title completely, I realized that the one I was considering actually fit with no matter what.... Hence the original title + the new one =
So, what does it mean?
The phrase eschew obfuscation is a bit esoteric and arcane, and that's the point of it. A little vocabulary lesson:
eschew /es chü/ verb: to avoid, to shunTo put the meaning in a clearer form - no matter what... avoid being unclear...
obfuscation /ob'fu skā shən/ noun: the act of rendering obscure, unclear, or unintelligble
and have we had a time dealing with that for the last several years. As a point of reference: April 9, 2003. The reasons for invading Iraq are the height of obfuscating, lie after lie, spin after spin, revision after revision.
The phrase eschew obfuscation has personal history also. Working in education, one of the biggest problems of teaching is making things clear for all students. When you have students gaining information in different modalities, processing it in several learning styles, and understanding it with different abilities, it can be very difficult when there are 25 - 30 kids in front of you.
Also, if you stop and think about it, relationships rely heavily on eschewing obfuscation. When two people, or more for that matter, are being unclear either inadvertently or on purpose all kinds of misunderstanding can happen. So, yeah, I've obfuscated at times and paid the price. [I have the t-shirt to prove it!]
In a way, whether it's a personal relationship or a problem between two countries, obfuscation of some sort will probably be at the base of it.
What we need then is to eschew obfuscation.
and they still have that bridge in New York for sale...
a misnomer...
Global warming is actually a misnomer - a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.
When people hear it they're thinking, "It's gonna get hot." Yes, it's going to get hot, but in the wrong places. All of the talk of the warming is pointing to places like Antactica and the Artic: the massive icebergs falling off of the glaciers; the giant ozone hole at the bottom of the earth. This is causing a major problem for the rest of the world but not necessarily with it getting warmer. Yes, there will be droughts and great heat but what about the rest of the world? Not every place will become overheated.
What it is actually doing is playing havoc with weather patterns, seasonal changes, moisture levels, violent storms, etc.
In Chicago today we have had a snowfall, actually more slush than snow, and we're into April. One commenter on a blog wanted to know where the global warming was. We had warm weather - in February & the beginning of March - 70's. That's unusual. We're having snow today. That's unusual too but not unheard of.
The naysayers on global warming are pointing to the literal act of warming and say that they aren't seeing it. That's not what it's all about. It's much more complicated than this. The Earth is a very large space, no matter how small it seems at times, and has an enormous range of climate differences. Not all are going to be effected in the same way.
The problem is that no one really knows what's going to happen in the long run.
That may be the greatest misnomer. If the experts don't really know what's going to happen and the naysayers are wont to admit that the phenomenum actually exists, will it be too late to do anything about it?
for more information: An Inconvient Truth
When people hear it they're thinking, "It's gonna get hot." Yes, it's going to get hot, but in the wrong places. All of the talk of the warming is pointing to places like Antactica and the Artic: the massive icebergs falling off of the glaciers; the giant ozone hole at the bottom of the earth. This is causing a major problem for the rest of the world but not necessarily with it getting warmer. Yes, there will be droughts and great heat but what about the rest of the world? Not every place will become overheated.
What it is actually doing is playing havoc with weather patterns, seasonal changes, moisture levels, violent storms, etc.
In Chicago today we have had a snowfall, actually more slush than snow, and we're into April. One commenter on a blog wanted to know where the global warming was. We had warm weather - in February & the beginning of March - 70's. That's unusual. We're having snow today. That's unusual too but not unheard of.
The naysayers on global warming are pointing to the literal act of warming and say that they aren't seeing it. That's not what it's all about. It's much more complicated than this. The Earth is a very large space, no matter how small it seems at times, and has an enormous range of climate differences. Not all are going to be effected in the same way.
The problem is that no one really knows what's going to happen in the long run.
That may be the greatest misnomer. If the experts don't really know what's going to happen and the naysayers are wont to admit that the phenomenum actually exists, will it be too late to do anything about it?
for more information: An Inconvient Truth
03 April 2007
etymological lesson...
ar-ro-gate
/arrəgayt/
• verb: take or claim for oneself without justification
ORIGIN: mid-16th cent.: from Latin arrogat- 'claimed for oneself,' from the verb arrogare
ab·ro·gate
/abrgāyt/
• verb: formal repeal or do away with (a law or agreement)
ORIGIN: early 16th cent.: from Latin abrogat- 'repealed,' from the verb abrogare, from ab- 'away, from' + rogare 'propose a law.'
USAGE: The verbs abrogate and arrogate are quite different in meaning. While abrogate means 'repeal (a law),' arrogate means 'take or claim (something) for oneself without justification,' often in the structure: arrogate something to oneself; as in The committee arrogated to itself whatever powers it chose.
ar-ro-gant
(ăərōgənt)
• adjective: having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
ORIGIN: late middle English: via Old French from Latin arrogat- 'claiming for oneself,' from the verb arrogare (see abrogate)
*signing statements, USA firings, the surge, unamerican liberals, bush?
just asking...
*see post below for other examples and a good laugh...
from multiple dictionary sources: Cambridge Dictionaries Online, The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford American Dictionary
/arrəgayt/
• verb: take or claim for oneself without justification
ORIGIN: mid-16th cent.: from Latin arrogat- 'claimed for oneself,' from the verb arrogare
ab·ro·gate
/abrgāyt/
• verb: formal repeal or do away with (a law or agreement)
ORIGIN: early 16th cent.: from Latin abrogat- 'repealed,' from the verb abrogare, from ab- 'away, from' + rogare 'propose a law.'
USAGE: The verbs abrogate and arrogate are quite different in meaning. While abrogate means 'repeal (a law),' arrogate means 'take or claim (something) for oneself without justification,' often in the structure: arrogate something to oneself; as in The committee arrogated to itself whatever powers it chose.
ar-ro-gant
(ăərōgənt)
• adjective: having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
ORIGIN: late middle English: via Old French from Latin arrogat- 'claiming for oneself,' from the verb arrogare (see abrogate)
*signing statements, USA firings, the surge, unamerican liberals, bush?
just asking...
*see post below for other examples and a good laugh...
from multiple dictionary sources: Cambridge Dictionaries Online, The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford American Dictionary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)