Should We Change the Dictionary to Accomodate the New Patriots?

cliff84373_at_yahoo.co.uk
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: 27 Jul 2004 23:19:29 -0700

As everyone knows, everything changed in 2000, when George Bush was
elected. Then things, of course, changed even more after 9/11. Now we
have the new (neo)conservatives and the new super patriots, and many
of us have found ourselves in the rather awkward position of being
identified as the new, evil traitors by authors such as Ann Coulter
and Sean Hannity. The reason, incidentally, I use the term "new"
traitor is because I don't think I was one before, even if I am one
now.

One of the reasons many of us Democrats are being called treasonous,
is because we are calling George Bush a liar. So, I'm wondering if the
whole problem can't be solved with a new dictionary. The new
dictionary would change the definition of at least one word: lie.
Dictionaries typically define this word something like this:

 1. To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
 2. To create a false or misleading impression.
 Merriam-Webster Online-http://www.m-w.com/

What I'm asking, then, is should we delete the second definition from
the dictionary? The advantages to doing this are many. For one thing,
our noble civil servants and statesmen wouldn't be hindered by
trivialities and details when explaining the reasons for a war, for
instance. If they were subsequently proven wrong they could just say
they got the information from someone else and thought it was true.
Another advantage is that many of us treasonous Democrats could become
respectable citizens again because we wouldn't feel tempted to call
George Bush a liar based on a mere technicality.

Still another advantage of deleting definition #2 is that we could
head of honesty bidding wars in future elections. Imagine, for
example, a candidate for president of this great nation having to say
something like "My fellow Americans, I pledge to you absolute honesty
in accordance with definitions "1" in Websters dictionary. In fact, I
intend to go a step further and in State of the Union addresses, I'll
even comply with definition "2". This is much better than my opponent
who only pledges honesty as defined in definition #1 in Fire Side
chats on prime-time television, between the hours of 6-8 PM (EST)" :)

So, as an honest, informed, conscientious voter, what do you think?
Should we change the dictionary?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy. - Ernest Benn

Relevant Pages