The Dumbbell's Dictionary
JonBenet Ramsey, n. Another glaring example of the deterioration of our culture. Why
would caring parents tart up a six year old girl and parade her around in costumes that she
should not have been wearing until she reached maturity? Just how much did this tarting
up have to do with her murder?
Grigori Rasputin, n. Diabolical advisor to the Czarina Alexandra. Murdered by those who
thought he was getting to be too influential with the royals. Historians tell us that it took
poison, stabbing, shooting, and finally, drowning to dispose of him.
John Rawls, n. Supposedly, if you listen to those of the left, one of America’s greatest
living philosophers. Nonsense! His major work, „A Theory of Justice,’ is perhaps the
most unjust exposition that has been given this century in regard to man’s relations with
his fellow man. He maintains that an economy and a society cannot be just unless wealth
is shared equally by all and sundry. Sounds like Obama’s reading material, he of „share
Reader’s Digest, n. For many, many years the motto of this venerable magazine was:
„Send me a man who reads.’ Assuming the magazine still has a motto, I would wager that
the current motto would be along the lines of: „Send me a man who can read.’
Reading, n. That of mine seems to be failing, while at the same time my writing seems to
be blossoming. As far as reading in general, doesn’t it remain true that reading engages
the intellect in ways that cannot be duplicated by images flashing across a screen? (Just
perhaps, words are better than pixels.)
Ready, fire, aim, n. The stated military policy of the Obama administration.
Ronald Reagan, n. America’s third greatest president who, working hand in glove with
Pope John Paul II, won the cold war. He also, incidentally, got regulation off our backs,
reduced taxes, and beefed up national defense and gave us renewed reasons to again
believe in our country.
Redistribution, n. In the fifties, a series of Bretrand de Jouvenal’s lectures was collected
and published in a slim volume titled „The Ethics of Redistribution.’ The choice of title
was unfortunate, given that it is manifestly impossible to design an ethical system the
purpose of which is to take from some and give to others.
Recall that during the 1964 presidential campaign, Lyndon Johnson said that we’re (the
government) going to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. What does such an
attitude leave of ethics or, for that matter, do to incentives? (This, aside from the fact that
such actions are blatantly unconstitutional.) And how about the effects of such
government largesse on the recipients? Create dependency and the nanny state.
Redundancy, n. Pretty much as abusive as a tautology, either of which is the mark of the
not very literate. Be that as it may, let’s help stamp out and eradicate it.
Relationship, Inverse, n. Exactly what we were subjected to in Al Gore’s public
pronouncements during the 2000 presidential campaign. That is, the intelligence
contained in his shouted imprecations were inversely related to his vehemence in