Search Results

THE GULF OIL SPILL meets the Newspeak dictionary.

THE NEWSPEAK DICTIONARY GOES GALLIC: Theodore Dalrymple hands out the first Brezhnev Prize for the most obfuscating European politician ever.

And for news of transatlantic obfuscations,  following the embarrassment of having recommended Spain’s failed environmental programs as his model, President Obama has switched to Denmark as his prototype “green” nation. Good choice? Not so fast, Christopher Horner writes, asking, “Best out of five?”

RELATED: At Reason TV, “Sweden’s March Towards Capitalism.”

Hopefully, someday America will begin a similar journey as well.

COUNTERING WUSSY PC EUPHEMISMS:

If you blinked, you might have missed it. The Obama administration has unofficially rebranded “war on terror” phrase that dominated public discourse throughout the Bush administration. The replacement phrase, carefully chosen, is “CVE” — Countering Violent Extremism.

Like Orwell’s ever-shrinking Newspeak Dictionary, Marc Ambinder counts the number of real-world words missing from this latest euphemism, a term that brings new meaning to the title of Austin Bay’s pocket dictionary of military jargon.

IN THE BOSTON GLOBE, ALEX BEAM:

It is inevitable in modern American politics that each new president inaugurates his own brand of bushwa – rubbish, lies, eyewash, whatever you choose to call it – that reminds one of nothing so much as the previous guy’s bushwa. Mr. Obama is no exception. . . . Remember signing statements? Those were the dastardly little postscripts George Bush attached to legislation that he didn’t completely approve of. Signing statements ignore the “fundamental principle’’ of the separation of powers, the American Bar Association huffed. On the campaign trail, candidate Obama was asked, “Do you promise not to use presidential [signing statements] to get your way?’’ “Yes,’’ he answered. “I taught the Constitution for 10 years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.’’

That was easy!

Less easy is explaining away his six signing statements so far, an impressive one-a-month clip. “Signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system,’’ Obama now says, “at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections.’’ Mr. President, meet my friend George Orwell, inventor of Newspeak, who memorably wrote, “Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.’’

New bushwa same as the old bushwa? It’s a lot less different than we had been led to believe.

Hope and Change Same!

STRANGE INEPTITUDE: “The news that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee has postponed consideration of Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis because her husband only yesterday paid off tax liens, some of which had been pending for up to 16 years, confirms that there’s an inexplicable, widespread problem in the Obama vetting process (as if Geithner, Daschle, Richardson, Killefer, et al hadn’t already demonstrated that). . . . Either Obama and his nominees aren’t easily embarrassed, or the vetters have tin ears the size of satellite dishes.”

Related thoughts from Nathan Moore: “The problem here, at least in my view, is not so much that Solis’ husband had some rather antique tax liens hanging around, but that the Obama administration’s vetting process has revealed itself to be decidedly incompetent. Or, more accurately, arrogant, which really is just a subform of incompetence. . . . The message is clear, no matter how earnestly the president employs Newspeak rhetoric in a vain attempt to muddle it – there are two sets of rules, one for us, and one for them. If they truly believed there was one set of rules, the administration would have taken it upon itself to weed out the tax-encumbered nominees from the process, but they didn’t – and that speaks volumes.”

THE NEWSPEAK VERSION OF “Human Rights Activists.”

IS “UGLY NARRATIVE” newspeak for true? Interesting discussion in the comments.

RANDI RHODES GETS a bad review from Ed Cone:

She was ranting about Israel’s “genocide” in Lebanon.

Genocide? Whatever Israel is doing, however bad you may think it, it’s not the mass systematic extermination of a people. She piled on, saying that people who talk about the world’s last genocide (which, of course, the Holocaust was not) should never do it themselves.

She also said, wrongly, that “thousands” of people had died in Katrina.

It was pretty damn bad.

Of course it was. I’ve noticed a lot of antiwar people accusing Israel of “genocide.” Once you realize that in lefty newspeak, “genocide” is a code word meaning “self-defense” it all makes sense.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here.