Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
In the latest installment of politically correct, not to say Orwellian, language emanating from the Obama administration, the term “rogue states” has been sidelined in favor of “outliers.” The switch was unveiled as part of the just released Nuclear Posture Review. States like North Korea and Iran, labeled “rogue” by the Bush administration, will no longer labor under that punitive adjective.
This is telling. While the administration insists that the full spectrum of new initiatives — from the New Start treaty to the Nuclear Posture Review to the Nuclear Security Summit — are aimed at containing the world’s two most provocative nations, Iran and North Korea, the stream of euphemisms they’ve insisted upon sends the opposite message.
Rogue isn’t even a particularly harsh word. When applied to individuals, it is frequently paired with “lovable.” Regarding elephants, it suggests an animal that is out of control, but not necessarily vicious. Still, it was too severe for the Obama administration.
Outlier has no negative connotations at all. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “One whose domicile is distant from his or her place of business.” The Macintosh computer dictionary adds a secondary connotation of exclusion from a group. So to employ the label “outliers” for nations that are, by any civilized measure, criminal is pusillanimous. No doubt the leadership in Iran has also noticed that an administration that softens its words has also modified its proposed sanctions. Whereas once Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of “crippling” sanctions, she has now climbed down to “sanctions that bite.” Can annoying sanctions be far behind?
The administration does not like to use hurtful words to our enemies. Our friends are another matter. Compare the treatment Great Britain, Honduras, and Israel have received with the walking on eggshells approach to our foes. Early on, the administration jettisoned the term “Global War on Terror” in favor of a catch phrase only a bureaucrat could have coined — “overseas contingency operations.” The word “terrorism” was similarly airbrushed from official language. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano prefers the term “man-caused disasters” because “it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear …” A more anodyne term has now surfaced from a number of officials — “countering violent extremism.”
The detainees in Guantanamo, too, have had a name change. They will no longer be called “enemy combatants.” The new name hasn’t been chosen yet, though cynics might just use “former clients of Obama Justice Department lawyers.”
I’ve never understood why the left does this. It certainly isn’t something that wins elections, and it may have a powerful effect in the opposite direction. It isn’t defensible because anything you say to defend it, just comes out sounding stupid.
I recall when this was done for the benefit of handicapped people…although I have trouble remembering the year. There was a “Hyphenated” movement — if you were in a wheelchair you were mobility-impaired, if you were short you were vertically-challenged. There was one pairing up between receding hairlines and “folically challenged” but I think that was satire deployed for the purpose of calling out the lunacy, by Johnny Carson if memory serves. The satire ultimately worked.
The question that really needs to be raised is what’s wrong with the older nmemonic. Why create a new term. Now, as was the case then, the problem is not that the older phrase fails to convey something that should be conveyed; the problem is that the older phrase does convey something that someone in some position of authority does not want conveyed.
This is a problem. If the undesirable conveyed meaning was severely at odds with the truth, it would wear out on its own. So there is a widespread perception that politically-correct overhaul operations like this are the tools of professional and compulsive liars, and I & all thinking persons find that perception to be accurate overall.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The term” rogue” state implies only that a state is difficult, dangerous, or otherwise unacceptable to other states. To have an “outlier” state may imply there is only one proper state, or ultimately one state at all.
- jamzw | 04/12/2010 @ 07:41I thought “rogue” was meant to imply that the country was “on its own,” not a member of any recognized alliance. Iran and North Korea don’t really have any friends, except China. The word was also used to refer to Iraq prior to 2003.
- cylarz | 04/12/2010 @ 13:39They are academics.
Progressives are either academics, or worshipers of academics or academia. Or both.
Academics have themselves convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, and the worshipers of academics have themselves convinced that they’re smarter than everyone else because they’re siding with the “smart” people. On the latter’s part, it’s a substitute for thinking, really.
These smart people also have themselves convinced, control the language, control reality. And to a certain extent they’re right, because all the worshipers believe whatever they say. And then there’s that mushy middle that’s not paying attention that gets snookered by it off and on.
But the actual academics know what they’re doing. And we know what they’re doing. So it looks obvious to us.
Our job is to make it obvious to the mushy middle.
What’s wrong with the older nmemonic? It has connotations that interfere with the progressive agenda when the squishy middle and the worshipers hear the word. So they adopt another word.
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. You can go about your business.
- philmon | 04/13/2010 @ 19:35I suppose I should also add that the academics actually believe they’ve changed reality by using a different word.
- philmon | 04/13/2010 @ 19:37