Newspeak and the redefining of a language

The Bush administration has been utilizing the Orwellian tactic of "Newspeak" to alter perceptions, confuse issues, and change the language to suit it's goals.

In the latest maneuver, orderly protest, the single most valued right of our democracy, has been called :"Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."www.nytimes.com...
I would call it: The single most important excersise of democratic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

Other examples of "Newspeak": Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, and too many examples of contradictory speach by accepted definition.

What are the repercussions of these tactics?
How far will the American People allow this redefining of our language? Are they even paying attention?

www.strike-the-root.com...
dneiwert.blogspot.com...
www.ramcigar.com...

I view this as a vital issue of ethical misconduct.
What say you?

What I see in those links is people reading into his words what they want to hear. Without getting too far into environmental issues, allowing more logging can be healthy for a forest. This is not opinion, but science. Look at what happened in California when the forest was allowed to grow out of control while curbing the naturally occurring forest fires that don't burn nearly as hot and out of control. Environmentalists fuel those types of fires with the very practices they claim will help the forests, and thereby destroy not only personal property and human life, but the environment as well.

So how is 'healthy forests' newspeak, other than a knee-jerk reaction to the environmental issues of the day?

Sir, it is not.

Hmmmmmm, pehaps we are throwing stones in our glass house eh?

Some people that I've discussed this with have accused me of picking on Senator Kerry because I'm not a fan of his. While it is true that I won't be voting for Kerry, I do believe that Kerry not wearing a motorcycle helmet, although fairly trivial, is indicative of his campaign for President as well as his overall behavior while a US Senator. Senator Kerry always wants things both ways. He's pro motorcycle safety yet he doesn't wear a helmet himself. When his hypocrital stance is pointed out, his campaign immediately starts parsing its words and coming up with a nuanced stance to make it seem like he's taking a principled stance. To normal people, it sounds like do as I say not as I do.

This type of behavior can be seen in Senator Kerry's choice to not accept matching funds. He says that Howard Dean "forced" him to abandon matching funds. In this case Kerry is playing the victim of Howard Dean. Why can't he just make up his own mind and take a stand? If young John Kerry said this to his parents, they might have replied, "if Dean jumped of f a bridge, would you?"

To those of us from Massachusetts, none of this is new. In Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign against then Governor Bill Weld, Kerry and Weld agreed to limit advertising spending to $5,000,000 apiece and to limit the use of personal funds to $500,000 apiece. This was a great photo-op for Kerry. He and Weld were hailed as campaign finance trailblazers. Of course, when things got tight, Kerry came up with a story that would, in his mind, let him out of the deal. Weld negotiated a discount on a media buy. Kerry cried foul and valued Weld's media buy at market rates. Under Kerry's view point, Governor Weld exceeded the $5 million limit by $400,000. This gave Kerry all the wiggle room he needed to ditch the original agreement, mortgage his (actually Teresa's) Louisburg Square house, and dump $1.7 million of his personal funds into the campaign.

On almost every issue, Senator Kerry tries to play both sides of the fence and when he's on an unpopular side, it's someone else's fault. This does not play well with voters. As Senator Kerry tries to figure out what's going wrong with his campaign, he needs to look no further than a mirror.
www.chibus.com...

The Orwellian naming conventions of the Rove Republicans has been well documented right down to the college courseware level. To name pro Timber industry & pro Pollution reppeal legislation by the misnomers of "Clean" & "Healthy" is an intended deception.
Back on the topic of Newspeak: this administration formulates strategy purely in a political context, void of concern for those they govern except those of their ilk.
"John DiIulio, former Bush director of the White House Office Of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, says that politics, not policy run the Bush White House, that speeches come first and policy is hastily and sketchily constructed later, that Bush is kept on the short leash of far right preconceptions of the world that often don't jibe with reality, and that fear of Karl Rove prevents staffers from providing him with news from the real world that might contradict his extreme, conservative vision.

In DiIulio's words, "there is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: complete lack of a policy apparatus.Besides the tax cut, which was cut and dried during the campaign, and the education bill, which was really a Ted Kennedy bill, the administration has not done much, either in absolute terms or in comparison to previous administrations at this stage, on domestic policy. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. "

Newspeak, or bold faced LIES as I think we should refer to it, is what the Bush team is comprised of. Let's look at this "swift BoatVets" garbage. The Bush White House swears that they're not only not affiliated, but that they're NOT Republicans! Come on now! They used these same guys against McCain in 2000!!!!! They were on stage with Bush at campaign stops!!!

VIDEO: McCain calls out Bush

the Swift boat group got much of its initial financing from two men who had supported the political endeavors of Mr. Bush and his father: a Texas commercial real estate executive, Harlan Crow, and a Texas home builder, Bob J. Perry. Mr. Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove, has described Mr. Perry as a friend.

America deserves better: "WAR" will never mean "PEACE". "WEAK POLLUTION SAFEGUARDS" won't give you "CLEAR SKIES". "BUSH" will never mean "LEADER".

The problem with this topic is that while it is very easy to make the statements above, it is difficult to challenge them without getting off subject. In order for me to argue, I would have to discuss weather or not war leads to peace or to more war (the whole war is peace/Bush is big brother thing.) I would have to get very deep into environmentalism to explain why Clear Skies and Healthy Forests are not doublespeak but truth. Because of this inability to dispute the validity of the thread authors statements without getting away from the topic, I think this should be reserved for the mud pit, where it would be a great piece of conversation, as opposed to the propaganda it is here (as it was worded.)

Originally posted by cavscout
The problem with this topic is that while it is very easy to make the statements above, it is difficult to challenge them without getting off subject. In order for me to argue, I would have to discuss weather or not war leads to peace or to more war (the whole war is peace/Bush is big brother thing.) I would have to get very deep into environmentalism to explain why Clear Skies and Healthy Forests are not doublespeak but truth. Because of this inability to dispute the validity of the thread authors statements without getting away from the topic, I think this should be reserved for the mud pit, where it would be a great piece of conversation, as opposed to the propaganda it is here (as it was worded.)

Mindlessly challenging the topic by calling it propaganda,when the Republican newspeak itself is propaganda by definition, does nothing more than turn your transparant argument on it's head. Since you don't even know the proper party rebuttal, let me both explain it and debunk it in one fell swoop. The "clear skies" argument goes: that by relaxing regulations on emmisions from industry, enough savings will be realized that industry will have incentive to clean up emmisions on their own. Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures twords the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.

How does clear-cutting a forest help it to survive? Building trophy homes closer and closer to forests and then attempting to curtail natural forest fire in the name of protecting homes and lives is what has endangered the forests in the first place. It's the same bologna argument that hunting invigorates the herd. B.S. Predation invigorates the herd by culling-out the sick, the weak, and the old. Hunters, on the other hand, harm the herd by selectively culling the biggest and strongest members.

And just what does the weather have to do with war/peace? Just how are you required to "getting away from the topic" in order to refute my asertions? That "clear skies" is contradictory itself is an asertion that you can either support or debunk. PERIOD. Arguing that it is impossible for you to refute my claim is no argument at all, it's a cop-out. If you have nothing to add, why reply at all?

Fred, What's your point? The example you give has nothing, zero to do with the concept of newspeak.

Originally posted by scottsquared
I view this as a vital issue of ethical misconduct.
What say you?

I say this is nothing more than a Bush bashing post, there is no issue here, but that is just my opinion.

Newspeak or whatever you deem to it call has been around at least since Al Gore said Government workers were not being fired, but "involuntarily terminated" and another politician who tried to legally define the meaning of the word "is�. It is no more one party's doublespeak, than it is any others.

If you want to argue about "Clear Skies" write a post about it!

If you want to argue about "clear-cutting" write a post about it!

If you want to argue about hunting, then by all means... write a post about it.

BUT, if you just want to bash Bush, take it to the "Political Debate Forum" and we would love to argue your points there.

Originally posted by Seth Bullock

Originally posted by scottsquared
I view this as a vital issue of ethical misconduct.
What say you?

I say this is nothing more than a Bush bashing post, there is no issue here, but that is just my opinion.
YOUR OPINION AND $2.95 WILL GET YOU A CUP OF COFFEE AT STARBUCKS.
Newspeak or whatever you deem to it call has been around at least since Al Gore said Government workers were not being fired, but "involuntarily terminated" and another politician who tried to legally define the meaning of the word "is�. It is no more one party's doublespeak, than it is any others.
NICE EXAMPLE, NOT.
If you want to argue about "Clear Skies" write a post about it!
I BELEIVE I HAVE, YOU JUST HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
If you want to argue about "clear-cutting" write a post about it!
ibid.
If you want to argue about hunting, then by all means... write a post about it.
op. sit.
BUT, if you just want to bash Bush, take it to the "Political Debate Forum" and we would love to argue your points there.

How are the policies and titles by which they are called, not germane to the subject of this forum? Because you have no rebuttal or imput doesn't discount the argument, merely your part in it.

Mindlessly challenging the topic by calling it propaganda, when the Republican newspeak itself is propaganda by definition, does nothing more than turn your transparent argument on its head. Since you don't even know the proper party rebuttal, let me explain it and debunk it in one fell swoop.

Wow, now that sure doesn�t sound like the sort of mud-slinging I was talking about. No, sir, not a bit.

And here I was trying to be nice to you by not getting off subject.

Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.

Look for a separate post on this real soon. I will not be party your mud-pit style "lets see how far we can get from the issue at hand and just vent." attitude. I do, however, accept your challenge. And I do think that you should refrain from calling people mindless. Once again, lets keep that in the pit, O.K?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by cavscout]

Originally posted by cavscout

Mindlessly challenging the topic by calling it propaganda, when the Republican newspeak itself is propaganda by definition, does nothing more than turn your transparent argument on its head. Since you don't even know the proper party rebuttal, let me explain it and debunk it in one fell swoop.

Wow, now that sure doesn�t sound like the sort of mud-slinging I was talking about. No, sir, not a bit.

And here I was trying to be nice to you by not getting off subject.

Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.

Look for a separate post on this real soon. I will not be party your mud-pit style "lets see how far we can get from the issue at hand and just vent." attitude. I do, however, accept your challenge. And I do think that you should refrain from calling people mindless. Once again, lets keep that in the pit, O.K?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by cavscout]

Refuting your argument or lack thereof is hardly "mudslinging." I did not call you mindless, I said "mindlessly challenging," this hardly implies that you are mindless. It does however imply that you made your point(or lack thereof) without thinking.

xxxooo

I started this thread with the bit of news that the Bush administration is attempting to counter the massive planned demonstrations against his administration by portrying it as "Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/politics/campaign/22repubs.html?th
Please explain to me, how this is mudslinging and not germane to the forum.

Originally posted by scottsquared
The Bush administration has been utilizing the Orwellian tactic of "Newspeak" to alter perceptions, confuse issues, and change the language to suit it's goals.
What say you?

I say both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of such tactics. Which is why more people should take a look at the Libertarian Party.

I found similar examples of liberal "newspeak" from their site:

Tolerance:
Old - When a society permits a person to live his life as he sees fit, without fear of persecution.
New - Forcing others to admit that your way of life is just great, and persecuting them if they believe differently.

Racist :
Old - One that believes his race to be superior.
New - Somebody that does not agree with the political agenda of a Minority organization

Melting Pot :
Old - America is a land of immigrants. The culture of America has been produced by a mix of many diverse cultures.
New - The Melting pot is has been turned off, so it can remain chunky. To suggest that Immigrants should melt into American society is racist.

Liberty:
Old - Freedom from government oppression.
New - No meaning. Most people recognize it as a word which appears in several old "patriotic" songs and in the names of several old monuments, but most have no idea what it really means. Most modern political movements are unable to acknowledge the true meaning of this word, since it would interfere with their obsession of using government programs to re-organize the thoughts and behaviors of society.

Justice
Old - The notion that a person should be punished for transgressing others.
New - The notion that a group of people should be punished for the actions of their ancestors.

Equality:
Old - Equal treatment under the law. The belief that no person should be treated differently from another.
New - New - If any inequities are discovered in society, create laws which treat which provide special treatment for them in order to make them equal.

Education:
Old - The process of teaching a child all he will need to know so he may care for himself in adulthood.
New - The process indoctrinating a child with the prevailing political philosophies, but neglecting to teach him how to care for himself in adulthood.

Diversity:
Old - Possessing a wide range of qualities.
New - A society which accepts all types of people, except for conservatives, Christians, boy scouts, capitalists, hunters, whites, etc.

Constitution :
Old - Greatest document ever put to pen by man.
New - Manifesto of a racist, Indian murdering Nation written by a bunch of slave owning, money grubbing revolutionary terrorist.

Where do your definitions come from???

Communication is where one individual tries to convey a specific idea by the use of language, inflection, tone, and context. If the second individual does not comprehend the message as it was intended, than there has been a failure in communication.

Why do we even have dictionaries if we are not going to subscribe to the conventions therein?