Governments Ability To Corrupt Language is Awesome and Repulsive

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

"Locally, lack of information can cause stockpiling and other panic," she added."

This government quote is typical. Earlier the passage cited the importance of "transparency."

You and I think that transparency means complete openness and honesty. This is why you and I are considered miserable nuisances. As far as Washington and Wall Street are concerned, our only purpose in life is as "taxpayer" and "consumer."

Back to the point, you are 180 degrees wrong on transparency. In govspeak, transparency is the provision of "information." Information is only communication which can prevent stockpiling. Any communication that mightincrease or fail to prevent stockpiling is not information. Transparency only provides information, therefore, transparency does not allow communication which could increase stockpiling.

Do you see how transparency means the exact opposite of what you thought it meant two years ago.

So when transparency is talked about, you need to get a real good definition. Is it the conceal the weak banks, conceal the weak airports, conceal the weak countries, conceal the details of remediation, secret senate meetings, scream readiness, wear lapel pins and make survivalist jokes transparency? Or is it the "open your files" transparency. Were Orwell alive today . . .

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999

Answers

Good observation. To the top.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 27, 1999.

The Reagan Years were full of pseudo-speak. "Peacekeeper" missles come first to mind. Puddintame, it is a good observation you make, but it has been going on for too long. Degradation of the language is now even more blatent, & noticeable, when our own survival is at stake! I would surmise that every period of civilized & govt'l decadance is characterized by a high entropic common language - we just happen to be living during a time of very rich means of mass communication, laying open the means by which well meaning but abberant individuals and organizations are able to nearly instantly change the liguistic (& visual) topographical landscape - benefiting from nearly 100 years of psychological study of the most effective means to "change" a person's mind. Note to self, re-read "Decline and Fall of Western Civ".

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 27, 1999.

Gee I dunno Puddin... I think it depends on what "is" is...

-- a (a@a.a), August 27, 1999.

I suspect it also depends on who is using the term.

Dr. Barnett uses it in the Webster definition.

Koskinen uses it in the govspeak definition.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 27, 1999.


"Political language--and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists--is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind...the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink." ------George Orwell, 'Politics & the English Language.'

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), August 27, 1999.


Mitchell,

How dare you make such a scurillous statement! Everyone knows that before "Beezelbub Klinton" and his "Gorgon" wife came along, we were a nation of truthful politicians and a Libertarian Utopia. Law enforsement officials never made errors and no one's possesions were ever confiscated. Taxes were never passed without absolute consensus and no one ever questioned a citizen's right to behave in whatever reckless fashion they choose.

Why you shameless revisionist you. Where do you get such nonsense, that our problems are anything other than the result of 7 years of "Klinton"? Back in the good old days, before 1992, the year of the "beast", we had blah, blah blah blahblahblahblah.

Sorry...trollish moment, there. Just had to get that off my chest.

Spidey,

Good point. We are all "spinners", when we want to justify "our cause".

I'm curious. Have you ever read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"? It makes a nice companion read to Orwell. Hoffer gives insight into what goes on in the mind of the footsoldier of the demagogue - the fanatic.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ