Or “compassionate conservatism”?
astorian said:
I don’t know where you get your news, but I have never heard a law like this referred to as “the Squeal Rule.” Never. I read the Chicago Tribune, the State Journal-Register, U.S. News & World Report, and watch various television news stations, both national and local.
If you’d care to point me to a news item that calls it by that name, though, I’d love to see who is doing it.
Speaking of new terms, how about “affirmative access” – Bush’s term to avoid answering the question about affirmative action at the third debate.
(Thanks Mapache. It was the New Yorker article that I mentioned that I was complaining wasn’t available—or even identifiable—online.)
Speaking of fun with language, the Republicans also managed to turn the word “liberal” into an insult in the late 80’s to mid-90’s, by repeatedly hurling it as a scornfully-intoned epithet.
Gotta hand it to Newt Gingrich, Joseph Goebbels, and their fellow conservatives. They are masters of propaganda techniques. 
Why is this a government issue? This is the most intrusive issue our government has ever tried to legislate. Back when abortion was illegal, half the people simply got on a plane and traveled to Europe where all the countries made the procedure legal. No, let me rephase it, they never made it illegal.
The poor gals wandered down to the Mexican border and were often found on the beach south of San Diego dead. So that was our choices during the good old days. This worked just the prohibition of alcohol and now the war on drugs.
What gives the government the authority to tell anyone how to live their life, what to ingest, inhale, inject or anything. Do you all really need the government to set these rules and regulations for you?
Grow up and take your life back.
Abortion, drugs and even alcohol are religious subjects and do not belong in Washington DC.
The government has no authority to tax our property upon our death. We have already paid taxes on the profit of any money we might make. Stamp out this whole government crap.
David B said:
Despite being on the same side on this one, I have to add a caveat–the term should be "pro-choice on abortion." Otherwise it’s too broad, unless you are pro-choice on every issue (guns, all drug use, etc.). Most of those who would lable themselves as “pro-choice” don’t meet that qualification. (I don’t know about you personally, David.)
As for the OP, Gadarene is quite right–if you can impose your terminology on a subject, you have half the PR battle won. Drain Bead’s example of “partial-birth abortion” is the most glaring current example. Other examples which come to mind are the attempts to define various issues in terms of children or public health to gain support.
Sandy Price said:
Would you define yourself as an anarchist?
From the OP:
That was the driving force behind the efforts to imbue the culture with “politically correct” speech.
…and, to a certain degree, the current efforts to inflate the extremes of “PCness” so as to devalue the genuinely well-meaning parts.
Wow. I made it almost halfway through this thread before it turned into a ‘bash the conservatives’ party. That’s got to be a new record.
Which reminds me of Harry Truman’s quote:
“I don’t give 'em Hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s Hell!”
Actually, I can think of two times Presidential candidates have been tripped up by funny terminology. Once was in a Dan Quayle debate, 1992 or 1996 (I can’t remember which). He was asked if, as an anti-abortionist or pro-lifer or whatever, he would do if his daughter were pregnant and wanted an abortion. He said he’d advise against it because he thinks it is wrong. It was pointed out that it is legally his daughter’s choice - what would he do, taking that into account. Well, he said, he’d have to stand by his daughter after informing her of his moral stance.
It sounded like his opinion was consistent with that of a lot of pro-choice people. They don’t like abortion - nobody does. Some pro-choicers would even concede that it might be wrong, but they don’t feel like people should be ostracized or prosecuted for making that choice. So why does Dan Quayle consider himself anti-abortion? I can’t say for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason is this: anti-abortion forces like to paint the other side as “pro-abortion” so much, that Quayle eventually believed them. Since he doesn’t believe abortions are fine and dandy and everyone should have one, by accepting the anti-abortion propaganda, he must necessarily be an anti-abortionist himself. When the terminology is stripped away, he seems to be a lot closer to his professed enemies (not to the point where he believes abortion should be legal, but to the point where he presumably wouldn’t consider his daughter a “murderer” for exercising her legal rights).
A more recent example is George W. talking about affirmative action in the last debate. Honestly, I don’t think he dodged the question about affirmative action, he just stumbled over the same block that has been placed in front of all of us. Affirmative action is a term accepted by the courts, but the courts specifically ban racial quotas. So how can affirmative action include quotas? It can’t and doesn’t, but so many antis have repeated the assertion that it does, that Bush seems to have believed them. So he has to say that he’s for AA if it doesn’t include quotas, and is against it if it does, and comes off like a waffler.
It would have been much simpler if he had just said something to the effect of, “Well, ideally affirmative action steers clear of quotas, as the courts have wisely mandated. I support affirmative action and will scrupulously avoid quotas.” But that would run head-on into the right-wing mantra “You’re going to lose your job because the Federal government has created racial quotas in hiring” (witness the Jesse Helms “White Hands” campaign commercial).
Gadarene, call it by any name and it’s still unfair. Why should the government get rewarded when someone - even a wealthy person - dies. They’ve already paid income and property taxes on that money.
I also think it’s unfair of the government to tax ANYone - Bill Gates included - over 33% of their income. Well, actually, I think the government shouldn’t take more than 10%, but that isn’t going to happen.
Personally, I’d scrap income taxes entirely and move to usage taxes - otherwise known as sales taxes. Food would be exempt from taxes. All other products would be subject to a sales tax. The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. It’s fairer, less paperwork, and people would know that they’ve paid their fair share of taxes.
PunditLisa: I also think it’s unfair of the government to tax ANYone - Bill Gates included - over 33% of their income. Well, actually, I think the government shouldn’t take more than 10%, but that isn’t going to happen.
(As long as this thread is being hijacked, I’ll go with it: we don’t seem to be in any disagreement about the workings of political newspeak, which was the original topic.) PL, I’m curious: what makes 33% the magic number rather than 30% or 40%, or 10% rather than 8% or 12%? Why is it automatically “unfair” to tax “ANYone” beyond those arbitrary limits?
Personally, I’d scrap income taxes entirely and move to usage taxes - otherwise known as sales taxes.
A non-regressive way to do this has been suggested by Cornell economist Robert Frank, in the form of a progressive consumption tax. I quote from the link:
Why 33%? Yes, it’s an arbitrary number but so is any tax. I just think a third of your money is PLENTY to hand over to the government for the privilege of living in this country.
And I might feel differently if I thought that our Congressmen and women were spending our money frugally, responsibly and wisely.
Zu know, he’s vright!
Hilter in 2000!
PL: *Why 33%? Yes, it’s an arbitrary number but so is any tax. I just think a third of your money is PLENTY to hand over to the government for the privilege of living in this country. *
Oh. I was kind of hoping you were going to tell me why you think a top income tax bracket of 33% would generate all the revenue needed for government expenditures, or if it couldn’t, what procedures should be taken to cut spending and/or waste and how they should be implemented. I thought this might be part of a thoughtful and informed view about the realities of government financing.
Instead, all you can tell me is that you personally don’t feel that any income percentage greater than 33% is appropriate for anybody, however wealthy, to contribute (at least until they eliminate bureaucratic waste and foolishness). Well, you have a perfect right to feel that way and I wouldn’t argue with it, as long as you realize that it’s an emotional argument rather than an economic one.
As for the estate tax, though (and I wish Daniel—I think it’s Daniel who handles the estate-tax arguments around here—would show up to deal with the issue more competently than I can), I’ll just note that taxing a transfer of wealth is not unique to the estate tax. You pay taxes on your income, but if you give some of your money to somebody else they have to pay taxes on that gift, and if you purchase something with your money the seller has to pay taxes on the income from your purchase. The same dollar gets taxed over and over as it passes through the economy, and an estate tax is no different.
As for the issue of frugality and responsibility in government spending, I completely sympathize with your frustration, and I think all citizens should be much more observant and active in holding public servants accountable on that score. But I have to wonder, is there any large bureaucratic organization that you completely trust to spend your money “frugally, responsibly, and wisely”? I know I get plenty pissed when I see important executives of companies I patronize accepting lavish salaries while squeezing their minwage workers, or nonprofit organizations spending contribution money on more useless junk mail. Consumer dissatisfaction with bureaucracy and inefficiency is hardly a problem unique to government.
(jmullaney, who’s “Hilter”? :D)