the real party of reframing

TWOT is over. (Thanks Kyle, I might have missed it.)

"We" are now fighting a global struggle against the enemies of freedom.

Where's George Orwell when you need him?

If you wonder why I always invoke the spirit of Mr Orwell, please read (a) 1984 and (b) "Politics and the English Language". If it's been more than 10 years since you read 1984, it's time to read it again. I promise.

Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell, from "Politics and the English Language," 1946.

Comments

  1. Anonymous28 July 2005 at 06:36

    If it's not a war, it's easier to get people of the Gov's back. I struggle with smoking -- George struggles with extremists. No big deal. Exactly the equation they want.

    And, as Jon Stewart pointed out, taking "terrorism" away from the phrase may result in the military recruit numbers going up again.

    Guess the new tagline for Iraq recruiting will be along the lines of 'No terror involved, no terror to fear, just some extremists, who are being a bit to extreme and need a reality check'.

    Who REALLY needs a reality check?

    I wonder also what this says to all those in the military who have been fighting, and dying, every day the past 2+ years in a WAR on TERROR, and now it's suddenly no longer a war, and there's suddenly no terror? Meanwhile, nobody's coming in to take them home anytime soon, either. Kind of a slap in the troops' face, n'est pas?

    Sounds like a war to me. If it's not, dear Georgie, and it's only a 'struggle', then how come your military is still there, in full force? Think we'd better all keep asking that one, lest the new catchphrase take hold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous28 July 2005 at 09:59

    Heres one quote that keeps poping into my head everytime i hear about American torture and other not so nice acts on civilians.

    "The Nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
    George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Cho28 July 2005 at 20:30

    I personally don't think Roe is under threat to be overturned. People keep saying it is only one Justice away from its demise, but it has been one Justice away for a very long time. As far as I can remember, Thomas was the only replacement who moved the Court one Justince closer to overturning Roe, but others that conservatives hoped either didn't come through (Souter) or were replacing Justices in kind. Didn't Ginsburg replace Byron White who was one of the two anti Roe votes back in 1972?

    Roberts is really Renquist's replacement for all practical purposes, and whoever Bush picks after Renquist retires is the real replacement for O'Connor. After Renquist retires, there are only two who we know for sure are bent on overturning Roe, but the rest of the Justices with moderate to conservative leanings can go either way including Roberts if confirmed. My gut feeling says Roberts is a kind of judge who loathes to overturn such a monumental decision made over 30 years ago.

    Take it for what it's worth, but this is coming from a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k28 July 2005 at 20:35

    I think Roe is dead. If not Roberts, then Rehnquist's replacement. Either way I don't think there's a prayer. I almost didn't post Pollitt's recent column, because I think it's a moot point - but then I try to marshall some hope.

    This coming from someone who feels Roe is almost moot already for so many American women.

    And so to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Cho28 July 2005 at 20:44

    Just an addendum,

    Supreme Crt appointments have always fascinated me, and I've been making predictions on nominees since Souter. My college friends can attest to this, but I was right on the money about Souter. I said he was another Blackmum, and for the most part, I was right.

    About Thomas, a lot of my conservative friends predicted that he would be another Blackmum. I predicted that he would be solidly in the Scalia/Renquist camp. Was right.

    Wasn't really hard to read Ginsburg and Breyer, so nothing really to predict.

    So hear ye, hear ye. Roberts, if confirmed will be a disappointment to conservatives. He won't be as disappointing as Blackmum and Souter, but he will position himself somewhere between Kennedy and Souter. Please save this comment :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. laura k29 July 2005 at 04:19

    Well, the comment will be here, and you'll be able to say I told you so if you choose.

    I'm not in the business of predicting Supreme Court justices' positions. A familiar argument among liberals and progressives is that you must vote for the Democrat (as opposed to a third-party, progressive candidate) because of the Supreme Court. I would always point to Sandra Day O'Connor as evidence that Supremes don't always do what their appointers think they will do.

    However, Bush has two shots - two chances - and it's part of the agenda. As groups challenge the constitutionality of state anti-abortion laws, the Supremes will allow increasingly restrictive laws to stand (as they are already doing), until Roe itself "must" be revisited.

    Also: About Thomas, a lot of my conservative friends predicted that he would be another Blackmum.

    Anyone who thought this isn't worth talking to when it comes to politics. Thomas was obviously a Scalia dittohead, I thought everyone knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Cho29 July 2005 at 11:13

    A familiar argument among liberals and progressives is that you must vote for the Democrat (as opposed to a third-party, progressive candidate) because of the Supreme Court.

    Well, it cuts both ways. I was urged to cast my vote to Bush because of SC. Look at GOP appointments. Powell, Blackmum, Souter, just to name a few. I am certain that Bush appointmentees will disappoint conservatives.

    I would always point to Sandra Day O'Connor as evidence that Supremes don't always do what their appointers think they will do.

    I am losing you here. O'Connor was a Reagan appointee.

    Anyone who thought this isn't worth talking to when it comes to politics. Thomas was obviously a Scalia dittohead, I thought everyone knew that.

    Well, I think what my conservative friends thought had some racial undercurrents of not trusting a black man to uphold the banner. That is my take as to why they thought Thomas would be another Blackmum (no pun intended).

    ReplyDelete
  8. laura k29 July 2005 at 11:42

    "The Nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
    George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

    Slim Bacon: this is great. Thanks for posting it.

    I am losing you here. O'Connor was a Reagan appointee.

    Oops, sorry to be unclear. I meant that O'Connor didn't turn out to be the justice Reagan was expecting. She was supposed to overturn Roe, but she turned out to be more independent-minded and middle of the road than most people anticipated. Which goes to what you are saying about disappointed conservatives. I didn't mean to imply it only happens in one direction.

    Well, I think what my conservative friends thought had some racial undercurrents of not trusting a black man to uphold the banner.

    Is Thomas black? I hadn't noticed.

    Sorry for sarcasm, I just despise him so. Grrrr.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Cho29 July 2005 at 12:17

    I didn't mean to imply it only happens in one direction.

    Well, don't you think Dems have appointed Justices pretty much in line with their ideology?

    - Breyer (Clinton)
    - Ginsburg (Clinton)
    - Thurgood (Johnson)

    And in the mean time, lots of GOP apppointees have disappointed conservatives.
    - Blackmum (Nixon)
    - Souter (Bush)
    - Brennan (Eisenhower)
    - Powell (Nixon)
    - Harlan (Eisenhower)
    - Stevens (Ford)
    - O'Connor (Reagan)

    Byron White (Kennedy) might have been the only Dem appointee who wasn't consistent with the party ideology, but then again abortion wasn't a hot button issue.

    On the other hand, Dems have had so few opportunities in the past 30 some years to appoint Justices, so we are dealing with a very small sample.

    ReplyDelete
  10. laura k29 July 2005 at 18:35

    Well, don't you think Dems have appointed Justices pretty much in line with their ideology?

    You must be misreading me. I'm not disputing that, actually I'm not even commenting on it.

    My point was that Supreme Court appointments are unpredictable. Hence I don't base my own vote on the possibility. That's all.

    I am equally concerned with all the conservative judges appointed to the lower courts throughout the US. In my opinion those have done tremendous damage, and gone under the radar (for the most part) while most people fixate on the Supremes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Cho29 July 2005 at 19:55

    I just realized that my comments belong to your "a post-roe united states" post, not this one. I aimed with my mouse and missed the target. No, I was not stoned :)

    You have a point about the unpredictability of SC appointments.

    I agree that people fixate on Supremes. As important as they are, the lower courts are just as important because collectively they process a lot more cases than the SC does. Presidents' fingerprints linger for a very long time after they leave office.

    ReplyDelete
  12. laura k30 July 2005 at 04:20

    I just realized that my comments belong to your "a post-roe united states" post, not this one.

    Hence my slow replies - I keep having trouble locating it. :)

    No, I was not stoned :)

    Never crossed my mind. ;-)

    Presidents' fingerprints linger for a very long time after they leave office.

    Mm-hmm, sometimes in a very frightening way.

    If I am wrong about W's appointees, you are hereby invited to type I TOLD YOU SO in 72-pt type, bold, underlined, with a long series of !!!s. I'll be happy to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I...
Read more

dipstick

So there won't be an election yet. Talk about a squeaker . Feel free to tell us how you feel about this, unless it's all been said already, then feel free not to. ALPF mustered his courage and sent more links, so I have some good commentary to post. I found this Macleans story on the Conservative party's reaction to Stronach's decision - and public reaction to that reaction - very interesting. Canadians seem almost universally turned off by the name-calling and sexist slurs. On the other hand, when a certain governor made his "girly men" pronouncement, his constituency howled with glee. (Which is not to say the rest of us weren't appalled.) The Macleans article also notes that not all the sexism came from politicians: Some of the most sexist characterizations of Stronach didn't come from her political adversaries, but from media. Montreal's La Presse newspaper ran a cartoon of Martin leaning out his car window to solicit a street-walking Stronach...
Read more