Thomas No problem about reposting. That's what its here for. Wayne AMERICAN NEWSPEAK. Hoarded at http://www.scn.org/newspeak Celebrating cutting edge advances in the Doublethink of the 90's On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Thomas Lunde wrote: > Dear Wayne: > > What a delightful collage of reading for Jan 1, 1999. I would like to > repost this to a couple of lists that I belong too, any objections? Keep up > the good work, though most people seem to be unable to appreciate the subtle > humor of the insanity around us. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Grytting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Undisclosed recipients:;@animal.blarg.net <Undisclosed > recipients:;@animal.blarg.net> > Date: January 1, 1999 1:00 AM > Subject: Top NEWSPEAK Stories of the Month #105 > > > > > >AMERICAN NEWSPEAK. Hoarded at http://www.scn.org/newspeak > >Celebrating cutting edge advances in the Doublethink of the 90's > >Written by Wayne Grytting #105 > > > > > >Winner-Winner Solutions > > > >Time Magazine surprised many by running an excellent series on "What > >Corporate Welfare Costs You" by Pulitzer prize-winning reporters Donald > >Barlett and James Steele. After depicting how typical households work two > >weeks a year to support $125 billion in subsidies and tax relief for > >"needy" corporations, editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine stepped in to > >assure readers that Time was not "anti-business." In fact, businesses > >would be derelict in their duties, he argued, "if they did not seek to > >avoid taxes and gain special subsidies" (try that argument substituting > >welfare mothers for corporations) "Ending corporate welfare as we know it > >is essential," intoned Mr. Pearlstine, but "Rather than give corporations > >uneven and unfair exemptions, it may make more sense to simply do away > >with both corporate welfare and corporate taxation." This would create a > >"level playing field." Perfect. We solve the problem of partial corporate > >welfare by having... total corporate welfare. Hello, is anybody home? > >(Time, 11/9/98) > > > > > >Old Wine in New Winebags > > > >The Environmental Protection Agency has modified a new brochure on > >pesticides due to be distributed nationwide in grocery stores this > >January. Thanks to help from food and pesticide industry lobbyists, they > >have made some notable improvements in their prose style. For example, the > >old version presented "Tips to Reduce Pesticides on Foods" which the new > >version amends to "Healthy Sensible Food Practices." The old version > >suggested consumers consider buying food labeled "certified organic" while > >the improved version suggests the grocer "may be able to provide you with > >information about the availability of food grown using fewer or no > >pesticides." And where the old version lists actual health problems caused > >by pesticides, like birth defects, cancer and nerve damage, the RSV > >simplifies it all as "health problems at certain levels of exposure." Much > >clearer thanks to yet another example of successful cooperation. (NYT > >12/29/98) > > > > > >"Free at last, free at last..." > > > >Status conscious movie go-ers are now being offered new choices in theater > >complexes run by Cineplex Odeon, United Artists and General Cinema in the > >cities of Chicago, Baltimore and Milwaukee. For an additional $8 or so > >they don't have to mix with the unwashed masses. They can now go directly > >to private viewing rooms, receive valet parking, be personally escorted by > >a concierge, order drinks from a waiter and use a private bathroom. The > >Wall Street Journal describes this trend as "a way to express the > >affluence." But unlike luxury boxes at sports stadiums where seats can > >approach the thousand dollar range, the movie theaters have, says the > >Journal, "discovered affordable snobbery." It allows people of simple > >means to express their social superiority, if only for a few hours. The > >Journal, of course, was able to find a telling phrase to describe this > >trend, referring to it as "the democratization of status." Finally, we get > >"democracy" liberated from the baggage of "all men are created equal." > >(WSJ 12/11/98) > > > > > >Upstairs, Downstairs in Public Education > > > >Elite public schools across the nation are saying good-bye to auctions and > >cookie sales as a means to raise funds. Public schools like Brookline High > >School in Boston are simply raising $10 million permanent endowments from > >wealthy parents and alumni. This turn to large endowments comes, says the > >Wall Street Journal, "in reaction to broad trends in school finance that > >have hit affluent districts like Brookline especially hard over the last > >decade." But the means chosen by these "hard hit" schools to grow money > >has raised issues of fairness. Why should some public schools have piles > >of resources while others starve? "The equity issue, it's always going to > >come up," says Robert Markey, director of the Boston Latin School (a > >public school with a $13 million endowment). "That's why," he tells the > >Journal, "we don't talk about it." And certainly, not in front of the > >servants... (WSJ 12/17) > > > > > >Going Green Made Simple > > > >Citizens for a Sound Economy, a free market advocacy group, has produced a > >Communications Guide for Republicans and businesses who want to talk to > >the public about their commitment to preserving nature. Rule #1: "Focus > >groups show that people are more likely to empathize with your approach to > >environmental issues if they believe you are 'on their side'." (Thus > >Weyerhauser became the "Tree growing company.") The Guide suggests giving > >reasons why you too want a good environment, such as having children, > >being an outdoor photographer or simply enjoying the beauty of nature. > >Lastly, CSE tells its audience not to use the word "reform." "Focus groups > >indicate people are more likely to respond positively to change when the > >word "modernizing" is used in describing our efforts on environmental > >protection." And I must admit my delight in discovering that private > >property rights groups have "efforts on environmental protection." We're > >one big happy family after all... > >(www.awg.org/home/clear/players/4_1_97.html) > > > > > >Nuclear Power Gets Clean > > > >Ads touting the virtues of nuclear power have been showing up in some of > >our finer magazines (like the New Republic). Many of you may know already > >that nuclear reactors are "consistently safe," "proven economical' and > >"reliable." But those of you who can't spell "Cherynoble" may not be aware > >of how "environmentally clean" nuclear fission is. Why is it so clean? > >Because, as the full page color ad informs us, "Nuclear power plants don't > >burn anything to produce electricity, so they don't pollute the air." But > >there's more. Nuclear power plants produce "no greenhouse gas emissions, > >so they help protect the environment." Therefore they are environmentally > >clean, thanks to the fact that nuclear radiation has ceased to count as a > >form of pollution. This news should relieve the minds of Hanford residents > >after recent reports of radiated ants and tumbleweed in their backyards. > >(NR 11/30/98) > > > > > >Modern Day Trust Busters > > > >A new champion has appeared to carry on the fight against monopoly > >control. None other than Ma Bell has taken the field against corporate > >mergers. AT&T has been funding "grass roots" organizations (while modestly > >not mentioning itself) opposed to the $56 billion merger of SBC > >Communications of San Antonio and Ameritech of Chicago. Recently AT&T > >executive James Cicconi revealed the conglomerate's dream of the future. > >"AT&T's vision is one of more competition and more consumer choice at > >every level with open competition at the local level that doesn't now > >exist." Mr. Cicconi's words were punctuated by news that AT&T was pursuing > >a $32 billion acquisition of TCI's cable network. More competition...ahem. > >(WSJ 12/21/98) > > > > > >The Tree Hugging Dept. > > > >A new environmental organization has moved to the forefront of groups > >trying to educate the public about global warming. While most groups stay > >fixated on negative consequences like flooding and disease, The Greening > >Earth Society has chosen to focus attention on the "positive aspects of a > >rising level of carbon dioxide" in the belief that "nature is growing > >stronger, bigger, greener and more resilient as a result of what we humans > >are doing to promote our own growth." The GES has special access to all > >the latest information because it shares offices and officers with the > >Western Fuel Association (and who should know more about global warming > >than coal producers). The Greening Earth Society arguably has one of the > >better environmental mottoes -- "humankind is a part of nature, rather > >than apart from nature." That's why they understand that using fossil > >fuels is "as natural as breathing." (That is, if you still can breathe.) > >(www.greeningearthsociety.org) > > > > > >Deep Thoughts... > > > >There's always great excitement when the news comes that Hallmark has > >unveiled a new series of greeting cards. But this year's announcement was > >more somber. Recognizing that the holiday season can be painful for those > >who have recently lost a loved one, Hallmark has responded with a series > >of Christmas "Messages of Comfort" for the grief-stricken. This was > >timely, for as the Wall Street Journal informs us, "Such people are a > >consumer niche that corporate marketers in the past have approached > >indirectly, if at all." Imagine being a consumer left alone with no > >corporations trying to sell to you? Pretty lonely. Fortunately, greeting > >card companies "now recognize the potential for such a category as > >tremendous." There be plenty of profit to be mined yet out of grief, I > >guess. In fact, says the Journal, "the category could hold potential for > >other industries, say travel." Maybe we should all start chasing Hearse's? > >(WSJ 12/24/98) > > > > > >Raiding the Cookie Jar Dept. > > > >There are some new candidates in the race for Best Rationalization for the > >$8.2 billion awarded to lawyers in the tobacco settlement. One of my > >personal favorites is by John Calhoun Wells, chair of the arbitration > >panel that determined the fees, who noted that without the lawyers "there > >would be no multi-billion settlement for the states..." I mean imagine the > >embarrassment to the states if no lawyers had shown up because, say, only > >a $billion had been offered. Attorney Joseph Rice, whose firm earned a > >cool $1billion for two years work, asks "Why should the lawyers who > >carried the burden and led the fight not be paid like a chief executive > >officer of a corporation?" And we all know how fair their compensation is. > >Then there is the elegant simplicity of Florida attorney Robert Kerrigan's > >answer after being awarded $200 million for his work: "It sounds fair to > >me." I'm sure it does. (AP 12/12/98, NYT 12/22/98) > > > > > >Happy New Year. Earn good karma by sending in your own examples of > >Newspeak, or subscribe to the mailing list by writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >
