Thought Police Update

Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a reduced language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as “thoughtcrime,” “crimethink,” or “doublethink.”

The aim of Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) that reinforce the total dominance of the State.

The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can’t be said, then it can’t be thought.

And if it can’t be thought it can’t be said.

Enter the Politically Correct Media….

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.

Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the thinking behind the decision:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road.

Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate.

Get in touch at stylebook@ap.org

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.“For example, the word “free” still existed in Newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed as in, “the dog is free from lice” or, “this field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in “free choice” or” free will” since these concepts no longer existed. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Any redundancies in the English language were removed.

CRIMETHINK

Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox or outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink. In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary, “ Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death. ” —Orwell, 1984

DUCKSPEAK

Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be good or “ungood” (bad) depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying aligns with the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of The Party may be good. In the appendix to 1984, Orwell explains: “ Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak […]. Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment. ” —Orwell, 1984

The advantages of Newspeak are its means of preserving the secrets of the Party, preventing politically motivated actions, and promoting the use of politically correct terms. Its disadvantages include the Party using censorship and glamorization of themselves, compromised freedom of speech, and the prevention of the flow of ideas for the citizens, who are controlled by this reduction in their language.

Terrorism is “man-caused disasters.”

A woman may have a  “woman’s right to choose.” But do you?

Facecrime (an indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression)

Equal (a statement such as “All men are equal.” would only mean “All men are of equal size.”) “Political Equality” doesn’t even exist as a concept in Newspeak.

The concepts of “political freedom” and “intellectual freedom” do not exist in Newspeak.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

FEAR IS HOPE 🙂

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

blujay

The Blue Jay of Happiness has a very common contemporary example of newspeak: “Not necessarily unconstitutional”. Does it mean, “not illegal but certainly wrong?”

And if you just living her illegally by circumstances are you actually Illegal? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

 

 

The Smarter Government

Fiscal Policy: President Obama now says the deficit problem is all but fixed, so we can stop all this unpleasant talk about spending cuts and get on with government spending. Maybe this is good politics, but it’s reckless policy.

So like any good Orwellian what you do is just change the terms. Like “Global Cooling” becomes “global Warming” then that become the nebulous and more mailable “Global Climate Change”.

Illegal Alien become Illegal Immigrant, become Undocumented Immigrant to even more extreme, just plain “immigrant”.

Change the terms. Say it over and over again. Make it politically correct to use only your terms. Then you own it and them.

In Orwell’s 1984, a government strategy claims that to limit language = to limit thought. But, if that claim be true, can language also be purposely used to limit emotion?

The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking—”thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink” in the newest edition of Newspeak—by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on.

thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thought is known as to crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary: “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.” There is also a “ministry of love” which is actually the place of torture for people who commit thoughtcrime or any type of crime for that matter.

“If there is no language with which to express an idea …” and “If there is no language with which to express an emotion …”

Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

And who is more orthodox than the radical Left and our President??

And who has more of these: Orwell spoke of “slogan swallowers” who repeat the nonsense formulas of demagogues.

The Left.

Who wants you to shut up about how wrong they are?

The Left.

Democracy as a marketing campaign. Or a Campaign Organization by a Campaign Organizer.

Orwellian slogans mean nothing, but they set human beings’ minds at rest — i.e. put them to sleep.

State of the Union last Night: “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth,” Obama said.

Very general, very non-threatening. But it’s all a lie.

“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence,” he said. “Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.”

If Congress won’t act “soon,” he added, “I will,”  probably through new Environmental Protection Agency limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

That is an explicit threat. Do it my way or the highway. If you won’t play, I will have my EPA crush you!

Then comes HHS, SEC,FDA and the rest of the Alphabet Nazis….

Government Power Uber Alles!

The “smarter” government is how to demonize people who disagree with him better. To force them off the table.

In the run-up to his State of the Union speech, Obama was running around telling everyone how we’ve already “cut our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion,” and are now “more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists . .. say we need to stabilize our debt.”

Clearly Obama wants all the dreary talk of deficits off the table. That way he can attack Republicans who try to impose deeper spending cuts, and push for more federal “investments” to help grow the economy.

But there are just two problems with Obama’s claim.

First, despite what Obama says, the debt crisis is nowhere near fixed — as anyone who’s looked at the report from Obama’s own debt commission would know.

That report opened with this stark statement: “Our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path.” Left unchecked, it said, the rising debt “will put America at risk,” and that “continued inaction is not a viable option.”

The panel also made it clear that stabilizing the debt would require a huge, long-term commitment to spending restraint at every level of government, as well as an overhaul of out-of-control entitlement programs.

When the commission filed its report in 2010, the national debt was $9 trillion, or about 63% of the nation’s GDP. The national debt today is over $12 trillion, and has already surpassed 76% of GDP.

Had the debt commission’s plan been adopted, the deficit this year would be $646 billion, and on its way down to $279 billion by 2020. And the debt would be holding steady at about 65% of GDP.

Instead, this year’s deficit will be $845 billion — even after the alleged $2.5 trillion in savings that Obama touts — and will start climbing again in three years, reaching back up to $1 trillion by 2023, according to the latest forecast from the Congressional Budget Office.

The national debt, meanwhile, never drops below 73% of GDP, according to the CBO, and starts climbing after 2018, reaching 77% of GDP by 2023.

Even that forecast is optimistic, since it assumes ObamaCare costs don’t explode and that there’s no recession over the next decade.

Meanwhile, on the same day Obama delivered his State of the Union speech, the head of the Congressional Budget Office warned Congress that the country will continue its charge toward the fiscal cliff unless “significant changes” are made to entitlements.

But rather than push for anything like that, Obama wants to call it “Mission Accomplished” after a couple rounds of relatively tiny and mostly phantom spending cuts and no meaningful entitlement reforms.

And that gets to the second problem with Obama’s claim — that more Keynesian-style government “investments” will boost economic growth.

In case anyone has forgotten, we’ve just been subject to the longest sustained experiment in Keynesian economics in the nation’s history, with spending and deficits at historic highs for four straight years.

Obama four years ago predicted that his economic policies would produce 4.6% GDP growth by 2012 and an unemployment rate of just 6%.

Actual results: GDP climbed just 2.2% last year and the unemployment rate has never dropped below 7.8% since Obama took office.

Obama might honestly believe that the nation’s long-term fiscal picture is just fine. But woe to the country if anyone else buys into his fantasy. (IBD)

That’s the Ministry of Truth’s Job.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

The War has begun.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Groupthink

I found this funny: “New Tone”– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY5T1Pdiols

Funniest Editorial Cartoon in Years:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

******************************************************

Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox, or are outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink.

Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).

  1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
  3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
  4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
  5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
  6. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

The 2009 law that requires Wisconsin teachers to teach labor union and collective bargaining history to the state’s kids is seen by union bosses in the state as a means to promote their cause, frame labor’s message in a favorable light and increase membership.

Political propaganda as “education”, gee Liberals never do that!!! 😦

Self-serving Ideology as “education”, Liberals never do that! 😦

I’m sure it will be “fair” and “balanced”. 😦

When The Daily Caller reported that the state passed such a law in December 2009, it wasn’t clear that union organizers planned to utilize it to further their agenda. Newly uncovered information from an April 2010 conference, the Wisconsin Labor History Society, a pro-union group that pushed the new law through the all-Democrat state government in 2009, shows the state’s labor organizers and union bosses do indeed plan to use the controversial new law as a propaganda tool.

“I believe we are in the midst of an irrepressible labor conflict that has pitted the haves versus the have-nots,” said University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, history professor Andrew Kersten at the conference. “As Warren Buffett has said recently, ‘There is a class war, alright, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s waging it, and we’re winning.’ It’s not merely the money or the political power they crave, they seek to transform the way we think and act on a daily basis.”

At the conference meant to help teachers prepare new curricula to comply with the new AB 172 law, Kersten went on to say that teaching union history and “the struggles of working men and women and of unionists is vital to maintaining a healthy democracy.” In his speech, Kersten also attacked President Barack Obama for not focusing on labor unions in his 2010 State of the Union address, for not getting card-check legislation passed and for failing to get controversial former union lawyer Craig Becker appointed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The history professor, who was supposed to be helping teachers prepare new classroom materials, also took a shot at then newly elected Sen. Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, for being the deciding vote against Becker on the NLRB.

“The reason why he rushed to take his seat in Washington, D.C., was not to block Obama’s medical and health insurance reforms, but to stop the appointment of Obama’s NLRB nomination, Craig Becker, the union lawyer and associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union,” Kersten said.

Union bosses at the conference included the state’s National Education Association (NEA) director, Hedy Eischeid, the state’s AFL-CIO president, David Newby and the president of Wisconsin’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Bryan Kennedy.

AFT is a union for those in higher education, so Kennedy talked about how he’d teach teachers to teach about unions. “I recognize that there is an important and special role that I have as a university educator to educate future teachers on how to educate young people about labor union history,” Kennedy said. “As educators, many of us are aware that the first exposure many teachers had to unions is when they graduated, took their first job and were told they were a member of the teachers union. If they didn’t grow up in a union household, what does that mean?”

Eischeid said it’s better to teach teachers about unions before they develop their curriculum, and wants to “connect it to them personally.”

“Many of our own folks don’t really even understand what labor has done for them. I think it really has to start with our members,” she said.

Newby said this is a battle everyone in Wisconsin has to fight, not just teachers, parents and students.

“We have got to convince both teachers and the citizens of the state that teaching labor history is appropriate and, in fact, is necessary, if students are to understand the history of this state and of this nation,” Newby said. “And, that’s really an assignment for all of us, whether you’re involved in this particular project of labor history in the schools or not. And, all of us need to be talking to our neighbors, our co-workers, our family and our friends to get them talking about it as well, particularly those that have kids.”

The AFL-CIO also provided textbooks on the subject for every high school library, according to Richard Grobschmidt, the state’s assistant superintendent at the Department of Public Instruction.

The union bosses and academics who spoke at the conference knew, too, that they’d have to defend the new law in the near future.

“Now that we have a law, we must defend it, tooth and nail, for our opponents won’t rest,” Kersten said, while railing on conservatism. “They’re angry about the changes in American politics and have, as you’ve noticed no doubt, tripped up many meaningful reforms in the state and across the nation. It may not be long before they begin to target our own new law, as they have so many others.” (DC)

Yeah, the other side of the argument is very,very evil!! 🙂

It must be destroyed. That’s the new tone. 🙂

Why should liberals want to change the public educational system when it is turning out the product they have been striving for years to produce?

Check out these real news headlines from the past several weeks and months about the state of U.S. public education across the country:

  • “U.S. teachers tell U.N. sex is a ‘spectrum’ – advocate mandatory classes to free students from ‘religion'”
  • “Principal orders Ten Commandments yanked from school lockers”
  • “Teens ask for more sex ed, greater condom availability”
  • “State university defines Christians as ‘oppressors'”
  • “Why Catholic schools score better than public schools”
  • “Teachers take charge to save ailing public schools”
  • “Schools’ mandatory Arabic classes create firestorm”
  • “District taking money, but censoring Christians?”
  • “No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda”
  • “District pays up for slamming student’s rosary”
  • “Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate – Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum”
  • “Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment”

On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819), “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it.”

But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternate opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when sociopolitical agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority even being mentioned?

What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson’s day to secularism in ours? What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps?

You get Today. You get the Public Sector Unions. You get the NEA and the AFT.

You get crap on a stick that cost an average of $10,000 per student and they can’t even read the f*cking diploma at the end of 16 years!

But they can be great mush heads for the Socialist Democrats!! 🙂

Polling firm of Luntz Research,notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that “news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media.” And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, “Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?” was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan).

This is why it is no surprise that the two largest teachers unions, the NEA and AFT, are the largest campaign contributors in the nation (giving more than the Teamsters, NRA or any other organization), and that 90 percent of their contributions fund Democratic candidates. In doing so, do we think such funding is going to balance traditional and conservative values in public schools?

Is this present, restrictive and one-sided educational environment that which Thomas Jefferson and other founders intended for the future generations of America? Absolutely not! Rather than encourage free thinking, the U.S. academic system has turned Jefferson’s plans for open education into our culture’s system of indoctrination. (Chuck Norris)
And that works for Liberals. Gotta get them young, before they figure out they’ve been had.
And better yet, control the Mainstream Media so they never have to find out!!
🙂
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Transparent Steal

No that title was not meant to say “steel”.

I have maintained all along that Obama is very transparent, in his radical socialist ways and the Ministry of Truth is very transparent. If you’re willing to look at it from the jaundiced eye of a cynic.

But the illusion of transparency at least is no more. But it will be transparent that the media won’t talk about it. So I will, along with sources.

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

Obama transferred “ethics czar” Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen’s duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer ( his previous job as the president’s personal lawyer, as well as counsel to the Democratic National Committee).

With Mr. Eisen headed to Europe as an ambassador, his move from the White House “is the biggest lobbying success we’ve had all year,” Tony Podesta, one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington, said with a laugh.(NYT)

Bauer is renowned as a “lawyer’s lawyer” and a legal expert. His resume, however, reads more “partisan advocate” than “good-government crusader.” Bauer came to the White House from the law firm Perkins Coie, where he represented John Kerry in 2004 and Obama during his campaign.

Bauer has served as the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, which is the most prolific fundraising entity in the country. Then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the caricature of a cutthroat Chicago political fixer, hired Bauer to represent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the White House, Bauer is tight with Emanuel, having defended Emanuel’s offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., whom Emanuel wanted out of the Senate race.

Another Bauer client was New Jersey Sen. Robert “Torch” Torricelli back in 2001. When one Torricelli donor admitted he had reimbursed employees for their contributions to the Torch — thus circumventing contribution limits — Bauer explained, “All candidates ask their supporters to help raise money from friends, family members and professional associates.”

Bauer’s own words — gathered by the diligent folks at the Sunlight Foundation — show disdain for openness and far greater belief in the good intentions of those in power than of those trying to check the powerful. In December 2006, when the Federal Election Commission proposed more precise disclosure requirements for parties, Bauer took aim at the practice of muckraking enabled by such disclosure.

On his blog, Bauer derided the notion “that politicians and parties are pictured as forever trying to get away with something,” saying this was an idea for which “there is a market, its product cheaply manufactured and cheaply sold.” In other words — we keep too close an eye on our leaders.

In August 2006 Bauer blogged, “disclosure is a mostly unquestioned virtue deserving to be questioned.” This is the man the White House has put in charge of making this the most open White House ever.

Most telling might have been Bauer’s statements about proposed regulations of 527 organizations: “If it’s not done with 527 activity as we have seen, it will be done in other ways,” he told the Senate rules committee.

“There are other directions, to be sure, that people are actively considering as we speak. Without tipping my hand or those of others who are professionally creative, the money will find an outlet.”

This perfectly captures the Obama White House’s attitude toward disclosure. Sure, the administration publish the names of all White House visitors, but, as the New York Times reported a few weeks back, White House folks just meet their lobbyists at Caribou Coffee across the street. Sure, they restrict the work of ex-lobbyists in the administration, but lobbyists who de-list aren’t questioned.

And we’ve seen just a few of the e-mails former Google lobbyist, now Obama tech policy guru, Andrew McLaughlin traded with current Google lobbyists using his Gmail account, but who knows what else the White House whiz kids are doing to avoid the Presidential Records Act — Facebook messages? Twitter direct messages?

Did I mention Bauer was a lobbyist? At Perkins Coie, Bauer lobbied on behalf of America Votes Inc., a Democratic 527 funded by the likes of the AFL-CIO and ACORN.

As with his other reformer rhetoric, Obama’s transparency is mostly smoke and mirrors. (Washington Examiner)

I would argue he is very transparent in his disdain for anyone who isn’t the Harvard elitist liberal socialist that and his apparatchiks are. He’s so open about it that it’s nearly invisible. 🙂

And he gets all the help he needs from his socialist friends in the media.

When the open-government activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the Bush administration to get the records of White House visitors from Secret Service logs, media outlets practically fell over themselves to join the effort.  Newspapers like the Washington Post and USA Today and wire services like AP and Reuters filed amicus briefs with the court, and the Obama administration eventually agreed to start releasing the records.  Now, however, the same news organizations have discovered a new sense of privacy when it comes to their attendance in an off-the-record event with Barack Obama:

White House reporters are keeping quiet about an off-the-record lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who’ve advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors.

And guess who filed briefs supporting that argument? Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House.

Through July 20, Ms. Kumar counted 36 press conferences since Mr. Obama took office. That compares with the same number for the second President Bush, 66 for President Clinton and 54 for the elder President Bush the same amount of time into their presidencies.

But that leaves out some context.  Obama was holding press conferences every week or two in his first months in office, which is why he got to 35 by the end of July 2009, when it became clear that Obama was a gaffe machine when off of the Teleprompter.  Since then, he’s held a grand total of one, and it doesn’t look like the White House has any more planned after the late May Gulf spill presser.

When media outlets participate in off-the-record events, they give Obama a chance to spin coverage without doing so on the record.  It wouldn’t be a problem if Obama made himself regularly available in an open Q&A setting to the press corps, which complained when Obama’s predecessor would go a couple of months between pressers.  With the White House butting up Obama and keeping him off the record, participation in the luncheon is really just enabling the silence.  If media outlets felt so strongly about transparency as to demand the White House visitor logs, the least they can do is to acknowledge their own roles in letting this President off the hook for accountability and transparency. (hot air.com)

Just reinforces the fact that he is not a public servant, he is a public parent. This is the mommy-state way of saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” (comment on hot air.com).

Well, they are the Insufferably Superior Left,after all. And remember if you agree with them you are intelligent, tolerant and well mannered.

If you disagree with them you are barking mad loonie who foams at the mouth and has the IQ of a dead light bulb. You’re “stupid”, “racist”,”ignorant” a “moron”, etc. ad nauseum.

So why should anyone take a raving loonie seriously? 🙂

In fact, according to a March 2010 Associated Press analysis of FOIA responses at 17 major agencies, 466,872 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) denials were issued during the Obama administration’s first year in office – a 50 percent increase over the previous year.

In addition to denying more FOIA requests, Obama has refused to call for an audit of the secret Federal Reserve Bank and rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders –† the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.

The hypocrisy on transparency doesn’t end there, though.

As part of the draconian new financial regulations Obama and his Congressional allies are imposing on the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now virtually exempt from FOIA law.† Under a little-known provision of the new law, the SEC would not have to release any information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities” – a purposefully broad definition that encompasses virtually everything the SEC does.

You know the SEC, the ones who were too busy wanting porn 24/7 to watch either Wall Street or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to care. And now, by law they don’t have to care. More Porn for the SEC, please….

“It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” former agency attorney turned whistleblower Gary Aguirre told FOX News. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”

In fact, within days of the new law being signed, the SEC was already turning down FOIA requests from media outlets citing the new exemption.

But don’t worry, Big Brother will not lie to you… 🙂

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong. (1984)

It’s transparent in it’s complete lack of transparency or even it’s appearance therein. 🙂

doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink..    ”
“     The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.–George Orwell

The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State.

How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. (1984)

The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5“) is a slogan used in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious – but politically inexpedient – truth. Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? Smith writes, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Now that’s transparent and on MSNBC,CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN,Their websites, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, et al. that 2+2=5. Now you just have to believe it. 🙂

It’s so transparent it’s nearly invisible. 🙂