Iâ€™m a fan of George Orwell. I think one of the most important pieces of writing in the English language, for example, is his set of rules for how to make the perfect cup of tea. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether people can really make a cup of tea, andtherefore participate in civilised society, without following those rules; I often ungraciously request that my friends read Orwellâ€™s piece before I permit them to hand me a brew.
Ed Smithâ€™s last column from the New Statesman argued that Orwellâ€™s rules have been co-opted and deployed for precisely the nefarious purposes Orwell had hoped to prevent:
Orwell argues that â€œthe great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between oneâ€™s real and oneâ€™s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words.â€
I suspect the opposite is now true. When politicians or corporate front men have to bridge a gap between what they are saying and what they know to be true, their preferred technique is to convey authenticity by speaking with misleading simplicity. The ubiquitous injunction â€œLetâ€™s be clearâ€, followed by a list of five bogus bullet-points, is a much more common refuge than the Latinate diction and Byzantine sentence structure that Orwell deplored.
The argument seems plausible to me. Indeed, the Guardian has a lovely infographic that illustrates how SOTU speeches have adopted increasingly simpler vocabulary and syntax over time. You can decide for yourself whether this has accompanied more political duplicity, as Smith argues.
I enjoyed Smithâ€™s post not just because I think the argument seems accurate. Itâ€™s because I’d like to think that in my own case, grandiloquent writing isnâ€™t really the problem. Orwellâ€™s concern was not with the choice of words (a stylistic concern); it was with the way words can be used to manipulate thoughts (a substantive concern). Hence, the dispositive sixth rule.
My take-away from Orwellâ€™s writing rules, then, is that the sixth is the only true â€˜rule,â€™ as it is the only one with substantive content â€“ not to write anything barbarous. The preceding five â€˜rulesâ€™ arenâ€™t really rules at all. Theyâ€™re more like suggestions, and Orwell didnâ€™t have much of a bee in his bonnet for those.
The Scene: The President and the Secretary of the Treasury have had it with the debt ceiling limit fight and have therefore ordered the minting of a one trillion dollar platinum coin. They meet at the deposit window, where an old clerk wearing a green eye shade and holding a ledger, waits expectantly.
President Obama: What are you waiting for Tim? Give him the damn coin!
Secretary Geithner (looking guilty): I, uh, wanted a Diet Mr. Pibb and I didn’t have any other coins…it was one of those machines that doesn’t give change. Don’t get mad; think of the stimulus!
or perhaps “Sorry, I’ve been meaning to get that hole in my pocket stitched, but I’ve been so busy with the federal budget and my yoga class and…”
Or…what? Over to all you RBCer’s with funny bones.
Phony questions in polls are funny, but also useful.
Chuckles all round about PPPÂ´s poll asking for opinions on the nonexistent Â¨Panetta-BurnsÂ¨ deficit reduction plan (8% for and 17% against) and whether defunct ACORN stole the 2012 election (49% of Republicans think so).
Perhaps this is more than a nice once-off gag. Double-blind clinical trials of new medicines calibrate them against placebos and white coats, which usually have some effect. Lie detection sessions are calibrated on questions known to be true and known to be false.
Including phony questions systematically in polls would give an indication of the attention the public is paying to the issue, or at any rate to the pollsterÂ´s question. Informed pollees may just be taking the mickey. But the mickey-takers are there anyway, creating error. A ringer question flushes some of them out.
Imagine a Presidential election poll.
If the election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
Mitt Romney, Republican Party
Barack Obama, Democratic Party
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
Jill Stein, Green Party
James Wimberley, Eurocrat Party
Since the election was very important and media coverage was beyond saturation, the ringer (me) would get a near-zero response. Not so, as PPP has shown, for a highly technical and artificial Beltway flap like the fiscal cliff. You could call the percentage response the Â¨Panetta-Burns statisticÂ¨.
James Bond and Miss Moneypenny have a new mission: cleaning up the City. The cover story for the new Governor of the Bank of England is that heÂ´s Â¨Mark CarneyÂ¨ from the Bank of Canada. But judge for yourself.
I am facing a serious ethical dilemma upon which I would like some input:
If you are a blogger on a website that is achingly short of hitting a monthly visit milestone it has never reached before (For the sake of argument, let’s say it’s 150,000 visits) and the month is almost over (for the sake of example, let’s say there are only 5 hours and 51 minutes left in the month in question), is it morally wrong to post an phony ethical dilemma for the sole purpose of attracting the additional few visits you need to reach the milestone?
Deeply interested in your thoughts if you are one of the first 14 people to read this post. Else, never mind.
This is fun, but also important. Solar energy is practically a free lunch except for one thing: land use. There’s always the Sahara but it’s the wrong side of the Atlantic for you. Dual-use photovoltaics are going to be essential: curtain walls, car parks, greenhouses.
Ginseng isn’t the only crop that likes a bit of shade. Another is RBC’s perennial favourite, marijuana.
I expect “medical” pot entrepreneurs in California are already looking at this opportunity.
Here’s a tip for them. To get their next legalisation proposition over the hump, why not add a green spin, and link it to demands for a favourable feed-in-tariff or tax breaks for their solar greenhouses?
RBC readers clearly enjoy competitions. So please supply a bumper-sticker slogan for pot legalisation coupling it to green energy.
Silicon Valley is Pot Valley
People who live in glass houses should get stoned
Taking suggestions for the best snarky campaign slogan.
My friends atÂ The Democratic StrategistÂ have for a while now been running at the top of their home page a picture of an Etch-a-Sketch containing the words, “Romney: you may not agree with what he says but you can trust him to deny he ever said it.”
That’s good. And it’s the kind of snarky wit we need more of in American campaigns, which tend to veer between the two great, awful, American registers, namely Midwestern Nice and moralized outrageâ€”or Â sometimesÂ American Jeremiad, an art form which by platypusing the worst aspects of both those registers manages at once to voice optimism, or at best Christian hope, and self-righteousness.
So: I hereby solicit candidates for the best snarky campaign slogan. Entries may be original or may quote somebody else, but if the latter please give proper credit. The goal is not a campaign slogan that would actually be effectiveâ€”which would almost certainly require less snarkâ€”but shivviness: cruelty, humor (or better, humour), and the shock of recognition that comes from naming a truth, or at least an effective partisan accusation.
I have my own suggestion: “Vote GOP: it’s great to have a party of old people led by children.” If Â you can do better than that, please do.
[Slogans from the other side are welcome too, and I hope I can take a joke at my team’s own expense. Try to top this, as you probably can: “Vote Obama. Because Â a nice speech makes unemployment all better.”]
The winner will receive eternal fame in this space, and a gift certificate for a Heffalump. The contest ends Wednesday at noon, Pacific time. Update:make that Thursday (September 21 20) at noon, Pacific time. I forgot about Rosh Hashanah and want to give all our readers equal snarking opportunities.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.