The Name Game

Remember the good old days when the Obama administration still had some election capital and they believed if they renamed something, we may look at it in a different light. The Bush administration recognized we were engaged in a global war on terror and referred to it as such. The Obama administration declared we were in an “overseas contingency operation” and to discontinue the Bush description. This administration also wanted us to not use the word terrorism but instead refer to a bomber blowing up inocent women and children as a “man-caused disaster“. Thankfully these terms went the way of the passenger pigeon. Why they did this renaming is fodder for another day.

Well, here comes another one. The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming”. Their reason is global warming does not sound serious enough. This is code for our global warming initiative is dead in the water and nobody’s buying it. Maybe we should also call the actual 15% of Americans out of a job ” vacationers without pay “.

With this administration it’s constantly about style over substance and politics over policy. Here’s another example of the “if we rename it we can change it” attitude of the Obama White House.

Comments

  1. If the name is changed we’ll have to deal with this beauty: global climate disruption deniers. Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

    I say we leave well enough alone. 😉

  2. randy in Richmond says:

    Dan, what will be interesting is to see if the MSM pick up on this or not. The paper in my city has been using “climate change” for a while which is ridiculous, because for one reason that’s why we have four seasons. I suspect that’s why this administration steered away from that moniker.

  3. randy in Richmond says:

    Spellchecker ??

  4. Spellchecker. 🙂

  5. randy in Richmond says:

    Spelchecker. I love it alredy.

  6. You stinker!

  7. This does prove that they realize the hockey stick graph was made up.

  8. randy in Richmond says:

    TerryN
    You’re right . They won’t admit it though. Here’s where we were on this almost two years ago. And it was a hockey stick, they just turned it 180 degrees.

    http://fairlyconservative.com/2008/11/17/more-proof-of-the-global-warming-boondoggle/#comments

  9. Before we start crowing too loudly can we at least acknowledge that “Man-made disaster” predates the current administration?

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/09/the-man-made-disaster-in-myanmar/

    I mean, if it’s good enough for the Malkinistas it should be good enough for y’all.

  10. All politicians do this, no?

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    grumps
    Your connection to an actual, real, man made (not caused) disaster does prove that the term ‘man made disaster’ predates this administration’s attempt to not call a duck a duck. But Malkin’s use of the term fits perfectly as it describes a terrible situation following a “national disaster’. Trying to link these two dissimilar uses of the phrase is a stretch and does not speak to my point at all.