Central Planning Euphemism Watch

The dictionary defines a euphemism as "a mild or indirect word or expression for one too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing." Think, for example, how the word "spend" has been comprehensively replaced by the word "invest" when it comes to doling out taxpayer dollars to crony capitalists. In today's Washington Post, there is an article describing how the Obama administration and the Democrats are "touting" the president's record on energy. The last couple of paragraphs describe some to the disappointments that ideological environmentalists have with the president:

Obama has also set himself apart from Romney by withholding approval of the Keystone XL pipeline’s northern leg from the Canadian border in Montana to Steele City, Neb. He said he will decide on the fate of the pipeline early next year, if he is reelected.

On this issue, as on others, Obama has needed to pay as much attention to Democrats’ own ranks. Many environmentally oriented campaign contributors tried to make the Keystone XL pipeline a litmus test for the president. And others have been disappointed that he didn’t do more to win support for a federal renewable energy standard similar to those that have been adopted by a majority of state governments. Those state standards have propelled wind and solar projects in many areas even when economic incentives were not compelling.

Never mind that every environmental assessment so far has found that the Keystone pipelne is safe enough to build, but what I found amusing was that last bit regarding a renewable fuel standard (RFS) that would require, for example, that a certain percentage of electricity be generated by sources such as wind or solar power. I was specifically charmed by the phrase...

 ...even when economic incentives were not compelling.

In other words, the RPSs are subsidies to the wind and solar producers of uneconomically generated electricity. However, "when economic incentives were not compelling" somehow sounds so much nicer, don't you think?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    why does the gop hate existing american-owned pipelines?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why are you retarded?

  • Lord Humungus||

    something about the water in Oiho.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's flammable or something, right?

  • Pip||

    something about the water urine in Oiho.

  • o3||

    flaming retard water in ohio is pumped through american pipelines...or something gop

  • Killazontherun||

    Why am I the only one around who thinks O3 is funny? I'm not going with the conclusion there is something wrong with me unless I have no other choice.

  • sarcasmic||

    "when economic incentives were not compelling"

    when it cost more than anyone would pay in absence of coercion

  • SugarFree||

    "'Webster's Dictionary defines'? That's the Jim Belushi of speech openings. It accomplishes nothing, but everyone keeps using it and nobody knows why.'

  • Tim||

    I liked Jim Belushi in, uh, that one where he's a spy and Arnold, uh. wait was that Tom Arnold?
    Forget it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I saw him speak at UF ages ago. I think he'd maybe done Trading Places and not much else. It was actually pretty good--he talked about improv and, of course, a brother named John.

  • Tim||

    DId he get raped by the Gorilla?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Only off camera.

    It was weird, because it wasn't some auditorium thing--just me and maybe 40-50 other people. Even he got too big for that small of an audience later on.

  • John||

    He got to be in a sitcom with the Goddess that is Cortney Thorne Smith. That alone makes anyone's life worth living.

  • Brett L||

    You're thinking of the cop movie where he cites Harry Callahan and Arnold as a Soviet cop claims to have a bigger gun.

  • ||

    Red Heat, right?

  • Pro Libertate||

    That happened? I thought it was just a dream after a night of too much German food and beer.

  • ||

    It can be both!

  • Brett L||

    Arnold won't admit to it. Just like he doesn't like to talk about playing a goon in The Long Goodbye.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Is that the one with Elliott Gould playing Marlowe? He was in that?

  • Brett L||

    Yep. He's one of the gangster's goons. In the scene where the gangster and his goons all strip down (I totally forget why, since I've read the book more recently than seen the movie), Arnold is one of the goons. I'll have to watch it again. Its not as good as Bogie's turn at Marlowe, but it has its moments.

  • Killazontherun||

    To be honest, after going on a Chandler reading splurge earlier this summer and seeing some of the old movies, I don't think Bogey was a good fit. Doesn't get the dapper, handsome and knows it self confidence of the character at all. Kind of one dimensional actually, just emotionally bitter at all times and lacks the subtle sadistic quality of the character in the books that makes Marlowe a top vintage asshole. The books are fucking excellent though.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I like the Bogart turns, but I agree that it wasn't really the same character.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah, neither got him right. I just get distracted by all the 70s arty filmmaker tricks in TLG that aren't there in The Big Sleep.

    But no one could ever touch Chandler's writing. The first page of Farewell, My Lovely is a fucking clinic on how to write an opening scene. I'll have to re-watch Mitchum's turn in the fedora and see how it measures up.

  • Brett L||

    Book version here. Just read the first three pages and you'll know Marlowe and Chandler.

  • SIV||

    Dick Powell played the best movie Marlowe in the Farewell My Lovely adaptation.

  • SIV||

    Titled Murder, My Sweet for who knows what reason.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought it was okay, but not great. I actually liked the TV series with Powers Boothe.

  • ||

    The answer is Continental Divide.

    The answer is always Continental Divide.

  • ||

    OT: So that picture of Obama on the homepage was pretty neat. This is the first thing I thought, honest to God, when I saw it:

    http://s13.postimage.org/h1ofg.....ololol.jpg

  • ||

    What are the other 2 ways?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Think, for example, how the word "spend squander" has been comprehensively replaced by the word "invest" ...

  • oncogenesis||

    Other fun political euphemisms:

    Reform: more government interference; e.g., campaign finance "reform"

    Access: having no out-of-pocket cost; e.g., "access" to birth control

  • sarcasmic||

    Radical budget cut: a promise to, but not this year, cut the rate of increase in the budget

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    What I'm only getting a 2% raise? I was expecting a 5% raise. You're cutting my budget.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly. When your budget is bigger this year than last, but not as big as you wanted or expected it to be, it is actually smaller.

    More is less.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Access is the one that drive me nuts. It's used when the person speaking means insulation from costs.

    Now you can pick any two of the following. You can have access to health care, insulation from costs or affordable health care. You just can't have all three.

  • Raven Nation||

    But, but...now that NASA doesn't have a space shuttle, we have no access to space.

  • ||

    My sewage treatment plant becomes very economically-compelling if I can dump the raw sewage in the river.

  • John||

    No it doesn't. Not if you have to pay for the damage that does.

  • ||

    You're almost there. Connect the dots.

  • John||

    You are almost there Jersey. There is this whole thing called common law that allows land owners to sue for damages.

    Come on, you are almost there. Pull your head out of your ass and understand there is more to life than central regulation.

  • tarran||

    There is this whole thing called common law that allows land owners to sue for damages.

    Unless the court system decides the national interest in having productive factories overrides common law as happened in the 1840's in the U.S.

    Funny how everybody thinks the market is to blame for a court system that encourages polluters by refusing to acknowledge the claims of injured parties.

  • Ron Bailey||

    tarran: Actually, history shows that the court system didn't decide that way; the legislatures of the states decided to override common law decisions vindicating the property rights of land and water owners in favor of industry and "jobs."

  • tarran||

    Ron,

    This is interesting; everything I have read has implied that the Supreme Court was responsible for this phenomenon, but I can't find any actual history that explains what precisely happened - the laws, the cases, etc.

    Could you point me to a good primer on 19th century environmental law? Because all I know seem to be summaries of summaries.

    I just sent you an email in case you don't monitor the thread.

  • Gray Ghost||

    This fucking thing just ate another comment.

    Seriously Reason, you have multiple commenters who work in IT, and I'm sure would be happy to help you settle your issues: why aren't you making use of them?

    Anyways, tarran, the law review article, Theories of Water Pollution Litigation, seems like what you're looking for. It was published in 1971 in the Wisconsin Law Review. I'd link to it, but it's not available for free that I can find.

    Here's another link to a course on intro to enviro law where the prof cites a few early cases. They probably have cites within them to other timely cases on the subject.

    Finally, I wonder what Prosser on Torts' nuisance section has for environmental torts?

  • Gray Ghost||

    This fucking thing just ate another comment.

    Seriously Reason, you have multiple commenters who work in IT, and I'm sure would be happy to help you settle your issues: why aren't you making use of them?

    Anyways, tarran, the law review article, Theories of Water Pollution Litigation, seems like what you're looking for. It was published in 1971 in the Wisconsin Law Review. I'd link to it, but it's not available for free that I can find.

    Here's another link to a course on intro to enviro law where the prof cites a few early cases. They probably have cites within them to other timely cases on the subject.

    Finally, I wonder what Prosser on Torts' nuisance section has for environmental torts?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Sorry for the double.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The term "central planning" has been abused by the right.

    A regulation is not central planning. Protecting copyright or outlawing waste dumps do not qualify as such. Counterfeit does not.
    Collecting taxes does not.

    Central planning is the government determination of production/allocation of goods.

  • Brett L||

    Like picking which car producers to buy? Or passing regulations that put makers of cheap, generic lightbulbs out of business while the owner of newer (patented!) lightbulbs benefits? Ooh, or deciding who to back in the allocation of energy dollars? Yep. We sure are abusing the term central planning just because the commissars aren't picking the color of the carpets.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The government has always picked winners in major markets. Lockheed-Martin and the Koch Bros are two winners of largesse (the latter the major materials company in the US).

    I am not condoning it - just recognizing it.

  • Brett L||

    In those cases, at least, the government was contracting for goods and services. Overly expensive goods and services compared to market economies, but delivery of a plane (although overly expensive and built to the specifications of a committee who knows dick-all about planes) or outsourcing of janitorial services is not the same.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're right. What we have is more like fascism.

    Private ownership of the means of production, but the government micromanages every minute detail to the point where ownership is practically meaningless.

    Fascism for the win!

  • ||

    Fascism has no material difference with socialism in regards to how government relates to business and corporations.

    The Socialism-Fascism divide is solely about international vs nationalism.

    Their is no reason why a fascist state could not take over industries or why a socialist state could not set up a Fannie Mae.

    That said we do live in a fascist state...after watching the dems get all war mongery chanting "USA USA USA" at their convention last night i am sure of it.

  • ||

    I don't think the term is being abused here. Electricity is a centrally-planned market, with a few private elements here and there.

    Of course, that means that building coal plants and building windmills are both central planning. The difference is that fossil fuel money pays Bailey's bills and solar panels don't.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I'll put this here as well.

    Study from Germany. Subsidizing solar power cells not cost effective.


    http://www.rwi-essen.de/publik.....apers/478/

  • Raven Nation||

    Also in Germany: there is a guy selling incandescent light bulbs by marketing them as "personal space heaters."

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Hmmm,

    I forsee a lot of easy bake ovens being sold in the US soon. With replacement parts available by e-commerce.

  • ||

    He got to be in a sitcom with the Goddess that is Cortney Thorne Smith. That alone makes anyone's life worth living.

    Meh. You are easily impressed. There were about four hotter looking Asian chicks at the gym last night, in a room with about eight women in it.

  • ||

    A regulation is not central planning.

    A regulation is literally a central planner telling other people how to do something, to (try to) achieve a goal of the central planner of how other people lives should run.

    Try thinking before typing.

  • ||

    Well, if they can force individual to buy health insurance they can force utilities to buy wind and solar power.
    Or perhaps they can just offer a "tax penalty" to utilities that don't buy enough solar panels from Solyndra.

  • LifeStrategies||

    It's all newspeak, as in George Orwell's 1984. The phrase "economic incentives were not compelling" still means there are some economic incentives, whereas the truth is that there are none. They are all economic DISINCENTIVES. So it's untruthful, actually a lie.

    But since the government runs the education system, most people haven't learned how to think something through for themselves... see www.lifestrategies.net/education/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement