Initailly complex...and very smooooooth.  Sly.  Masterfully feigned
innocence.  Prevarication with the barest hint of provocation. 
Equivocation and obfuscation in almost perfect balance.

But flavors sour on the finish:  unctuous mouthfeel becomes oily, tarry;
notes of arrogance and superciliousness undermine initial palatability.

Vintage: Not recorded.

Rating:  Not Recommended.





>> This editorial is from the LA Times today. I have pasted it in below to
>> prevent everyone having to register. Frank Luntz is chief spinmeister
>> for
>> causes not usually supported by those reading this Topics list. Seems
>> like
>> complex rationalizations to me. Lanny Schwartz
>>
>> COMMENTARY
>> The Lexicon of Political Clout
>>
>>
>>
>> By Frank I. Luntz, Frank I. Luntz's clients have included Fortune 100
>> CEOs, leaders of countries and politicians such as Rudolph Giuliani and
>> Michael Bloomberg.
>>
>> I've been a pollster and wordsmith for senators and CEOs for more than a
>> decade, and I have a particular interest in language. What words do
>> people
>> understand? What's the clear, common-sense way to say what you mean? And
>> how can politicians best educate and express their ideas?
>>
>> That's why I wrote a "A New American Lexicon" for my business and
>> political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it
>> raised a storm among Democrats in Washington and in the blogosphere, who
>> accused me of the worst kind of spin. They say I'm manipulating the
>> debate
>> in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet
>> this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a
>> pro-business, pro-freedom agenda.
>>
>> Admittedly, in these times, most political language has taken a partisan
>> tone. But my suggestions are meant to help reach that critical,
>> nonaligned
>> swing voter, just as product advertising is designed to appeal to
>> nonaligned consumers.
>>
>> Yes, there are instances in which language can be used to cloud judgment
>> and obfuscate the facts, but its beauty is that it can also be used to
>> enlighten. I seek to use words to brighten a debate that has been
>> darkened
>> by those who nuance over what the meaning of "is" is, and whether you
>> have
>> smoked marijuana if you didn't inhale.
>>
>> Let me be specific. "The death tax," "energy exploration," "opportunity
>> scholarships" and "personalizing" Social Security — I didn't coin those
>> phrases, but they are now in the public lexicon and I can rightfully be
>> "blamed" for popularizing them. They are not, as some say, Orwellian. I
>> seek clarity in our nation's great debates, and all too often the words
>> we
>> have used until now hinder real discourse.
>>
>> For example, why /not/ use the term "death tax" for the taxes paid on an
>> estate? What is the event that triggers it? I pay a sales tax when I am
>> involved with a sale, and I pay income tax when I earn income. And when
>> I
>> die, if I'm successful and forget to hire smart accountants, I may pay a
>> tax. What else would you call that other than a death tax — a "permanent
>> sleep tax"?
>>
>> Laurie David, a leading Hollywood environmentalist, publicly labeled me
>> "evil" because Republicans had adopted some of my language to talk about
>> her issues. Yet I would assert that "responsible exploration for
>> energy,"
>> which includes the search for incredibly clean natural gas, is a far
>> different activity than plunking down a well haphazardly and just
>> "drilling for oil."
>>
>> To me, calling for a "cleaner, safer, healthier environment" and
>> supporting helicopter rides over the Grand Canyon and, yes, snowmobiling
>> in Yellowstone Park is not a contradiction. I don't believe our nation's
>> natural beauty should be locked up. The environment and commerce can and
>> should coexist. That's why I am a "conservationist" rather than an
>> "environmentalist." The difference? Conservationists are mainstream and
>> environmentalists are extreme.
>>
>> Similarly, I'm for calling the money paid to help parents choose their
>> kids' school a "scholarship" because "voucher" trivializes the powerful
>> opportunity the transaction confers on poor families. I'd argue that
>> it's
>> more accurate to call "school choice" "parental choice in education."
>> Considering how such a program equalizes education for rich and poor,
>> the
>> most accurate phrase would be "equal opportunity in education." Is that
>> Orwellian? Is that calling war "peace" or freedom "slavery"?
>>
>>
>>
>> That brings me to Social Security. Critics of the president's plan say
>> it
>> is "privatizing" the American retirement system. This is simply not
>> accurate. Even under the most innovative reform proposals, the vast
>> majority of your Social Security contribution (12.4% of your income up
>> to
>> the first $90,000, just in case you had forgotten) would remain
>> completely
>> unchanged and untouched, so Washington can continue to spend your
>> retirement savings on other programs and you can continue to collect
>> that
>> great 1.6% return on your Social Security "investment."
>>
>> I have encouraged supporters of Social Security reform to counter such
>> inaccuracies by talking about how the president's plan "personalizes"
>> Social Security. When you personalize something, whether monogrammed
>> towels or Social Security, you enhance ownership by allowing the owner
>> to
>> leave his or her mark on it. In this case, personalizing Social Security
>> means partial ownership of our retirement. Instead of Washington making
>> all the decisions, we will personally determine how a portion of our
>> retirement savings should be invested.
>>
>> In the end, this ongoing battle over language is more about
>> comprehension
>> than articulation. It's not what we say that matters. It's what people
>> hear. I seek simple words that are easily heard and understood.
>>
>> There are always two sides to every issue, and both sides believe in
>> their
>> soul that they are right. I help communicate the principles of the side
>> I
>> believe in, using the most straightforward language there is. My goal is
>> to make honest political rhetoric that achieves worthy goals, to level
>> the
>> linguistic playing field and to inform Americans of the true nature of
>> our
>> policy debates.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
>> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
>  http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp