DuckSpeak of a Sorts

There were many phenomena of a totalitarian state that George Orwell defined in his famous dystopian novel 1984. Among these that many of us refer to when we see similarities in our real life, were Newspeak, the two-minute hate, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Love.

There was also Duckspeak. Duckspeak, however, may be the only one of Orwell's predictions that has not been all that evident in our world. Duckspeak, as it was defined in the narrative voice and without really good examples, was supposed to be what politicians said when they didn't want to speak about some subject. They purportedly emitted duck-like sounds that were pretty much unintelligible, and that some people were remarkably more adept with it than others. The reader gets the impression it was some kind of new kind of double-talk that was used to spin the speaker or his agency out of hot water when faced with daunting questions. Question such as "How can you say the chocolate ration has increased when the new numbers show a decrease?"

It was much like monthly bureau of labor employment figures having been revised downward every month during the Obama administration. These figures are released concurrently with the current month's figures showing, with great fanfare, the great news: remarkable employment  improvements over last month!

Anyway, what reminded me of Duckspeak was that I saw its purpose yesterday quite clearly being played out when we all heard about another form of nonsense: Chief Justice John Roberts opinion in the ObamaCare (ACA) decision.

The way in which Justice Roberts' opinion was nonsense was revealed by Mark Levin on his show Thursday night and reiterated again tonight. It was most noticeable in Mr. Levin's explanation about how the the ACA tax/penalty was not any tax allowed under the constitution tonight. 

Mr. Levin said Roberts was essentially saying 

'Don't worry about those definitions in the constitution (they're only words). It looks like a tax, so let's treat it as such. However, for the purposes of the anti-injunction clause, it's not a tax then, so you have no standing there to fight the penalty.'

Levin pointed out how outlandishly inconsistent was Roberts' argument. That it was nonsense in totality.
 
So that suggested Orwell to me.

However, nobody in our world actually speaks like a duck. But it is hard to deny that a speaker who strings together nonsense when asked to explain himself is effectively aiming for the same result. They do not wish to or dare say what is clearly revealing, so they spew nonsense in the hopes that the press won't call them on it. Those who "duck" from the onslaughts that seek the truth of the matter are revealing a guilty conscience.

Well, I'm calling Justice Roberts on it. And I'm calling all his apologists on their nonsense too. Don't buy the "closet commerce clause evisceration" arguments by some very overpaid pundits who allegedly write with a view from the Right.  C.J. Roberts could have achieved that goal by voting down the entire ACA as J. Anthony Kennedy did. 


Bottom line. You know that thing which we call spin in our world? That is Orwell's Duckspeak. And every once in a while, like almost everything emitted from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi, or as promulgated in the opinion of Justice Roberts yesterday, words are so meaningless that they might as well have been spoken by a duck.

As to why Justice Roberts did what he did seems to be revealed in the manner and timing that he did it. The surmise and conclusion of his behavior is the subject of my next post became the subject of much speculation, all of which demonstrated once again why it is foolish for the public to put much trust in any human being. Do not forget that C.J. Roberts was appointed by another man whose was elected mostly because he was less disliked by voters than those he ran against, and not elected because he was any where near as constitutionally minded as a majority of Americans would have liked.