Absolutely.

There is much controversy over whether the term should be Final Solution, or Ultimate Solution, and there are people who believe that regardless of the title of the document, it must be considered the Penultimate Solution. In addition, there are side controversies over whether or not it was a solution at all, and not an emulsion or a colloidal suspension.

Then there is the whole controversy over whether Hitler's regime, because of the shenanigans it used to come to power, can legitimately be called a "Reich" in the traditional sense. And who did the numbering? Some responsible people believe that, the Horn of Roland and all that notwithstanding, and the whole Charlemagne/Karl der Grosse thingy, the number shouldn't be 4?

All in all, NPR's basic policy is either to refer to it as the
Several de facto Government's Penultimate Colloidal Suspension,
or to just give a brief history of the extermination of the Jews in graphic detail, and append, "which some have called the Third Reich's Final Solution".

Hope this helps, you never know what responsible people are saying, these days.

I know. ;-}

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946

Indeed

I was offering the term for the folks here who deny that the USA invaded Afghanistan and that we are at war there. The argument took place last thread, see it if you need to know more.

Since the Post serves as Quasi-Official Pimp for the Ruling Class, they might as well charge Spitzer-class prices for Up Close and Personal Hand Jobs with the Stars.

I'm hoping that they'll broaden their offerings and make them more affordable. Of course, the venue would change accordingly.

But I'd gladly pay a hundred bucks to attend a WaPo Carnival for a chance to throw baseballs and drop Broder into the Dunk Tank.

Of course, even my inert and myasthenic left arm might misfire and bounce a baseball off the Dean's bean.

(I'd pay two hundred bucks if there are piraña in the tank.)

Or T-bone the odious Dana Milbank on the bumper cars.

Eventually you start to realize that you can define torture very broadly or very narrowly, and in areas where there are debate it is just good journalism (something that I understand is a foreign concept to Mr. Greenwald)not to use intentionally inflamitory words to describe what is being discussed.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing your fine publication to strenuously object to the purposeful use of the loaded term inflammatory. Individual words have connotations that are expressions of the innate, immutable character of our language. Words fall on a two dimensional scale. One dimension: Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic--the second dimension: Good, Neutral, Evil.

The word inflammatory is Chaotic Evil. Speaking aloud words deemed Chaotic Evil is rightly considered witchcraft or attempted witchcraft in many progressive States and Countries.

In the future, you should consider that the moral soul and physical safety of this country is irredeemably diminished every time you commit Chaotic Evil to wind or paper. Your use of the word inflammatory is literally destroying all that is good and friendly.

It is the Devil's granted last request.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

This nomenclature thing can go too far as well. I remember, around 2002, when various discussions of Israeli contingency plans for re-occupying the Area A's of the territories were making the rounds, some media orgs noted one Israeli plan in particular, which translated into English as the Final Solution. I'll never know if that was puffery, or simply bad translation or perhaps a complete indifference to what Goyim thought about Israeli actions. Still, it became a tempest in a tea pot--all rather stupid considering that the "Final Solution", which had nothing to do with the Nazi version, was never implemented but plans with less freighted names, like Field of Thorns, Truthful Promise and Cast Lead, did so much human damage.

Say What? Shepard teaching "media ethics"? Feith teaching "national security policy"? Yoo "teaching law"? Karl Rove teaching "civility"? Bill Kristol teaching "accountability"?

AND DAVID GREGORY TEACHING "ADVERSERIAL QUESTIONING"?

George Orwell was a better prophet than Moses, Muhammed and Nostradumus put together!

My god, this is hilarious. And, unspeakably sad

Alicia is just being petty, silly and, stubbornly, girlish

How does "girlish" apply when many, if not most, of our most vehement apologists on this front are actually possessed of "boyish" accoutrements?

Talk of the Nation will be used as a platform to absolve Sheperd and NPR of their "policy". This will be accomplished through hand-holding by Neil Conan, as he calmly agrees with and buttresses Sheperd's inane defenses.

Callers will be carefully chosen, and at least one of the callers will be a plant who, SURPRISE!, agrees point by point with Sheperd.

Someone may have made the same point upthread, but I've got five dollars on it with my beautiful fiancee, so I thought I'd go on record.

Sri Lanka's brutal suppression of the Tamil Tigers offers an object lesson in how to defeat an insurgency. Or does it?

The Atlantic, by Robert D. Kaplan July 1, 2009 (see sig)

Though it was only a one-day news story in the United States, a momentous event occurred last spring, with worldwide military significance. After 26 years of heavy fighting, the Sri Lankan government decisively defeated an ethnic insurgency, killing all of its top leadership, whose bodies were displayed on national television. Massive victory parades followed.

The Tamil Tigers were no ordinary insurgency. Built on the ethnic hatred of the minority Hindu Tamils against the majority Sinhalese Buddhists, the movement was among the best organized and most ruthless to have emerged anywhere since the Second World War. The Tigers boasted their own air force and navy to go along with their unconventional ground troops. They helped pioneer the use of suicide bombers. (Recall that it was a female Tiger suicide bomber who killed Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.) They regularly embedded their fighters among noncombatants, using them as human sheilds. In other words, they were as organized and heartless as any insurgent group in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[…]

Clearly, then, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps should be studying the Sri Lankan civil war for valuable lessons about how to win a counterinsurgency, right? Actually—no. In fact, there are no useful pointers to be gleaned from the Sri Lankan government’s victory. The war was won using techniques like the following, which the United States could and should never employ.

The insurgents are using human shields? No problem. Just keep killing the innocent bystanders until you get to the fighters themselves. There is no comparison between the few civilians that have been killed by American Predator drones in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, and the many that were killed by the Sri Lankan government. The Americans have carefully targeted select al-Qaeda members and, in the process, killed a few—at the most, dozens—of civilians among whom the fighters were surrounded. By contrast, the Sri Lankan military indiscriminately killed large numbers of civilians—as many as 20,000 in the final months of fighting, according to the United Nations.

Bad media coverage is hurting morale and giving succor to the enemy? Just kill the journalists. That's what the Sri Lankan authorities did. Precisely because insurgencies are unconventional, there are no easy-to-follow infantry advances and retreats, so the media holds the power to shape a narrative for the public. Aware of the need for a compliant media to aid the war effort, the Sri Lankan government struck fear into the ranks of journalists. There were hundreds of disappearances of top opinion leaders.

[...]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907u/tamil-tigers-counterinsurgency