Great comment by bigger luddite. As he says, often these days a name means it's opposite. What does it say about the times when our very governments are engaged in Orwellian doublespeak and deception?

Big deal, huh?

Well, yes, it is. You see, all our laws and constitutions are defined in words. When noone can agree what the words mean anymore - or people redefine them - the result is no law at all, IE anarchy.

Sound paranoid? Well, how about the US government not having to abide by the rules of the Geneva convention because "They're not POWS, they're battlefield detainees...."

How about every western government in the world (Yes, yours too) being not guilty of kidnapping free citizens because "We didn't kidap them - we were performing rendition..."

See the problem? Our laws are defined in words - yet any word's meaning is decided by us ....

Expect this to get worse... not sure what the solution is? A goverment mandated list of meanings of words? And that would be defined in words, of course ... circular problem... infinite regression ... Drashek, any ideas?

You in the UK have an entirely different definition of "trusts" than the US (where it means interlocking corporations that form a monopoly), and I think it here points up Orwellian double-think of a gov't agency that you *must* "trust" to look after your health, but can't actually "trust" to even maintain ordinary computer security. I rather doubt that the word "just happened" to be chosen, any more than our "Defense Department" engages in *less* war than before 1946 when it was the "War Department". Everywhere one turns these day, labels actually mean their opposite.