The game idea of bullshit bingo is simple:

Now, what we can do is to issue some new, Europe specific, game cards. It would also be a good tool to promote ET at conferences. I'd volunteer to hand them out to the participants of conferences, seminars, round table and panel discussions in Brussels.  

Anybody got good photo shop skills to give it a try?

"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

Some words that are used of Europe, that are not on his list:

• struggling
  
• immobile
  
• mired
  
• depressed
  
• sluggish
  
• dated, out-of-date
  
• rigid

A good place to start is the Economist, and in particular their "Charlemagne" column (effectively a weekly editorial on Europe). This week is pretty typical, and a really good summary of what's at stake:

The nationalist resurgence

Why the forces of economic nationalism seem weaker than those of globalisation

nationalism = bad
globalisation = good

THE merger will liberalise share ownership and create one of the biggest companies in the world, said the minister. "I have a vision of transforming it into a vast, diversified energy giant encompassing not just gas but oil and electricity." Oh, sorry, that was not Dominique de Villepin, France's prime minister, announcing that the marriage had been arranged and would take place between Gaz de France and Suez, two big French energy firms. It was Alexei Miller, boss of Gazprom, describing his company's takeover of a Russian state-owned oil firm last year.

EDF and Gazprom are very frequently used as bogeymen by the Economist. Both are State-owned, and both from evil socialist countries (Russia, the original evil empire in its previous Soviet incarnation, and France as its Western counterpart and today, worthy successor).

State-owned = bad
liberalise = good

There are indeed some uncomfortable similarities between the European Union's mood just now and Russia's state-directed capitalism. The French government seems to favour a sort of Gallic Gazprom, that well-connected and politically influential behemoth.

European Union = bad
well-connected and politically influential = bad (but, presumably, only in evil, Socialist countries)

France, Italy and Luxembourg have little lists of national champions they think should be immune from foreign ownership. The Spanish government prefers a home-grown energy champion to seeing a local firm fall into the hands of a German utility. And so on.

A good sample of who the bad guys are.

Behind this lurks the explicit view that the nationality of ownership matters; and the implicit one that foreign firms could become agents of foreign governments (a suspicion for which there is almost no empirical evidence).

I'll be sure to quote that sentence again next time the Economist complains about Russia's interventionism, through Gazprom, in Ukraine or other countries it supplies with gas - or not.

ownership = good
nationality = bad (or irrelevant, the same thing)

Thus the merger of two French or two Spanish energy firms is acceptable, but a takeover of a French or Spanish firm by a German one is not.

French (or Spanish) governmental intervention = bad
UK or US governmental intervention = ok (cf Centrica or Dubai Ports)

Whether or not this contradicts the law of the European single market, it certainly contradicts the spirit of the European Union, as several commissioners have been pointing out.

actual content of the law = bad (or irrelevant)
"spirit of the law" = good (i.e. what the Economist would want the law to be)

 The EU embodies the notion that countries are better off when they share sovereignty and that, in certain areas--the single market pre-eminent among them--nationality should not matter. Arguably, that would be true even if the EU did not exist: in a world of global capital, ownership becomes diffuse and fuzzy in any case. But the EU does exist; and that makes the notion of defending national champions against European partners as quixotic as saying that a yogurt-maker is a strategic asset in the first place.

France = bad
UK = ok (how does the above parapraph not apply to monetary sovereignty will be explained elsewhere, I'm sure),

Yet official behaviour is only part of this story, and perhaps it is the less important part. Today's hysteria about cross-border mergers is in some ways the opposite of what happened 25 years ago. In the 1980s, the impetus behind the creation of the single market came from liberalising governments; most of the opposition came from companies fearful of being exposed to more competition. Now, argues Ernest-Antoine Seillière, head of UNICE, the European employers' association, opposition to liberalisation comes mainly from governments and unions, while the impetus for change comes from companies.

Yes, an important one:

government = bad
companies = good

Europe is experiencing a wave of mergers, the largest since the dotcom boom of 2000. Unlike previous waves, this one is not just national; it floods across borders. In 2005 the value of cross-border mergers in the EU was the highest since 1999-2000; in the first two months of this year, cross-border deals have for the first time ever accounted for over half of all European mergers by value. Mergers can be wise or foolish, competitive or anti-competitive, of course. But at least they are usually business decisions, not political ones. They have more to do with corporate restructuring and the single market than with the creation of European or national champions.

business decisions = good
political decisions = bad

and of course:

corporate restructuring = good
European champions = bad (and national - read, as stated above, French - champions worse)

So while it is true that Europe is flirting with economic nationalism, it is not the whole truth. It would be more accurate to say that, as in Russia, a battle is engaged between two opposing forces: protectionism and economic nationalism on one side, business restructuring and globalisation on the other.

Heh. That article is a real treasure trove...

protectionism = bad
business restructuring =good

economic nationalism = bad
globalisation =good

and, of course

Russia = bad
European Union = bad (or at least dangerously leaning that way)

 The two inevitably clash. The protectionist instinct is growing and could get stronger: France's anti-competitive actions are provoking other countries to retaliate, risking a downward spiral. But in general the market-opening activities of companies look more powerful than the market-closing instincts of governments.

France = bad (ok, we get it...)
markets = good (whoddathunk?)

protectionism = bad
competition = good (and will prevail, of course)

This is partly because those market-closing instincts are neither uniform nor all that strong. Despite backsliding on trade (most recently a curious attempt to defend Europe's downtrodden shoemakers against competition from that economic powerhouse, Vietnam), the European Commission is relatively liberal--if only because most of its authority comes from policing the single market. Economic nationalists reside in national capitals, as you would expect. And even there, protectionism is a squib, not a constant ray. Governments are in theory committed to market liberalisation and they know that autarkic nationalism would be toxic: they swallow it in small doses out of short-term political expediency or to curry favour with unions.

nationalism = bad
market liberalisation = good

unions = bad.

In contrast, the forces driving companies to go global are relentless and all-embracing. Across Europe, the past few lean years have forced companies to cut costs, restructure their balance sheets, reduce debt and boost profits.

cutting costs = good
debt = bad (really?)
profits = good (now I'm surprised...)

 Interest rates are still low, adding to the attractions of mergers financed by debt. These pressures will not ease. The need for capital and new markets is pushing companies across borders faster than governments can put up obstacles to them.

In case you din't get it:

markets = good
governments = bad

but

debt = good (but presumably only if used for mergers?)
borders = bad

In other words, companies will take advantage of the single market wherever they can. The question is whether governments can impede them. The recent case of Germany is instructive. In the face of high wages, inflexible labour laws and declining competitiveness, the German government's efforts at reform were fitful and half-hearted. But German companies restructured, cut costs, reorganised and laid off workers.

markets = good
governments = bad

(Did we hear that before?)

high wages = bad
reform = good

inflexible labor laws = bad
cutting costs = bad

workers = bad
lay-offs = good

Again, we see what is at the heart of this ideology: labor is a cost, to be cut as much as possible. Anything that prevents that is bad, anything that makes it possible is good.

Competitiveness and business confidence have rebounded. But the cost of relying on companies alone to reform is persistently high unemployment. The moral is that Europe's nationalists cannot reverse or perhaps even much affect the market-opening actions of their companies. But they may increase its cost.

Blaming companies for lay-offs = bad
Blaming governments for lay-offs = good.

And, in case you forgot:

markets = good
governments = bad.

and, most of all, and simply:

labor = cost = bad
capital = profit = good

Nothing new here

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Actuay i ahve been thinking about prooving it scientifically and sending to a journal.

Actually I just devloped the tool to proof it...I will need just a long list of the archives of multiple papers of the right...It will be interesting to know exactly which words they use....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

So here's a new game for LTEs.

1. Use the same language and tone as these propaganda editorials do.

2. Point out the inconsistencies in the arguument.

In other words use economic ju-jitsu to reveal their own internal bias (i.e. UK/US good, EU, ROW bad.) With enough consistency it's only a matter of time before an LTE like this gets printed.

The underlying point is that for all the huffing and puffing, these arguments are really naked racism, and based on a completely fictitious belief about AngloSaxon supremacy. The only real argument that's being made in all of these articles is AngloSaxon = good, ROW = bad.

Point this out by letting them join the dots for themselves, and watch them squirm. It should be fun...

However, we should not fall into the Gingrich trap of throwing in emotively charged words for political effect whether they apply or not.  This would be self-defeating on many levels.  What we need to look for are words that are true, or at least reflect our argument and the facts that support it.

Further, the non-reactionary elements have damaged themselves by adopting jargon, which even when it actually means something excludes those who are not insiders (which is the chief social function of jargon, apart from it becoming a substitute for thought.)  

Also as insights from psychology and social sciences have moved into the mainstream, a generally healthy development, they have unfortunately not only added to jargon and spawned slogans and cliches, but they've helped to damage at least the English language with overreliance on passive voice and other mealy-mouthed constructions, that have marked those who use them.  

To name one prominent example, "supportive of."  This expression is now so ubiquitious among those left of the far right that people may not even remember when somebody actually supported someone or something.  There is in most cases no excuse for the substitution of "supportive of" for "support."  But it is the kind of silly affectation that defines us.              

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

Taken from The West Wing Unofficial Continuity Guide.