Home | About | Donate

Child’s Play: Team Trump Rewrites a Department of Energy Website for Kids


Child’s Play: Team Trump Rewrites a Department of Energy Website for Kids

Patrick Lee, ProPublica

Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration had an idea: Make an educational website for children about energy sources and the science behind them.


Possibly important to note is that many people today equate "effects" with "special effects". Not-real illusions created to fool an audience. It should not be a surprise then that they would choose that word over impact.


I think parents should have their kids watch this:


Not as good an argument when a month-old administration, with its administrator even newer to the job, goes so far out of the way to substitute.


Based on the changes in content, it looks like it's safe to say that Trump is not only pro fossil fuels, but also pro carbon tax scam. "Doublespeak," uttered Goldstein.


Look closely kids. You will see that the dirty darkness drifting around Earth as greedy little doom clouds of pollution posing as profit.

Think about it kids: Corporations don't actually make a profit. They save money by leaving their mess lying around and call it profit. Try that at home and see what mom says.


The whole project of revising this website to favor the interests of the fossil fuel industry is pernicious and evil.

However, I do have a couple quibbles about language. Whoever did the rewrite is a stickler for language, and some of the changes are simply stylistic revisions. The revision of “impact” to “effect” is a case in point. On the usage of “impact” as a phrasal verb, the Compact Oxford Dictionary says the following:

“Usage: The phrasal verb impact on, as in when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. This may be partly because, in general, new formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact, action, and task) are regarded as somehow inferior; in addition, since the verbal use of impact is associated with business and commercial writing, it has the unenviable status of ‘jargon’, which makes it doubly disliked. Compare with usage at enthuse.”

The primary meaning of the noun is that of “the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another” – hence we speak of an impacted tooth. The secondary meaning of “a marked effect or influence” is more recent, and has begun to replace “effect” in this sense. The reason for this preference probably lies in the fact that people just don’t want to think about the difference between “effect” and “affect”. It’s a lazier way of speaking.

A further comment on style. In the article the author states “During the Obama administration, Energy Kids even won multiple international awards for its content and design”. The dictionary definition of “multiple” is “having or involving several parts, elements, or members, as in multiple occupancy”. What the author means here is not “multiple international rewards”, but “numerous international rewards”. This too is a very, very recent development in the American misuse of the English language.


Just what I've always wanted... a government that spends the PEOPLES' tax money in lying to children! In this case, the children will one day suffocate or drown on those lies, or maybe just roast like meat on a spit. Trump, you and your accomplices are really a band of trashballs!


Love that Minitruth in action!


But why put resources into such stylistic niceties? And "environmental impact" is a phrase kids should learn to recognize. Don't go overboard looking for justification.


This is actually old. When you think of Republicans switching language to hide their intent - entitlements instead of benefits, getting rid of "burdensome regulations" instead of protections for the consumer, it's past time we fight back and regain our language.
Example: Instead of letting the Republicans argue that SS is insolvent, we should talk about the rich paying their fair share into SS.
Example: Instead of letting the Republicans talk about jobs, the talk should be livable wage jobs - which is NOT the same amount New York vs Green Bay (for example).
Let's continuing winning back the language wars!


That is how you take care of problems. Train the kids when they're young and by the time they're grown up, the problem no longer exists.
* Of course, this time around, you may not have to worry about their having time to grow up.
* OK kiddies, repeat after me, "Coal, oil and profits are good, climate concerns are bad." Now write that down one hundred times.


Don't worry, kids will never read this Energy Website. Watch them play video games sometime. They have learned (been trained) to simply "click" past any print, even instructions on how to play the game. Removing graphics and pictures renders the site "boring."