TAPped complains that conservatives have been too successful in controlling the use of language in political debate. As an example, TAPped cites this AP story on the Bush Administration’s forest management reforms titled, “Bush pushing plan for logging flexibility.” TAPped rightly notes that one purpose of the plan is to facilitate and logging and clearing on national forest lands, but throws in the whooping claim that the Bush plan “amounts to a reversal of 100 years of government policy regarding forest stewardship.” 100 years? In case the folks at TAPped forgot (or were unaware) the national forests were originally created to provide timber to the U.S. economy. That’s why the forest service is in the Department of Agriculture, and not in the Department of the Interior. Management of national forests for recreation and wilderness is a far more recent innovation. Were that not bad enough, the rules in question amend procedures under a law passed in 1976 (as the article TAPped cites duly notes), not even 30 years ago, let alone 100. The real flexibility here is TAPped’s outlandish use of fact.