June 22nd, 2016 (Permalink)

Lesson in Logic 11: Class Diagrams

While researching the entry from last month on Hillary Clinton's Venn diagram―see Resource 1, below―I spent some time searching the web for a short, accurate, and easily understood introduction to Venn diagrams for those who, like Clinton, might not know how to read them. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that satisfied all three desiderata. The possibilities were either too technical―assuming, for instance, that the reader already knows set theory notation, in which case the reader probably also already knows how to read Venn diagrams―or were encyclopedic histories with more than you need to know to use them. Of course, most introductory textbooks on logic include sections explaining such diagrams, but you shouldn't have to buy a textbook for this limited purpose―though see Resource 4, below, if you want to become an expert.

For these reasons, I decided to write a few short lessons on how to understand and use Venn diagrams, of which this is the first. It's numbered 11 because I'm treating it as a continuation of the ten lessons on logic I wrote on this weblog several years ago. However, I expect that this and the subsequent lessons will stand on their own, so that you needn't read the previous ones―though I recommend it! Hopefully, candidate Clinton will study these lessons before "tweeting" any more embarrassing diagrams.

So, if you're ready, let's get started:

A class―also called a set, collection, or category―is a type of thing.

Examples of classes: Shoes, ships, cabbages, kings

It's important to note that classes need not have members. When a class has no members it is called an "empty" class.

Examples of empty classes: Unicorns, vampires, werewolves, passenger pigeons

Also, there are classes that have only one member. For instance, while the class of passenger pigeons is now empty, at one time there was a last surviving passenger pigeon named "Martha", so at that time the class of passenger pigeons had only one member. A more familiar example is the class of Presidents of the United States: at any given time, it has only one member. Ivory-billed woodpeckers

In both Euler and Venn diagrams, circles are used to represent classes. The idea is to imagine that all members of the class are inside the circle, and that everything that does not belong to it is outside the circle. As an example, let's create a circle to represent the class of ivory-billed woodpeckers, which you should see to the right. I choose this class because the ivory-billed woodpecker may be as extinct as the passenger pigeon, but we don't know for sure. Some people claim to have seen them in recent years―the woodpeckers, that is, not the pigeons―but it's possible they were mistaking members of the non-extinct species of pileated woodpeckers for the similar ivory-billed ones.

This illustrates an important point about class circles, namely, that the circle itself says nothing about whether there are or aren't members of the class. In fact, the circle itself says nothing at all; it's like the words "ivory-billed woodpeckers", which taken alone tell us nothing at all about ivory-billed woodpeckers. If someone simply said "ivory-billed woodpeckers" out of the blue, you might ask: "What about them?" for that person has so far told you nothing.

Here's a question for you:

Q: Where on the diagram are you?

A: You may be surprised to find out that you're on the diagram at all! You're not inside the circle, surely, for you're not a woodpecker, let alone an ivory-billed one. Keep in mind that the inside of the circle is for ivory-billed woodpeckers and only ivory-billed woodpeckers. So, everything else in the universe, including you and me and the world's tallest tree, is outside of the circle.

There's a word for everything outside the class circle, namely, the complement of the class. The complement of a class is the class of everything that is not in the class it complements (not "compliments"!) Now, you might wonder if this is really a class, since you, me, and the world's tallest tree, et cetera, don't seem to have anything in common. However, we do have one thing in common: none of us is an ivory-billed woodpecker! So, the complement of the class of ivory-billed woodpeckers is, indeed, a class.

Up to this point, what I've written applies to both Euler and Venn diagrams: both use circles to represent classes, which is one reason why it is easy to confuse the two. How they differ is in the way that the circles are used to say things about the classes. From this point on in this lesson, I will be explaining the symbolism used to say something about a single class in Venn diagrams. With Euler diagrams, you really can't say anything about a class with a single circle. Passenger pigeons

Let's start by creating a circle to represent the extinct passenger pigeon. How do we represent the fact that this class has no members? Simple: we shade in the circle as shown. This shows that there is nothing inside the circle, so that the class of passenger pigeons is an empty class. For the first time, our diagram actually says something, namely, that the class of passenger pigeons has no members. Translated into English, the diagram says: "There are no passenger pigeons" or "Passenger pigeons do not exist." In terms of the previous lessons, the diagram makes a statement―see Lesson 2, below.
Pileated woodpeckers

Q: How would you represent the class of pileated woodpeckers?

A: Simply draw a circle and label it: "pileated woodpeckers".

Q: How would you use the diagram to represent the fact that there are pileated woodpeckers?

A: Place an "X" in the class to indicate that there's something in there. You can think of the "X" as representing a particular woodpecker: "X marks the spot."

At this point, you may wonder how we can show that there is more than one such woodpecker.

Q: Would we show that there are two woodpeckers by putting two "X"s in the circle?

A: No, the "X" simply means that the class is non-empty; it says nothing about how many members it has. So, in English, the diagram says: "There are pileated woodpeckers" or "Pileated woodpeckers exist."

That's all that we can do with a single circle. Simple, isn't it? In the next lesson, we will add an additional circle, and things will get twice as complicated!

Exercises: Test your understanding of class circles and the two ways of expressing statements about classes by trying the following exercises. Each will push your understanding a little beyond what is explained above, so put on your thinking cap!

  1. Using the circle for the class of ivory-billed woodpeckers, above, how would you represent the statement that there are things that are not ivory-billed woodpeckers?
  2. For this exercise, start by drawing a circle to represent the class of material things. Suppose that you wanted to use the diagram to represent the philosophy of materialism, which claims that nothing is immaterial. Putting aside whether it is true or not, how would you represent the materialist's claim?
  3. Again, use the circle for the class of ivory-billed woodpeckers to represent the statement that not everything is an ivory-billed woodpecker.
  4. Again, draw a circle for the class of material things, and then represent the philosophy of idealism, which claims that nothing is material.
  5. Now, if you draw a circle representing the class of immaterial things, how would you represent the philosophy of idealism?
  6. In addition to claiming that nothing is immaterial, materialism also claims that there are material things. How would you alter the diagram you drew for exercise 2, above, to represent this additional claim?
  7. Looking at the diagrams from exercises 4 and 6, what can you conclude about the logical relationship between idealism and materialism?

Answers to the Exercises


  1. Hillary Clinton's Scandalous Venn Diagram, 5/22/2016
  2. A. W. F. Edwards, Cogwheels of the Mind: The Story of Venn Diagrams (2004). Everything you want to know about Venn diagrams, and more!
  3. Sun-Joo Shin, Oliver Lemon & John Mumma, "Venn Diagrams", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. An advanced historical discussion.
  4. Thomas Schwartz, The Art of Logical Reasoning (1980). An interesting and unusual introduction to logic that uses Venn diagrams as the sole evaluative tool. This is the first edition, and there does not appear to have been another, so it doesn't seem to have caught on with instructors.

Previous Lessons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

June 18th, 2016 (Permalink)

New Book: Truth or Truthiness

Howard Wainer has a book out called Truth or Truthiness: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction by Learning to Think Like a Data Scientist. I haven't read it yet, but I have read his earlier one, Visual Revelations, on the graphical display of information. Like Caesar's Gaul, the new book is divided into three parts: the first on how to think like a "data scientist"―which I think just means "statistician"―the second on using charts and graphs to communicate data, and the third applies the tools for thinking from the first part to the problems of reforming the schools and education. I can't promise but I may have a review later this year.

Resource: Charts & Graphs: The YY Graph, 11/19/2013

June 2nd, 2016 (Permalink)

The Cutting Room Floor

Katie Couric has gotten into some hot water for the misleading editing of a documentary she produced:

Couric acknowledged Monday night…that a documentary she produced and narrated, "Under the Gun," misrepresented her exchange with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League [VCDL]. The film was edited in a way that added an artificial pause between one of Couric's questions and group members' response, which had the effect of making the interview subjects appear stumped. In reality, they answered right away.
Source: Callum Borchers, "Why Katie Couric’s ‘misleading’ editing matters in the presidential campaign", The Washington Post, 5/31/2016

Misleading film and video editing are not the sort of thing that have logical fallacies named after them, but perhaps they should. It's very easy to make an interview subject look foolish through editing. This is nothing new, at least in certain quarters, but it's something that you should always keep in mind when watching documentaries or interview shows, especially those that walk the fine line between comedy and news. According to Megan McArdle, this at least used to be a standard practice on The Daily Show:

Seriously, don't go on "The Daily Show." They control the format, the questions and the editing process. There is no way you can win. Your purpose is to look like an idiot on the show, and they have all the tools they need to make sure you fulfill that purpose. There is a reason that you have never seen a video clip of someone who "beat" Jon Stewart…: They are really good at this, and what they are good at is making you look like a stubborn moron who couldn't find his backside with both hands in the dark.
Source: Megan McArdle, "Don't Ever Appear on 'The Daily Show'", Bloomberg, 9/23/2014

McArdle goes on to recommend what to do if you do go on the show:

If you must, bring two tape recorders, a video camera and a witness. Announce at the beginning that you are going to record this and reserve the right to release the entire recording to the public. When they tell you that they will not do the interview under those conditions, prepare to leave. There is no ethical reason that a reporter requires the ability to ask you questions without having those questions recorded. The reason they don't want unedited audio is that you might release it and be revealed as a normal decent person, rather than a horrible fool.

Interestingly, this is what the VCDL did―well, I don't know whether they followed McArdle's advice to the letter, or whether they had even read McArdle's article, but what they did do was to make an audio recording of the interview themselves. So, by releasing the recording of the full interview they established that there was no long pause after the question, eventually forcing Couric to apologize.

Michael Moore practically made his reputation through misleading editing, starting with his very first movie Roger & Me. However, his own movie about guns, Bowling for Columbine, had a particularly egregious example:

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore has refined the technique of deceptive editing that he developed in Roger & Me. He cuts and edits short snippets from two different speeches given by Charlton Heston more than a year apart, and presents them in such a way that the viewer assumes they are part of the same speech―one given at Denver just days after the Columbine massacre. By using cutaway edits to distract from Heston's apparent mid-speech change of clothes, Moore suggests that Heston is a callous fool who doesn't care or doesn't realize that the people of Denver and its suburbs have just been traumatized by a terrible crime. So we see Heston saying, in the first speech, which was given at Charlotte, North Carolina, more than a year after the Columbine killings: "…from my cold, dead hands!" while brandishing a rifle over his head. …

In a rebuttal to his critics, Moore ackowledges the proximity of the edited images but not the possibility that they were meant to be perceived as part of the same speech. For anyone who has seen the film, this is rather disingenuous. Moore's voice-over narration says, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association" while the "cold, dead hands" scene is still playing, while Heston is still holding the rifle over his head. The viewer, cued by the voice-over, would have a hard time not thinking this took place right after Columbine. I certainly thought so when I saw the movie for the first time.
Source: Jesse Larner, Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left (2006), pp. 107-108

Indeed, and no doubt many people who saw the movie still believe that Charlton Heston went to Columbine right after the shootings and waved a rifle over his head while saying: "From my cold, dead hands!" If Moore didn't realize that the editing of the movie would have this effect then he's not as savvy a filmmaker as I think he is.

Now, Couric is supposed to be a serious journalist, unlike Moore or The Daily Show. The latter can always plead that they are comedians, not reporters, and what they do is entertainment rather than journalism. For example, when Moore appeared on CNN's Moneyline show to promote his book Stupid White Men, host Lou Dobbs pressed him about inaccuracies in it:

Dobbs: Salon.com just took you to task on this book, pointing out glaring inaccuracies….

Moore: …[Y]ou know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.

Dobbs: Glaring inaccuracies?

Moore: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?
Source: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Middle East; Venezuelan President Ousted", CNN, 4/12/2002

Similarly, in Jon Stewart's notorious appearance on CNN's Crossfire during which he criticized the show, Tucker Carlson tu quoqued him by bringing up Stewart's softball questioning on his own show of presidential candidate John Kerry:

Stewart: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to. … I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show. …

Carlson: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as, quote, "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera. …

Stewart: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. … I didn't realize that, and maybe this explains quite a bit, is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. … But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows.
Source: "Jon Stewart's America", CNN, 10/15/2004

The traditional logical fallacies were developed over the centuries before the invention of movies and video, when spoken and written language were the dominant forms of communication. So, deceptive editing of video does not fit precisely in any existing category of fallacy. However, the kind of editing committed in the above examples is similar to―and in some cases actually is―quoting out of context, in that editing removes a clip from its context. In addition to removing it from its actual context, editing also places it in a different context, giving the clip a different significance. For example, by deceptive editing, the Heston "cold, dead hands" speech was made to appear to have occurred in a different city over a year earlier than it did.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult if not impossible for viewers to protect themselves from being misled by editing. The original context of an interview may be left on the floor of the editing room, or in the hands of those who made the misleading edits. Unless the interview subjects, like the VCDL, have the sense to make their own record of the interview, it may be impossible to prove their accusations of being misrepresented.

One thing that a viewer can do is to keep in mind that comedy shows like The Daily Show, or satirical filmmakers like Michael Moore, have lower standards than regular news shows or serious documentarians―except, perhaps, for Katie Couric.


May 28th, 2016 (Permalink)

The Fifth Puzzle of the Unmatched Socks (and Shoes)

Mr. Red, Mr. Green, and Mr. Red-Green went bowling one evening. As befitted their names, Mr. Red wore red shoes and socks, Mr. Green green shoes and socks, and Mr. Red-Green red and green two-tone shoes and socks (these guys aren't known for their fashion sense). None of the three men wore bowling shoes, so each had to rent a pair from the bowling alley. While renting the shoes, the three men remarked upon the fact that they all wore the same size shoe.

After the game was over and they had returned the rental shoes, one of the men looked down at the two-tone shoe he was wearing on his red-stockinged left foot and remarked: "I think I'm wearing the wrong shoe."

Indeed, the three had gotten their own shoes all mixed up. You see, all three of them are color-blind (it could happen!). Of course, the men wore their own socks with the rental shoes, so there was no mix up of the socks. However, each ended up with a pair of shoes that did not match each other, nor did any shoes match the sock on the same foot.

Can you help the men get their shoes on right? What shoes was each man wearing, that is, what color shoe was on each man's left and right foot?


Previous Puzzles of the Unmatched Socks: 1, 2, 3, 4

May 22nd, 2016 (Permalink)

Hillary Clinton's Scandalous Venn Diagram

Hillary Clinton chirped or tittered or something and produced the "Venn diagram" you should see to the right. This is "the worst Venn diagram of all time" as a headline at Vox shouts, and "a data catastrophe" as well as "an atrocity in data visualization" as the following article claims. Come on, Vox, how about the worst of all possible Venn diagrams?

If you try to read this as a Venn diagram, a big problem is to figure out what the labels attach to. For instance, the middle, football-shaped overlap section seems to be labelled "Support universal background checks". However, if that's the case then the two crescent-shaped sections are labelled "90% of Americans" and "83% of gun owners", which would seem to indicate that only 10% of Americans and 17% of gun owners support universal background checks. Given what we know about Hillary Clinton's political position on such checks, this seems unlikely to be a message she would repeat. An alternative interpretation is that the "90% of Americans" and "83% of gun owners" labels attach to the two circles as wholes, so that the overlap area represents American gun owners, but then where did the remaining 10% of Americans and 17% of gun owners go to? Also, is Clinton really concerned about non-American gun owners' positions on background checks?

The conclusion is that this picture is not really a Venn diagram. In fact, it's not really a diagram at all: it's just a picture of two overlapping colored circles with some writing over them. Of course, it's supposed to look like, or suggest, a Venn diagram. You could say it's a Venn diagram for people who don't understand Venn diagrams, which may include Hillary Clinton.

That's about all that needs to be said about the diagram itself. Also, I don't want to jump on the Hillary Clinton bashing bandwagon; instead, I'd rather criticize the critics. If you're going to attack Clinton for not knowing what a Venn diagram is, then you really ought to know what it is yourself. For instance, here's Vox's explanation of what's wrong with Clinton's diagram:

But this is simply not how Venn diagrams work. The circles are completely wrong. They should, for one, overlap entirely, since the gun owners referenced in this are all Americans. And the circle for Americans should be much, much bigger than the circle for gun owners, since gun owners make up just one segment of the US population.

Then Vox suddenly realizes in the middle of the article that this does not describe a Venn diagram, adding:

As you can see, these aren't even Venn diagrams anymore; they're Euler diagrams. That's because a Venn diagram was the wrong choice for this data point in the first place. Maybe what Clinton wanted was a pie chart, bar chart, or Euler diagram, or maybe she didn't even need a chart―an infographic with the numbers splashed in big letters could have worked.

After starting off on the wrong foot, Vox eventually got it right: the alternative diagram that Vox describes is not a Venn diagram at all, but an Euler diagram. Moreover, the primary problem with Clinton's "diagram" is that a Venn diagram is the wrong type of diagram to convey the information, and even an Euler one is not much better. In fact, the information conveyed is simple enough that a diagram is neither necessary nor helpful.

Vox was not the only media outlet to be given the vapors by Hillary's faux pas. According to the author of a PJ Media article, this was "one of the stupidest tweets I have ever seen". Apparently, the author is new to Twitter. I don't even use Twitter and I've seen stupider "tweets". In fact, even the name "tweet" is stupid and it makes me feel stupid to have to use it.

All of this mocking of Clinton's apparent graphical illiteracy could have been avoided if she had just cited the figures. Notice that her message about guns is totally lost in all the accusations about her "horrible", "terrible", "godawful" diagram.



May 13th, 2016 (Permalink)


If you thought this election year couldn't get more bizarre, there's this:

Donald Trump Denies He Impersonated Himself to a Reporter

Why would he need to deny that? Is it even possible to impersonate yourself? If you read the article attached to the headline, you discover that it wasn't himself that Trump was accused of impersonating. Rather, it has been claimed that twenty-five years ago Trump pretended to be a man by the name of John Miller who was acting as a spokesman for Trump. So, it's this John Miller that Trump was supposedly impersonating. Of course, that doesn't explain the headline―in The New York Times, even! Nor does it explain why this is considered a story. Surely the news media don't have to go back twenty-five years to find Trump acting like Trump.

Update (5/14/2016): Unsurprisingly, The Times has now revised its silly headline to:

Donald Trump Denies He Impersonated Spokesman to a Reporter

The original headline is still included in the URL of the story, in case you don't believe me.

May 11th, 2016 (Permalink)

Department of Doublespeak

"Euphemism inflation" is the linguistic phenomenon in which euphemisms wear out over time, losing their euphemistic force, and need replacement. The Department of Justice (DoJ) has recently announced some new euphemisms to add to the Doublespeak Dictionary. Here's Karol Mason, head of DoJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in a guest post at The Washington Post―see the Sources, below, for the full article:

…[M]any of the formerly incarcerated men, women, and young people I talk with say that no punishment is harsher than being permanently branded a “felon” or “offender.” … The labels we affix to those who have served time can drain their sense of self-worth and perpetuate a cycle of crime….

"The labels we affix"? If you commit a rape, you are forever after a "rapist"; if you murder someone, you will be for the rest of your life a "murderer". Similarly, for terms such as "felon", "offender", and "convict". "We" do not affix these labels; rather, people affix these labels to themselves through the actions they take. If you don't want to be an offender for the rest of your life, don't offend.

Also, if it's true that "no punishment is harsher than being permanently branded a 'felon' or 'offender'", why don't we stop incarcerating people and just label them this way? I suspect that most offenders would prefer the label to incarceration unless it were a very short sentence. Furthermore, isn't the whole point of incarceration to punish people for committing crimes? If we take away the punishment of labeling someone as a "criminal", "convict", "offender", etc., should we increase incarceration time to make up for it?

Here is Mason's proposed solution to this supposed problem:

This new policy statement replaces unnecessarily disparaging labels with terms like “person who committed a crime” and “individual who was incarcerated,” decoupling past actions from the person being described and anticipating the contributions we expect them to make when they return. We will be using the new terminology in speeches, solicitations, website content, and social media posts, and I am hopeful that other agencies and organizations will consider doing the same.

Why is "offender" an "unnecessarily disparaging label" whereas “person who committed a crime” is not? Is "person who committed a crime" not disparaging, or is it just not "unnecessarily" so? If anything "offender" is a better euphemism since it is a general term that doesn't refer explicitly to "crime": an "offender" is anyone who offends, which means that Donald Trump is an "offender". Of course, the specific type of offense relevant to the DoJ is offense against the law, and "offender" in its legal sense is probably short for "criminal offender", but the unpleasant reference to crime has fallen away.

Anyway, it's just not true that these phrases "decoupl[e] past actions from the person being described". I gather that the idea is that by including the verb in the past tense―"individual who was incarcerated"―we emphasize that the individual is no longer in prison, and that the crime was committed in the past. But how is the person who committed the crime "decoupled" from the crime committed? We may say that a reformed person is "a new man", or "a different person", but this is not literally true.

By the way, "incarcerated" itself seems like the kind of euphemism that uses a long, unfamiliar word for a shorter one―in this case, "jailed" or "imprisoned". "Carcer" is the Latin word for "prison", so "incarcerate" literally means "imprison", but since "carcer" itself has not made it into English, the former has a less obvious meaning than the latter.

The OJP appears to be the department of the DoJ charged with getting the "individual who was incarcerated" back into society as a law-abiding citizen, thus reducing recidivism. No doubt this is a difficult task, and one can well imagine that the negative attitudes of employers towards offenders may make it hard for such a person to get a job, especially in a time of high unemployment. However, the OJP's approach to this problem seems to be to use doublespeak in an attempt to conceal the facts from potential employers. Unfortunately for the OJP, but fortunately for the cause of honesty in language, it's unlikely that many employers will be fooled by these clumsy attempts at obfuscation through prolixity.

The DOJ as a whole, in a recent press release and speech by the Attorney General, is promoting the use of another euphemism: "justice-involved youth"―for the speech and press release, see Sources 1 & 3, below. News articles discussing it have usually identified "justice-involved youth" as a euphemism for "juvenile delinquent"―for a typical example, see Source 5, below―but they fail to note that "juvenile delinquent" has all the earmarks of a euphemism itself. You seldom hear the words "juvenile" or "delinquent" nowadays, except when linked together in the phrase.

It appears that the adjectival "justice-involved" is the actual euphemism here, since it not only modifies "youth", but also "individual", and even "veteran" at the Department of Veterans Affairs―see Source 2, below―where we learn that:

A justice-involved Veteran is:
  • A Veteran in contact with local law enforcement who can be appropriately diverted from arrest into mental health or substance abuse treatment;
  • A Veteran in a local jail, either pre-trial or serving a sentence; or,
  • A Veteran involved in adjudication or monitoring by a court

So, the relevant type of involvement in justice of the justice-involved youth, veteran, or individual is being on the wrong side of the law, alongside offenders, felons, convicts, and juvenile delinquents. These are all worn-out euphemisms that need to be replaced by newer, fresher, shinier, and more euphemistic ones. Unfortunately for the DoJ, “person who committed a crime” and “individual who was incarcerated" are doubleplusungood doublespeak.


  1. "Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Second Chance Act―Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program National Conference", The United States Department of Justice, 12/16/2015
  2. "Department of Veterans Affairs Programs for Justice-Involved Veterans", Veterans Justice Outreach Conference, 6/20/2011
  3. "The Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development to Award $1.75 Million to Help Justice-Involved Youth Find Jobs and Housing", The United States Department of Justice, 4/26/2016
  4. Josh Kenworthy, "Obama Wants You To Refer To Juvenile Delinquents As ‘Justice-Involved Youth’ Now", The Daily Caller, 11/5/2015
  5. Karol Mason, "Guest Post: Justice Dept. agency to alter its terminology for released convicts, to ease reentry", The Washington Post, 5/4/2016

Previous entries in the doublespeak dictionary: 2/24/2005, 7/2/2006, 7/17/2006, 3/25/2008, 9/25/2008, 3/17/2009, 3/29/2009, 9/16/2009, 9/24/2013

Previous Entry

If like us you love casino games, we recommend to you this excellent online casino guide to play tons of free slots and learn easily all the games' rules and strategies.

Online dissertation services such as MastersThesisWriting may help with your thesis or dissertation.