The Orwellian problem is smacking them between their 'challenged' eyes and they don't see it - so they can just engage in 'Felix Ungering' themselves

"You never know when to expect the Spanish Inquisition." ~ Monty Python

Nor the Stylebook Inquisition.
How can these dribbling fools not see the text of "1984" before them?

Just a minor example George Orwell gave us:

Original English : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thy are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government....."

Newspeak Translation : Crimethink

Mr. George Orwell, Please Pick Up the White Courtesy Phone - By Mark Krikorian - Media Blog - National Review Online

By Mark Krikorian  April 2, 2013  -full vertically challenged doublenewspeak post-

A few months after defending the continued use of “illegal immigrant,” the Associated Press has surrendered to activist lobbying anddropped the term from its style book. Instead, it suggests “living in or entering a country illegally” or “without legal permission.” They still bar the use of “undocumented,” but give them time.

The rationale for the change is that they are “ridding the Stylebook of labels,” proscribing the use of, for example, “schizophrenic” and suggesting in its stead “diagnosed with schizophrenia.” So, I guess that means they’ll bar “thief” in favor of “person engaged in thievery”.

As David Frum notes, AP refers to “illegal campaign donors” (here, for instance) — will they stop that too?

In fact, why not ban nominalized adjectives altogether? If using “illegals” as a noun is barred (AP hasn’t allowed that for a while), shouldn’t they also prohibit “the rich,” “the poor,” “the disabled,” “the blind,” “the good,” “the bad,” “the ugly”? After all, no person is “poor,” they are just experiencing a lack of money.

This whole exercise is doubleplusungood.