To Quote Orwell:
"He who controls the Past, controls the Future. He who controls the Present controls the Past."
Liberals understand history very well. They just have a different view as to how it is to be used. While Conservatives see history as something solid and immutable which is useful in teaching lessons, the Liberal sees history as a lump of clay which can be reshaped and remolded many times over, and always, for a political purpose.
The Liberal must ALWAYS seek to re-write history. As an example: Barack Obama said, thousands of documented times, that if you liked your health plan and doctor, you could keep them under Obamacare. It was necessary to tell this lie in order to assuage public fear of a government takeover of health care (a political motive).
Now, when we know the truth, revisionist history kicks in: What Obama REALLY said, say the Libs, is that you could keep your old plan and doctor unless they failed to adopt the public mandates of the ACA, which they knew all along were poison pills. Note the rewriting of history before your very eyes: there was a nuance added three years after the fact, and they insist that it was always there, in plain sight.
Now, the fact that a bald-faced lie was told and the liar was caught doesn't mean anything, in a historical sense, to your average Libtard. They have been trained (indoctrinated) in the public schools and universities, and conditioned by the mass media, to forget that which is inconvenient immediately and then to deny it ever existed (Orwell called this Doublethink), and so far as the true believers and idiots are concerned, the lie will pass into historical truth, if you repeat it enough to numb what's left of their tiny little minds.
History exists in only two places, Orwell said -- in written records and in human memories. Academics, who will one day write the history of this time, are predominantly leftard, and so they will most likely write the leftard (politically-acceptable) version of history that shows them to have been right and prescient. The modern media (which is unapologetically leftist) controls minds -- no one in this country is ever away from the reach of leftist propaganda for more than a few hours, at most, per day -- shapes opinion, memory, tastes, and thought patterns on a daily basis, and shares much the same view as the academics.
And the good little liberal wanders about in a stupor, as he has been failed by both academics and media who have neglected to do their primary job of giving him unbiased education and information to help him make his choices, has the short-term memory of a garden slug.
Now you know.
Showing posts with label George Orwell Call Your Office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Orwell Call Your Office. Show all posts
Friday, November 01, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Mr. Orwell, Please Pick Up The White Courtesy Phone...
Mr. Orwell was the author of some of the greatest anti-authoritarian novels of all time. Books like 1984 and Animal Farm will stand the test of time as classics, and he was also an accomplished essayist, book reviewer, and journalist. Orwell, despite the fact that he was a Socialist, is one of my heroes.
As if that were a secret? I only bust out an Orwell reference about every thirty seconds, sometimes.
He’s a hero to me because, unlike most writers of his day -- a good many of whom are given the honorific of ‘great’ for little to no reason beyond that they appeal to pansy academics -- he dared to speak the truth, plainly and as he saw it. He did not apologize for his political positions, but did do his best to convince you of their veracity and utility with a command of the language that has been matched by very few. Compared to Orwell, in terms of the use of the English language, Shakespeare was a drooling idiot.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
21 Ways The Rich Think Differently...
I read this earlier in the week, but had to take some time to think about the implications of this idea.
Now, the author may be on to something here, and I would think that this would suggest much more scientific research be done on the subject. If the road to wealth begins with a different mindset, or perhaps if we discovered that some people are, indeed, hard-wired to eventually become rich, we might have unlocked the secrets of true egalitarianism.
Now, the author may be on to something here, and I would think that this would suggest much more scientific research be done on the subject. If the road to wealth begins with a different mindset, or perhaps if we discovered that some people are, indeed, hard-wired to eventually become rich, we might have unlocked the secrets of true egalitarianism.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Burnham, Orwell and Obama, Part Two...
Force. Fraud, and Managerial Big Brother
When last we discussed these topics, we had laid the basic framework beneath both Burnham's Managerial Revolution, and Orwell's 1984. This time, we're going to demonstrate how Managerialism, coupled with the government monopoly of force, and the political system's penchant for fraud, brought us to President Titanic...err...Obama.
Burnham began with a basic premise: that the nature of all societies has been Hierarchical, consisting of a High, a Middle, and a Low; that these three groups have competing aims, and that politics can never be conducted honestly, nor without varying degrees of violence and coercion.
When last we discussed these topics, we had laid the basic framework beneath both Burnham's Managerial Revolution, and Orwell's 1984. This time, we're going to demonstrate how Managerialism, coupled with the government monopoly of force, and the political system's penchant for fraud, brought us to President Titanic...err...Obama.
Burnham began with a basic premise: that the nature of all societies has been Hierarchical, consisting of a High, a Middle, and a Low; that these three groups have competing aims, and that politics can never be conducted honestly, nor without varying degrees of violence and coercion.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Burnham, Orwell and Obama, Part One...
Winston Smith, The Managerial Revolution, And Our Current Crisis
Lately, I’ve been talking a lot about George Orwell here. I can’t seem to help myself, and I promise, it’s not because I am obsessed by the man’s writing, though it is hard not to be. I would consider Orwell to be perhaps one of the three best writers of the 20th Century (Winston Churchill and H.G. Wells round out that list, IMO), and without a doubt, the best political writer of the second half of the same era.
It’s not just that books like 1984 and Animal Farm are great reads, telling interesting stories, but that they seem to reflect our own times so much that it’s difficult not to imagine that someone isn’t following his script.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is Unbelievable
Why is it that I have to read this in an Irish newspaper? Oh, right: every newspaper in America is run by socialists pretending to be journalists who can't tell the truth, or we'd know what they were up to and stop them.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Doublethink...
Regular readers of this diseased commentary will know that I am a huge fan of George Orwell, in my estimation the greatest writer of the 20th century. I enjoy Orwell mostly because his command of the language was so great that he could explain complicated concepts in relatively few words, but his real talent was for political commentary.
In his novel 1984, Orwell introduced us to a political system -- Ingsoc, or "English Socialism" -- that made use of a variety of rhetorical and memory-control tricks that had definite political purposes. Mostly these were devices which were intended to ensure that The Party's point of view always prevailed, or which denied a political opponent the ability to make a point or express an idea which The Party found politically inconvenient, anathema, or seditious. One of these devices was called Doublethink.
In his novel 1984, Orwell introduced us to a political system -- Ingsoc, or "English Socialism" -- that made use of a variety of rhetorical and memory-control tricks that had definite political purposes. Mostly these were devices which were intended to ensure that The Party's point of view always prevailed, or which denied a political opponent the ability to make a point or express an idea which The Party found politically inconvenient, anathema, or seditious. One of these devices was called Doublethink.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Presidency of Narcissism and Managerialism...
Professor Hanson on the narcissism and the "presidential survival" instinct of our recent crop of so-called "leaders".
I think, though, what the Professor has missed -- and he's not alone in this regard -- is that we aren't being led astray so much by defective personalities, as we are being deliberately hijacked by a professional class of Managers; the sort identified by James Burnham in his 1940's books The Managerial Revolution, and The Machiavellians.
If this is true, then it is not so surprising that the Professor can dissect the administrations of both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and not only find startling similarities, but also a hollowness of character, and shallowness of personality.
I think, though, what the Professor has missed -- and he's not alone in this regard -- is that we aren't being led astray so much by defective personalities, as we are being deliberately hijacked by a professional class of Managers; the sort identified by James Burnham in his 1940's books The Managerial Revolution, and The Machiavellians.
If this is true, then it is not so surprising that the Professor can dissect the administrations of both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and not only find startling similarities, but also a hollowness of character, and shallowness of personality.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Now You Know Why that Stimulus Bill Didn't Work...
...because the money is going to China.
Rhode Island Wind Farm will use turbines Made in China, paid for by Stimulus Funds.
Really? I mean, Rhode Island is so small you could probably power the entire state with half a dozen hamsters running in wheels attached to an Our-Gang-style, jury-rigged generator. And who knew they had sewage systems in Rhode Island? I thought it was just Massachusetts' parking lot.
This story is problematic -- and typical of government 'solutions' to any problem, because:
a) Green Energy sources, especially windmills, don't work as they are dependant upon a fuel which is largely unpredictable or expensive to create or capture, in this case, the Wind. Wind power is not practical as a primary power source, and in addition it kills off birds in great numbers (birds being too stupid to avoid flying into whirling turbine blades, or to avoid falling out of nests built on the towers), which sorta-kinda defeats it's supposed ecological benefits.
b) I wonder what Jeff Immelt over at GE thinks about his asshole-buddy relationship with the Obama Administration now? I thought we made wind turbines here in America, unless the American brand -- heavily subsidized by tax dollars -- is still too damned expensive (probably because of Union Wage scales) to be bought by Americans. I reckon Jeff figured that having paid enough of his shareholder's money to get into Obama's good graces,and having his broadcast arms (NBC and (P)MSNBC) practically get Obama elected without doing as much as a single investigative piece on him, that GE was entitled to every dollar the government intends to waste.
Sometimes, Jeffy, when you lie down with -- and kiss the asses of -- dogs, you wake up with fleas...and a really bad taste in your mouth.
c) EnvironMENTALism is simply Socialism in better packaging. Not only are we now implementing a regime of 'renewable energy' which is part of a grander scheme of redistributing wealth all over the planet at our expense, we're paying Communists to help us to do it.
d) If Rhode Island needed three windmills -- to pump shit through a pipe -- why didn't the taxpayers of that state just pay for it themselves? Maybe because that would have meant the state couldn't spend that money on bi-lingual education or funding abortions. Priorities, and all that.
EnvironMENTALism is the New Socialism; it's basic aim is to arrest the technical development of the Industrialized World (by restricting it's use of energy and by pouring billions of dollars into largely-useless and wasteful initiatives) which will allow the Third World -- largely exempt from the Carbon Control Scheme -- to 'catch up', thus bringing about Socialism in effect. It operates by pulling one society down, while allowing another to make incremental-and-unregulated surges upwards, and so, artificially aims to 'equal' everyone out without having to toss a violent revolution to achieve any of it. Of course, all this really means is that Western economies, through Green Energy initiatives, Carbon Control regimes, international treaties and U.N. Mandates, will be economically hamstrung until everyone in Katmandu, New Guinea or the Congo, can afford an iPad and at least half a meal a day, while the West will have committed Economic and Social suicide under the banner of "saving the environment".
The purpose of Green Energy projects is to basically waste resources that otherwise would have been spent by individual consumers or taxpayers to increase their standards of living and quality of life, and thus, increase the distinctions based on wealth between peoples. Building windmills is fundamentally the same as baking a million loaves of bread -- and then setting them on fire. It's the equivalent of catching a few billion fish and then dumping them back into the sea. Energy is expended, resources are used up, labor is wasted, capital is spent... and no one benefits from it.
Except the Chinese who get paid for the windmills, the politicians who took the bribes to make sure the Chinese got the contract, and the doofus in the Serengetti who, if his standard of living hasn't been raised, as least has the smug satisfaction of knowing that his American counterpart hasn't gotten any richer or more comfortable.
That is, after all, what Socialism is all about: it's all about fear, and guilt, and envy, all wrapped up in a nice,shiny package emblazoned with the words like "Equality!" and "Plenty!", and all it can really guarantee is that there's Plenty of squalor to be Equally distributed. Now that's REAL Equality: we can all starve to death at the same speed.
Why do you think it is that every Socialist regime in history comes with a Secret Police and a system of Gulags, after all?
So, while we'll all be equally miserable, if the Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) have their way, we can at least console ourselves with the thought that our initial motive was high-minded...
...and that Rhode Island has a wind-powered sewage treatment plant just at the point in history when indoor plumbing becomes a thing of the past, seeing as how bankrupt and homeless Americans will all soon be living in cardboard boxes in the woods because their government spent their hard-earned tax dollars to give the Chinese jobs at their expense.
Until the Watermelons start complaining that all those people living in the woods are destroying the ecosystem, of course. The government of Rhode Island will probably respond to that next environmental crisis by outsourcing the roundup and transport of it's citizens to the concentration camps to Russia, or something.
It's probably the one service GE doesn't provide, and I hear The Russkies are really good at that sort of thing.
Rhode Island Wind Farm will use turbines Made in China, paid for by Stimulus Funds.
Really? I mean, Rhode Island is so small you could probably power the entire state with half a dozen hamsters running in wheels attached to an Our-Gang-style, jury-rigged generator. And who knew they had sewage systems in Rhode Island? I thought it was just Massachusetts' parking lot.
This story is problematic -- and typical of government 'solutions' to any problem, because:
a) Green Energy sources, especially windmills, don't work as they are dependant upon a fuel which is largely unpredictable or expensive to create or capture, in this case, the Wind. Wind power is not practical as a primary power source, and in addition it kills off birds in great numbers (birds being too stupid to avoid flying into whirling turbine blades, or to avoid falling out of nests built on the towers), which sorta-kinda defeats it's supposed ecological benefits.
b) I wonder what Jeff Immelt over at GE thinks about his asshole-buddy relationship with the Obama Administration now? I thought we made wind turbines here in America, unless the American brand -- heavily subsidized by tax dollars -- is still too damned expensive (probably because of Union Wage scales) to be bought by Americans. I reckon Jeff figured that having paid enough of his shareholder's money to get into Obama's good graces,and having his broadcast arms (NBC and (P)MSNBC) practically get Obama elected without doing as much as a single investigative piece on him, that GE was entitled to every dollar the government intends to waste.
Sometimes, Jeffy, when you lie down with -- and kiss the asses of -- dogs, you wake up with fleas...and a really bad taste in your mouth.
c) EnvironMENTALism is simply Socialism in better packaging. Not only are we now implementing a regime of 'renewable energy' which is part of a grander scheme of redistributing wealth all over the planet at our expense, we're paying Communists to help us to do it.
d) If Rhode Island needed three windmills -- to pump shit through a pipe -- why didn't the taxpayers of that state just pay for it themselves? Maybe because that would have meant the state couldn't spend that money on bi-lingual education or funding abortions. Priorities, and all that.
EnvironMENTALism is the New Socialism; it's basic aim is to arrest the technical development of the Industrialized World (by restricting it's use of energy and by pouring billions of dollars into largely-useless and wasteful initiatives) which will allow the Third World -- largely exempt from the Carbon Control Scheme -- to 'catch up', thus bringing about Socialism in effect. It operates by pulling one society down, while allowing another to make incremental-and-unregulated surges upwards, and so, artificially aims to 'equal' everyone out without having to toss a violent revolution to achieve any of it. Of course, all this really means is that Western economies, through Green Energy initiatives, Carbon Control regimes, international treaties and U.N. Mandates, will be economically hamstrung until everyone in Katmandu, New Guinea or the Congo, can afford an iPad and at least half a meal a day, while the West will have committed Economic and Social suicide under the banner of "saving the environment".
The purpose of Green Energy projects is to basically waste resources that otherwise would have been spent by individual consumers or taxpayers to increase their standards of living and quality of life, and thus, increase the distinctions based on wealth between peoples. Building windmills is fundamentally the same as baking a million loaves of bread -- and then setting them on fire. It's the equivalent of catching a few billion fish and then dumping them back into the sea. Energy is expended, resources are used up, labor is wasted, capital is spent... and no one benefits from it.
Except the Chinese who get paid for the windmills, the politicians who took the bribes to make sure the Chinese got the contract, and the doofus in the Serengetti who, if his standard of living hasn't been raised, as least has the smug satisfaction of knowing that his American counterpart hasn't gotten any richer or more comfortable.
That is, after all, what Socialism is all about: it's all about fear, and guilt, and envy, all wrapped up in a nice,shiny package emblazoned with the words like "Equality!" and "Plenty!", and all it can really guarantee is that there's Plenty of squalor to be Equally distributed. Now that's REAL Equality: we can all starve to death at the same speed.
Why do you think it is that every Socialist regime in history comes with a Secret Police and a system of Gulags, after all?
So, while we'll all be equally miserable, if the Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) have their way, we can at least console ourselves with the thought that our initial motive was high-minded...
...and that Rhode Island has a wind-powered sewage treatment plant just at the point in history when indoor plumbing becomes a thing of the past, seeing as how bankrupt and homeless Americans will all soon be living in cardboard boxes in the woods because their government spent their hard-earned tax dollars to give the Chinese jobs at their expense.
Until the Watermelons start complaining that all those people living in the woods are destroying the ecosystem, of course. The government of Rhode Island will probably respond to that next environmental crisis by outsourcing the roundup and transport of it's citizens to the concentration camps to Russia, or something.
It's probably the one service GE doesn't provide, and I hear The Russkies are really good at that sort of thing.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Word...
It was Saturday evening, and we're all sitting around the Lunatic's Sister's kitchen table. The cake has just been served, this day being her birthday (Happy Birthday, Dear Sister!). One of my nephews has just called another "retarded", as kids are wont to do.
What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.
"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"
"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.
The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:
a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and
b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.
I can hardly wait.
It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.
I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.
So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.
This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it -- became the main subject of intense debate.
Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;
1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.
It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.
2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.
That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.
3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.
'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?
Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.
Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.
The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.
The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.
Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.
The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.
The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.
Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?
No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.
In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).
This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words; especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.
The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.
Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.
I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable, school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.
I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.
Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.
The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.
After all, he's not stupid.
I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.
I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.
Such is human nature.
That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.
UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!
What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.
"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"
"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.
The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:
a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and
b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.
I can hardly wait.
It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.
I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.
So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.
This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it -- became the main subject of intense debate.
Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;
1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.
It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.
2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.
That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.
3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.
'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?
Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.
Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.
The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.
The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.
Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.
The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.
The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.
Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?
No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.
In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).
This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words; especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.
The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.
Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.
I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable, school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.
I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.
Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.
The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.
After all, he's not stupid.
I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.
I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.
Such is human nature.
That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.
UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!
Thursday, February 24, 2011
ObamaCare and Thoughtcrime...
Making the choice NOT to buy health insurance is now subject to government regulation? Are you kidding me?
This 'judge' has just formulated the basis of the newest version of Thoughtcrime (see: George Orwell); not doing what the government thinks you should be doing, even if what the government advocates is inherently unconstitutional. You can add this new definition of Thoughtcrime to all the older versions already on the books (speech codes, hate crimes, etc.). Soon, it will be illegal to breathe in a manner that invokes a Libtard's ire.
Where the fuck do we grow these judges?
Especially these left-leaning ones. Somehow, the word 'choice' in the liberal mindset only really applies to abortion (which should be left as unregulated, and as worthy of taxpayer dollars as possible, see: Philadelphia), but heaven forbid one should exercise the same conception of freedom of choice in whether or not one chooses to smoke, drink, own an SUVor a gun, let your children live, or stay as clear of The Lightworker's Great Eyedrops and Band-Aids Boondoggle as one reasonably can. No way; exercise those kinds of options (ones liberals don't like) and you've gone off the reservation and need to be punished -- for your own good, of course.
I'd like to suggest that we find the law school Judge Kessler once pretended to attend, and then burn it to the ground. It has obviously failed in it's stated goal of producing people who can be counted upon to be responsible jurists.
Naturally, when the result is reversed -- and Libtards don't like what a judge says -- it's a wholly different story. Then you have to have Congress come up with some code to restrict the Supreme Court...before they actually hear the case for/against ObamaCare. You can't make this shit up, folks.
Then again, when you take all things into consideration -- the judge-shopping that has gone on in defense of the indefensible (ObamaCare), the 900+ (and counting) waivers that have already been issued for a law that doesn't fully take effect until 2014, the unconstitutional manner in which ObamaCare was passed, the open bribery of key democratic Senators in an effort to get their votes on this piece of shit, the intimidation practices of the Left and their Union allies, and now the criminalization of the freedom of choice and the effort to constrain the full Supreme Court from hearing cases related to it -- it becomes absolutely clear just who and what the REAL democratic (smalll 'd' intentional) party truly is, and what they have come to stand for.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson are rolling in their graves today. Even Robert Byrd, the Klansman and inveterate pork-barreler, who has every highway rest stop and overpass in West Virginia named after him, thought this thing was wrong, and would lead to less liberty, and at least had the courage (perhaps for the first time in his worthless life) to say so...before voting for it, anyway (I think).
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Some Pigs Are More Equal Than Others...
Honestly, I have to admit that I was attracted to this article mostly because the name George Orwell was attached to it. Orwell didn't write it, but the theme is one of Orwell's favorites, and was the basis for his novel Animal Farm.
(Ed. Note: By the way, if you still haven't read Animal Farm, you really, really should. And then you should see a doctor to get the mental defect that prevented you from reading it in the first place corrected, Dipshit!).
For all those people who routinely scream like Chicken Little that China will one day Rule the Earth, I counter with the argument that articles like this one prove that China is little more than Chicago, Washington, D.C., or New Orleans -- only with better press.
The same sickness which has destroyed those American cities -- the confluence of ridiculously-outmoded socialist thought (oxymoron) politics and policies, open bribery, unfair taxation policies, the misuse of tax money and political power, personal and political connections, the arrogance of a ruling elite, One-Party Rule -- is working the same magic on China, as a whole, that it always has worked everywhere it's been tried. The primary symptom of this disease is a culture of entitlement in which behavior that is otherwise beyond society's pale, is perfectly acceptable so long as it is the 'right' people (those with connections, or who have paid the requisite bribes) who engage in them, and always at someone else's expense.
That pisses people off, you know. In this country, we do things like form Tea Parties and vote Republican (which is only slightly-better). In places like China, people riot -- at least until they get run over by tanks, which only pisses people off even more. Imagine Tiannemen Square, only 50 times worse, and unlike the Newark or Los Angeles riots of American history, burning the city down would probably not be considered an improvement by most Chinese.
So, if all of you economic doom-and-gloomers who cower in fear of Chinese Domination can relax a bit. If we take the examples of what we know happens in (democratic-party-dominated)American cities and states as the natural consequence of what happens when Leftard government behaves in this way, it turns out there is nothing to be afraid of, at all.
Except that China, unlike, say Detroit, has nuclear weapons...but that's beside the point; At the rate at which China is "Detroiting" itself, within a generation there probably won't be anyone left who will be able to read the instructions for launch.
(Ed. Note: By the way, if you still haven't read Animal Farm, you really, really should. And then you should see a doctor to get the mental defect that prevented you from reading it in the first place corrected, Dipshit!).
For all those people who routinely scream like Chicken Little that China will one day Rule the Earth, I counter with the argument that articles like this one prove that China is little more than Chicago, Washington, D.C., or New Orleans -- only with better press.
The same sickness which has destroyed those American cities -- the confluence of ridiculously-outmoded socialist thought (oxymoron) politics and policies, open bribery, unfair taxation policies, the misuse of tax money and political power, personal and political connections, the arrogance of a ruling elite, One-Party Rule -- is working the same magic on China, as a whole, that it always has worked everywhere it's been tried. The primary symptom of this disease is a culture of entitlement in which behavior that is otherwise beyond society's pale, is perfectly acceptable so long as it is the 'right' people (those with connections, or who have paid the requisite bribes) who engage in them, and always at someone else's expense.
That pisses people off, you know. In this country, we do things like form Tea Parties and vote Republican (which is only slightly-better). In places like China, people riot -- at least until they get run over by tanks, which only pisses people off even more. Imagine Tiannemen Square, only 50 times worse, and unlike the Newark or Los Angeles riots of American history, burning the city down would probably not be considered an improvement by most Chinese.
So, if all of you economic doom-and-gloomers who cower in fear of Chinese Domination can relax a bit. If we take the examples of what we know happens in (democratic-party-dominated)American cities and states as the natural consequence of what happens when Leftard government behaves in this way, it turns out there is nothing to be afraid of, at all.
Except that China, unlike, say Detroit, has nuclear weapons...but that's beside the point; At the rate at which China is "Detroiting" itself, within a generation there probably won't be anyone left who will be able to read the instructions for launch.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Orwell Never Sleeps...
As anyone who reads this tripe regularly knows, I absolutely adore George Orwell. Not in that "I want to have his babies" sort of way (despite that such a thing would be physically impossible, even if he wasn't already dead) but because Orwell was, in my estimation, the Greatest English Writer Who Ever Lived.
Even when you don't agree with anything he's written (Orwell was a committed Socialist), you can still appreciate it. He was a virtuoso of the English Language, and even the stuff that makes you scratch your head, or want to shoot your cat, still holds your interest because of the flowing quality of the words. Orwell was precise; he used exactly the right words in order to convey his thoughts, making his intent unmistakable. He was the master of the metaphor, too.
But the most remarkable thing about George Orwell is just how relevant he still is, sixty years after his death. The subjects he wrote about, the stories he told, his commentary -- all products the 1930's and 40's -- could very well have been written just last week. Or yesterday. Or more likely, Tomorrow. Moreso than H.G. Wells, or Aldous Huxley, George Orwell wrote about Tomorrow Today, and in such a way as to cause one to come to the realization that just because something has already happened, it doesn't necessarily follow that it won't happen again; only the form and circumstances will be different.
Orwell, of course, did not set out to write in this way; he was not aiming at being the next Nostradamus, nor do I think he was trying to suggest to us, as the great Christian Theologians who almost kept us in the Dark Ages insisted, that "There is nothing new under the Sun...". I think, rather, that he'd figured out something that many of our so-called Learned Men still have not figured out; the world may change, but human nature does not. He was a man who set out to tell the Truth As He Saw It; it just so happens that most Truths are immortal.
Let's face it, ever since Bill Clinton, the word "Orwellian" has pretty much entered the lexicon of anyone capable of breathing without mechanical assistance, so even if you've never heard of him, you've heard of him!
If you're not familiar with Orwell's works, then I suggest you get yourself so as quickly as possible. Not so much because of what it may tell you about the world you live in, but mostly because it's just damned good reading, learning a thing or two, or just having something to think about on the side is just an added benefit.
Where most people usually become familiar with his works, it's because they were "forced" to read his classics -- Animal Farm, 1984, The Road to Wiggan Pier -- in school. It was an assignment, something they couldn't avoid, and I'll wager, because it had that quality it was something they never enjoyed. Because of that mindset, they probably never picked up anything with his name on it again, or ever imagined that there was more to the man than those three books.
Not true! I would suggest, if you can, that you get yourself a copy of George Orwell: Essays, from the Everyman's Library series of books. It is a collection of Orwell's short stories, essays, newspaper reportage, and book reviews, in which he discusses everything from how to make the perfect cup of tea, to the future of democracy in a world in which it would soon be easy to regulate thought, repress dissent, and co-ordinate every human activity through the power of government. I have to say, it's my all-time favorite thing to read, and I never tire of it.
Every so often, I break out my Orwell collection, turn to a random page, and then just read. Today, that random page happened to be an essay, written in 1946, about the possibility that Man would learn to control the Earth's climate, and what that would mean to him, personally. Naturally, he entitled it "A Bad Climate is Best" (Take THAT Al Gore!), because to Orwell, perfection was always a pipe dream, and it's pursuit a waste of time and energy, so why not learn to see the virtue even in those things that make us uncomfortable?
Unfortunately, I could not find this particular essay posted on the Internet, so I can't reproduce it easily here, which is a pity; Orwell even made the sad sight of a elm tree covered in a shaggy canopy of dead leaves sound somewhat romantic.
Even when you don't agree with anything he's written (Orwell was a committed Socialist), you can still appreciate it. He was a virtuoso of the English Language, and even the stuff that makes you scratch your head, or want to shoot your cat, still holds your interest because of the flowing quality of the words. Orwell was precise; he used exactly the right words in order to convey his thoughts, making his intent unmistakable. He was the master of the metaphor, too.
But the most remarkable thing about George Orwell is just how relevant he still is, sixty years after his death. The subjects he wrote about, the stories he told, his commentary -- all products the 1930's and 40's -- could very well have been written just last week. Or yesterday. Or more likely, Tomorrow. Moreso than H.G. Wells, or Aldous Huxley, George Orwell wrote about Tomorrow Today, and in such a way as to cause one to come to the realization that just because something has already happened, it doesn't necessarily follow that it won't happen again; only the form and circumstances will be different.
Orwell, of course, did not set out to write in this way; he was not aiming at being the next Nostradamus, nor do I think he was trying to suggest to us, as the great Christian Theologians who almost kept us in the Dark Ages insisted, that "There is nothing new under the Sun...". I think, rather, that he'd figured out something that many of our so-called Learned Men still have not figured out; the world may change, but human nature does not. He was a man who set out to tell the Truth As He Saw It; it just so happens that most Truths are immortal.
Let's face it, ever since Bill Clinton, the word "Orwellian" has pretty much entered the lexicon of anyone capable of breathing without mechanical assistance, so even if you've never heard of him, you've heard of him!
If you're not familiar with Orwell's works, then I suggest you get yourself so as quickly as possible. Not so much because of what it may tell you about the world you live in, but mostly because it's just damned good reading, learning a thing or two, or just having something to think about on the side is just an added benefit.
Where most people usually become familiar with his works, it's because they were "forced" to read his classics -- Animal Farm, 1984, The Road to Wiggan Pier -- in school. It was an assignment, something they couldn't avoid, and I'll wager, because it had that quality it was something they never enjoyed. Because of that mindset, they probably never picked up anything with his name on it again, or ever imagined that there was more to the man than those three books.
Not true! I would suggest, if you can, that you get yourself a copy of George Orwell: Essays, from the Everyman's Library series of books. It is a collection of Orwell's short stories, essays, newspaper reportage, and book reviews, in which he discusses everything from how to make the perfect cup of tea, to the future of democracy in a world in which it would soon be easy to regulate thought, repress dissent, and co-ordinate every human activity through the power of government. I have to say, it's my all-time favorite thing to read, and I never tire of it.
Every so often, I break out my Orwell collection, turn to a random page, and then just read. Today, that random page happened to be an essay, written in 1946, about the possibility that Man would learn to control the Earth's climate, and what that would mean to him, personally. Naturally, he entitled it "A Bad Climate is Best" (Take THAT Al Gore!), because to Orwell, perfection was always a pipe dream, and it's pursuit a waste of time and energy, so why not learn to see the virtue even in those things that make us uncomfortable?
Unfortunately, I could not find this particular essay posted on the Internet, so I can't reproduce it easily here, which is a pity; Orwell even made the sad sight of a elm tree covered in a shaggy canopy of dead leaves sound somewhat romantic.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Love That Dare Not Speak It's Name...
No, this is not about Pakistanis lustily inserting oiled rodents into their alimentary canals, or humping the family pets, this is about an obsessive sort of love. The kind that is so all-consuming that those who feel it have their sense of reality warped, to the point where the object of their desires can do no wrong, and even the worst excesses of human behavior can be explained away, or excused, so as to not to destroy the image the lovestruck has built up in his mind of his beloved.
The Beloved is built up in the Lovelorn's mind to be all things: God or Goddess, dispenser of either exquisite joy or sweetest agony, The Very Center of the Universe; all things revolve about the Icon. There is no thought, word, deed, that does not, in some way, touch upon the needs -- real or perceived -- of the Truly Beloved. The Beloved can do no wrong, He has no Flaws. Their behavior, even the most egregious, is always explained away and justified. The Lovestruck simply becomes a willing slave to the anticipated wants and needs of his Intended, losing himself in the process.
It's the kind of love that leaves scars both mental and physical. It's the kind of love which can only end in one way: someone is eventually committing suicide on someones front porch after a dramatic series of phone calls, and even that -- after all the blood spatters and brain matter arrayed in random fan-like patterns upon the screen door -- it is supposed to be recognized, somehow, as a final act of ultimate love.
That's the sort of love affair the Media has with Barack Obama. Even to the extent where they stretch the bounds of reality, and propriety, in their efforts to ensure that everything is, ultimately, about Barry, and their service to him. Everything must simply reflect upon Barry, for his is the Light Within Which they Live. This sometimes leads the Enthralled to do and think -- and unfortunately say -- some of the strangest things you might imagine, leading you to wonder whether they have any sense of reality left. Unfortunately, they can't help themselves. Here are some examples of this phenomenon:
Obama Smarter than Einstein?
That one's not so much a paean of love to Barry O., but some Libtards would make the argument that his supposed brilliance matches that of Albert. This next one, though, is downright disturbing, unless you remember to stop and consider the source;
A Vote for An Indian is somehow a racist slight against Obama
Sometimes, there just isn't enough Zoloft...
The Beloved is built up in the Lovelorn's mind to be all things: God or Goddess, dispenser of either exquisite joy or sweetest agony, The Very Center of the Universe; all things revolve about the Icon. There is no thought, word, deed, that does not, in some way, touch upon the needs -- real or perceived -- of the Truly Beloved. The Beloved can do no wrong, He has no Flaws. Their behavior, even the most egregious, is always explained away and justified. The Lovestruck simply becomes a willing slave to the anticipated wants and needs of his Intended, losing himself in the process.
It's the kind of love that leaves scars both mental and physical. It's the kind of love which can only end in one way: someone is eventually committing suicide on someones front porch after a dramatic series of phone calls, and even that -- after all the blood spatters and brain matter arrayed in random fan-like patterns upon the screen door -- it is supposed to be recognized, somehow, as a final act of ultimate love.
That's the sort of love affair the Media has with Barack Obama. Even to the extent where they stretch the bounds of reality, and propriety, in their efforts to ensure that everything is, ultimately, about Barry, and their service to him. Everything must simply reflect upon Barry, for his is the Light Within Which they Live. This sometimes leads the Enthralled to do and think -- and unfortunately say -- some of the strangest things you might imagine, leading you to wonder whether they have any sense of reality left. Unfortunately, they can't help themselves. Here are some examples of this phenomenon:
Obama Smarter than Einstein?
That one's not so much a paean of love to Barry O., but some Libtards would make the argument that his supposed brilliance matches that of Albert. This next one, though, is downright disturbing, unless you remember to stop and consider the source;
A Vote for An Indian is somehow a racist slight against Obama
Sometimes, there just isn't enough Zoloft...
Monday, March 22, 2010
We Need A New Orwell...
Thumbing through my George Orwell Anthology today, I found this newspaper column, entitled "As I Please 23", dated April 21, 1944. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Orwell, or didn't realize that he wrote anything other than Animal Farm or 1984, he once wrote a series of weekly newspaper articles in wartime (Second World War) Britain. In fact, Orwell earned a fairly decent living writing newspaper features and book reviews, as well as writing novels and short stories.
Anyways, Orwell is my favorite writer from this point of view; I'm an amateur historian, and in the pages of George Orwell we find vividly illustrated something which both amuses and perplexes historians of all stripes -- we find that all societies make the same mistakes, repeatedly, and that there very often is very little difference between the world of 1540 and today in many important ways, even if the two periods in question don't appear very similar at first glance. The basic human condition pretty much always remains the same, despite the advance of time and technology. George Orwell was, if nothing else, a great witness; he saw everything, he missed nothing, and he had the talent to put it on a piece of paper so that even the dullest could understand it.
Now, in this particular piece, Orwell is talking about something which we Americans would recognize as a major topic of conversation in our modern society; the trustworthiness and efficacy of the media. Now, what made this piece particularly interesting to me is the little bit where Orwell talks about British newsagents with slates and little pieces of chalk. It reminded me of today's media tug-of-war; who tells the truth better, and who is often more accurate, honest and more accepting of opposing points of view: The Professional Journalists, or the Guy in His Pajamas Writing In His Blog? I also find it interesting that while the media has advanced technologically -- Orwell is speaking of Radio and Print, and these days we have Radio, Print, Television and the Internet and it's demon spawn, Twitter, etc. -- the original question hasn't changed at all.
For those of you who know even less than Animal Farm or 1984 about Orwell, consider this: He was a Socialist. Try to put what Orwell has written in this piece into Barack Obama's mouth, and try to imagine whether or not it fits. Would a modern-leftist talk this way? Would He sound as reasonable? I imagine not.
I sometimes imagine that the United States would have been a much better place if George Orwell had been born here, or if he had decided to emigrate to the United States before his death. His political convictions and past (he fought in the Spanish Civil War for the Socialists) would have meant the McCarthyism of the times would have kept him from these shores, but damn if our political discourse, and our culture, wouldn't have been markedly different with a writer of his caliber working within it. Instead, we get "Professional Journalists" who wrote the same "George W. Bush is a doody-head" articles for a decade, even after he's out of office, and they manage to draw hefty paychecks for it, and still expect to be taken seriously.
Anyways, enjoy, and dream of a world with another Orwell in it. By the way, the link takes you to the specific article, but the page gives you all of Orwell's "As I Please" articles for the first half of 1944, I think.
Anyways, Orwell is my favorite writer from this point of view; I'm an amateur historian, and in the pages of George Orwell we find vividly illustrated something which both amuses and perplexes historians of all stripes -- we find that all societies make the same mistakes, repeatedly, and that there very often is very little difference between the world of 1540 and today in many important ways, even if the two periods in question don't appear very similar at first glance. The basic human condition pretty much always remains the same, despite the advance of time and technology. George Orwell was, if nothing else, a great witness; he saw everything, he missed nothing, and he had the talent to put it on a piece of paper so that even the dullest could understand it.
Now, in this particular piece, Orwell is talking about something which we Americans would recognize as a major topic of conversation in our modern society; the trustworthiness and efficacy of the media. Now, what made this piece particularly interesting to me is the little bit where Orwell talks about British newsagents with slates and little pieces of chalk. It reminded me of today's media tug-of-war; who tells the truth better, and who is often more accurate, honest and more accepting of opposing points of view: The Professional Journalists, or the Guy in His Pajamas Writing In His Blog? I also find it interesting that while the media has advanced technologically -- Orwell is speaking of Radio and Print, and these days we have Radio, Print, Television and the Internet and it's demon spawn, Twitter, etc. -- the original question hasn't changed at all.
For those of you who know even less than Animal Farm or 1984 about Orwell, consider this: He was a Socialist. Try to put what Orwell has written in this piece into Barack Obama's mouth, and try to imagine whether or not it fits. Would a modern-leftist talk this way? Would He sound as reasonable? I imagine not.
I sometimes imagine that the United States would have been a much better place if George Orwell had been born here, or if he had decided to emigrate to the United States before his death. His political convictions and past (he fought in the Spanish Civil War for the Socialists) would have meant the McCarthyism of the times would have kept him from these shores, but damn if our political discourse, and our culture, wouldn't have been markedly different with a writer of his caliber working within it. Instead, we get "Professional Journalists" who wrote the same "George W. Bush is a doody-head" articles for a decade, even after he's out of office, and they manage to draw hefty paychecks for it, and still expect to be taken seriously.
Anyways, enjoy, and dream of a world with another Orwell in it. By the way, the link takes you to the specific article, but the page gives you all of Orwell's "As I Please" articles for the first half of 1944, I think.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Charlie Says He Didn't Know...
So do five other Members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were on the same trip(s). Amazingly, all six have been wrist-slapped by that crackerjack House Ethics Committee (only republicans get real punishment, and they usually have the good taste to resign before that happens), but Charlie remains under fire.
It was good to see that yet another member of New York's fine, democratic Congressional representation also took one of these "free" trips. I'm going to be looking into what these slugs actually do in Washington, so expect as huge screed sometime next week.
You would think people go to Congress for the free trips and all the income you can conceal from the IRS, or something...
Anyhow, maybe the "I didn't know" defense might be closer to the truth, because, it seems as if you can make all sorts of crap up and have it treated as if it were a real event...after the fact, too. You can even invent an entire conversation and then have it stuck into the Congressional Record at a later date. Perhaps simply to give the impression that a subject was brought up "on the record" when, in fact, a word was never spoken on it? That's a pretty neat trick, if you ask me. That lawmakers routinely do this is disturbing. If you can invent events and conversations and such, it's quite possible that you might not know if you actually did something or not. After a while, how does one actually prove that something has actually happened if the record is unreliable? We're talking George Orwell time here. This shows you how out of control Congress has become; they have managed to create their own alternate universe where reality is continually shaped and molded to their political requirements.
No wonder people shake their head wondering whether or not these folks live on the same planet the rest of us do. They live n one they've invented for themselves!
I'm not even sure I comprehend the entire range of practical implications of this practice. Knowing they can invent "history", I'm starting to wonder how often they actually do. What if half the stuff that's recorded in the Congressional Record....never happened? What if it was all a series of after-the-fact or tailored additions to the Official Record where the Member never stood upon the House Floor and said X, Y and Z? What if people are, right now, making huge decisions on the way we're governed, what services are made available, what taxes need to be paid, and a portion of it is based upon articles from a fifth-rate newspaper or complete fabrications of conversations between lawmakers, that are treated as if they are a) facts and b) were actually uttered by a living human being?
If this is true -- and history in the form of the Congresisonal Record is being manipulated -- and this is how our government truly operates, then no wonder we're in the shitter and no one in charge seems to have an answer.
The first step in fixing our broken, making-shit-up-as-it-goes-along government is to depose the obvious crooks first. For all his weasel language, Charlie Rangel is guilty -- if he didn't actually know, he was still supposed to know. Ignorance, they used to tell me, of the law was no defense. Ignorance shouldn't be a requirement for a Congressional Seat, either. If you can't get rid of a man who cheated on his income taxes, broke the laws regarding rent-control in New York State, accepted what amounts to a bribe in the form of a couple of conference/vacations, and allegedly used his office for personal gain, then who can you get rid of? Charlie Rangel leaving the House of Representatives is as necessary to the future health of this republic as the removal of a tumor is to the continued survival of a cancer victim.
If Charlie Rangel manages to stay in Congress, then we're doomed; he will stand as a shining example to every other crooked politician that not only are the rubes stupid, they can't lay a glove on you, and the falsification and invention of history and facts will continue apace, with far-reaching consequences for how this country is governed.
(H/T to Instapundit)
It was good to see that yet another member of New York's fine, democratic Congressional representation also took one of these "free" trips. I'm going to be looking into what these slugs actually do in Washington, so expect as huge screed sometime next week.
You would think people go to Congress for the free trips and all the income you can conceal from the IRS, or something...
Anyhow, maybe the "I didn't know" defense might be closer to the truth, because, it seems as if you can make all sorts of crap up and have it treated as if it were a real event...after the fact, too. You can even invent an entire conversation and then have it stuck into the Congressional Record at a later date. Perhaps simply to give the impression that a subject was brought up "on the record" when, in fact, a word was never spoken on it? That's a pretty neat trick, if you ask me. That lawmakers routinely do this is disturbing. If you can invent events and conversations and such, it's quite possible that you might not know if you actually did something or not. After a while, how does one actually prove that something has actually happened if the record is unreliable? We're talking George Orwell time here. This shows you how out of control Congress has become; they have managed to create their own alternate universe where reality is continually shaped and molded to their political requirements.
No wonder people shake their head wondering whether or not these folks live on the same planet the rest of us do. They live n one they've invented for themselves!
I'm not even sure I comprehend the entire range of practical implications of this practice. Knowing they can invent "history", I'm starting to wonder how often they actually do. What if half the stuff that's recorded in the Congressional Record....never happened? What if it was all a series of after-the-fact or tailored additions to the Official Record where the Member never stood upon the House Floor and said X, Y and Z? What if people are, right now, making huge decisions on the way we're governed, what services are made available, what taxes need to be paid, and a portion of it is based upon articles from a fifth-rate newspaper or complete fabrications of conversations between lawmakers, that are treated as if they are a) facts and b) were actually uttered by a living human being?
If this is true -- and history in the form of the Congresisonal Record is being manipulated -- and this is how our government truly operates, then no wonder we're in the shitter and no one in charge seems to have an answer.
The first step in fixing our broken, making-shit-up-as-it-goes-along government is to depose the obvious crooks first. For all his weasel language, Charlie Rangel is guilty -- if he didn't actually know, he was still supposed to know. Ignorance, they used to tell me, of the law was no defense. Ignorance shouldn't be a requirement for a Congressional Seat, either. If you can't get rid of a man who cheated on his income taxes, broke the laws regarding rent-control in New York State, accepted what amounts to a bribe in the form of a couple of conference/vacations, and allegedly used his office for personal gain, then who can you get rid of? Charlie Rangel leaving the House of Representatives is as necessary to the future health of this republic as the removal of a tumor is to the continued survival of a cancer victim.
If Charlie Rangel manages to stay in Congress, then we're doomed; he will stand as a shining example to every other crooked politician that not only are the rubes stupid, they can't lay a glove on you, and the falsification and invention of history and facts will continue apace, with far-reaching consequences for how this country is governed.
(H/T to Instapundit)
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Is This Sort of Thing In Our Future?
Not the power shortages, but the President having his own TV or radio show -- that can come on at any time of day or night? I wonder what the point is if there's no electricity?
Don't put it past our President, or at least his handlers. After all, they've made certain that he's been on TV before the Super Bowl for the last two years, he's on our TV screens at least 6 hours a day speechifying or whining. I can't take anymore as it is. No one tell The Teleprompter Kid that his man Hugo can hit the airwaves unannounced at any time of day or night! He might be tempted to try it.
Seriously, there's not even much difference between Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez in that regard; both are constantly in campaign mode, they live before the cameras. They're never seen in anything that hasn't been carefully staged. They can't actually stop to govern, because things like lowering taxes in any meaningful way to spur an economy, or building oil-burning powerplants in an oil-producing nation -- that is, to do the obvious things required to solve your immediate problems --are apparently too difficult to do, and incompatible with the goal of turning a once-great nation into a Third-World-Pisspot-Dictatorship.
That's why the "solution" to our problems is always the impossible, disconnected or fanciful; it's easier to seed clouds -- or destroy a health care system -- especially if the solution to your problems runs counter to the message of Socialist Revolution. Only a Socialist could make the formulation that "people don't have jobs because 30 million losers and illegal immigrants can't get a tonsillectomy" or "In one of the OPEC states,they depend upon the vagaries of the weather to make electricity".
It's an incredible example of piss-poor planning, based upon a flawed worldview itself shaped by a rare species of what can only be described as a deep brain injury. It's the only logical explanation for such stupidity. But at least you get to listen to some really neat harp music.
Don't put it past our President, or at least his handlers. After all, they've made certain that he's been on TV before the Super Bowl for the last two years, he's on our TV screens at least 6 hours a day speechifying or whining. I can't take anymore as it is. No one tell The Teleprompter Kid that his man Hugo can hit the airwaves unannounced at any time of day or night! He might be tempted to try it.
Seriously, there's not even much difference between Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez in that regard; both are constantly in campaign mode, they live before the cameras. They're never seen in anything that hasn't been carefully staged. They can't actually stop to govern, because things like lowering taxes in any meaningful way to spur an economy, or building oil-burning powerplants in an oil-producing nation -- that is, to do the obvious things required to solve your immediate problems --are apparently too difficult to do, and incompatible with the goal of turning a once-great nation into a Third-World-Pisspot-Dictatorship.
That's why the "solution" to our problems is always the impossible, disconnected or fanciful; it's easier to seed clouds -- or destroy a health care system -- especially if the solution to your problems runs counter to the message of Socialist Revolution. Only a Socialist could make the formulation that "people don't have jobs because 30 million losers and illegal immigrants can't get a tonsillectomy" or "In one of the OPEC states,they depend upon the vagaries of the weather to make electricity".
It's an incredible example of piss-poor planning, based upon a flawed worldview itself shaped by a rare species of what can only be described as a deep brain injury. It's the only logical explanation for such stupidity. But at least you get to listen to some really neat harp music.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Thoughtcrime is Double-Plus Ungood...
George Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone? Mr. George Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
The Savior's EEOC Nominee says it should be illegal to have Negative Thoughts; we should be thinking purple pixies and rainbow unicorns all the time. Not because Negative Thoughts are all icky an' stuff, but because Negative Thoughts lead to inequality which must be corrected by overbearing government power weilded by complete assholes with law degrees. Especially Negative Thoughts that originate in religious belief, and which can be considered (just who gets to 'consider' anything is left vague) anti-homosexual. Quote:
"...society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality...Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people...”
Yet another shot fired at all you Bitter Clingers out there. You can read of her insanity in it's entirety here.
The presumptive head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just come out openly in favor of discrimination. You can't make this shit up. Provided the discrimination is done on behalf of a favored group, it's all hunky-dory. In this case, the protected class will be homosexuals. The EEOC was set up to combat discrimination, Missy, not to promote it.
I should think that someone who can't even wrap her tiny mind around that simple concept is automatically disqualified for the job. But since the people in Congress who will approve her appointment, eventually, have a vested interest in keeping gays happy enough to vote for them and contribute money to their campaign coffers, they will punch her ticket.
They can do no less.
Just you wait until this sort of pantybunched liberal has to make a choice between the competing groups that make up the democratic base, and the decision quickly becomes a political headache for the democratic party. After all, who comes first on the list when it comes to societal grievance: gays, blacks, women? The fur will fly, blood will splatter, brains will explode. Why, I'm making my popcorn now, because that'll be such a fun fight to watch.
The Savior's EEOC Nominee says it should be illegal to have Negative Thoughts; we should be thinking purple pixies and rainbow unicorns all the time. Not because Negative Thoughts are all icky an' stuff, but because Negative Thoughts lead to inequality which must be corrected by overbearing government power weilded by complete assholes with law degrees. Especially Negative Thoughts that originate in religious belief, and which can be considered (just who gets to 'consider' anything is left vague) anti-homosexual. Quote:
"...society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality...Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people...”
Yet another shot fired at all you Bitter Clingers out there. You can read of her insanity in it's entirety here.
The presumptive head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just come out openly in favor of discrimination. You can't make this shit up. Provided the discrimination is done on behalf of a favored group, it's all hunky-dory. In this case, the protected class will be homosexuals. The EEOC was set up to combat discrimination, Missy, not to promote it.
I should think that someone who can't even wrap her tiny mind around that simple concept is automatically disqualified for the job. But since the people in Congress who will approve her appointment, eventually, have a vested interest in keeping gays happy enough to vote for them and contribute money to their campaign coffers, they will punch her ticket.
They can do no less.
Just you wait until this sort of pantybunched liberal has to make a choice between the competing groups that make up the democratic base, and the decision quickly becomes a political headache for the democratic party. After all, who comes first on the list when it comes to societal grievance: gays, blacks, women? The fur will fly, blood will splatter, brains will explode. Why, I'm making my popcorn now, because that'll be such a fun fight to watch.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
I'll Tell You Why, You Idiot!
Okay, I've gotten a very nasty e-mail from a dissenter, upset over this post. A Liberal Dissenter. I know this because it was a) rank with misspellings, b) a full-throated defense of Barack Obama and a vilification of George W. Bush in words of four letters or less, and c) was apparently written by someone with a 5th grade education (If not a Master Degree from Berkeley), and d) ended with a repeat of the mantra that GW, the CIA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons (you can see where this is going, right?) all planned and executed 9/11 in a grand conspiracy, so that we could steal Arab oil at the behest of the Israeli lobby, yada, yada, yada.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)