[equalizer]

Justme: Just what is your major malfunction? Even if your version of facts are more valid, your entire position is rendered worthless by your childish name calling that degenerates not only you, put your entire liberal party at risk. I’ve made this point many times, that liberals are extremely selfish with respect to political process. Why do you let the most hated women in America and the most junior Senator with terrible baggage run for top ticket? If these two bozos(with all due respect) cared about their party they would have stepped aside and let a more moderate person such as Webb, Montana Governor, Kansas Governor run and they would probably win easily. Now look at my party, we tow the line, rarely make stupid comments that will hurt the party.

Some friendly advice: take the high road so Rove, etc can’t touch you. Rove and his buddies are watching, you will never work in this town again with posts like that. Never join any group that is even remotely affiliated with the dems or peace, justice, wacky tree huggers, etc. Most people in hiring positions are rebs and they can easily find out your game. Spare me the BS about a free country, do you want to feed your family or spout out about ABC that you cant do jack about. Follow Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

[equalizer]

Allan,

Yeah, to answer your question from earlier this year, I dig Hitchens, dont get/agree with everything but he is well reasoned.

BTW, Did I tell you how much I hate you. 🙂

I had to give up site earlier cause it was keeping me from other commitments, such as sleep. I was minutes away from disavowing all OT posts till I saw your posts. Once again I’m torn, torn like a …

PS Could you give me your view of GM, the auto company, whose stock is at 33 year low. With your morose view of the US middle class economic prospects, it would be enligthning to get your prospects on this once behemoth bellwether.

Good posts Concho, as well.

[equalizer]

Allan,

Yeah, to answer your question from earlier this year, I dig Hitchens, dont get/agree with everything but he is well reasoned.

BTW, Did I tell you how much I hate you. 🙂

I had to give up site earlier cause it was keeping me from other commitments, such as sleep. I was minutes away from disavowing all OT posts till I saw your posts. Once again I’m torn, torn like a …

PS Could you give me your view of GM, the auto company, whose stock is at 33 year low. With your morose view of the US middle class economic prospects, it would be enligthning to get your prospects on this once behemoth bellwether.

Good posts Concho, as well.

[equalizer]

Allan,

Yeah, to answer your question from earlier this year, I dig Hitchens, dont get/agree with everything but he is well reasoned.

BTW, Did I tell you how much I hate you. 🙂

I had to give up site earlier cause it was keeping me from other commitments, such as sleep. I was minutes away from disavowing all OT posts till I saw your posts. Once again I’m torn, torn like a …

PS Could you give me your view of GM, the auto company, whose stock is at 33 year low. With your morose view of the US middle class economic prospects, it would be enligthning to get your prospects on this once behemoth bellwether.

Good posts Concho, as well.

[equalizer]

Allan,

Yeah, to answer your question from earlier this year, I dig Hitchens, dont get/agree with everything but he is well reasoned.

BTW, Did I tell you how much I hate you. 🙂

I had to give up site earlier cause it was keeping me from other commitments, such as sleep. I was minutes away from disavowing all OT posts till I saw your posts. Once again I’m torn, torn like a …

PS Could you give me your view of GM, the auto company, whose stock is at 33 year low. With your morose view of the US middle class economic prospects, it would be enligthning to get your prospects on this once behemoth bellwether.

Good posts Concho, as well.

[equalizer]

Allan,

Yeah, to answer your question from earlier this year, I dig Hitchens, dont get/agree with everything but he is well reasoned.

BTW, Did I tell you how much I hate you. 🙂

I had to give up site earlier cause it was keeping me from other commitments, such as sleep. I was minutes away from disavowing all OT posts till I saw your posts. Once again I’m torn, torn like a …

PS Could you give me your view of GM, the auto company, whose stock is at 33 year low. With your morose view of the US middle class economic prospects, it would be enligthning to get your prospects on this once behemoth bellwether.

Good posts Concho, as well.

[equalizer]

For those suffer from the disease the Huxley feared, here are comparisions between 1984 and BNW.
Need humanties degree just to decipher a single entry from Wiki with references to Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, etc.

I’m sure Allan can explain Hitchens logic when he states “Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend.” I’m just not getting that logic.

The vacant servitude is easily served with spirits, sports, etc, no need for the black helos with Bernanke tossing hundreds.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, notes the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article “Why Americans Are Not Taught History”:

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression “You’re history” as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell’s was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

[equalizer]

For those suffer from the disease the Huxley feared, here are comparisions between 1984 and BNW.
Need humanties degree just to decipher a single entry from Wiki with references to Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, etc.

I’m sure Allan can explain Hitchens logic when he states “Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend.” I’m just not getting that logic.

The vacant servitude is easily served with spirits, sports, etc, no need for the black helos with Bernanke tossing hundreds.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, notes the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article “Why Americans Are Not Taught History”:

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression “You’re history” as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell’s was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

[equalizer]

For those suffer from the disease the Huxley feared, here are comparisions between 1984 and BNW.
Need humanties degree just to decipher a single entry from Wiki with references to Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, etc.

I’m sure Allan can explain Hitchens logic when he states “Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend.” I’m just not getting that logic.

The vacant servitude is easily served with spirits, sports, etc, no need for the black helos with Bernanke tossing hundreds.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, notes the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article “Why Americans Are Not Taught History”:

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression “You’re history” as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell’s was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

[equalizer]

For those suffer from the disease the Huxley feared, here are comparisions between 1984 and BNW.
Need humanties degree just to decipher a single entry from Wiki with references to Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, etc.

I’m sure Allan can explain Hitchens logic when he states “Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend.” I’m just not getting that logic.

The vacant servitude is easily served with spirits, sports, etc, no need for the black helos with Bernanke tossing hundreds.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, notes the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article “Why Americans Are Not Taught History”:

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression “You’re history” as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell’s was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

[equalizer]

For those suffer from the disease the Huxley feared, here are comparisions between 1984 and BNW.
Need humanties degree just to decipher a single entry from Wiki with references to Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, etc.

I’m sure Allan can explain Hitchens logic when he states “Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend.” I’m just not getting that logic.

The vacant servitude is easily served with spirits, sports, etc, no need for the black helos with Bernanke tossing hundreds.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, notes the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article “Why Americans Are Not Taught History”:

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression “You’re history” as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell’s was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley … rightly foresaw that any such regime could break but could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

[equalizer]

Allan,

The sentence
“In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure.” was preceded by use of more in previous sentence. I don’t know if its the alliteration, reader exhaustion, or just that it would flow with tone of your post but I inferred a lot “MORE”. I suspect others may have also.

BTW, that policy was ignored/condoned by voters since they were too busy watching Padres getting whuppped by the Yankees in 98.

[equalizer]

Allan,

The sentence
“In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure.” was preceded by use of more in previous sentence. I don’t know if its the alliteration, reader exhaustion, or just that it would flow with tone of your post but I inferred a lot “MORE”. I suspect others may have also.

BTW, that policy was ignored/condoned by voters since they were too busy watching Padres getting whuppped by the Yankees in 98.

[equalizer]

Allan,

The sentence
“In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure.” was preceded by use of more in previous sentence. I don’t know if its the alliteration, reader exhaustion, or just that it would flow with tone of your post but I inferred a lot “MORE”. I suspect others may have also.

BTW, that policy was ignored/condoned by voters since they were too busy watching Padres getting whuppped by the Yankees in 98.

[equalizer]

Allan,

The sentence
“In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure.” was preceded by use of more in previous sentence. I don’t know if its the alliteration, reader exhaustion, or just that it would flow with tone of your post but I inferred a lot “MORE”. I suspect others may have also.

BTW, that policy was ignored/condoned by voters since they were too busy watching Padres getting whuppped by the Yankees in 98.

[Author]

Posts