"The Life of Julia" And Obama's Orwellian Vision for a Fundamental Change In the Relationship Between Citizen and State

ace

quote:

One of the central points of 1984 is that in true totalitarianism, the State must displace the natural allegiances of love -- romantic, familial, and brotherly (and, though Orwell might not agree -- Love of God, too)-- with a love of State.

also:

Harsanyi is right. Obama is setting forward a vision contrary to the American tradition of self-sufficiency--a welfare state that runs from cradle to grave. And it's a dishonest vision, because it presents all of these benefits as "free," never acknowledging that they are paid for through coercive taxation.

Comment:

After winning the cold war, we are set to lose everything that was once won in favor of what we defeated.  Yet, nobody seems amazed by that.  How can this be?   How can people so quickly forget history which shows what works and what doesn't?  Why do people embrace what had been proven a failure just 30 years ago?  Is the left wing propaganda and indoctrination so powerful that people are completely incapable of seeing what is and what isn't even when it is right in front of their own eyes?

I never understood how the guy got elected.  Why he is even in this race is even more amazing.  What the hell happened?

Elephant plays harmonica

Can the elephant join a band?

GM, a failed investment

Free Republic

quote:

If you invested more than $100 in a company, would you be happy if your shares were worth only $36? By anyone’s definition that investment would have been a terrible failure.

Comment:

But that may win him Michigan.  The people directly affected, meaning the autoworkers, will seen which side their bread is buttered on.  It's the taxpayers who should see how their interests are not being served.  But that is not likely as long as the LSM ( Left Stream Media) is putting out the party line.

Obama may have destroyed any chance that the company could restructure and become profitable again.  Nice going.  By the way, for those who may want to point out that the company is profitable again, take a look at those comments, and take another look at those numbers.  If GM were really profitable, that market cap would be higher, much higher.

Climatology: A Textbook Example of Groupthink

al fin

Quote:

Groupthink is toxic to the ability of the human mind to think clearly and independently. It is destructive of creativity and productive imagination. It is destructive of any hopeful or livable future for the majority of humans -- those living outside the inner circles of power.[ link added]

Comment:

I first encountered the term "groupthink" when I read Thirteen Days , which was about President Kennedy's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I could be mistaken about that since it is a long ago memory.  Anyway, groupthink is just what Al Fin says.  Inasmuch as the world wide web may be contributing to that, it could well be toxic to our future if some antidote isn't applied to the increasing insularity of the web.  It would also be tragic, just as groupthink can be tragic, because of all the best and brightest only contribute and reinforce the insularity; as opposed to opening minds to new ways of dealing with problems.

Krugman: Economic Tribalism

ny times  via Memeorandum

quote:

People aren’t very receptive to evidence if it doesn’t come from a member of their cultural community. 

Comment:

Yeah, that's what I mean.  People prefer the conflict, not the solutions.  It just so happens that I don't agree with Krugman's policy prescriptions.  It is true that he is not in my cultural community, but I do read his stuff from time to time.  If he had anything that made sense, I'd say so.  I'm not drinking the kool aid, despite what anybody on his side may claim.  It is either drink their kool aid or else.  There's no toleration for dissent.

"Civilized People Don't Buy Gold"

ProfessorBainbridge.com h/t Instapundit

quotes:

"If you were shipwrecked on a desert island, what would you prefer, a bag of potatoes or a bag of gold?," [replied Moist]

and

 "Can I assume for a moment that you don't intend to put us on the potato standard?" said Sacharissa sharply.

Comment:

I liked the bottom quote.  That's why I'm putting this up.  Actually, you can't eat gold, but it has always been good for trading.  Trade is a sign of civilization.  Otherwise, a thief would just steal your potatoes just as easily as your gold.

Simberg: Striking A Nerve

transterrestrial musings

quote:

Well, this certainly has gotten Think Progress’s panties in a twist. They’re squealing like a stuck pig. [emphasis added, it's a link see below]

The italicized "this" led me to a serious of links which got me to this editorial (discover.com), which was intriguing in its own way.  It starts out with something that supposedly is in the web, which I haven't heard of before.  It is called "Poe's Law".  So, what's this "law".  I'll quote it here:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.  [The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an Internet meme. Over time it has been extended to include not just creationist parody but any parody of extreme ideology, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers.]

Back to discover article-- It says the following about the law--

Creating an actual billboard like this would be taking Poe’s Law and aiming right between your own eyes!

Hmm!  Quite the statement that.  I get the impression here that Heartland was flinging holy water at the devil and the devil is screaming bloody murder.  What is so intriguing is that the "warmists" think they are doing the same thing and that was Heartland's "desperate" response!  What I am postulating here is a type of mutual projection.  They both think of each other as being evil and are trying to bring down the existing order.

So, what's going on here?  If I may, I think it is a result of "churches" doing their thing.   But these aren't real churches, you say?  No, but the arguments are like ones you might get in a debate between the ayatollah and the Pope about the Trinity.   It has become so deeply an article of faith that it is impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue.   Indeed, deeply held belief in general may just preempt any discussion of a scientific matter.  I take Heartland's side here, sort of, because it is not a religious matter, but a scientific matter.  It is not a matter that should involve deeply held beliefs.  That's what the advocates of human caused climate change have turned this into.

If carbon dioxide is such a problem, why not come up with something that works that may fix the "problem"?

Instead of that, what we may end up with is an excuse the grow the influence of the government, which is the real question as far as I'm concerned.  So, what exactly is everyone arguing about?  Bigger government or the environment?

A better response for Heartland is to advocate for solutions that actually work economically and technologically.  These won't necessitate a larger government and may even make us more prosperous.  This is supposedly the idea of "green jobs", but they haven't delivered.

Deliver the real jobs and hearts and minds will follow.