Those wacky SFGate guys bringing up George Orwell's 1984 reminded me of Christopher Hitchens comments months ago when we were discussing the debunking of F9/11.
Hitchens wrote:
Quote:Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States
And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
So much for George Orwell and 1984.
Hardly, if you read his whole article(Orwell's) you come to this passage which is much more to the point of this thread than is Michael Moore.
"By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad."
But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
Well, I've tried to learn to love George. No, no, no, really, I've made the attempt, listened to those who do love him, read many outstanding portrayals here on A2K of his ideals and efforts, watched on CNN or PBS when he has spoken to crowds and once, just once, I watched about ten minutes of a news conference. Standing in front of people you know don't necessarily agree with tells a lot about the man standing there. That was when I tried to like him, love him, the most, when I thought he would shine through and show himself best.
I think he has some kind of mental health condition. I know he is under a lot of stress and has been putting in longer hours at this job than any other he has ever had, but there is something just a half a bubble off of true about George, something about him that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, instead of me getting goosebumps when I think about how much I love him, I get this oddest feeling of dread, like when someone comes to the house and everyone is smiling and laughing but the dog continues to growl. I'm that dog.
Joe (grrr) Nation
As the Fourth Estate continues to morph into what General/Journalist Tommy Franks calls the "Fourth Front" in the ongoing and endless war on terror, and as the lines blur ever-further between military public affairs -- disseminating accurate information to the media and the public -- and psychological and information operations -- using often-misleading information and propaganda to influence the outcome of a campaign or battle -- the inevitable has finally happened.
The Military Channel.
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert294.shtml
Quote:I voted for Bush because I believed Kerry to be further off center than Bush. Simple as that.
Off center hardly described Kerry for me. Despicable fraud was more like it. When I am down in the dumps these days the thought of Teresa not being first lady lifts my spirits right away.
larry, is there a Democrat you would have voted for against Bush?
Joe Nation wrote:Well, I've tried to learn to love George. No, no, no, really, I've made the attempt, listened to those who do love him, read many outstanding portrayals here on A2K of his ideals and efforts, watched on CNN or PBS when he has spoken to crowds and once, just once, I watched about ten minutes of a news conference. Standing in front of people you know don't necessarily agree with tells a lot about the man standing there. That was when I tried to like him, love him, the most, when I thought he would shine through and show himself best.
I think he has some kind of mental health condition. I know he is under a lot of stress and has been putting in longer hours at this job than any other he has ever had, but there is something just a half a bubble off of true about George, something about him that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, instead of me getting goosebumps when I think about how much I love him, I get this oddest feeling of dread, like when someone comes to the house and everyone is smiling and laughing but the dog continues to growl. I'm that dog.
Joe (grrr) Nation
This is kind of how I feel about George. Mostly I just get the distinct impression that nothing that comes out of his mouth is true. Sadly, I think this is just because of his poor presentation skills. Everything he says rings false to me but maybe that is just because he's forcing it. I dunno, but he totally creeps me out.
Larry434 wrote:MaryM wrote:Quote:I voted for Bush because I believed Kerry to be further off center than Bush. Simple as that.
Off center hardly described Kerry for me. Despicable fraud was more like it. When I am down in the dumps these days the thought of Teresa not being first lady lifts my spirits right away.
larry, is there a Democrat you would have voted for against Bush?
Yes. One with Bill Clinton's political savvy and none of his lack of moral values.
So we can count on a vote for Hillary in 2008, then?
DrewDad wrote:Larry434 wrote:MaryM wrote:Quote:I voted for Bush because I believed Kerry to be further off center than Bush. Simple as that.
Off center hardly described Kerry for me. Despicable fraud was more like it. When I am down in the dumps these days the thought of Teresa not being first lady lifts my spirits right away.
larry, is there a Democrat you would have voted for against Bush?
Yes. One with Bill Clinton's political savvy and none of his lack of moral values.
So we can count on a vote for Hillary in 2008, then?
... except Bush isn't her opponent in 2008.
Unless it's Jeb Bush.
(And don't think for a minute that's out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure that the same people who gave us W are thinking along these lines...)
Quote:One with Bill Clinton's political savvy and none of his lack of moral values.
Larry, I didn't ask which type, I asked which one. Not answering a question can be answer enough.
liked bush better when he was a smackhead. bet he wouldve done a more believable job if the real bush was president.
