http://finance.yahoo.com/news/drones-may-set-off-flurry-114609780.html
Sparknotes: George Orwell 1984 Important Quotations Explained
1. war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Explanation for Quotation 1 >>
These words are the official slogans of the Party, and are inscribed in massive letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, as Winston observes in Book One, Chapter I. Because it is introduced so early in the novel, this creed serves as the reader’s first introduction to the idea of doublethink. By weakening the independence and strength of individuals’ minds and forcing them to live in a constant state of propaganda-induced fear, the Party is able to force its subjects to accept anything it decrees, even if it is entirely illogical—for instance, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of waging war, the Ministry of Love is in charge of political torture, and the Ministry of Truth is in charge of doctoring history books to reflect the Party’s ideology.
That the national slogan of Oceania is equally contradictory is an important testament to the power of the Party’s mass campaign of psychological control. In theory, the Party is able to maintain that “War Is Peace” because having a common enemy keeps the people of Oceania united. “Freedom Is Slavery” because, according to the Party, the man who is independent is doomed to fail. By the same token, “Slavery Is Freedom,” because the man subjected to the collective will is free from danger and want. “Ignorance Is Strength” because the inability of the people to recognize these contradictions cements the power of the authoritarian regime.
Close
2. Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
Explanation for Quotation 2 >>
This Party slogan appears twice in the novel, once in Book One, Chapter III, when Winston is thinking about the Party’s control of history and memory, and once in Book Three, Chapter II, when Winston, now a prisoner in the Ministry of Love, talks to O’Brien about the nature of the past. The slogan is an important example of the Party’s technique of using false history to break down the psychological independence of its subjects. Control of the past ensures control of the future, because the past can be treated essentially as a set of conditions that justify or encourage future goals: if the past was idyllic, then people will act to re-create it; if the past was nightmarish, then people will act to prevent such circumstances from recurring. The Party creates a past that was a time of misery and slavery from which it claims to have liberated the human race, thus compelling people to work toward the Party’s goals.
The Party has complete political power in the present, enabling it to control the way in which its subjects think about and interpret the past: every history book reflects Party ideology, and individuals are forbidden from keeping mementos of their own pasts, such as photographs and documents. As a result, the citizens of Oceania have a very short, fuzzy memory, and are willing to believe anything that the Party tells them. In the second appearance of this quote, O’Brien tells Winston that the past has no concrete existence and that it is real only in the minds of human beings. O’Brien is essentially arguing that because the Party’s version of the past is what people believe, that past, though it has no basis in real events, has become the truth.
Close
3. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
Explanation for Quotation 3 >>
This quote occurs in Book One, Chapter VII, as Winston looks at a children’s history book and marvels at the Party’s control of the human mind. These lines play into the theme of psychological manipulation. In this case, Winston considers the Party’s exploitation of its fearful subjects as a means to suppress the intellectual notion of objective reality. If the universe exists only in the mind, and the Party controls the mind, then the Party controls the universe. As Winston thinks, “For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” The mathematical sentence 2 + 2 = 5 thus becomes a motif linked to the theme of psychological independence. Early in the novel, Winston writes that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.” The motif comes full circle at the end of the novel after the torture Winston suffers in the Ministry of Love breaks his soul; he sits at the Chestnut Tree Café and traces “2 + 2 = 5” in the dust on his table.
Close
4. And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.
Explanation for Quotation 4 >>
This quote from Book One, Chapter VIII, emphasizes how one’s understanding of the past affects one’s attitude about the present. Winston has just had a frustrating conversation with an old man about life before the Revolution, and he realizes that the Party has deliberately set out to weaken people’s memories in order to render them unable to challenge what the Party claims about the present. If no one remembers life before the Revolution, then no one can say that the Party has failed mankind by forcing people to live in conditions of poverty, filth, ignorance, and hunger. Rather, the Party uses rewritten history books and falsified records to prove its good deeds.
Close
5. And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn’t really mean it. But that isn’t true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there’s no other way of saving yourself and you’re quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don’t give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself.
Explanation for Quotation 5 >>
Julia speaks these lines to Winston in Book Three, Chapter VI, as they discuss what happened to them in Room 101. She tells him that she wanted her torture to be shifted to him, and he responds that he felt exactly the same way. These acts of mutual betrayal represent the Party’s final psychological victory. Soon after their respective experiences in Room 101, Winston and Julia are set free as they no longer pose a threat to the Party. Here, Julia says that despite her efforts to make herself feel better, she knows that in order to save herself she really did want the Party to torture Winston. In the end, the Party proves to Winston and Julia that no moral conviction or emotional loyalty is strong enough to withstand torture. Physical pain and fear will always cause people to betray their convictions if doing so will end their suffering.
Winston comes to a similar conclusion during his own stint at the Ministry of Love, bringing to its culmination the novel’s theme of physical control: control over the body ultimately grants the Party control over the mind. As with most of the Party’s techniques, there is an extremely ironic strain of doublethink running underneath: self-love and self-preservation, the underlying components of individualism and independence, lead one to fear pain and suffering, ultimately causing one to accept the principles of anti-individualist collectivism that allows the Party to thrive.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Beeg Peekshur - Explaining America to Space Aliens - Why a Two Party System Must Become Polarized
the big problem with a two-party political duopoly system like America's is that it must evolve to become divided by the most obvious difference - rich and poor, and since there will always be vastly more poor than rich, the party of the rich is faced with the inevitable conundrum: how to attract sufficient numbers of poor to our party to enable us to realistically challenge the rest of the poor?
There seems to be only one answer to this political puzzle: exploit the next most pervasive difference besides rich and poor: smart and stupid. If the party of the few rich can attract a majority of the many stupid then presto, the remaining smart and poor party will be stymied.
This is exactly what we have now.
There is no other way for the Republicans to win except by becoming stupider and stupider and thus attracting more and more of the poor to vote for them. Which of course requires a peculiar form of news media designed explicitly for the poor and stupid demographic, that actually makes you less informed the more you watch it, eg Fox News.
This creates a positive feedback loop: the stupider the electorate becomes, the more power the Republican party gets, which gives them even more power to make the electorate even stupider.
The only way out is to break the two party duopoly by making a third party vote not a wasted vote with ranked choice voting, so crusaders like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul can get real power to swing the political division into a real policy division instead of just the elementary division of rich and poor.
There seems to be only one answer to this political puzzle: exploit the next most pervasive difference besides rich and poor: smart and stupid. If the party of the few rich can attract a majority of the many stupid then presto, the remaining smart and poor party will be stymied.
This is exactly what we have now.
There is no other way for the Republicans to win except by becoming stupider and stupider and thus attracting more and more of the poor to vote for them. Which of course requires a peculiar form of news media designed explicitly for the poor and stupid demographic, that actually makes you less informed the more you watch it, eg Fox News.
This creates a positive feedback loop: the stupider the electorate becomes, the more power the Republican party gets, which gives them even more power to make the electorate even stupider.
The only way out is to break the two party duopoly by making a third party vote not a wasted vote with ranked choice voting, so crusaders like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul can get real power to swing the political division into a real policy division instead of just the elementary division of rich and poor.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
News Flash! Republicans Agree the Republican Party is Dead!
Posted on Sep 28, 2011 6:40:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2011 6:54:51 PM PDT
Michael Heath says:
Krotos states, "The picture that emerges is of an ice-cold, greedy, amoral, and utterly self-absorbed woman who is unable to develop normal relationships even with her own husband and children and who has spent her life using and discarding everyone around her in her pursuit of fame, power, and money. It is not evident that Palin has ever truly cared about anybody other than herself."
I think it's important to point that out Mr. McGinniss' characterization of Sarah Palin is not a new one. In 2008 as an increasingly fed-up Republican and given John McCain's strengths and weaknesses I was hoping he would consider and nominate a Republican governor who was successful governing their state to complement his own skills. Then Gov. Palin's approval ratings in Alaska were very high at the time; so I was hopeful she'd meet my criteria for what I look for in an executive (I hadn't encountered much about her at all until her nomination where we now know neither did Sen. McCain).
Within about 8 hours of research the facts of what Ms. Palin actually is; not merely how some perceived her but her actual behavior became clearly evident. Sen. McCain's negligence in nominating her was astonishing. Lower-level managers use more due diligence to hire professionals and here McCain is nominating someone he doesn't even know to backfill for him in the highest office in the world. This woman could not keep a job in any professional capacity in any world-class organization, even entry jobs. And yet here McCain was nominating her as his best pick for president, which is the standard presidential candidates must meet when nominating their VP (the best ever nomination in my lifetime was Reagan's pick of H.W. Bush which reveals how far from Reagan the GOP has descended).
Mr. McGinniss' book doesn't portray the way the main-stream media portrays her, which was wildly off the mark and more a reflection of how those who were attracted her felt and emoted about her, with a little contra to keep the narrative dramatic. The book instead reveals what she's actually like. It instead reports how she actually acts, where there's ample evidence validating this nearly every time she talks, e.g., I've yet to encounter talking for a more than a few sentences without observing her making incoherent and highly dishonest arguments.
Andrew Sullivan has done an outstanding job of tracking her behavior since then, which again has her acting out consistently with McGinniss' reporting. One doesn't need to rely on his or anyone's mere opinions; all they require are to be well-informed and have even rudimentary critical thinking skills to observe what she says and does and make a fairly obvious conclusion.
When the Republican party unanimously affirmed Sen. McCain's VP nomination at their 2008 national convention that was the last straw that had me leaving the Republican party after being in their camp for 29 years. I no longer had confidence the Republican party could be reformed to actually competently govern; win elections yes but govern, not even close. Since the fall of 2008 that conclusion has been validated beyond my wildest imaginings, with the last exhibit being their holding the country's credit rating hostage merely to score political points. I couldn't have imagined that level of nihilism and utter lack of seriousness existed in any political movement.
So while Ms. Palin fits in well with the conservative base that now runs the party from the voting base and much of the legislative perspective, it's not Ford's, Rockefeller's, Eisenhower's, TDR, or Lincoln's Republican party acting like the republicans who provided inspiration to start the GOP, e.g., Washington, Hamilton, and Marshall coupled to a whiggish liberalism that took the DofI seriously. It also most certainly not Burkean or Oakeshottian conservatism, but instead a reactionary group of religionists. Heck, it's not even close to how Reagan governed, Obama is far more Reagan-like than Palin and her ilk where given their delusions and historical illiteracy they can't even imagine that argument to be compelling. Instead the GOP has become a party dominated by a fundie-religious-political movement which thrives on denying reality while being succored by their fear, nihilism, divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. This is how republics falter.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
63 of 69 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you? Thank you for your feedback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 10:05:00 AM PDT
B. Prince says:
My father also left the Republican party after a lifetime of voting Republican. He is still a Buckley Republican but that type of Republican is now called a Democrat.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
33 of 36 people think this post adds to the discussion.
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2011 6:54:51 PM PDT
Michael Heath says:
Krotos states, "The picture that emerges is of an ice-cold, greedy, amoral, and utterly self-absorbed woman who is unable to develop normal relationships even with her own husband and children and who has spent her life using and discarding everyone around her in her pursuit of fame, power, and money. It is not evident that Palin has ever truly cared about anybody other than herself."
I think it's important to point that out Mr. McGinniss' characterization of Sarah Palin is not a new one. In 2008 as an increasingly fed-up Republican and given John McCain's strengths and weaknesses I was hoping he would consider and nominate a Republican governor who was successful governing their state to complement his own skills. Then Gov. Palin's approval ratings in Alaska were very high at the time; so I was hopeful she'd meet my criteria for what I look for in an executive (I hadn't encountered much about her at all until her nomination where we now know neither did Sen. McCain).
Within about 8 hours of research the facts of what Ms. Palin actually is; not merely how some perceived her but her actual behavior became clearly evident. Sen. McCain's negligence in nominating her was astonishing. Lower-level managers use more due diligence to hire professionals and here McCain is nominating someone he doesn't even know to backfill for him in the highest office in the world. This woman could not keep a job in any professional capacity in any world-class organization, even entry jobs. And yet here McCain was nominating her as his best pick for president, which is the standard presidential candidates must meet when nominating their VP (the best ever nomination in my lifetime was Reagan's pick of H.W. Bush which reveals how far from Reagan the GOP has descended).
Mr. McGinniss' book doesn't portray the way the main-stream media portrays her, which was wildly off the mark and more a reflection of how those who were attracted her felt and emoted about her, with a little contra to keep the narrative dramatic. The book instead reveals what she's actually like. It instead reports how she actually acts, where there's ample evidence validating this nearly every time she talks, e.g., I've yet to encounter talking for a more than a few sentences without observing her making incoherent and highly dishonest arguments.
Andrew Sullivan has done an outstanding job of tracking her behavior since then, which again has her acting out consistently with McGinniss' reporting. One doesn't need to rely on his or anyone's mere opinions; all they require are to be well-informed and have even rudimentary critical thinking skills to observe what she says and does and make a fairly obvious conclusion.
When the Republican party unanimously affirmed Sen. McCain's VP nomination at their 2008 national convention that was the last straw that had me leaving the Republican party after being in their camp for 29 years. I no longer had confidence the Republican party could be reformed to actually competently govern; win elections yes but govern, not even close. Since the fall of 2008 that conclusion has been validated beyond my wildest imaginings, with the last exhibit being their holding the country's credit rating hostage merely to score political points. I couldn't have imagined that level of nihilism and utter lack of seriousness existed in any political movement.
So while Ms. Palin fits in well with the conservative base that now runs the party from the voting base and much of the legislative perspective, it's not Ford's, Rockefeller's, Eisenhower's, TDR, or Lincoln's Republican party acting like the republicans who provided inspiration to start the GOP, e.g., Washington, Hamilton, and Marshall coupled to a whiggish liberalism that took the DofI seriously. It also most certainly not Burkean or Oakeshottian conservatism, but instead a reactionary group of religionists. Heck, it's not even close to how Reagan governed, Obama is far more Reagan-like than Palin and her ilk where given their delusions and historical illiteracy they can't even imagine that argument to be compelling. Instead the GOP has become a party dominated by a fundie-religious-political movement which thrives on denying reality while being succored by their fear, nihilism, divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. This is how republics falter.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
63 of 69 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you? Thank you for your feedback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 10:05:00 AM PDT
B. Prince says:
My father also left the Republican party after a lifetime of voting Republican. He is still a Buckley Republican but that type of Republican is now called a Democrat.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
33 of 36 people think this post adds to the discussion.
the most dangerous domestic threat this country has faced since the Civil War
This review is from: The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin (Hardcover)
221 of 273 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Insightful look into Sarah Palin's disturbing personality, September 28, 2011
By Krotos -
The advance publicity has made it out to seem that "The Rogue" is little more than a tabloidish exposé of Sarah Palin's sex life, but the salacious revelations about her youthful one-night stands comprise only a small part of a thoughtful and thoroughly-researched character study. This is probably McGinniss's finest work since "Fatal Vision," and it's strongly recommended for anyone who wants to see the unpleasant reality beneath Palin's folksy public persona.
McGinniss moved into the house next door to the Palins' compound in Wasilla, Alaska, in the spring of 2010. For the next several months, he interviewed Palin's neighbors, former friends, political colleagues, and ordinary Alaskans while dealing with a torrent of abuse and threats against himself and his family provoked by Palin and by right-wing media figures such as Glenn Beck. "The Rogue" alternates the story of Palin's adult life with McGinniss's own sometimes harrowing experience of researching it. While McGinniss never obtained an interview with Palin herself, he talked to enough people close to her to develop a compelling -- and frightening -- portrait of her true character.
The picture that emerges is of an ice-cold, greedy, amoral, and utterly self-absorbed woman who is unable to develop normal relationships even with her own husband and children and who has spent her life using and discarding everyone around her in her pursuit of fame, power, and money. It is not evident that Palin has ever truly cared about anybody other than herself. It was particularly sad to read about her ignored daughters going dirty and malnourished while Palin spent her days lying in her bedroom, only to be pulled out as props at political rallies whenever Palin wanted to present herself to adoring fans as an all-American "hockey mom." Her relationship with Todd Palin is less like that of husband and wife than of two business partners who can barely stand each other, and while Todd is not a sympathetic figure either, one can almost feel sorry for his plight at being trapped in an apparently loveless marriage.
Even more disturbing than Palin's personal life are the details about her alliances with extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups that openly advocate tearing up the Constitution and imposing a religious dictatorship on America. Palin has, understandably, played down this aspect of her beliefs, but McGinniss makes it clear that she has been in the orbit of the Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement since her days as mayor of Wasilla. Unlike so much else about her, her commitment to this anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, neo-fascist branch of evangelical Christianity is completely sincere. She genuinely believes that God has called her to lead the nation and purge it of anti-Christian influences. And what is scary is that so many other people genuinely believe this about her too.
This book solidified my feeling that the Republican pseudo-populist uprising represented by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, et al., and bankrolled by shadowy right-wing billionaires and corporate front groups is the most dangerous domestic threat this country has faced since the Civil War. Palin's star seems to be currently waning, but she has bounced back from irrelevance many times before. Don't count her out. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Thank you for your feedback.Report abuse
Permalink
Comment Comments (93)
Showing 1-10 of 93 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 28, 2011 1:26:38 PM PDT
Justice Foreall says:
excellent review and a very appropriate tone of concern for the danger that the palin types unleash through their true believers.
a group of people and beliefs very few americans know much about.
still the point of why the media in this country fails to inform and with fox news actually enables such a woman as palin needs more investigation.
joe m. has done a great service in exposing this woman who i believe has no political future now.
and saying she has bounced back many times is the one point i disagree with you about because that does not describe palins career.
in fact after 3 years of media enabling and having had total control of her image her "star is wanning".
long may it wane.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
27 of 37 people think this post adds to the discussion
221 of 273 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Insightful look into Sarah Palin's disturbing personality, September 28, 2011
By Krotos -
The advance publicity has made it out to seem that "The Rogue" is little more than a tabloidish exposé of Sarah Palin's sex life, but the salacious revelations about her youthful one-night stands comprise only a small part of a thoughtful and thoroughly-researched character study. This is probably McGinniss's finest work since "Fatal Vision," and it's strongly recommended for anyone who wants to see the unpleasant reality beneath Palin's folksy public persona.
McGinniss moved into the house next door to the Palins' compound in Wasilla, Alaska, in the spring of 2010. For the next several months, he interviewed Palin's neighbors, former friends, political colleagues, and ordinary Alaskans while dealing with a torrent of abuse and threats against himself and his family provoked by Palin and by right-wing media figures such as Glenn Beck. "The Rogue" alternates the story of Palin's adult life with McGinniss's own sometimes harrowing experience of researching it. While McGinniss never obtained an interview with Palin herself, he talked to enough people close to her to develop a compelling -- and frightening -- portrait of her true character.
The picture that emerges is of an ice-cold, greedy, amoral, and utterly self-absorbed woman who is unable to develop normal relationships even with her own husband and children and who has spent her life using and discarding everyone around her in her pursuit of fame, power, and money. It is not evident that Palin has ever truly cared about anybody other than herself. It was particularly sad to read about her ignored daughters going dirty and malnourished while Palin spent her days lying in her bedroom, only to be pulled out as props at political rallies whenever Palin wanted to present herself to adoring fans as an all-American "hockey mom." Her relationship with Todd Palin is less like that of husband and wife than of two business partners who can barely stand each other, and while Todd is not a sympathetic figure either, one can almost feel sorry for his plight at being trapped in an apparently loveless marriage.
Even more disturbing than Palin's personal life are the details about her alliances with extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups that openly advocate tearing up the Constitution and imposing a religious dictatorship on America. Palin has, understandably, played down this aspect of her beliefs, but McGinniss makes it clear that she has been in the orbit of the Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement since her days as mayor of Wasilla. Unlike so much else about her, her commitment to this anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, neo-fascist branch of evangelical Christianity is completely sincere. She genuinely believes that God has called her to lead the nation and purge it of anti-Christian influences. And what is scary is that so many other people genuinely believe this about her too.
This book solidified my feeling that the Republican pseudo-populist uprising represented by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, et al., and bankrolled by shadowy right-wing billionaires and corporate front groups is the most dangerous domestic threat this country has faced since the Civil War. Palin's star seems to be currently waning, but she has bounced back from irrelevance many times before. Don't count her out. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Thank you for your feedback.Report abuse
Permalink
Comment Comments (93)
Showing 1-10 of 93 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 28, 2011 1:26:38 PM PDT
Justice Foreall says:
excellent review and a very appropriate tone of concern for the danger that the palin types unleash through their true believers.
a group of people and beliefs very few americans know much about.
still the point of why the media in this country fails to inform and with fox news actually enables such a woman as palin needs more investigation.
joe m. has done a great service in exposing this woman who i believe has no political future now.
and saying she has bounced back many times is the one point i disagree with you about because that does not describe palins career.
in fact after 3 years of media enabling and having had total control of her image her "star is wanning".
long may it wane.
Reply to this post
Permalink
Report abuse
Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
27 of 37 people think this post adds to the discussion
Friday, February 17, 2012
Everett Wheeler Dogen, Many-Worlds, Many-Buddhalands
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/GenjoKoan_Cleary.htm
"We should realize there exist worlds everywhere. It's not only thus in out of the way places-know that even a single drop right before us is also thus." 'In essence, each moment in Time is a World unto itself' (paraphrased) - Dogen zenjii
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-Hugh-Everett-III/product-reviews/0199552274/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0
This review is from: The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family (Hardcover)
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A superb book, August 16, 2010
By John K. Clark - See all my reviews
I've just finished this book and its one of the most enjoyable things I've read in a long time. Being a staple of science fiction and the only interpretation of quantum mechanics to enter the popular imagination it's a little surprising that "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett" by Peter Byrne is the first biography of the originator of that amazing idea. Everett certainly had an interesting life, he was a libertarian and a libertine, became a cold warrior who with his top secret clearance was comfortable with the idea of megadeath, became wealthy by started one of the first successful software companies until alcoholism drove him and his company into the ground. Everett died of heart failure in 1982 at the age of 51, he was legally drunk at the time. He requested that his body be cremated and his ashes thrown into the garbage. And so he was.
Byrne had an advantage other potential biographers did not, the cooperation of his son Mark, a successful rock musician and composer whose music has been featured in such big budget movies as American Beauty, Hellboy, Yes Man, all three of the Shrek movies and many others. Mark gave Byrne full access to his garage which was full of his father's papers that nobody had looked at in decades.
Everett was an atheist all his life, after his death Paul Davies, who got 1,000,000 pounds for winning the Templeton religion prize, said that if true Many Worlds destroyed the anthropic argument for the existence of God. Everett would have been delighted. Nevertheless Everett ended up going to Catholic University of America near Washington DC. Although Byrne doesn't tell us exactly what was in it, Everett as a freshman devised a logical proof against the existence of God. Apparently it was good enough that one of his pious professors became very upset and depressed with "ontological horror" when he read it. Everett liked the professor and felt so guilty he decided not to use it on a person of faith again. This story is very atypical of the man, most of the time Everett seems to care little for the feelings of others and although quite brilliant wasn't exactly lovable.
Everett wasn't the only one dissatisfied with the Copenhagen Interpretation which insisted the measuring device had to be outside the wave function, but he was unlike other dissidents such as Bohm or Cramer in that Everett saw no need to add new terms to Schrodinger's Equation and thought the equation meant exactly what it said. The only reason those extra terms were added was to try to rescue the single universe idea, and there was no experimental justification for that. Everett was unique in thinking that quantum mechanics gave a description of nature that was literally true.
John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, made him cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other universes were equally real when in fact he did. For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which today many consider the best part of the work. His long thesis was not published until 1973, if that version had been published in 1957 instead of the truncated Bowdlerized version things would have been different; plenty of people would still have disagreed but he would not have been ignored for as long as he was.
Byrne writes of Everett's views: "the splitting of observers share an identity because they stem from a common ancestor, but they also embark on different fates in different universes. They experience different lifespans, dissimilar events (such as a nuclear war perhaps) and at some point are no longer the same person, even though they share certain memory records." Everett says that when a observer splits it is meaningless to ask "which of the final observers corresponds to the initial one since each possess the total memory of the first" he says it is as foolish as asking which amoeba is the original after it splits into two. Wheeler made him remove all such talk of amebas from his published short thesis.
Byrne says Everett did not think there were just an astronomically large number of other universes but rather an infinite number of them, not only that he thought there were a non-denumerable infinite number of other worlds. This means that the number of them was larger than the infinite set of integers, but Byrne does not make it clear if this means they are as numerous as the number of points on a line, or as numerous as an even larger infinite set like the set of all possible clock faces, or maybe an even larger infinity than that where easy to understand examples of that sort of mega-infinite magnitude are hard to come by. Neill Graham tried to reformulate the theory so you'd only need a countably infinite number of branches and Everett at first liked the idea but later rejected it and concluded you couldn't derive probability by counting universes. Eventually even Graham seems to have agreed and abandoned the idea that the number of universes was so small you could count them.
Taken as a whole Everett's multiverse, where all things happen, probability is not a useful concept and everything is deterministic. However for observers like us trapped in a single branch of the multiverse, observers who do not have access to the entire wave function and all the information it contains but only a small sliver of it, probability is the best we can do. That probability we see is not part of the thing itself but is just a subjective measure of our ignorance.
Infinity can cause problems in figuring out probability but Everett said his theory could calculate what the probability any event could be observed in any branch of the multiverse, and it turns out to be the Born Rule (discovered by Max Born, grandfather of Olivia Newton John) which means the probability of finding a particle at a point is the squaring of the amplitude of the Schrodinger Wave function at that point. The Born Rule has been shown experimentally to be true but the Copenhagen Interpretation just postulates it, Everett said he could derive it from his theory it "emerges naturally as a measure of probability for observers confined to a single branch (like our branch)". He proved the mathematical consistency of this idea by adding up all the probabilities in all the branches of the event happening and getting exactly 100%. Dieter Zeh said Everett may not have rigorously derived the Born Rule but did justify it and showed it "as being the only reasonable choice for a probability measure if objective reality is represented by the universal wave function [Schrodinger's wave equation]". Rigorous proof or not that's more than any other quantum interpretation has managed to do.
Everett wrote to his friend Max Jammer:
"None of these physicists had grasped what I consider to be the major accomplishment of the theory- the "rigorous" deduction of the probability interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from wave mechanics alone. This deduction is just as "rigorous" as any deductions of classical statistical mechanics. [...] What is unique about the choice of measure and why it is forced upon one is that in both cases it is the only measure that satisfies the law of conservation of probability through the equations of motion. Thus logically in both classical statistical mechanics and in quantum mechanics, the only possible statistical statements depend upon the existence of a unique measure which obeys this conservation principle."
Nevertheless some complained that Everett did not use enough rigor in his derivation. David Deutsch has helped close that rigor gap. He showed that the number of Everett-worlds after a branching is proportional to the conventional probability density. He then used Game Theory to show that all these are all equally likely to be observed. Everett would likely have been delighted as he used Game Theory extensively in his other life as a cold warrior. Professor Deutsch gave one of the best quotations in the entire book, talking about many worlds as a interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an interpretation of the fossil record".
Everett was disappointed at the poor reception his doctoral dissertation received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. He was one of the first to point out that any defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles would be ineffectual and building an anti-balistic missile system could not be justified except for "political or psychological grounds". Byrne makes the case that Everett was the first one to convince high military leaders through mathematics and no nonsense non sentimental reasoning that a nuclear war could not be won, "after an attack by either superpower on the other, the majority of the attacked population that survived the initial blasts would be sterilized and gradually succumb to leukemia. Livestock would die quickly and survivors would be forced to rely on eating grains potatoes and vegetables. Unfortunately the produce would be seething with radioactive Strontium 90 which seeps into human bone marrow and causes cancer". Linus Pauling credited Evert by name and quoted from his pessimistic report in his Nobel acceptance speech for receiving the 1962 Nobel Peace prize.
Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of it happening was very high and would probably happen very soon. Byrne speculates in a footnote that Everett may have privately used anthropic reasoning and thought that the fact we live in a world where such a war has not happened (at least not yet) was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. Incidentally this is one of those rare books where the footnotes are almost as much fun to read as the main text.
Hugh's daughter Liz Everett killed herself a few years after her father's death, in her suicide note she said "Funeral requests: I prefer no church stuff. Please burn be and DON'T FILE ME. Please sprinkle me in some nice body of water or the garbage, maybe that way I'll end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy". And so she was.
John K Clark
"We should realize there exist worlds everywhere. It's not only thus in out of the way places-know that even a single drop right before us is also thus." 'In essence, each moment in Time is a World unto itself' (paraphrased) - Dogen zenjii
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-Hugh-Everett-III/product-reviews/0199552274/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0
This review is from: The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family (Hardcover)
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A superb book, August 16, 2010
By John K. Clark - See all my reviews
I've just finished this book and its one of the most enjoyable things I've read in a long time. Being a staple of science fiction and the only interpretation of quantum mechanics to enter the popular imagination it's a little surprising that "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett" by Peter Byrne is the first biography of the originator of that amazing idea. Everett certainly had an interesting life, he was a libertarian and a libertine, became a cold warrior who with his top secret clearance was comfortable with the idea of megadeath, became wealthy by started one of the first successful software companies until alcoholism drove him and his company into the ground. Everett died of heart failure in 1982 at the age of 51, he was legally drunk at the time. He requested that his body be cremated and his ashes thrown into the garbage. And so he was.
Byrne had an advantage other potential biographers did not, the cooperation of his son Mark, a successful rock musician and composer whose music has been featured in such big budget movies as American Beauty, Hellboy, Yes Man, all three of the Shrek movies and many others. Mark gave Byrne full access to his garage which was full of his father's papers that nobody had looked at in decades.
Everett was an atheist all his life, after his death Paul Davies, who got 1,000,000 pounds for winning the Templeton religion prize, said that if true Many Worlds destroyed the anthropic argument for the existence of God. Everett would have been delighted. Nevertheless Everett ended up going to Catholic University of America near Washington DC. Although Byrne doesn't tell us exactly what was in it, Everett as a freshman devised a logical proof against the existence of God. Apparently it was good enough that one of his pious professors became very upset and depressed with "ontological horror" when he read it. Everett liked the professor and felt so guilty he decided not to use it on a person of faith again. This story is very atypical of the man, most of the time Everett seems to care little for the feelings of others and although quite brilliant wasn't exactly lovable.
Everett wasn't the only one dissatisfied with the Copenhagen Interpretation which insisted the measuring device had to be outside the wave function, but he was unlike other dissidents such as Bohm or Cramer in that Everett saw no need to add new terms to Schrodinger's Equation and thought the equation meant exactly what it said. The only reason those extra terms were added was to try to rescue the single universe idea, and there was no experimental justification for that. Everett was unique in thinking that quantum mechanics gave a description of nature that was literally true.
John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, made him cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other universes were equally real when in fact he did. For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which today many consider the best part of the work. His long thesis was not published until 1973, if that version had been published in 1957 instead of the truncated Bowdlerized version things would have been different; plenty of people would still have disagreed but he would not have been ignored for as long as he was.
Byrne writes of Everett's views: "the splitting of observers share an identity because they stem from a common ancestor, but they also embark on different fates in different universes. They experience different lifespans, dissimilar events (such as a nuclear war perhaps) and at some point are no longer the same person, even though they share certain memory records." Everett says that when a observer splits it is meaningless to ask "which of the final observers corresponds to the initial one since each possess the total memory of the first" he says it is as foolish as asking which amoeba is the original after it splits into two. Wheeler made him remove all such talk of amebas from his published short thesis.
Byrne says Everett did not think there were just an astronomically large number of other universes but rather an infinite number of them, not only that he thought there were a non-denumerable infinite number of other worlds. This means that the number of them was larger than the infinite set of integers, but Byrne does not make it clear if this means they are as numerous as the number of points on a line, or as numerous as an even larger infinite set like the set of all possible clock faces, or maybe an even larger infinity than that where easy to understand examples of that sort of mega-infinite magnitude are hard to come by. Neill Graham tried to reformulate the theory so you'd only need a countably infinite number of branches and Everett at first liked the idea but later rejected it and concluded you couldn't derive probability by counting universes. Eventually even Graham seems to have agreed and abandoned the idea that the number of universes was so small you could count them.
Taken as a whole Everett's multiverse, where all things happen, probability is not a useful concept and everything is deterministic. However for observers like us trapped in a single branch of the multiverse, observers who do not have access to the entire wave function and all the information it contains but only a small sliver of it, probability is the best we can do. That probability we see is not part of the thing itself but is just a subjective measure of our ignorance.
Infinity can cause problems in figuring out probability but Everett said his theory could calculate what the probability any event could be observed in any branch of the multiverse, and it turns out to be the Born Rule (discovered by Max Born, grandfather of Olivia Newton John) which means the probability of finding a particle at a point is the squaring of the amplitude of the Schrodinger Wave function at that point. The Born Rule has been shown experimentally to be true but the Copenhagen Interpretation just postulates it, Everett said he could derive it from his theory it "emerges naturally as a measure of probability for observers confined to a single branch (like our branch)". He proved the mathematical consistency of this idea by adding up all the probabilities in all the branches of the event happening and getting exactly 100%. Dieter Zeh said Everett may not have rigorously derived the Born Rule but did justify it and showed it "as being the only reasonable choice for a probability measure if objective reality is represented by the universal wave function [Schrodinger's wave equation]". Rigorous proof or not that's more than any other quantum interpretation has managed to do.
Everett wrote to his friend Max Jammer:
"None of these physicists had grasped what I consider to be the major accomplishment of the theory- the "rigorous" deduction of the probability interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from wave mechanics alone. This deduction is just as "rigorous" as any deductions of classical statistical mechanics. [...] What is unique about the choice of measure and why it is forced upon one is that in both cases it is the only measure that satisfies the law of conservation of probability through the equations of motion. Thus logically in both classical statistical mechanics and in quantum mechanics, the only possible statistical statements depend upon the existence of a unique measure which obeys this conservation principle."
Nevertheless some complained that Everett did not use enough rigor in his derivation. David Deutsch has helped close that rigor gap. He showed that the number of Everett-worlds after a branching is proportional to the conventional probability density. He then used Game Theory to show that all these are all equally likely to be observed. Everett would likely have been delighted as he used Game Theory extensively in his other life as a cold warrior. Professor Deutsch gave one of the best quotations in the entire book, talking about many worlds as a interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an interpretation of the fossil record".
Everett was disappointed at the poor reception his doctoral dissertation received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. He was one of the first to point out that any defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles would be ineffectual and building an anti-balistic missile system could not be justified except for "political or psychological grounds". Byrne makes the case that Everett was the first one to convince high military leaders through mathematics and no nonsense non sentimental reasoning that a nuclear war could not be won, "after an attack by either superpower on the other, the majority of the attacked population that survived the initial blasts would be sterilized and gradually succumb to leukemia. Livestock would die quickly and survivors would be forced to rely on eating grains potatoes and vegetables. Unfortunately the produce would be seething with radioactive Strontium 90 which seeps into human bone marrow and causes cancer". Linus Pauling credited Evert by name and quoted from his pessimistic report in his Nobel acceptance speech for receiving the 1962 Nobel Peace prize.
Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of it happening was very high and would probably happen very soon. Byrne speculates in a footnote that Everett may have privately used anthropic reasoning and thought that the fact we live in a world where such a war has not happened (at least not yet) was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. Incidentally this is one of those rare books where the footnotes are almost as much fun to read as the main text.
Hugh's daughter Liz Everett killed herself a few years after her father's death, in her suicide note she said "Funeral requests: I prefer no church stuff. Please burn be and DON'T FILE ME. Please sprinkle me in some nice body of water or the garbage, maybe that way I'll end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy". And so she was.
John K Clark
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Republican Gay Mafia - Norquist Breitbart Limbaugh Rove
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=C-dTYTgpygEmEzKtfMt0Tg&cp=17&gs_id=1g&xhr=t&q=grover+norquist+gay&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&pbx=1&oq=grover+norquist+g&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=75d6b10aab223001&biw=1280&bih=588
Good god, just how many closeted neo fascist self hating gay republicans have infested the party of the 0.1%?
This is really the story of America in the 21st century, the death of civility and patriotism and the rise of self hating closeted gay fascists.
Good god, just how many closeted neo fascist self hating gay republicans have infested the party of the 0.1%?
This is really the story of America in the 21st century, the death of civility and patriotism and the rise of self hating closeted gay fascists.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Internet Porn + Prozac = End of Civilisation ?
" 'We have invented happiness!' say the Last Men, and they blink." - F. Nietzsche
What next, wireheading?
This review is from: Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Hardcover)
42 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
Important, Gut Wrenching, Groundbreaking, Expose, July 20, 2010
By John D. FoubertAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Gail Dines' Pornland lives up to its billing as the culmination of the life's work of one of the most reputable scholars of the effects of pornography on society. In it, Dines lays out an indictment of the pornography industry where only the pornography industry itself could vote "acquit." She masterfully traces the history of pornography from the feud between Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler through the modern day mainstream "body punishing sex" and brutal violence of online pornography. Based on her several decades of research on pornography and its purveyors, she lays bare an industry that has violated women in every way imaginable and is now running out of ideas on how many ways to penetrate their orifices. Her book reveals to everyday pornography users and to people who haven't ever seen pornography just how much porn is effecting our society, how violent it has become, and how much we all need to work to rid our society of its effects. Pornland is a call to action to reclaim a critical part of ourselves -- our sexuality. Whether the reader understands the cause of pornography to be sin, patriarchy, oppression, whether the reader sees porn as an expression of healthy sexuality, an addiction, or a harmless pastime, all should read Dines' critical look at this omnipresent influence on our society. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Newest first Showing 1-10 of 32 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 23, 2010 10:55:53 AM PDT
Hugh Jape says:
"one of the most reputable scholars of the effects of pornography on society" hahaha Hardly. Not everyone manages to erode the credibility of their review in their first sentence but you, sir, can lay claim to that achievement.
"how much porn is effecting our society" I think you mean "affecting". If you're confused by affect/effect then you're probably not a good judge of any media effects scholarship.
12 of 41 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jul 26, 2010 4:52:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2010 4:54:52 AM PDT
fanofthefab4 says:
Great review except no sane person(only the many people who have already been taught the sickness of pornography is normal and are influenced and desensitized by it) could possibly believe that there is anything healthy about pornography and it's really harmful not harmless! It's extremely sexist,woman-hating,damaging and sick distortions of women,men and sexuality! And I would think that Dr.Gail Dines demonstrates this totally!
12 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 4:56:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2010 5:09:34 AM PDT
fanofthefab4 says:
Yes,as a matter of fact Dr.Gail Dines is one of most reputable scholars on pornography,and she has been for the more than 25 years she's been studying,and teaching about the true harms of pornography!Obviously you are just another porn user that has been influenced and desensitized by it,and tasught by it to believe it's normal!
14 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 7:41:20 AM PDT
John D. Foubert says:
I agree with you that no sane person could believe there is anything healthy about pornography. Thank you for the comment!
11 of 17 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 7:57:58 AM PDT
Hugh Jape says:
As I've just stated, my main problems with Dines are her methodology and conclusions. Her abductive inferences aren't really supported. Unlike your problem with me, I don't object to her ideology.
Please stop writing comments on my comments when you have nothing constructive to add. You're welcome to review the book yourself (I swear I'll even leave your sycophantic idiocy alone) but you should stop objecting to my commentary just because it conflicts with your beliefs. I'm happy for you to believe what you want but trying to strong-arm me with assertions and emotive rhetoric is pointless.
What next, wireheading?
This review is from: Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Hardcover)
42 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
Important, Gut Wrenching, Groundbreaking, Expose, July 20, 2010
By John D. FoubertAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Gail Dines' Pornland lives up to its billing as the culmination of the life's work of one of the most reputable scholars of the effects of pornography on society. In it, Dines lays out an indictment of the pornography industry where only the pornography industry itself could vote "acquit." She masterfully traces the history of pornography from the feud between Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler through the modern day mainstream "body punishing sex" and brutal violence of online pornography. Based on her several decades of research on pornography and its purveyors, she lays bare an industry that has violated women in every way imaginable and is now running out of ideas on how many ways to penetrate their orifices. Her book reveals to everyday pornography users and to people who haven't ever seen pornography just how much porn is effecting our society, how violent it has become, and how much we all need to work to rid our society of its effects. Pornland is a call to action to reclaim a critical part of ourselves -- our sexuality. Whether the reader understands the cause of pornography to be sin, patriarchy, oppression, whether the reader sees porn as an expression of healthy sexuality, an addiction, or a harmless pastime, all should read Dines' critical look at this omnipresent influence on our society. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Newest first Showing 1-10 of 32 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 23, 2010 10:55:53 AM PDT
Hugh Jape says:
"one of the most reputable scholars of the effects of pornography on society" hahaha Hardly. Not everyone manages to erode the credibility of their review in their first sentence but you, sir, can lay claim to that achievement.
"how much porn is effecting our society" I think you mean "affecting". If you're confused by affect/effect then you're probably not a good judge of any media effects scholarship.
12 of 41 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jul 26, 2010 4:52:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2010 4:54:52 AM PDT
fanofthefab4 says:
Great review except no sane person(only the many people who have already been taught the sickness of pornography is normal and are influenced and desensitized by it) could possibly believe that there is anything healthy about pornography and it's really harmful not harmless! It's extremely sexist,woman-hating,damaging and sick distortions of women,men and sexuality! And I would think that Dr.Gail Dines demonstrates this totally!
12 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 4:56:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2010 5:09:34 AM PDT
fanofthefab4 says:
Yes,as a matter of fact Dr.Gail Dines is one of most reputable scholars on pornography,and she has been for the more than 25 years she's been studying,and teaching about the true harms of pornography!Obviously you are just another porn user that has been influenced and desensitized by it,and tasught by it to believe it's normal!
14 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 7:41:20 AM PDT
John D. Foubert says:
I agree with you that no sane person could believe there is anything healthy about pornography. Thank you for the comment!
11 of 17 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2010 7:57:58 AM PDT
Hugh Jape says:
As I've just stated, my main problems with Dines are her methodology and conclusions. Her abductive inferences aren't really supported. Unlike your problem with me, I don't object to her ideology.
Please stop writing comments on my comments when you have nothing constructive to add. You're welcome to review the book yourself (I swear I'll even leave your sycophantic idiocy alone) but you should stop objecting to my commentary just because it conflicts with your beliefs. I'm happy for you to believe what you want but trying to strong-arm me with assertions and emotive rhetoric is pointless.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
conservatism is really fascism couched in laissez faire deregulated capitalist rhetoric
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/krugman-money-and-morals.html?src=me&ref=general
Sheldon BuninJackson Heights,
..What is occurring in American politics today has been seen before by those who are old enough. In 1939 or 40 I watched the German American Bund, with Nazi flags and Old Glory next to one another march as people cheered. In 1940 I entered public school and listened as my teacher explaine to the class that it was not my fault that I was a Jew. At the time my oldest brother was in the army and in 1942 at 19 my other brother enlisted.
We knew that companies like Ford Motor, GM, IBM, Dupont and more, supported Hitler and were surprised when they were not prosecuted for treason. My dad’s opinion was that it was the upper class sticking together. There were many who believed we picked the wrong side.
After the war there was a Republican resurgency, the John Birch Society, Sen. Joe McCarthy’s slander and witch hunts, HUAC and black listing and pursuit of Hollywood liberals. After Nixon there was a push to repeal the New Deal. I was ing college where liberal faculty were under fire. Democrats had to choose with LBJ between holding the “Solid South” with Jim Crow to the Republicans or pass civil and voting rights, now under attack along with the class war on working people and the ascendancy of corporate supremacy.
Having lost the Civil War to southern senatorial seniority on the 30's, it is apparent that we have lost the war against fascism. The state as power center is now the multinational corporation acting in concert, government having been privatized.
.
Feb. 9, 2012 at 10:19 p.m.
..Martin SteinPortland, OregonMartin Stein is Trusted.
..Present day conservatism is really fascism couched in laissez faire deregulated capitalist rhetoric and theory. Of course proponents of this nihilist economic ideology are against government because it is the only barrier to their total takeover of society and turning America into a fascist oligarchy.
The corporate fascists like the Koch brothers and their brethren who via their paid mercenaries in the media and politics have so far been winning the public relations war in ginning up a fear of "socialism" among the white masses while they go about creating an American style fascist state right under their noses.
Poverty has rarely been spoken about by either party, so the one good thing about Murray's book is the highlighting of poverty among the white working class as he has actually discovered something knew. Politicians and social science academics are generally a decade behind "discovering" what ordinary Americans already know.
This book may actually shed more light on the sharp rise of poverty in America. Nobody really cared about drugs when they were decimating poor urban communities, mostly populated by people of color, except when realtors wanted the neighborhoods cleaned up for gentrification or when drugs began to infect the white middle class and higher which lead to the war on drugs
Poverty is created by the immorality and nihilism of economic and political elites not by liberal values.
We need to replace the "war on drugs" with a "WAR ON GREED!"
Feb. 9, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.Recommended255Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter.
..PaulBoston, MAReport Inappropriate Comment. Vulgar . Inflammatory . Personal Attack . Spam . Off-topic ..SubmitCancel .
Flag
..I happen to be a perfect example of what Krugman is talking about.
In the mid 1970's I dropped out of college after one year, (Having no idea what I wanted to do), and got a job in a steel mill. In my first full year of employment I made around $35,000, had excellent benefits and that would have been considered pretty much 'middle class', or close to it, back then.
I never did get that degree, but neither was I stuck on the bottom rung. I continued to advance in an industry where common sense and problem solving skills are prized more than an MBA and by the time I retired I was a manager making a six figure salary.
That kind of career arc wasn't uncommon among folks of my generation. But those opportunities simply don't exist today. We are now faced with the question of how to build a middle class on a service economy. (?)
Don't you dare try to blame OUR 'morals' for the sad state we're in today.
georgiademAtlanta, GaReport Inappropriate Comment. Vulgar . Inflammatory . Personal Attack . Spam . Off-topic ..SubmitCancel .
Flag
..Living in Georgia I am surrounded by Christian Conservatives who all seem to have God's ear and declare that he speaks to them personally on a daily basis. We are not talking about broad spectrum praying like let me be a better person but daily minutia.
Here is an example of the decline of white America in my small micro chasm of Georgia. It sounds a lot like Wisteria Lane. My book club is composed of women I went to high school with in the 70's. I was the studious one who did not do drugs or alcohol, they were not that way at all and partook of all the vices that the 70's had to offer. Fast forward 30 plus years , I am still married to my first husband. One is working on her third husband, one is divorced and one had a baby out of wedlock, Staunch Christian Conservatives all. The only reason I mention this is that during discussions I am looked at as a heathen since I am an Atheist. Meanwhile this Liberal Democrat who has worked since the age of 20 and raised 2 responsible children who did not get pregnant and have advanced degrees,who has no debt including a mortgage and no college loans to pay back but does not converse with God all day long apparently is now the cause of the moral decline of America.
Sheldon BuninJackson Heights,
..What is occurring in American politics today has been seen before by those who are old enough. In 1939 or 40 I watched the German American Bund, with Nazi flags and Old Glory next to one another march as people cheered. In 1940 I entered public school and listened as my teacher explaine to the class that it was not my fault that I was a Jew. At the time my oldest brother was in the army and in 1942 at 19 my other brother enlisted.
We knew that companies like Ford Motor, GM, IBM, Dupont and more, supported Hitler and were surprised when they were not prosecuted for treason. My dad’s opinion was that it was the upper class sticking together. There were many who believed we picked the wrong side.
After the war there was a Republican resurgency, the John Birch Society, Sen. Joe McCarthy’s slander and witch hunts, HUAC and black listing and pursuit of Hollywood liberals. After Nixon there was a push to repeal the New Deal. I was ing college where liberal faculty were under fire. Democrats had to choose with LBJ between holding the “Solid South” with Jim Crow to the Republicans or pass civil and voting rights, now under attack along with the class war on working people and the ascendancy of corporate supremacy.
Having lost the Civil War to southern senatorial seniority on the 30's, it is apparent that we have lost the war against fascism. The state as power center is now the multinational corporation acting in concert, government having been privatized.
.
Feb. 9, 2012 at 10:19 p.m.
..Martin SteinPortland, OregonMartin Stein is Trusted.
..Present day conservatism is really fascism couched in laissez faire deregulated capitalist rhetoric and theory. Of course proponents of this nihilist economic ideology are against government because it is the only barrier to their total takeover of society and turning America into a fascist oligarchy.
The corporate fascists like the Koch brothers and their brethren who via their paid mercenaries in the media and politics have so far been winning the public relations war in ginning up a fear of "socialism" among the white masses while they go about creating an American style fascist state right under their noses.
Poverty has rarely been spoken about by either party, so the one good thing about Murray's book is the highlighting of poverty among the white working class as he has actually discovered something knew. Politicians and social science academics are generally a decade behind "discovering" what ordinary Americans already know.
This book may actually shed more light on the sharp rise of poverty in America. Nobody really cared about drugs when they were decimating poor urban communities, mostly populated by people of color, except when realtors wanted the neighborhoods cleaned up for gentrification or when drugs began to infect the white middle class and higher which lead to the war on drugs
Poverty is created by the immorality and nihilism of economic and political elites not by liberal values.
We need to replace the "war on drugs" with a "WAR ON GREED!"
Feb. 9, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.Recommended255Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter.
..PaulBoston, MAReport Inappropriate Comment. Vulgar . Inflammatory . Personal Attack . Spam . Off-topic ..SubmitCancel .
Flag
..I happen to be a perfect example of what Krugman is talking about.
In the mid 1970's I dropped out of college after one year, (Having no idea what I wanted to do), and got a job in a steel mill. In my first full year of employment I made around $35,000, had excellent benefits and that would have been considered pretty much 'middle class', or close to it, back then.
I never did get that degree, but neither was I stuck on the bottom rung. I continued to advance in an industry where common sense and problem solving skills are prized more than an MBA and by the time I retired I was a manager making a six figure salary.
That kind of career arc wasn't uncommon among folks of my generation. But those opportunities simply don't exist today. We are now faced with the question of how to build a middle class on a service economy. (?)
Don't you dare try to blame OUR 'morals' for the sad state we're in today.
georgiademAtlanta, GaReport Inappropriate Comment. Vulgar . Inflammatory . Personal Attack . Spam . Off-topic ..SubmitCancel .
Flag
..Living in Georgia I am surrounded by Christian Conservatives who all seem to have God's ear and declare that he speaks to them personally on a daily basis. We are not talking about broad spectrum praying like let me be a better person but daily minutia.
Here is an example of the decline of white America in my small micro chasm of Georgia. It sounds a lot like Wisteria Lane. My book club is composed of women I went to high school with in the 70's. I was the studious one who did not do drugs or alcohol, they were not that way at all and partook of all the vices that the 70's had to offer. Fast forward 30 plus years , I am still married to my first husband. One is working on her third husband, one is divorced and one had a baby out of wedlock, Staunch Christian Conservatives all. The only reason I mention this is that during discussions I am looked at as a heathen since I am an Atheist. Meanwhile this Liberal Democrat who has worked since the age of 20 and raised 2 responsible children who did not get pregnant and have advanced degrees,who has no debt including a mortgage and no college loans to pay back but does not converse with God all day long apparently is now the cause of the moral decline of America.
Michael Moore and Sean Hannity in Nazi Germany
This horrifying 2008 documentary 'This Divided State' brings to mind the 'White Rose Society' trying to wake up their countrymen. It is not in the least hyperbole to say that Sean Hannity and Rupert Murdoch are straight out of Nazi Germany.
33 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
Unite in Watching This, August 18, 2008
By Edwin C. PauzerAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: This Divided State (DVD)
In 1844, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (LDS) was murdered by religious bigots. His followers moved to Utah, where 75% of the state's population today subscribes to this belief. They are mostly republican, outnumbering democrats or liberals by twelve to one.
The Divided State brings us to 2004 where two members of the student government at the Utah Valley State College decided to invite Michael Moore to speak on campus before the November presidential election. The fees for Moore's visit would be $40,000 for which advanced ticket sales have already insured a profit. When the invitation was made, the uproar began.
Students opposed to the political views of the controversial filmmaker started drawing petitions to have the invitation rescinded. They never claimed that it was about Moore's politics, but how the money was spent. They have the support of Kay Anderson, a local businessman in the Oram, Utah community. Anderson seems to delight being in the spotlight even as students challenge his opposition, and catch him repeatedly contradicting himself. (A trailer to this shows the students lampooning him mercilessly, which draws chuckles from the man who gives every appearance of being a self-righteous bigot and hypocritical throwback to the 1950's). Students counter Anderson's argument by asking why it is so important keeping someone out, which is the same reason the LDS sought refuge by immigrating to Utah.
Conservative students invite ultraconservative Sean Hannity to speak at the school, days ahead of Moore. He agrees to do it free, just so long as they pay his expenses and the cost of flying by private jet. Cost: $50,000.
Watching Hannity was perhaps the most difficult viewing of this story. His patronization of the crowd and condescension was nauseating. He humiliated a liberal in the audience, and on stage while carefully keeping the microphone from him. He summoned other liberals by calling them, as he would call for a house pet. Moore follows several days later, also to a sell-out crowd, extolling the courage of the student body president, Jim Bassi and Vice President Joe Vogel, who find themselves in a lawsuit filed for spite by fellow Mormon, Kay Anderson.
This was surprisingly entertaining and powerful. It was shocking, and disgusting to see Kay Anderson completely contradict his Christian principles and American ideals, saying the community could ignore the first amendment rights of other Americans by keeping them from speaking in his town or local college. Knowing Hannity's routine, I have gained a new level of contempt for this conceited prima donna. Yet, it was refreshing to see college students remain ever mindful of their civic obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.
This was a microcosm of division that has permeated across our land, hence the title, "This Divided State." Another lesson to be learned from this is that civil rights can always be taken away or challenged by rationalization by anyone in the majority, liberal or conservative, and that tyranny can appear in the form of self-righteousness, misdirection, and under the cloak of patriotism.
Unite in watching this.
33 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
Unite in Watching This, August 18, 2008
By Edwin C. PauzerAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: This Divided State (DVD)
In 1844, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (LDS) was murdered by religious bigots. His followers moved to Utah, where 75% of the state's population today subscribes to this belief. They are mostly republican, outnumbering democrats or liberals by twelve to one.
The Divided State brings us to 2004 where two members of the student government at the Utah Valley State College decided to invite Michael Moore to speak on campus before the November presidential election. The fees for Moore's visit would be $40,000 for which advanced ticket sales have already insured a profit. When the invitation was made, the uproar began.
Students opposed to the political views of the controversial filmmaker started drawing petitions to have the invitation rescinded. They never claimed that it was about Moore's politics, but how the money was spent. They have the support of Kay Anderson, a local businessman in the Oram, Utah community. Anderson seems to delight being in the spotlight even as students challenge his opposition, and catch him repeatedly contradicting himself. (A trailer to this shows the students lampooning him mercilessly, which draws chuckles from the man who gives every appearance of being a self-righteous bigot and hypocritical throwback to the 1950's). Students counter Anderson's argument by asking why it is so important keeping someone out, which is the same reason the LDS sought refuge by immigrating to Utah.
Conservative students invite ultraconservative Sean Hannity to speak at the school, days ahead of Moore. He agrees to do it free, just so long as they pay his expenses and the cost of flying by private jet. Cost: $50,000.
Watching Hannity was perhaps the most difficult viewing of this story. His patronization of the crowd and condescension was nauseating. He humiliated a liberal in the audience, and on stage while carefully keeping the microphone from him. He summoned other liberals by calling them, as he would call for a house pet. Moore follows several days later, also to a sell-out crowd, extolling the courage of the student body president, Jim Bassi and Vice President Joe Vogel, who find themselves in a lawsuit filed for spite by fellow Mormon, Kay Anderson.
This was surprisingly entertaining and powerful. It was shocking, and disgusting to see Kay Anderson completely contradict his Christian principles and American ideals, saying the community could ignore the first amendment rights of other Americans by keeping them from speaking in his town or local college. Knowing Hannity's routine, I have gained a new level of contempt for this conceited prima donna. Yet, it was refreshing to see college students remain ever mindful of their civic obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.
This was a microcosm of division that has permeated across our land, hence the title, "This Divided State." Another lesson to be learned from this is that civil rights can always be taken away or challenged by rationalization by anyone in the majority, liberal or conservative, and that tyranny can appear in the form of self-righteousness, misdirection, and under the cloak of patriotism.
Unite in watching this.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
News Flash! - Filthy Longhaired Dope Smoking Barefoot Hippie Dropout Creates World's Largest Corporation!
how cool is that, the filthy longhaired hippie dropout druggie creates the world's largest and most profitable corporation!!!! all you conservadroids can stick that up your sphincter!
FBI releases dossier on Steve Jobs
By Scott Martin, USA TODAYUpdated 1h 48m ago Comments
Reprints & PermissionsThe FBI on Thursday made public a dossier on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, disclosing details on his reported drug use and ability to "distort reality."
Paul Sakuma, AP
The FBI has released its file on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.
EnlargeClose
Paul Sakuma, AP
The FBI has released its file on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.
The files, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, were gathered for investigations into a potential presidential appointment by George H.W. Bush and a bomb threat against Apple.
"Several individuals questioned Mr. Jobs' honesty, stating that Mr. Jobs will twist the truth and distort reality in order to achieve his goals," said the FBI documents.
MORE: The complete FBI file
PHOTOS: Steve Jobs through the years
The former Apple CEO held a legendary corporate status that included a talent dubbed his "reality distortion field" ability to convince people of the truth as he saw it. It was widely considered part of his unusual marketing genius at Apple.
Interviews with people who knew Jobs also disclosed information about his drug use, according to the FBI documents.
"During the 1960s and early 1970s, Mr. Jobs may have experimented with illegal drugs, having come from that generation," said a person whose name was redacted from the file.
Jobs was also seenas something of a counterculture corporate rebel. He was a big fan of Bob Dylan, who dated folk musician Joan Baez, who also reportedly dated Jobs briefly.
Jobs was a card-carrying member of a generation that celebrated a hippie counterculture. An unidentified FBI interviewee stated, "Mr. Jobs used illegal drugs, including marijuana and LSD, while they were attending college."
The FBI files were in part a moral character background check. To that end, interviews were conducted with people who initially said Jobs was "not supportive" of Chris Ann Brennan, the mother of his daughter Lisa, who was born out of wedlock. Those people later said of Jobs that "recently he has become more supportive."
Jobs dated Brennan, who gave birth to Lisa Brennan-Jobs in 1978. Jobs denied paternity for years but later acknowledged Lisa as his daughter. It's widely thought Jobs named the Apple Lisa computer after her. That device, which employed a user interface aimed at businesses, was a predecessor of the Macintosh.
Jobs married Laurene Powell in 1991; their children are Reed, Erin and Eve. He died last October after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.
Apple did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
FBI releases dossier on Steve Jobs
By Scott Martin, USA TODAYUpdated 1h 48m ago Comments
Reprints & PermissionsThe FBI on Thursday made public a dossier on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, disclosing details on his reported drug use and ability to "distort reality."
Paul Sakuma, AP
The FBI has released its file on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.
EnlargeClose
Paul Sakuma, AP
The FBI has released its file on late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.
The files, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, were gathered for investigations into a potential presidential appointment by George H.W. Bush and a bomb threat against Apple.
"Several individuals questioned Mr. Jobs' honesty, stating that Mr. Jobs will twist the truth and distort reality in order to achieve his goals," said the FBI documents.
MORE: The complete FBI file
PHOTOS: Steve Jobs through the years
The former Apple CEO held a legendary corporate status that included a talent dubbed his "reality distortion field" ability to convince people of the truth as he saw it. It was widely considered part of his unusual marketing genius at Apple.
Interviews with people who knew Jobs also disclosed information about his drug use, according to the FBI documents.
"During the 1960s and early 1970s, Mr. Jobs may have experimented with illegal drugs, having come from that generation," said a person whose name was redacted from the file.
Jobs was also seenas something of a counterculture corporate rebel. He was a big fan of Bob Dylan, who dated folk musician Joan Baez, who also reportedly dated Jobs briefly.
Jobs was a card-carrying member of a generation that celebrated a hippie counterculture. An unidentified FBI interviewee stated, "Mr. Jobs used illegal drugs, including marijuana and LSD, while they were attending college."
The FBI files were in part a moral character background check. To that end, interviews were conducted with people who initially said Jobs was "not supportive" of Chris Ann Brennan, the mother of his daughter Lisa, who was born out of wedlock. Those people later said of Jobs that "recently he has become more supportive."
Jobs dated Brennan, who gave birth to Lisa Brennan-Jobs in 1978. Jobs denied paternity for years but later acknowledged Lisa as his daughter. It's widely thought Jobs named the Apple Lisa computer after her. That device, which employed a user interface aimed at businesses, was a predecessor of the Macintosh.
Jobs married Laurene Powell in 1991; their children are Reed, Erin and Eve. He died last October after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.
Apple did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Nevada Primary - Batlleground of the 1% versus the 99%, where the 99% are fleeced by the 1%
Nevada - the epitome of the American style of class warfare - gaudy pseudo entertainment extravaganzas funded and run by the 1% for the express purpose of deceiving the 99% with promises that they too can become one of the 1% if they just stuff enough quarters into this slot. And if stuffing quarters into slots doesnt work for you, why dont you sit down at one of our luxuriously appointed gaming tables eh? Sureley when you are finally completely broke at 3am we will at least give you a free drink as a token of our gratitude in helping out the billionaires who own the joint.
Mitt Romney should do very well.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-romney-and-class-warfare-20120202,0,3142374.story
Romney and class warfare
By Jules Witcover
February 3, 2012
As the Republican presidential race moves to Nevada, land of roulette wheels, craps tables and slot machines, where dreams of quick riches are often broken, Mitt Romneycontinues to struggle with the political consequences of the millions he's made through the sweat of his hard-earned investments.
The release of his most recent tax returns revealed how he successfully gamed the tax system by virtue of the low 15 percent capital gains rate, allowing him legally to avoid the 35 percent many other Americans pay. At the same time, his tin ear on the plight of the nonrich still plagues him, giving him a Marie Antoinette tinge.
No, Mr. Romney hasn't said, "Let them eat cake." But his latest observation -- "I'm not concerned about the very poor" because they have a safety net to take care of them -- threw him on the defensive again. He quickly added: "(W)e can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs that help the poor."
Beyond Mitt Romney's verbal difficulty in squaring his riches with a sense of compassion for the poor, the whole matter has complicated the favorite Republican argument that its members are on the receiving end of class warfare waged by the Democrats. The implication is that the Dems resent the wealthy and are bent on arousing the poor against them.
But as one of America's richest men, Warren Buffett, has famously been quoted as saying, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich, that's making war, and we're winning." Mr. Obama has been gleefully advocating the "Buffett rule," which holds that, in view of the fact that the man's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, anyone making $1 million or more a year should be required to pay an effective rate of at least 30 percent on their income.
Jules Witcover's latest book is Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption" (William Morrow). His email is juleswitcover@comcast.net.
The Real Story - Mitt Romney and GOP HAVE NO IDEA How Many Poor There Really Are
as usual, most of the press miss the real point when Mitt Romney says he doesnt care about the poor, he only cares about the other 95%
WTF? So just how many are in poverty then Mitt? 5%?
Yeah, well, how come 40+ million are on food stamps?
So, exactly what percentage of 350 million is 40 million Mitt? Come on, you were a hedge fund manager, you should be good with numbers, you after all had to make sure you got your 30 percent of every deal off the top.
Is Mitt just another case study of the George W Bush innumeracy epidemic? Or, just another case study of how stupid the ultra rich assume everyone else is?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-romney-20120202,0,2447859.story
The income classes according to Mr. Romney
Our view: Not just a gaffe, a candidate's dismissal of the 'very poor' raises questions about poverty, safety nets and whether Republicans understand either
Comments 15Share1
2:11 p.m. EST, February 2, 2012
Mitt Romney's ill-considered remark about the destitute, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," and his subsequent awkward explanation of it represented something more noteworthy than a rich man's gaffe. The question raised by the episode is not simply whether the candidate can articulate his views more clearly but whether the dire economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans are truly understood, or can even be acknowledged, by the GOP.
"We have a social safety net," Mr. Romney told his CNN interviewer Wednesday. "If it needs a repair, I'll fix it." He went on to say he wasn't concerned about the "very rich" either and that he's focused on the "90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
This was more than a mere casting aside of the poor (admittedly, not usually a particularly important voting bloc for Republican primary elections) but a humongous miscalculation of poverty. Say what you will about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, at least they were in the ballpark with their definition of the super-rich as representing just 1 percent of the U.S. population.
Mr. Romney's estimate of "90, 95 percent" not only implies that those helped by taxpayer-supported safety net programs are doing just great, thank you, but that he pegs the impoverished at something between 4 percent and 9 percent of the population. That's quite a distance from reality, particularly from someone who served as a governor and surely had to deal with these programs firsthand.
--------------------------
mdg964 at 2:48 PM February 2, 2012
All of the politicos speak a good game about caring for the middle class and when President Obama does it you would think that it was the first genuine thought out of his mouth. The poor in this country are taken care of better than any other country in the world and it is on the dime of the middle class and rich. It is about time that someone steps up and says it, and that is just what Romney did. There are countless programs, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8, Head Start, MTO, Welfare, public housing, free MTA passes and many, many more that are in place to help the poor and I guess it is the candidates job to go out and find some more?
Here is the problem....THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BROKE ON THE BACK OF TAXES AND FEES! THERE IS NO MORE TO GIVE!
Reply
Report Abuse
1 1
harrybsun at 5:08 PM February 2, 2012
It's certainly not true that the poor are taken care of in this country better than any other country in the world. There is a continent called Europe that you might want to become more familiar with.
As for "no more to give", it's actually the upper-middle class and upper class that bears the brunt of the costs for anti-poverty programs. Overall, we're paying the lowest in taxes than we have since 1950.
Report Abuse
1 1
gsnorris at 5:49 PM February 2, 2012
<>
The middle class is hurting because real wages have been in a long, steady decline, not because of taxes and fees.
WTF? So just how many are in poverty then Mitt? 5%?
Yeah, well, how come 40+ million are on food stamps?
So, exactly what percentage of 350 million is 40 million Mitt? Come on, you were a hedge fund manager, you should be good with numbers, you after all had to make sure you got your 30 percent of every deal off the top.
Is Mitt just another case study of the George W Bush innumeracy epidemic? Or, just another case study of how stupid the ultra rich assume everyone else is?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-romney-20120202,0,2447859.story
The income classes according to Mr. Romney
Our view: Not just a gaffe, a candidate's dismissal of the 'very poor' raises questions about poverty, safety nets and whether Republicans understand either
Comments 15Share1
2:11 p.m. EST, February 2, 2012
Mitt Romney's ill-considered remark about the destitute, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," and his subsequent awkward explanation of it represented something more noteworthy than a rich man's gaffe. The question raised by the episode is not simply whether the candidate can articulate his views more clearly but whether the dire economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans are truly understood, or can even be acknowledged, by the GOP.
"We have a social safety net," Mr. Romney told his CNN interviewer Wednesday. "If it needs a repair, I'll fix it." He went on to say he wasn't concerned about the "very rich" either and that he's focused on the "90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
This was more than a mere casting aside of the poor (admittedly, not usually a particularly important voting bloc for Republican primary elections) but a humongous miscalculation of poverty. Say what you will about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, at least they were in the ballpark with their definition of the super-rich as representing just 1 percent of the U.S. population.
Mr. Romney's estimate of "90, 95 percent" not only implies that those helped by taxpayer-supported safety net programs are doing just great, thank you, but that he pegs the impoverished at something between 4 percent and 9 percent of the population. That's quite a distance from reality, particularly from someone who served as a governor and surely had to deal with these programs firsthand.
--------------------------
mdg964 at 2:48 PM February 2, 2012
All of the politicos speak a good game about caring for the middle class and when President Obama does it you would think that it was the first genuine thought out of his mouth. The poor in this country are taken care of better than any other country in the world and it is on the dime of the middle class and rich. It is about time that someone steps up and says it, and that is just what Romney did. There are countless programs, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8, Head Start, MTO, Welfare, public housing, free MTA passes and many, many more that are in place to help the poor and I guess it is the candidates job to go out and find some more?
Here is the problem....THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BROKE ON THE BACK OF TAXES AND FEES! THERE IS NO MORE TO GIVE!
Reply
Report Abuse
1 1
harrybsun at 5:08 PM February 2, 2012
It's certainly not true that the poor are taken care of in this country better than any other country in the world. There is a continent called Europe that you might want to become more familiar with.
As for "no more to give", it's actually the upper-middle class and upper class that bears the brunt of the costs for anti-poverty programs. Overall, we're paying the lowest in taxes than we have since 1950.
Report Abuse
1 1
gsnorris at 5:49 PM February 2, 2012
<
The middle class is hurting because real wages have been in a long, steady decline, not because of taxes and fees.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
A Sarah Palin Movie? Good God Almighty, Wasnt Nailin Palin Enough?
'Game Change': Sarah Palin on the verge of a nervous breakdown
The trailer for HBO's "Game Change" is out, and it features a full dose of Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin, portraying the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee on the verge of falling apart in the closing weeks of the campaign.
affableman at 2:48 PM February 2, 2012
She's a grifter, nothing more. Ignore her and hopefully she fades away.
They didn't make a "hit" piece on her as they didn't have to. Conservatives did that already with her show on TLC. The woman who told everyone she went hunting all the time needed six shots and coaching from her father to hit a caribou that was just standing there.
She's made a lot of money, I'll grant you that but so did PT Barnum selling tickets to a flea circus...
rdalinor at 2:20 PM February 2, 2012
Haha, you conservatives are in such denial. This isn't a hit piece, or hate speech. Liberals don't need HBO to sway public opinion. All Sarah Palin has to do is open her mouth and let the stupid roll out, and us liberals just sit back and smile. What a rube.
Dankster312 at 3:05 PM February 2, 2012
And I'm sure all your favorite Republican authors, talk-show mouthpieces and columnists are motivated by pure love for the truth. Greed is never a motivation in any conservative medium, right?
alurlyrx at 1:59 PM February 2, 2012
I'm neutral towards Sarah Palin, but you would think that a reasonable person would admire an average person who decides to run for city council and ends up as a governor and then a vice presidential candidate. Instead, the the liberal media carries on a vendetta against her. I doubt that most of us couldn't survive the onslaught of haters that she has had to fend off just because they don't agree with her free-speech views which aren't radical at all.
It's sad that each side of the political aisle is hell-bent on destroying the other, but the liberals are best at it. They wish for a one party state. I like choice.
Harold Finley at 2:29 PM February 2, 2012
Your assessment of why people loathe Palin is incredibly inaccurate. The reason she is despised is because A) She's a hatemonger B) She's stupid and C) She has no qualifications to do anything beyond being a housewife.
Her politics are her politics, and there are plenty of people who agree with them, but what the majority of human beings don't agree with is incompetence posing as skill.
Navydad at 2:59 PM February 2, 2012
Palin is an "average person"? When I learned about IQ tests, the mean (average) IQ was 100. How did it drop so low so fast?
norcalmiller at 1:46 PM February 2, 2012
I hope that they show this together with "Too Big to Fail" in one evening. That will put the folly of this Bumpkin ever getting so close to high office into perspective.
BrandtH931 at 1:33 PM February 2, 2012
I don’t know if HBO can Sell Sarah better than she sells herself. Just when we thought she her starlight was fading, this opportunistic movie may push Palin back into the spotlight depending on how she is portrayed. How does America’s Top MILF do it? She’s cut-throat when it comes to her money and you can see just how scandalous she’ll get for the cash with The Ecstasy of Sarah Palin
basybesma at 1:19 PM February 2, 2012
I wonder who the target audiance is for this movie? Why would someone who can't stand Palin watch the movie? If you like Palin, you know this is a hit piece so why bother?
It is almost like the makers of the movie couldn't help themselves, they just had to put their spin on what happened. Lets see what kind of ratings it gets.
Common Sense for a Clueless Nation at 1:33 PM February 2, 2012
Wait until the movie about Obama killing Bin Laden coming out, conveniently, before the elections.
Dankster312 at 3:09 PM February 2, 2012
A movie about the hunt for Bin Laden was already in the works. Katheryn Bigelow and Mark Boal had been prepping the movie about the SEALs hunting Osama Bin Laden for months when he was suddenly killed. Of course it's timed before the election, for maximum interests and profits. If he hadn't been killed, then conservatives would be loving the fact that it was coming out. Unfortunately for them, Obama, the intelligence community, and the military did their job.
kdb7594102 at 1:16 PM February 2, 2012
Moore's voice is way too calming to be Palin. She needs to shreik like a barn owl being butchered to sound like Failin Palin.
David Blackburn1 at 1:15 PM February 2, 2012
If she had become Vice President, we'd all be on the cusp of a breakdown.
RickC928 at 1:05 PM February 2, 2012
Sarah who? I thought The Palins' 15 minutes of fame were way over...
mtnbkreric at 12:59 PM February 2, 2012
Why would anyone waste their time making a movie about this narcissitic quitter?
MTKayak at 12:51 PM February 2, 2012
Left-Wing Hollywood slandering Christians and Conservatives. What else is new?
mtnbkreric at 12:57 PM February 2, 2012
The truth hurts, don't it. Should I call you a WAAAAMBULANCE?
Navydad at 1:03 PM February 2, 2012
Right wing apologist denying reality. What else is new?
drkoelper at 1:14 PM February 2, 2012
MTKayak is cloaking himself in the mantle of right-wing victimhood -- again. Nothing new here, move along.
Pelu Maad at 1:18 PM February 2, 2012
I like to use "Chrostofascists"....cover all you guys with just one word.
norcalmiller at 1:48 PM February 2, 2012
I prefer my description of "Weapons Grade Christinanity." Attack first and seek forgiveness later.
The trailer for HBO's "Game Change" is out, and it features a full dose of Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin, portraying the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee on the verge of falling apart in the closing weeks of the campaign.
affableman at 2:48 PM February 2, 2012
She's a grifter, nothing more. Ignore her and hopefully she fades away.
They didn't make a "hit" piece on her as they didn't have to. Conservatives did that already with her show on TLC. The woman who told everyone she went hunting all the time needed six shots and coaching from her father to hit a caribou that was just standing there.
She's made a lot of money, I'll grant you that but so did PT Barnum selling tickets to a flea circus...
rdalinor at 2:20 PM February 2, 2012
Haha, you conservatives are in such denial. This isn't a hit piece, or hate speech. Liberals don't need HBO to sway public opinion. All Sarah Palin has to do is open her mouth and let the stupid roll out, and us liberals just sit back and smile. What a rube.
Dankster312 at 3:05 PM February 2, 2012
And I'm sure all your favorite Republican authors, talk-show mouthpieces and columnists are motivated by pure love for the truth. Greed is never a motivation in any conservative medium, right?
alurlyrx at 1:59 PM February 2, 2012
I'm neutral towards Sarah Palin, but you would think that a reasonable person would admire an average person who decides to run for city council and ends up as a governor and then a vice presidential candidate. Instead, the the liberal media carries on a vendetta against her. I doubt that most of us couldn't survive the onslaught of haters that she has had to fend off just because they don't agree with her free-speech views which aren't radical at all.
It's sad that each side of the political aisle is hell-bent on destroying the other, but the liberals are best at it. They wish for a one party state. I like choice.
Harold Finley at 2:29 PM February 2, 2012
Your assessment of why people loathe Palin is incredibly inaccurate. The reason she is despised is because A) She's a hatemonger B) She's stupid and C) She has no qualifications to do anything beyond being a housewife.
Her politics are her politics, and there are plenty of people who agree with them, but what the majority of human beings don't agree with is incompetence posing as skill.
Navydad at 2:59 PM February 2, 2012
Palin is an "average person"? When I learned about IQ tests, the mean (average) IQ was 100. How did it drop so low so fast?
norcalmiller at 1:46 PM February 2, 2012
I hope that they show this together with "Too Big to Fail" in one evening. That will put the folly of this Bumpkin ever getting so close to high office into perspective.
BrandtH931 at 1:33 PM February 2, 2012
I don’t know if HBO can Sell Sarah better than she sells herself. Just when we thought she her starlight was fading, this opportunistic movie may push Palin back into the spotlight depending on how she is portrayed. How does America’s Top MILF do it? She’s cut-throat when it comes to her money and you can see just how scandalous she’ll get for the cash with The Ecstasy of Sarah Palin
basybesma at 1:19 PM February 2, 2012
I wonder who the target audiance is for this movie? Why would someone who can't stand Palin watch the movie? If you like Palin, you know this is a hit piece so why bother?
It is almost like the makers of the movie couldn't help themselves, they just had to put their spin on what happened. Lets see what kind of ratings it gets.
Common Sense for a Clueless Nation at 1:33 PM February 2, 2012
Wait until the movie about Obama killing Bin Laden coming out, conveniently, before the elections.
Dankster312 at 3:09 PM February 2, 2012
A movie about the hunt for Bin Laden was already in the works. Katheryn Bigelow and Mark Boal had been prepping the movie about the SEALs hunting Osama Bin Laden for months when he was suddenly killed. Of course it's timed before the election, for maximum interests and profits. If he hadn't been killed, then conservatives would be loving the fact that it was coming out. Unfortunately for them, Obama, the intelligence community, and the military did their job.
kdb7594102 at 1:16 PM February 2, 2012
Moore's voice is way too calming to be Palin. She needs to shreik like a barn owl being butchered to sound like Failin Palin.
David Blackburn1 at 1:15 PM February 2, 2012
If she had become Vice President, we'd all be on the cusp of a breakdown.
RickC928 at 1:05 PM February 2, 2012
Sarah who? I thought The Palins' 15 minutes of fame were way over...
mtnbkreric at 12:59 PM February 2, 2012
Why would anyone waste their time making a movie about this narcissitic quitter?
MTKayak at 12:51 PM February 2, 2012
Left-Wing Hollywood slandering Christians and Conservatives. What else is new?
mtnbkreric at 12:57 PM February 2, 2012
The truth hurts, don't it. Should I call you a WAAAAMBULANCE?
Navydad at 1:03 PM February 2, 2012
Right wing apologist denying reality. What else is new?
drkoelper at 1:14 PM February 2, 2012
MTKayak is cloaking himself in the mantle of right-wing victimhood -- again. Nothing new here, move along.
Pelu Maad at 1:18 PM February 2, 2012
I like to use "Chrostofascists"....cover all you guys with just one word.
norcalmiller at 1:48 PM February 2, 2012
I prefer my description of "Weapons Grade Christinanity." Attack first and seek forgiveness later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Martin Stein is Trusted
Trusted Commenter FAQ
He doesn't have the capacity to feel empathy for people he doesn't identify with.
I think has emotions only for family members, members of the Mormon Church and those in his economic class because they are like him. He is a very limited person, though I am not sure he is cruel. I think Romney is closer emotionally to Ron Paul and his son,who also lack emotional empathy Their intellect is cut off from their emotions and they can intellectually discuss the constitutionality of civil rights laws without feeling the suffering they caused.
People like Eric Kantor, and Paul Ryan, who unlike the poor, really leech off the rich have a nihilistic mean streak, as does Senators Kyle and Hatch who who ridiculed the unemployed as being lazy and drug users. Such people should not be making decisions effecting people's lives. Even Dick Nixon was heard saying on tape, "We have to give something to the blacks" Today he might be to the left of Obama. Imagine that!
Most of the GOP are hard line nihilists, as rigid and cold as the old Soviet hard line Stalinist Communists and if Americans are not careful they will bring this country down, the same way the Stalinists did to the Soviet Union,
The country is having an opportunity to view the soul of the GOP personified in Romney whose election would be a form of national suicide.
Report Inappropriate Comment