Why Don’t We Merge These Disasters and Call It “ClimateCare”? | Power Line:
I sometimes ask to be shown to the Inorganic Foods aisle. Doesn't get one much beyond funny looks.
As the linked article points out, neither "Affordable Care" or "Climate Change" are doing very well this winter. Germany had some cool, calm and foggy weather and discovered that neither solar or wind produce power under those conditions. (Who knew??) They were forced to rely on coal and nuclear to keep most things working. Realizing that their nuclear power capabilities were limited and going away, they were forced to start the process of building MORE coal plants.
Green is "nice", but "white frozen solid" is not nice, and when after supposedly 20 years of predicted warming produces a winter just like 20 years ago, people tend to prefer having the lights and heat operating.
On the "Affordable Care" front, we are finding out that when a huge number of new requirements are put on insurance and the prices offered to some segments of the market need to be subsidized by others, the price goes up, meaning that a whole new set of people have trouble affording care ... or find out that "affordable" means a deductible that is not affordable. Again, who knew? Certainly not BO (he WASN'T lying about "if you like it you can keep it") ... perhaps someday he will also figure out that cool, foggy calm weather isn't conducive to solar or wind power.
"Progressivism" requires that "Common Sense" be repealed -- which means that reality must be repealed. Science becomes religion, lies become truth, private becomes public, ... Orwell covered it all extremely well. By law, by intimidation, by any means possible, one must be convinced to believe "the experts" in the place of your lying eyes and experience.
This is as old as "The Emperor's New Clothes children's story. Are they allowed to repeat that any more? With BO and the progressives in power, it seems WAY too close to home.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/03/01/196347/george-orwell-was-a-socialist/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theorwellreader.com/essays/storgaard.html
"
It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or the red and black flag of the Anarchists; [. . .] Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. [HTC p. 8]
There was much in it I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for. [HTC p. 9]
" -- George Orwell
It should shock you to know that George Orwell was an enormously strong socialist. It's been a little humorous reading what you are saying that Orwell would say about liberalism. I thought you might find out for yourself eventually, but since you haven't found out for at least a few months I figured you would like to know.
Best,
- G
"Orwellian" - used to describe a political system in which a government tries to have complete control over people's behavior and thoughts.
ReplyDeletehttp://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/orwellian
I've read a good deal on Orwell. Like all geniuses, (Lincoln and Einstein being other great examples), there is a LOT of their thought to go around and it covers a BROAD range. They are NOT "one dimensional" ... I'd argue that genius is always hard to impossible to pin down to even a few dimensions.
When I use the term "Orwellian" I use it in the definition primarily of 1984 and Animal Farm. He is consistently against totalitarianism, but you are correct he never lost the "dream" of "socialism".
He was however totally in opposition of the two most prominent actual implementations of collectivist states in the 20th century, the USSR and National Socialism in Germany.
Believing in "ends" while having a lot of trouble with "means" and actual implementations of what one "believes to be possible" is a standard part of maturing, genius or no. Reading the Jefferson / Adams letters is a great way to understand that better. The list of people that "had a dream", then saw the horrors of the methods needed to realize it and "converted" is very long.
Would Orwell have come to the conclusion that I have that totalitarianism isn't a "failure of implementation" relative to socialism, it is a forgone result of socialism? I'm not going to claim that I know that answer, but there actually IS a commonly understood definition of "Orwellian", and it aligns extremely well with my usage.
As in Dr Strangelove, "Our Premiere is a man of the people, but he is a man, if you understand my meaning". Even geniuses (and maybe ESPECIALLY geniuses) are inconsistent since they are men. Geniuses that are artists produce works of art that are far more "true and consistent" than the men themselves.
Darwin was a terrible hypochondriac, Churchill was at least a borderline alcoholic. Their works are their works, independent of those aspects of their lives. I'm willing to believe that Orwell would have seen a few more implementations and went the way of a CS Lewis, a Hayek, or a Reagan and converted, but using the term Orwellian is only a reference to his works relative to totalitarianism.