Who quoted Orwell? He's quite the leftist. I'm suprised he made the cut. :tongue:
Printable View
Who quoted Orwell? He's quite the leftist. I'm suprised he made the cut. :tongue:
Don't look at me.... I'm thinking it was Squid though.. we always had our hopes about Squidster..
Left or right, does it realy matter? The amount of "anti-liberal" rhetoric on the news and in life out there is starting to worry me.
Maybe our next war will be a War against Liberalism?
This country is not the same one I grew up in.
Just remember that all AK'ers were created equal.
Some AK'ers are more equal than others.
The Widowmaker is the most equal of all.
Anti-liberal rhetoric, or equal time? Seems to me that the death grip of liberalism that has entombed the media since the Vietnam war is beginning to weaken - nothing more.
Liberal voices still far outnumber those of the right in all areas except radio.
I dunno.. another Civil War?... Not possible.. :tongue:
I could care less about media bias and such accusations.
If you don't like it don't watch it. I for one do not spend my TV time watching silly news programs or commentators. There is only about 30min of news a day that matters to me and most of that involves weather and traffic. I have more enjoyable ways of spending my time than worrying about it.
It is still my contention that money is the largest bias. I completely discount the bias claims since it seems rediculous to me that there is some wide agenda being played out. I am just tired of hearing about liberal bias, there are so many other things to worry about.
You can pull out all the "facts" you want but it still looks to me like a money bias. The conservative leaning news is chasing the right wing dollar and the liberal leaning media is chasing the liberal dollar.
And if education is so damn liberal maybe one should wonder why more "conservatives" are not going into education. Could it be that there is no pay in it? That is sure why I turned away from the education degree I once worked on.
And please spare me from the inevitable yelling about how I am blind to the obvious bias. I am not blind but I do not believe there is some communist fifth collum. It's all about the cash. And I include the current charges about CNN running Saddam propganda to remain in Bagdahd. It is not about some communist sympathizing with Hussein it is about keeping reporters in Bagdahd to sound like they are getting a "scoop" on other networks regarudless of the truth of the story. Truth matters far less than cash for all the corporations I have known.
Them's my feelings and I'll stick to them. I still contend that if you don't want to watch a certain media outlet because of your bias then don't. But please try not to be so paranoid that you think there is actualy some kind of subversion going on.
That's hopefully the last I will say on it.
Besides, I feel like I am hijacking a thread here. This kind of discussion has no place on the Planetside board.
Uhm, you write all that and then say, in effect, "don't respond because this is a Planetside forum"? :)
I find that if you don't classify yourself, or allow yourself to be classified, that you are a much happier person. = Choozoo right down the middle, and I make my own opinions.
Amen, brother Choozoo.
For those interested reading more about Orwell, I recommend 'The Road to Wiggan Pier'. Unlike his more popular books (Animal Farm, 1984), he gives you his positions straight out. The more welfare, the better!! :)
I classify you as a non-PlanetSide Beta tester. :DQuote:
Originally posted by [AK]Choozoo
I find that if you don't classify yourself, or allow yourself to be classified, that you are a much happier person. = Choozoo right down the middle, and I make my own opinions.
Bribo my friend, you need a big cup....
Bah, I never liked reading Orwell. Dark, dreary, mostly boring with characters I did not realy care about as they were more just figures to illustrate some message.
The animated movie of Animal Farm was cute. After reading the book the message I got from it was a warning against a communist dictatorship. He may be all for a welfare state but definetly did not like dictatorships. I don't pay a lot of attention to a writers politics, it is much like celebrity politics and just anoys me when they try to mask a huge political message in a piece of prose. Some message and commentary is fine, but too much is just preaching to me... yawn.
Chicken Run was more fun :)
And I think Bribo is right on in his Choozoo classification!
That's it!
You all get BigCups!
Pick your poison for tonight fellas, the BigCup cometh!
What about Intel?
True, Orwell was a leftist; he called himself a democratic socialist, or something to that effect. However, he was no pacifist. In fact, he vehemently opposed the tyranny of totalitarianism both in his writings and by placing himself in harm's way during the Spanish Civil War. While I do not agree with much of his politics, I do respect his works (1984 is one of my favorite books), and I think that the quote I used for the description of this forum is both true and appropriate. PlanetSide is a game about warring factions and the pursuit of conquest, after all.
Bringing up George Orwell got me interested in reading more of his work, so since I have nothing else to do in the University of Colorado library while I wait for the little lady to get out of her choreography class, I have read quite a few of Orwell's wartime columns. I found the following article from July 14, 1944 particularly interesting:
==========================
I have received a number of letters, some of them quite violent ones, attacking me for my remarks on Miss Vera Brittain's anti-bombing pamphlet. There are two points that seem to need further comment.
First of all there is the charge, which is becoming quite a common one, that "we started it," i.e. that Britain was the first country to practise systematic bombing of civilians. How anyone can make this claim, with the history of the past dozen years in mind, is almost beyond me. The first act in the present war -- some hours, if I remember rightly, before any declaration of war passed -- was the German bombing of Warsaw. The Germans bombed and shelled the city so intensively that, according to the Poles, at one time 700 fires were raging simultaneously. They made a film of the destruction of Warsaw, which they entitled "Baptism of Fire" and sent all round the world with the object of terrorising neutrals.
Several years earlier than this the Condor Legion, sent to Spain by Hitler, had bombed one Spanish city after another. The "silent raids" on Barcelona in 1938 killed several thousand people in a couple of days. Earlier than this the Italians had bombed entirely defenseless Abyssinians and boasted of their exploites as something screamingly funny. Bruno Mussolini wrote newspaper articles in which he described bombed Abyssinians "bursting open like a rose," which he said was "most amusing." And the Japanese ever since 1931, and intensively since 1937, have been bombing crowded Chinese cities where there are not even any ARP arrangements, let alone any AA guns or fighter aircraft.
I am not arguing that two blacks make a white, nor that Britain's record is a particularly good one. In a number of "little wars" from about 1920 onwards the RAF has dropped its bombs on Afghans, Indians and Arabs who had little or no power of hitting back. But it is simply untruthful to say that large-scale bombing of crowded town areas, with the object of causing panic, is a British invention. It was the Fascist states who started this practice, and so long as the air war went in their favour they avowed their aims quite clearly.
The other thing that needs dealing with is the parrot cry "killing women and children." I pointed out before, but evidently it needs repeating, that it is probably somewhat better to kill a cross-section of the population than to kill only the young men. If the figures published by the Germans are true, and we have really killed 1,200,000 civilians in our raids, that loss of life has probably harmed the German race somewhat less than a corresponding loss on the Russian front or in Africa and Italy.
Any nation at war will do its best to protect its children, and the number of children killed in raids probably does not correspond to their percentage of the general population. Women cannot be protected to the same extent, but the outcry against killing women, if you accept killing at all, is sheer sentimentality. Why is it worse to kill a woman than a man? The argument usually advanced is that in killing women you are killing the breeders, whereas men can be more easily spared. But this is a fallacy based on the notion that human beings can be bred like animals. The idea behind it is that since one man is capable of fertilizing a very large number of women, just as a prize ram fertilizes thousands of ewes, the loss of male lives is comparatively unimportant. Human beings, however, are not cattle. When the slaughter caused by war leaves a surplus of women, the enormous majority of those women bear no children. Male lives are very nearly as important, biologically, as female ones.
In the last war the British Empire lost nearly a million men killed, of whom about three-quarters came from these islands. Most of them will have been under thirty. If all those young men had had only one child each whe should now have en extra 750,000 people round about the age of twenty. France, which lost much more heavily, never recovered from the slaughter of the last war, and it is doubtful whether Britain has fully recovered, either. We can't yet calculate the casualties of the present war, but the last one killed between ten and twenty million young men. Had it been conducted, as the next one will perhaps be, with flying bombs, rockets and other long-range weapons which kill old and young, healthy and unhealthy, male and female impartially, it would probably have damaged European civilization somewhat less than it did.
Contrary to what some of my correspondents seem to think, I have no enthusiasm for air raids, either ours or the enemy's. Like a lot of other people in this country, I am growing definitely tired of bombs. But I do object to the hypocrisy of accepting force as an instrument while squealing against this or that individual weapon, or of denouncing war while wanting to preserve the kind of soceity that makes war inevitable.
Is that where they learn laundry, dishes and stuff?:DQuote:
wait for the little lady to get out of her choreography class
**Disclaimer**
I'm not sexist, but I couldn't resist the play on words.
So, you still have the little lady, eh?
When is the wedding?
Your pa can't wait forever for the little ones so he can spoil them with all the things he refused to spoil you with ;)
Coming back from Philly I saw a bumper sticker, 1984: Bush & Cheney.
Took me a minute to get it.
Well, there are no plans for a wedding as of yet, and there won't be anytime before Jennie gets her MFA (Master of Fine Arts). We've already been together for just under 6 years, so I don't know how much longer I'll give her to get her act together (i.e., quit school, put on an apron, and make me a turkey pot pie).
Damn straight!Quote:
so I don't know how much longer I'll give her to get her act together (i.e., quit school, put on an apron, and make me a turkey pot pie).
I knew I liked you for some reason.
Women of the World, RISE from the bed of your OPPRESSORS! And make me breakfast.
Ah the wedding ring. The smallest Hand Cuff in the world.. Got to love it...
"One ring to rule them all"