The Left:
"And with Ipods and Ipads; and Xboxes and Playstations—-none of which I know how to work—information becomes a distraction, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than a means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and our democracy..."
-- Barack Obama, 2010, NewsRealBlog
1984:
"This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance...minute by minute the past was brought up to date...
"A number of The Times which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it."
-- George Orwell, 1984
11.5.10
10.5.10
The Left vs. 1984 #1
The Left:
"The 9.9% unemployment rate figure...shows...that jobs numbers are looking up."
-- Jason Henry, Examiner, paraphrasing President Obama.
1984:
"[T]here [had been] demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to [20 grams] a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to [20 grams] a week...[T]hey swallowed it...with the stupidity of an animal."
-- George Orwell, 1984
"The 9.9% unemployment rate figure...shows...that jobs numbers are looking up."
-- Jason Henry, Examiner, paraphrasing President Obama.
1984:
"[T]here [had been] demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to [20 grams] a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to [20 grams] a week...[T]hey swallowed it...with the stupidity of an animal."
-- George Orwell, 1984
27.4.10
Political Smell Tests, Number 2
Just as sniffing a block of cheddar can give a hint as to whether or not it is to funky for ingestion, there are simple ways which one can discern where a politician's loyalties lie (e.g. with himself, his constituents, the constitution etc.). These are political smell tests, and I am outlining some here to help discern whether or not a candidate is truly a conservative.
Political Smell Test #2: Get A Whiff Of Their Words
And by this I do not mean analyzing content necessarily, rather specific words off of which they tend to play. For instance, when discussing illegal immigration, a liberal will use race-related words (e.g. civil rights, African American, Hispanic etc.). This is not to say a conservative won't say such words, but they will not play a major part of his argument.
If you are listening to a candidate, and he is referring to Utopian concepts as attainable (concepts such as "fairness", "equality" (in terms of outcome) etc.), he is not at all likely to be a conservative.
And keep in mind, this is not because Utopia is undesirable, nor because the conservative seeks to deny Utopia from anyone; rather, it is because the conservative is honest with himself and with his audience that it is not attainable on Planet Earth.
Political Smell Test #2: Get A Whiff Of Their Words
And by this I do not mean analyzing content necessarily, rather specific words off of which they tend to play. For instance, when discussing illegal immigration, a liberal will use race-related words (e.g. civil rights, African American, Hispanic etc.). This is not to say a conservative won't say such words, but they will not play a major part of his argument.
If you are listening to a candidate, and he is referring to Utopian concepts as attainable (concepts such as "fairness", "equality" (in terms of outcome) etc.), he is not at all likely to be a conservative.
And keep in mind, this is not because Utopia is undesirable, nor because the conservative seeks to deny Utopia from anyone; rather, it is because the conservative is honest with himself and with his audience that it is not attainable on Planet Earth.
26.4.10
Political Smell Tests
I've been giving some thought as to what makes a good, conservative candidate for a political position. Coming forth from all this thinking are some, what I would call, smell tests that I have discovered I use, and which you might want to consider adapting yourself.
Political Smell Test #1: Do They Reek Pro-Choice?
I am not by any means a single-issue voter. However, that being said, where an individual stands on abortion can reveal a lot about that person's character and his moral (and potentially ulterior) convictions. If a candidate is pro-choice, he is stating one of two things. Either he does not attribute inherent value to the sanctity of human life, or he does not realize the extent of the development of a child before birth (which would explain his having value for human life while at the same time being fine with disposing of it). Either way, the candidate is not prime choice for the position; the one shows his lack of regard for humanity, the other his lack of research on a current and relevant issue.
After all, if they do not show reverence for human life, when it is in its most (and only) innocent and defenseless form, why should they value the minority they claim to value. Why would they value liberty and freedom, when they have no problem robbing an unborn child of his entire life?
Look out for further smell tests, coming soon!
Political Smell Test #1: Do They Reek Pro-Choice?
I am not by any means a single-issue voter. However, that being said, where an individual stands on abortion can reveal a lot about that person's character and his moral (and potentially ulterior) convictions. If a candidate is pro-choice, he is stating one of two things. Either he does not attribute inherent value to the sanctity of human life, or he does not realize the extent of the development of a child before birth (which would explain his having value for human life while at the same time being fine with disposing of it). Either way, the candidate is not prime choice for the position; the one shows his lack of regard for humanity, the other his lack of research on a current and relevant issue.
After all, if they do not show reverence for human life, when it is in its most (and only) innocent and defenseless form, why should they value the minority they claim to value. Why would they value liberty and freedom, when they have no problem robbing an unborn child of his entire life?
Look out for further smell tests, coming soon!
23.10.09
Liberals Do Not Attribute Inherent Value to Human Life
It's a hard concept to swallow. Americans have a bad habit of believing in the good in people. Because of this, it's really hard to believe that there are people out there, especially our leaders, who do not place an inherent value in human life.
How many organizations exist, and how much money has been raised to save animals, while humans are killed in the womb?
Aside from being the home for the abortion movement, liberals have an inherent distaste for humanity.
And is it not a liberal mantra that humans are going to overpopulate the world (in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
Over the past few months, I've been collecting examples of this.
Nancy Pelosi.
Barack Obama.
A new one emerged on Wednesday. The American Cancer Society now says it's better overall to not get early screenings. Now they don't deny that early screenings do sometimes catch cancer before it otherwise could have been. The reason they cite the screenings as superfluous is because it is so costly for how much cancer they find, versus the later screenings. In other words, the cost of the tests has a value greater than the human lives that early screening might find. Ouch.
How many organizations exist, and how much money has been raised to save animals, while humans are killed in the womb?
Aside from being the home for the abortion movement, liberals have an inherent distaste for humanity.
And is it not a liberal mantra that humans are going to overpopulate the world (in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
Over the past few months, I've been collecting examples of this.
Nancy Pelosi.
Barack Obama.
A new one emerged on Wednesday. The American Cancer Society now says it's better overall to not get early screenings. Now they don't deny that early screenings do sometimes catch cancer before it otherwise could have been. The reason they cite the screenings as superfluous is because it is so costly for how much cancer they find, versus the later screenings. In other words, the cost of the tests has a value greater than the human lives that early screening might find. Ouch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)