Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
It's true I'm a little slow, but I'm not making the connection between Bush and 1984-style subjugation of the individual: his wants, needs, emotions. Maybe I need to re-read the book, but I thought it was about the domination of the individual in particular, and not other aspects of society such as commercial forestry or, say, the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Attributing all the evils of society (and it seems we are concentrating on EVERY one of them here...), perceived and real, to George W. Bush is giving the guy waaaay too much credit in my opinion. It does seem like borderline paranoia in this respect.
I guess one could argue the de-merits of such things as the Patriot Act, et al., but I agree with irate that its pretty much open season as far as what you want to do with your time in America. RB, I'm curious as to what basic freedoms individuals in America are being forced to unwittingly give up?
|
The "Healthy Forest" analogy is akin to the Orwellian concept of
"doublethink"; "war is peace", "ignorance is strength", "freedom is slavery",
and the purpose of doublethink is "reality control".
<a href="http://www.cod.edu/1984/doublethink.htm">College of Dupage - Orwell Symposium</a>
It is not Bush specifically who deserves the "credit". What we are experiencing is the tip of the iceberg of a much larger agenda choreographed by this man (who, just like Bush, is a cog in a larger wheel):
Quote:
Mike Allen writes in Sunday's Washington Post that Rove's original 2004 election plan was to improve the party's performance among some traditionally Democratic constituencies and in that way create a permanent Republican majority.
"Now, two weeks before the election, the Bush-Cheney campaign would be happy to eke out the barest, skin-of-the-teeth majority, and aims to cobble it together by turning out every last evangelical Christian, gun owner, rancher and home schooler -- reliable Republicans all.
"Rove had to trim his hopes for realigning party politics because of the way the president handled Iraq, and because Bush made little effort on issues, such as the environment, that might have attracted more traditionally Democratic constituencies. Instead, Bush catered to conservatives on everything from support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage to constant talk about tax cuts. The main critique of the Rove strategy, from inside and outside his party, is that the White House governed in a divisive way, when Bush could have used his popularity after the terrorist attacks to reach out to swing voters and even to African Americans. . . .
"Still, if Rove is the man whom many hold accountable for Bush's current predicament, he is also the one who they most believe has the skill to get him out. Rove, who holds the deceptively bland title of senior adviser to the president, has the broadest reach and most power of any official in the West Wing. But he also oversees every detail of the ostensibly separate, $259 million Bush-Cheney campaign, from staffing the campaign with his young loyalists rather than veteran Republicans, to monitoring small-newspaper clippings around the country."<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html</a>
(Copy and Paste them link address into google search box to view the article if you are not a Washington Post subscriber.)
|