>>"Gavin, have you read the Orwell biography that Christopher Hitchens wrote? Susan "

The last thing I read by Hitchens was an absolutely unreadable rebuke which he wrote of Garrison Keillor's review of a French book about the United States.  Comparing Hitchen's comments with Keillor's original essay, I could only conclude that he must've written the thing while sloshed... it literally made no sense at all.

 My reading regarding Orwell is restricted to the six volumes of his Collected Works, which I found in the library, a smattering of biographies, a volume of Orwell's radio broadcasts, and Orwell's three novels Animal Farm, 1984, and Down and Out in Paris and London.  There has never been a greater or more dedicated man than Orwell anywhere, or a better example of a man doing so much with the literary gifts at his disposal.

" American arch liberals and  leftists worshiped the Soviet Union as the salvation of the human race until Soviet implosion in the 1980s produced incontrovertible evidence of socialists’ brutal liquidation of tens of millions of dissidents, and of the near poverty of the entire population outside the ruling clique of Socialist Party members."      As Thomas E. Brewton puts it.

I'd say that YouTube piece is circa 2000-2. I doubt you would have heard such a discouraging albeit brief indictment of Mother Russia in the 60's or 70's out of Chomsky. Only after the Union's complete unmitigated fall. 

Gavin, this is a lot more fun -- having you respond!

So, do I take it you might consider reading the Hitchens book on Orwell? He admires him too, you know. And the now tiresome aside about Hitchens (hiccup) being a drunk is almost as lame as you consider my calling Noam Chomsky pompous. Be that as it may, I haven't read the book myself, but I've heard Hitchens interviewed on the subject and I have a feeling you might actually LIKE it. You're not suggesting that drunks cannot write are you? That would eliminate some of both of our faves from serious consideration were sobriety a requirement.

I read that book review too. NY Times Book Review I think. Sometimes Hitchens is all over the place but then again he writes a lot. It might have been Bill Maher (maybe not) who said Hitchens writes books with greater frequency than most of us read them. And he can be petty with people he despises.

As for Noam Chomsky, I've given some thought to your comment about not having read anything substantial against him on the Gazette. I could compile a list of what I find wrongheaded about his views, but he's a very prolific writer. There's so much material to work my way through. And after I took the time, and resubjected myself to ideas that I've already dismissed, enumerated the reasons why -- you would simply counter that you agree with all HIS points and mine are weak refutations. So let's agree to disagree on that one. I don't have the energy right now for such a hefty project. In the future when critiquing Noam Chomsky, I'll give a good solid specific example as to why he bugs me on that particular day.

Right now I'm getting ready for my War--- umph -- what is it good for? -- Absolutely Nothing or Maybe Something thread if anyone wants to join in.

Just in case you're interested in "Why Orwell Matters." I really do think you'd appreciate it. I know you read a lot -- give it a try. 208 pages worth.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I see Raymond's red-baiting continues...unabated. 

Too bad we're not living during the Cold War, anymore, so that you could exercise (or exorcise) that particular expertise.  But our enemies now are religious zealots and enemies of liberal democracy--- which is, perhaps, why the Bush-types have such a difficulty defining (and maintaining) their opposition to this particular enemy.

Alcoholics do much better at fiction writing --Faulkner and McCullers come to mind.  Inebriation lifts inhibitions, resulting in greater loquacity.  Good for novels, bad for political essaying.

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

Well now, that's a fresh thought Gav. Ya mean like Tailgunner Joe ?  " Are you now Gavin, or have you ever been a member of the communist party ? Yes or no. "

Also Gavin, I question your choice of a signature. That particular quote, steeped in the most obvious of generalities and culled from a thesaurus of platitudes is, for a judge no less, embarrassing. It is just an angry, partisan rant and those who have read the whole decision find it is without any detailed discussion of some of the government’s strongest arguments. To quote the liberal Washington Post :

[T]he decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful....

Indeed.

Jordan .

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

Hi Gavin. Missed you for a couple weeks. I suppose it's a good discipline to question someone's choices- but every single one ? Taylor's decision was rebuked by the Washington Post among other liberal outlets too. It was not a worthy decision - regardless of the conclusion. Nothing personal in the comments I made. 

We must agree on some choices - without question ? No ? Have a good evening at any rate.

I work at a store which sells very heavily during the #$%^@*! Halloween season, so I'm usually too exhausted to do anything except tremble when I get home from servicing the clawing mobs of illusory American consumerism...  Thank God Halloween is over tonight, so I can get back to reading and writing in my spare time.  I can't believe I ever liked Halloween; I was certainly brainwashed as a youth by all of the candy and attractively-colored pumpkins.

As I understand it, the  general disillusionment of the Left with the Soviet Union began as early as the 1920's, first with the expulsion of Trotsky, and later in the 1930's, with the USSR's refusal to aid the Socialists during the Spanish Civil War, and, indeed, their active support of Franco in decimating the Socialists.  (It is significant, I think, that one of the few writers Chomsky has ever, in my experience, cited with anything like unabashed approval, is Orwell ---specifically, Orwell's memories of the Spanish Civil War.)  The final break came after the Molotov-Ribbentrop/German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact of 1939, when Stalin apparently sided with Hitler, thus ending whatever illusion the Left may have had that Stalin was anything other than a dictator. 

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

I think it must have been "a worthy decision": firstly, because it caused such a stir in all the right places; secondly, because it reaffirmed the rule of law, even if the President does not feel bound by the laws he was elected to serve; and lastly, because it slowed, or at least gave a legal indication of the way in which our nation's slow "slouch toward Fascism" can at last be halted.  

--I'm sure if it was the Democrats in the White House, and there was the prospect of their using warrentless wiretaps to spy on Republicans, you would be singing a different tune!
 

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

Gavin, your sentence with the holloweenies is over. I can appreciate your relief.

Just a point on that quote above. Yes, there was a falling out based on WW 2, but that was blamed on Stalin ( with some very good cause!) I was talking about the 60's , not regular Dems or libs, but true Leftists did have common ground on a socialist/communist form of government and were therefor fellow travellers. I gave Orwell his props for never going that route. If we all had more time we could check out Chomsky quotes from those years.

I didn't make up the comments on Judge Taylor. They were quoted from accounts from both sides. Pretty much a concensus accross ideologies. Main source the Washington Post not Nat Review-which I never read.

But beyond this stuff, did you say you were a conservative and use the word God? Were you having fun with me? 

I don't want to spy on Democrats or Republicans and certainly not Libertarians-my gang - but  in our situation spying on terrorists is OK with me.

Enjoy some free time now.

Thanks.  The other Halloween stores have huge turnover at this time of year.  Our store, however, managed to keep all its staff, pretty much, aside for some newbies;  though I was tempted to go AWOL more than once. 

 I've read Chomsky's American Power & the New Mandarins, from 1968, which was of course written in the years leading up to that.  His only comments regarding the USSR in it that I can recall are when he disputes the consensus of U.S. "experts" that Vietnam's going communist would mean a domino effect of Asian countries falling into the orbit of China and Russia, Chomsky stating instead that Vietnamese communism had a long history of independence form China ---a claim which has since proven to be true.

 I do find your apparent discomfort with Socialism puzzling, given the fact that (as most right-wing zealots would point out), America itself is partially Socialist in structure (a fact which literally drives Federalists crazy).  Of course --aside from a rudimentary safety-net for the poor-- this is mainly Socialism for the very wealthy: corporate welfare, corporate tax-breaks, corporate subsidies, corporate incentives, etc. --but it is still Socialism.  Notice, this is as much the opposite of free Capitalism, as advocated by the Libertarians, as it is the opposite of the type of socially-based government controls which are advocated by the Socialists.  Very few American companies would be able to survive if not assisted by the government, and Socialism is necessary for the ultimate survival of ANY government.    Myself, I am find myself in agreement with both the Libertarians AND the Socialists, nor do I think there is any contradiction between them.    

 Despite what Republicans like Karl Rove believe-- constitutional safeguards are not in place either to help criminals, or to hinder law enforcement, and the fact  that Rove, Gonzalez, and others like them are making these arguments shows alot about the obviously authoritarian aims underlying their actions.  It is simply that, throughout history, time and time again, governments have shown themselves incapable of restraining themselves when it comes to imposing upon human freedoms and civil liberty; and so restrictions have necessarily been imposed to protect the innocent from arbitrary government impositions.  That is why we have things like Habeus Corpus, search warrants, attorney-client privelage, etc.

 Now, you may have confidence that this government is not spying on the groups that you mentioned ---but unfortunately the record of the current regime is not one to encourage any optimism when it comes to the question of reasonable actions or prudent restraint.  Indeed, given the known precedents of Bush and his cronies, one would, rather, expect Bush to do the opposite of what was intelliegent, reasonable, or wise with regard to domestic surveilance of his political rivals in this regard.  One could picture the conversation as going something like this............:

 CHENEY: Mr. President, given what we have said regarding the weakness and coddling of terrorists which we have observed at the hands of the Democrats...

BUSH II: Yes...

CHENEY: And given what we have both previously said, during our campaign speeches, regarding the serious consequences to our national security, should the Democrats ever take control of the White House...

 BUSH II: Yes....

CHENEY: Then it must reasonably follow that, to ensure the security of the "homeland" and prevent the victory of the terrorists, it has become necessary to learn the strategies of the Democrats to prevent their victory, and the consequent victory of the terrorists.

 BUSH II: What does "consequent" mean?

I use the word God in the same way that insurance adjusters use it:  "the boat was destroyed by an 'act of God'" --in other words, in order to refer anything outside of man's immediate comprehension or control.  Remember, too, that the early Christians were regarded as Atheists by the pagan Romans, simply because they would not sacrifice to Pagan altars; just because one does not bow before the altar of whatever the current (and fictional) deity, Atheism must not necessarily ensue.  I define Conservatism as a belief in total and absolute human freedom, save where it conflicts with the freedom of others.  Unlike the Libertarians, though, I conceive of the necessity of strict governent control of business, polluters, etc, as well as a movement toward unification with other governments worldwide, ending ultimately in the gradual dissolution of the United States and the creation of a federated world government, with each nation becoming a single state within a "World Government of Earth."

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

Gavin, just a quick limited response if I may.

One part of the corporate welfare (I think) of which you speak --if it is the concept of " pork" projects and "special" legislation spending is a commonality for us ! Not for it , and it seems to ingrain itself directly with the time a representative is in office. It is a tool to help insure reelection ! 

More later, excuse me for now. All the best . Raymond.

The more later Gavin, regarding the unfortunate horror and difficulties of war and your favorite - George Orwell:

" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."  (George Orwell)

Maybe we sleep safe in our beds also because messages from terrorists to their allies in America are intercepted ?