It’s easy to believe someone has fundamentally changed their thinking on a particular issue. People change, they learn new things or gain new perspectives all the time. It’s harder to believe someone who claims they’ve fundamentally changed their thinking on a lot of issues. It’s harder yet when those issues are the issues that stand in the way of them getting something they want. And it’s pretty much impossible to believe when their claims are buried in verbal trickery. By the way, Newt wants you to know he’s changed.
Hoping to defuse the many problems with his candidacy, Newt Gingrich has put a question and answers section on his website where he tries to explain his biggest mistakes. In this section he points out that the media will try to smear him. He mentions he’s cast over 7,000 votes, given over 1,500 speeches, written thousands of articles and 24 books, and made thousands of television appearances, each of which will be scoured for dirt. He then tries to defend 15 areas where he previously molested the canine:● Paul Ryan Plan: Newt undercut Paul Ryan’s budget/Medicare plan by calling it “right wing social engineering.” He says he agrees with Ryan now, BUT he wants to undercut Ryan by letting seniors stay in the present plan if they want. Why? Because he’s “opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed.” Translation: Being loved is more important than achieving results.
This article did not turn out at all like I expected. When I first read about this, I figured Newt would list how he was wrong in the past on various topics and explain his new mindset. I could maybe, possibly accept that. Instead, I found a series of smokescreens, stunning evasions and huge red flags about Newt’s integrity, his understanding of the problems people have with him, and his intentions once he gets into office.
● Health Insurance Mandate: Newt now believes imposing a mandate to buy health insurance is an unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty. In the 1990s, he favored such a mandate. His excuse is other conservatives advocated it too! Nah nah! He also says he wants to find a better way to achieve “the goal of healthcare for all.” Translation: The only part of ObamaCare Newt opposes is the individual mandate.
● Ethanol: Newt remains pro-ethanol as part of an “all of the above” approach because he loves Iowa and South Dakota more than Saudi Arabia. This is a false dichotomy. Translation: Pandering trumps principle.
● Fairness Doctrine: Newt thinks the Fairness Doctrine is “prohibited government censorship.” But he supported it in the past because back then the media was dominated with liberals. Translation: Principles are malleable depending on who benefits.
● Global Warming: “Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to warming of the atmosphere.” (Hedge words in italics). He does oppose cap and trade but doesn’t want “conservatives to be absent” from offering solutions. Newt then says: “this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives and entrepreneurs creating better... products.” Translation: Newt doesn’t care about the science, he will stop climate change through less obvious ways than a carbon tax.
● Immigration/DREAM Act: Newt opposes the DREAM Act, BUT supports what the DREAM Act does. He opposes amnesty, but thinks local communities should be given the power to make illegal immigrants legal. . . they just can’t call them citizens. Translation: Newt believes in stealth amnesty.
● Farm Subsidies: Newt supports subsidies for farmers. Translation: Business as usual.
● TARP: Newt didn’t really support TARP when he supported the TARP, he supported some version of it you would have liked, except Paulson lied about how TARP would work. . . don’t ask him to explain the difference between good and bad TARP. Translation: Newt thinks you’re stupid.
● Foreign Aid: NEWT BELIEVES IN ZERO FOREIGN AID (as a baseline from which we will then decide how much foreign aid to give). Translation: No change in foreign aid.
● Dept. of Education: When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, he thought it would only collect data. Imagine his surprise. Now he will “dramatically shrink the agency to a research and reporting overview agency.” Translation: Newt wasn’t wrong, the world lied to him. How was he supposed to know a bureaucracy would grow?
● Dede Scozzafava: Newt made a “mistake” endorsing Scozzafava, BUT he will always endorse the Republican against an independent, i.e. he made no mistake. Newt blames the locals for putting him in a bad situation. Translation: Newt is very sorry you are mistakenly upset.
● Government Shutdown: Newt thinks the media was unfair about the government shutdown because he improved the government and economy. Translation: Newt doesn’t grasp what it was about his handling of the shutdown that bothered people.
● Ethics Problems: Newt never “violated any tax laws.” Translation: Newt was technically right about a small portion of one of the corruption claims against him, please ignore the rest.
● Freddie Mac: Newt is not a lobbyist! He just gets paid to provide advice to government agencies about programs that will help his other clients, who just happen to earn a living off the government. Translation: Newt thinks technicalities are wonderful things.
● “Personal Life”: Newt had an affair, but it wasn’t as bad as Clinton’s. His daughter has debunked the claim he ignored his sick wife while she was in the hospital. No mention is made of recent spending scandals involving jewelry and his wife and the overuse of private jets. Translation: Newt thinks that by comparison, his corruption ain’t so bad. . . and that one thing was a lie so he’s completely vindicated on all points.
I have been trying very hard to get over my concerns about Newt but this just brings them back with a vengeance. Newt is proving to be Romney without the integrity.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Newt: “I’ve Changed.” Reality: “No, You Haven't.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
80 comments:
Hmmm, this isn't going to play well.
I'm voting for Rubio/Ryan or Ryan/Rubio. What, they aren't running?
We, nobody's perfect. LOL
I really want to believe he's changed, but I'm just not entirely convinced yet. Still--compared to Obama, he's perfection.
So, I've pretty much moved into an altrenate reallity where Ryan actually is running for Preshident, and he's curshing everyone else in the primraies by 20 points, and we're on track for supremajorities in both houshes. Only problemm is, I have to bang my head againsht a hard surface nine or ten tiems for it to work. But teh doctors tell me the dammage isn't major, so I'm gonnnna keep doing it.
Joel, Not if people are paying attention. But if they've decided (as with Christie) "he sounds conservative" then they won't even bother to read what he's written. They'll accept the "he's changed idea" like idiots and line up behind him.
I guess we'll see.
Jed, I wish. This is depressing. I am serious when I said I wasn't expecting to find this. I was expecting to find a fairly clear statement of how Newt no longer believes whatever it was. Then we could decide if he legitimately changed or not. Instead, we got a huge red flags.
Lawhawk, I hope you're not convinced because there isn't a single change on the list. Most of falls in the category of "I'm sorry you're upset."
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
T-Rav, I'm with you. I've been trying very hard to like Newt, but this was just another kick in the teeth. This is exactly why I don't trust him. And if we take this seriously then:
1. He favors Obamacare without a mandate.
2. He wants to stop global warming.
3. He won't do anything which "the public" (read: MSM) will oppose.
4. He believes in subsidies.
5. He'd happily do another TARP... a nebulous TARP.
etc.
I'm not kidding when I say that this is to the left of Romney only without the integrity.
tryanmax, I see your quote and I'll raise you:
There are none so blind as those I hope will vote for me.
I empathize with T-Rav... maybe I'll try the head-banging method...
rlaWTX, That seems to be our best option. :(
Andrew
My question for you is, if Newt wins the nomination who will you vote for?
A no vote is not acceptable.
I'm with Hawk on this, bo must go.
My hope is for Cain but any one will be better than the anointed one.
Tom, I'd vote for Newt and then spend the next four years hoping the Congress and Senate turn hard right and keep him in check.
This is disappointing. I agree that I could have gotten behind Newt if he tried to make a clean slate, but this isn't a clean slate, this is a poke in the eye. I'll still support him if he wins, but he should not be appointed the conservative standard bearer.
DUQ, The clean slate would have been smarter. As it is, he's basically saying that we're wrong and he was right all along. This was not smart.
With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
Joel, Sad but true. I'm really stunned that we can't find anyone who believes even the basic things the vast majority of the party believes? How is that possible?!
O Rubio, Rubio! Where for art thou Rubio?
Koshcat, Bravo! LOL! If we're talking Shakespeare:
To be and yet be seen not to be. . .
If we are not careful, we could end up choosing the casket with a blinking idiot!
Hmm. I don't know that one?
But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Jindal is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious ass*
*as in donkey
I haven't seen the play but came across the quote. It is from The Merchant of Venice.
Ah, I didn't recognize it.
How's this:
Out, out damn Obama!
or
Some cupid kills with arrows, some with traps, others with a book of regulations.
I like it. How about:
Et tu, Newt?
I like that! How about:
Beware the idiots of November!
or
Lord what fools these voters be...
Koshcat: You've got the right sun, now how do we get him to run?
Nov. 2012 will bring a definition to the metaphor,
"Parting is such SWEET sorrow"
rlaWTX, LOL! "sweet" indeed! :)
Lawhawk, Clearly, he just needs a horse. . . a horse, save our kingdom, get the jerk a horse!
Not sure. How do get someone with enough brains and integrity to not want to be president to run for president?
Koshkat, That is the problem. It seems like we've created a system that is so nasty that only the truly egotistical want to subject themselves to it. In effect, we've created a system to keep out the very people we need and to encourage in the very people we should never trust.
Koshcat: Good point. Maybe we could kidnap his family and force him to run as the ransom.
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of Jindal.
Oooo, I found the recipe for president:
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Lawhawk, I think we're getting to the point that we need to start blackmailing the right people.... "you WILL run for President, or else!"
Koshcat, I think that's what goes into the Big Mac! ;)
Andrew: Amen. If we can't convince, it's time to use physical force or blackmail. LOL
Lawhawk, It's starting to feel that way, isn't it? Ug.
No, no, no Andrew that is:
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onion on a sesame bun.
(From memory back in the good ol days when they made real jingles)
You know what's funny, I remember that jingle as well as I remember the alphabet song. Now that is effective advertising!
Newt has been in Washington so long, he’s been on every side of an issue. He by no means is the perfect conservative, but as compared to Barry he’s Reagan. I still like Herman Cain, but can he recover from the establishment attack, we’ll see…I think he can. I like to think of Newt doing Special Order speeches in the early ‘80s, operating as Reagan’s flank man, in a hostile democrat congress. Or in ’94 with his “Contract With America.” The MSM media called him a “bomb thrower,” etc. I’m proud to say a couple times he was my Congressman. “But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum…” Newt became Mr. Inside Washington, the end all, be all. In doing so tarnished his bomb thrower reputation, and assimilated into a Beltway blowhard. My hope is that he’s seen the era of his ways, and will revert back into a Goldwater, Reagan conservative. We’ll see.
Stan, I felt the same way about Newt and when I heard he had put up this section on his website to admit his mistakes and put those behind him, I was expecting that he would say "yeah, I blew a lot of stuff, but I'm the old Newt again." Unfortunately, his answers make me think that Newt is gone and big-government insider-Newt is the one we have now.
I'm not a Gingrich fan for the very reasons pointed out here. If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him, but he's not a conservative nor is he someone we can trust to act like a conservative.
Ed, I suspect we'll all support him, though it bothers me that our choices are coming down to this? What the heck happened to conservatism?
Andrew,
Conservatism is alive and well. What has happened is too many conservatives have dropped out of public service because of the media anal exam, and no one trying to punish people like Pelosi. Also, don't even tell me that Reid is Nevada's choice. That was out and out voter fraud, yet the only people who are trying to prove it are vilified by our own.
When a Republican President won't lift a finger to protect a border agent doing his duty, what do you expect? I am talking about Compean and Ramos. I am also talking about a Texan! Governor who won't take the time to personally bug Bush about it.
It was Bush's Vice-President who even dared to bring it up. Bush would only commute their sentences, and only at the last minute. What a wuss! It is people like Bush who only do things half-right which got us here in the first place.
Joel, That issue REALLY pissed me off. Honestly, I hope it haunts him the way he betrayed those two. It was shameful that he let the Democrats ruin their lives for political points -- and you're right about Perry's inaction on that. F-ing despicable!
I have to say, I'm getting really, really sick of our establishment playing the MSM's game to ensure that our side stays in the squishy left-of-center middle. And I'm particularly upset at the supposed conservative thinkers who are out there playing this stupid game of letting the MSM choose our candidates for us and then blindly accepting that people are conservatives just because they have a snazzy youtube moment.
It's depressing and infuriating both at the same time.
Andrew
I think it must be the system. We have allowed the government to have the power and whenever there is any real attempt to curtail that power it is pushed aside.
The left will talk of power grabs but they never focus on the government. They instead blame corporations that do not have that power and ask the goverfnemnt to regulate them giving the government even more power.
The right will complain about smaller govrenment and the extensive reach of big brother but they will be assuaged by being told that "their politicians are for regulating less" but what they really mean is that for now they will just not allow regualtion to expand. The mantra is that no increase or modest increases are a reduction.
This game gets played out again and again. There is rarely very much curtailing and what success we do have is only ever on the taxation side. Not bad but a failure to reduce taxes does nothing to stop spending which just creates more problems.
Romney was the favorite of the media because he was seen as the moderate. Now that he is not the surefire winner I thing the press will try to back Newt.
I'd like to see Cain still take it. I think he is the conservative in this race.
Indi, I think that's correct. The left pushes to raise taxes and add regulation, the Washington "right" pushes to slow the left. Almost no one in Washington is listening to the public who are screaming -- get rid of the regulations, get rid of the taxes, stop trying to increase government power and leave us alone!
I think Cain/Paul are the one guys in the race who actually do think that. I think Newt is exactly what you've described, he wants to slow the left and then rearrange things a bit. Romney is the same. The others I don't even know what they want... they're idiots.
In any event, I'm sick of the fact that Washington tells the public what it wants to hear and then goes to DC and does what it wants. And I'm sick of the fact we never even get to vote on people who might change it.
Cain probably is the one guy who actually would bring change to the system. So he needs to be destroyed.
But even beyond Cain, it's just shocking to me that our choices are all idiots and hypocrites. We should have 4-5 Cains to choose from in the primaries at least, but we don't. Where are these people and why do we have so many crooks and retards and losers running instead?
Something is very wrong with our system.
Joel, I remember that. I was furious. How could Bush not do more to help them? Why wait until the end of his term and why not pardon them? That was crappy.
He's an excellent debater but every time I look at him I see John McCain. He's only conservative when he wants to be elected. Then there's the picture of him and Pelosi on a couch that I can't get out of my mind...What a nightmare.
Writer X, I feel the same way. He's great in debates and he definitely knows the conservative lingo, but he just can't be trusted to be a conservative. And this list of 15 items really pounds that home because this is Newt stating his case for why conservatives should believe he's a conservative, but it's packed with things that go directly counter to conservatism.
I am reposting well written thoughts by a fellow Cain supporter, Robin Sortwell. For all you pragmatists and those who only want to see Obama defeated, here’s my reasoning why only Cain can beat Obama:
1. In the last election we saw over 90% of the black vote go to Obama. Now,that black vote will be split since the reason for voting for Obama (breaking the glass ceiling), no longer exists. A large percentage of blacks in the South are family-oriented, community-minded, and religious. They will vote for Cain who shares their values and beliefs. And this time they can vote for a man who deserves to be a black President on merit and not on race.
2. True conservatives, socially and fiscally, will vote for Cain. The Republican Party has yet to realize that none of the other candidates are electable because many of us will no longer toe the party line. I respect Ron Paul, as I am sure many do, but his policies just won’t work in our current framework of government. Newt is a great strategist and someone that would be great to have around, but not as the leader. It’s great to have a pitbull on your side, but you better be able to control him. Perry may have changed his liberal views but he still has a way to go in ridding himself of his liberal mindset. Maybe, someday for Michelle Bachman, but right now she doesn’t inspire anyone as a leader. I have always liked Santorum, but he is too much a “wanna-be” Newt and is still trying to "play the game with whoever will give him polital favor.His past voting record & record as Speaker where he helped Clinton pass a lot of legislation that was not in the US best interest." And, Romney, what can I say, I wouldn’t vote for him EVER and from my research there is at least 25% of the Republican voters out there that feel the same way. He couldn't even beat McCain let alone Barack Obama. His record isn't too hot either. The rest of the candidates are too moderate to liberal.
!
3. If Cain is the nominee, he will receive the vote of those who are only voting to remove Obama from the Presidency or who are voting Republican, "just because." From my observations in point 2, any other nominee than Cain, will result in a large exodus from the Republican Party to vote 3rd party.
4. Cain appeals to the Latino community.They see many of there own struggles personified in Cain and they respect his traditional values.
5. Conservative Christians, no matter what their race, will vote for Cain. He is a respected member of the Christian community.
6. Cain will get the vote of those who are looking for someone who understands the business world. Despite what Romney would like us to believe, he never “swept any parking lots” of any of his businesses! LOL
7. The moderates will vote for Cain if he is the nominee because they already understand that Obama is more liberal than they initially realized.
8. And, my own observation, any Republican woman who doesn’t vote for Cain based solely on the recent allegations, is a hypocrite. Did the community of Republican women back away from Meg Whitman or Sarah Palin when the media smeared them? No. Think about the double standard you are holding.
So to summarize: Cain will take away black votes from Obama. True conservatives and tea-partiers will vote for Cain only. Conservative Christians will vote for Cain. Cain appeals to a diverse community of voters. Small and large business will support him. And, the rest will come onboard because they will support the Republican nominee.
And if you want to use his 9-9-9 Plan as an excuse not to vote for him please listen to the Co-author of this plan. He explains it in simple terms. Also this is a great utube video with Rich Lowrie explaining the Cain 9-9-9 Plan in detail... Spread the word!!! Please.... It's a great video very informative!!! http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CainsTa
Also read this, please: Incredible Article: "I Forgive Herman Cain, the Only Conservative Left" MUST READ! http://ow.ly/7zTPZ
Awesome article!!! Our only hope for this nation is Herman Cain!!! If we don't make this election count, not just for a republican to replace Obama, but for a problem solver(because we have big problems in this country). Because if we don't make this election count... We as Americans may not have another chance to turn this country around,. I never thought I would say that in my lifetime
I, myself, would love to see either a Cain/Rubio ticket or Cai/West... either would be awesome.
Independentfortheconstitution, Welcome and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I certainly can't disagree with what you've said. Each of the candidates has flaws and some of them are serious, and I agree with your take on what those flaws are.
I also find the electability argument made by the Romney camp to be a little disingenuous. It seems to be premised on the idea of attracting moderates, but those moderates have already shown they overwhelmingly want to toss Obama out. In fact, in my entire lifetime I've never seen a more favorable environment for electing a true conservative.... and few of the candidates count as that.
Also, like you, I've heard people that I believe say they will not vote for Romney. So the idea that he's a shoe-in is simply false.
We don't officially endorse at our blog in the primary season, but I think a lot of our readers are leaning heavily toward Cain and with good reason. The only question now is whether or not he'll survive the smears he's endured? I don't know, but I hope so.
Here are your links: Cain 9-9-9
Article
Same newt different dingo
ACG, True! LOL!
I have went through all of the candidates one by one and I keep coming back to one and that is Ron Paul He is the only one who makes sense to me. He does not flip flop, or lie, probably smarter than all the rest put together. He will win Iowa and could just win New Hampshire. He has vowed to cut spending and out debt, real cuts. That is the one thing we best do if we even hope to have a hats chance at fixing this country.
I've been doing some thinking about what it is exactly about Ron Paul that I don't go for. Then it hit me: he has no plan.
What he is good at is draping himself in the flag and the Constitution. Where he is quick is with the criticisms for what is being done wrong. But when it comes to describing the path from where we are to where he thinks we ought to be (and I can't say I disagree too much with where he says we ought to be) I don't think he's ever done it.
To that end, he's just like any other politician who has a big idea but no eye for the details.
Anon, If he wins Iowa, that would be huge. I have problems with Paul, but I prefer him to Romney and I certainly prefer him to Obama.
tryanmax, That's the problem with almost all of the self-described "conservatives" -- e.g. Bachmann, Santorum and even Newt. They don't have a plan. They have wishful thinking for how they want the world to be and they offer platitudes like "we need to fix marriage in this country." Ok, great, how?
On the other side of the ledger, you have the moderates like Romney or again Newt, who do have concrete plans BUT those plans are more of the same with the appearance of motion.
In effect, both groups are simply trying to deceive the public into thinking they actually have a plan.
That was the difference with Reagan. Not only did he have the vision, but he had a clear program which he wanted. You could trust him because you knew exactly what he intended to do. I have no idea what a President Bachmann or President Paul would really do and I have no desire to see what a President Perry or Romney would do.
Andrew, of course. I only singled out Paul because that is where the conversation was at the moment.
With Newt and Romney, the issue is differently disconcerting because they are essentially saying their plan is to continue what is already being done.
tryanmax, I figured. I was just expanding the whole thing to point out that they're all basically frauds at this point -- none of them are offering anything real, except Newt and Romney and what they are offering is "more of the same." Not very inspiring.
FYI, did you see Barney Frank is retiring? I'm adding that to my afternoon post right now! :)
LawHawk beat you to it. But it is the big news of the day, so I expect everyone to post on it.
This just keeps getting better and better (and by that I mean worse!).
And Now with Cain dropping out it is really sucktackular!
I really, really hope that we have a GOP Congress and Senate majority that keeps whatever loser who wins in check. Sheesh.
Ben, It does keep getting worse. At this point, I am honestly having a hard time caring. How in the world do we keep ending up without any actual conservatives in the race? It's getting to be ridiculous.
Cain wasn't perfect, but at least he was a conservative. The other in the race are a disaster. This stinks.
Well, if it is any encouragement, despite the DSCC sending $1.2 million to Nebraska, Nelson's poll numbers haven't budged since September. He is currently residing within the margin of error against each of three GOP contenders, one of which is a virtual unknown.
There is also some speculation that Nelson might decide to retire. This isn't just in-state speculation. It's #1 on the minds of National Journal writer. LINK
tryanmax, That is encouraging. And sadly, it's at the local or state level where we will need to look for conservatism to take root because it ain't gonna come out of the White House now.
I'm actually a little surprised that Nelson hasn't rebounded because people do tend to have short memories. Maybe his betrayal was too much this time?
I think Nelson has gotten all the rebound he's gonna get. The "Cornhusker Kickback" hit Nebraskans where it hurt: our pride. His approval ratings were pretty bad after that.
Nebraska is an interesting state, politically, and not just because of the Unicam. Somehow this largely agrarian state, suckling at the teat of farm subsidies, bends conservative on most issues.
Nelson himself is a sad figure. I think as governor, he became jaded. He described his surprise at the nature of state politics by describing Lincoln as a branch office of Washington, D.C. The assessment is probably accurate of most state capitals, but I think the realization made him give up on anything he ever intended to do in politics.
And the state has its populist/progressive past: William Jennings Bryan, the "Omaha platform," 2nd in the nation to enact direct senate elections. That past always threatens to rear back up. Heck, we split our electoral votes and gave one to BooBah.
It's an interesting place.
tryanmax, Yeah, it sounds like an interesting place. Nelson is definitely a sad figure. Every time I see him, he reminds me of a man who has given up.
But in most states there is such a strong power to incumbency that it always makes me doubt that an incumbent can be tossed out, no matter what the polls say. For one thing, this far out, people don't have to commit yet, so the polls are little more than a threat: "do better or else." For another, people do seem to realize that incumbents bring goodies to the state and that seems to be the overriding goal of too many voters -- to keep the goodies flowing.
But we'll see. He may have pushed too far this time. You would know better than I would. One thing I can tell you is that Colorado will shamefully stay in the donkey column. This state has gone to hell since California spewed forth millions of liberals to other states.
"We'll see" is really the bottom line. I have a buddy works for Lee Terry and he sometimes gets calls for Chuck Hagel. That's right, we have blue-hairs calling a current Representative to speak with a retired Senator. These people vote. Scary.
Hagel, there's another mixed-up Nebraska RINO.
I think the problem is there are far too many RINOs out there and people haven't woken up yet to the damage these people do. Because they get to Washington and they act just like Democrats only for less money. It's really disturbing.
And sadly, our country is really messed up right now because of that and because people vote for what they can get out of the government rather than voting for a government that does the right things.
It's like our entire electoral system is a scam just to keep the current system in place.
But just saying it's a scam makes you a crazy person.
Are you familiar with the 4 steps to chaos?
1. Design a clearly ambiguous message.
2. Ignore any inconsistencies in the message.
3. Make the ambiguity and inconsistency in the message undiscussable.
4. Make the undiscussability also undiscussable.
That sounds a lot like our system all right. Anyone who suggests a problem with the system is instantly drummed out of society as a tin-foil mad-hatter and then gets ignored. The lesson is "don't make a fuss or else."
And frankly, even a lot of the people who are presented to us as "outside the establishment" are just another branch of the establishment.
What really amazes me is how everyone seems to go along with this nonsense like it makes sense. They call an increase a cut or "austerity" and EVERYONE agrees. They just created the deficit by beginning to overspend in 2009 and now we're told there's no way to ever get rid of it except raise taxes -- why not just undo the new spending? Oh no, that wouldn't work because this is somehow long term structural spending. Bull!
These are the kinds of things that only an insane person would believe and yet we're asked to believe them.... and everybody does. It's absolutely insane.
To quote the movie "Zoolander," I feel like everyone is taking stupid pills.
This is the kind of talk that gets me all metaphysical (or whatever applies). I've often pondered and sometimes remarked how consensus is the counterfeit of fact. It operates thus:
A fact, when observed by all, is agreed upon and consensus results.
An idea agreed upon by enough people may take on the appearance of fact because it is natural to find consensus around facts. But to take consensus as fact is to take an intellectual shortcut. This is not always bad, but one must be aware of the inherit dangers of the shortcut and not be deceived as Red Riding Hood in the forest.
The counterfeit comes into being when an emphasis is placed upon consensus over or instead of fact. Once this happens, unchecked it will progress to a degree where facts are actually dismissed for the sake of maintaining consensus.
One could argue that the progressive movement is the progression from fact to consensus. (Sorry, I can't help but tie multiple ideas together in everything.)
Yep.
I think that's 100% right. There are tangible facts -- things which are true or false, and then there are things that society decides should be true. The more society allows the ladder to become true, the more it tries to stifle the former because the former tends to blow holes in the ladder.
And the greater the holes it can blow, the more society becomes determined to crush anyone who dares to recognize the real fact rather than the consensus fact. Plus, the more society relies on these fake consensus facts, the nastier society becomes about maintaining consensus.
I would also venture to say that societies based on consensus are destined to fail and tend toward organized murder in the name of happiness.
I don't think that's much of a conjecture. I come to think of Galileo under house arrest. He paid a mild price.
True, and you see more evidence of it starting here too with political correctness -- dare to express an impure thought and they will destroy you personally and professionally.
Post a Comment