I wonder if they can edit a book also? Sounds simple enough.

“I didn’t say that!”

According to wiki:

Nineteen Eighty-Four will not enter the public domain in the United States until 2044 and in the European Union until 2020, although it is public domain in countries such as Canada, Russia, and Australia.

just ask the 150,000,000 dead who were murdered in the name of your socialist utopia, in CCCP alone.

It will be the fast food workers, symbols of capitalism, who will be the first to go.

Atlas Shrugged is a better book, but still long, than the Fountainhead.

I had no problem sticking with the first, but had to force myself to read the second.

In the internet age everything is cached. If they delete or pull it, someone somewhere will have a copy. I still only buy hard copies of books. I prefer it when I read.

Little rez: You lefties have a lot to fear from Orwell’s writings, which is why they got censored. He told the truth about how socialism is simply the first step toward totalitarianism.

This wasn’t censorship…most likely the company feared providing a Kindle version would piracy easier or some stupid shit like that.

Orwell’s tale is of what could have happened. Huxleys tale is of what DID happen.

In fact, Obama is doing a pretty good version of Big Brother right now.

For NewSpeak, go to the MSM; it’s working hand in hand with Big Brother Obama to spread his propaganda to the citizenry, while they plot to eliminate all dissent.
Brave New World hasn’t happened yet, but 1984 has been happening since Clinton.

In fact, Obama is doing a pretty good version of Big Brother right now.

How is Obama acting as Big Brother?

For NewSpeak, go to the MSM; it’s working hand in hand with Big Brother Obama to spread his propaganda to the citizenry, while they plot to eliminate all dissent.

You have no idea what NewSpeak is do you? For NewSpeak look at Twitter, and TXT messaging and chat messaging. Shortening of words, though these don’t remove the bad connotations so it isn’t exactly newspeak.

Brave New World hasn’t happened yet, but 1984 has been happening since Clinton.

Really?

Orwell feared a world where books were banned or censored, Huxley feared we would consider them irrelevant. Which one is more accurate? Because books are far less popular than TV and the history channel is far less popular than American Idol.

Orwell feared we would be deprived of information, while Huxley was afraid we would be so surrounded to it we would begin become passive about it.

Which of those two sounds more real? With 24 hour news casting, Twitter, Blogs, MP3 Players, Televisions. I can’t remember a time I wasn’t surrounded by information.

Orwell again feared we would be censored from the truth while Huxley feared it would be drown in a sea of irrelevance. Considering last weeks Michael Jackson coverage and the non coverage of Iran, which is more accurate?

Orwell feared and anticipated captivity, Huxley foresaw our own triviality.

I see someone has been surfing digg. Entertaining ourselves to death? Yes, but don’t discount Orwell. People are still getting “suicided” (Deborah Jeane Palfrey comes to mind), those cameras you see at intersections were put there by DoHS (they’re not even for traffic), nobody’s putting a stop to warrantless wiretapping, the police state marches on. We’ve got motherfucking predator drones buzzing around up here in Grand Forks. Its only a matter of time until they arm those things.

The Orwellian police state and Huxley’s brave new world are symbiotic. One couldn’t exist without the other. The panopticon police state would have been stopped if the people weren’t sleeping. If anyone is still awake, the Orwellian aspect of it keeps them isolated and incapable of making any serious change. Dissent is met with dismissive apprehension. Go ahead and try to tell some of the reg’lars around here that 9/11 was an inside job and you’ll see what i mean.

sorry that probably made no sense i nee dto sleep

Them and gays. The leaders of socialist “revolutions”, although being predominately homosexual themselves, always focus on killing homosexuals in the aftermath of “liberating” the “people” from their slavish chains of individual liberty. History does not lie.

Orwell’s tale is of what could have happened. Huxleys tale is of what DID happen.

1984 is the story of European and Asian communism, whereas Brave New World is much more the American trajectory of the evolution of socialism.

“Imagine a boot stomping on the human face FOREVER” is what was being attempted in the USSR, Mao’s China, and more. Teinnimen Square is a great illustration.

The dumbing down of the populous, and only caring about the inane, descibed in New World, explains our current president.

And rez? You are all in favor of the Brave New World. You keep telling us that you want the government to be in control of all aspects of your life. Be careful what you wish for, just ask the 150,000,000 dead who were murdered in the name of your socialist utopia, in CCCP alone.

I’ve never once stated I wanted government control of anything. I’ve never once claimed the Soviet Union was anything but a country. Hell I don’t think I’ve even talked about the Soviet Union besides in history class. I’ve also never once stated socialism was a good thing. I just don’t attack it with the same ferocity as you guys do. I’m willing to think things through before blindly dismissing them. I’m much closer to libertarian then to even being mildly socialist. At worst I am a socially liberal libertarian in favor of questioning the various possibilities while clinging to none.

Atlas Shrugged is a better book, but still long, than the Fountainhead.

I had no problem sticking with the first, but had to force myself to read the second.

Again it was more probably the fact that school was nearing its end and I couldn’t be forced to crack open a book by my favorite novelist, a book from her would have taken more effort to read.

I don’t doubt your ability to read. I just think it’s funny how you used to have an Ayn Rand quote in your signature from Atlas Shrugged, but now you admit you’ve never even read the book and you continually to espouse political positions that are pretty much the polar opposite of Rand’s views.

I think it speaks to your still needed to grow up a bit. I don’t discount what you say because of your age, but your utter confusion of philosophy tells me that you’re still basing most of your views on what you feel rather than what you think.

Yes, I had an Atlas Shrugged quote and I never said I read that book. The quote was based off the evils of religion. Without even reading the book you can gather that. I’ll still state it is possible to agree with a person with a single quote from them on that single issue without knowing their biography front to back.

My believes have taken a fairly strong 180, I’m much more libertarian after my long recess of posting here. I had to come to terms with the possibility of nonintervention policies being helpful instead of just being pessimistic. My problem with conservatism is often that people cling to it through pessimism. I’ve had enough pessimism during my 15 year stay at my mothers and would like to think better of people. The conservative opinion doesn’t allow that, it expects nothing but the worst from people. I can’t do that. It isn’t even an emotional response, expecting the worst from everyone isn’t logical based upon my experience in life. I am sure if you read some of my posts concerning tuition and health care you can see the change in stance. I’m still willing to play devils advocate as well as to call out on people when what they say is utter bullshit. I’ve always done that for either direction of the spectrum.

So, you purchase a book in digital format and Amazon “retains” the “right” to delete it? Never, not ever, buy Kindle. Period.

That’s certainly a concern.

Stick with Rand’s non-fiction later, her works on objectivism. If you’re looking to draw deep meaning from works of fiction you’re missing the fact that a writer, no matter how skilled in philosophy or English or what have you is attempting to make a fictional world and thus must make it in some way entertaining through purposeful exaggeration.

Stick to the non-fiction and then reason through the world at large. The realities are different but entirely dramatic in their own right.

Consider that no law is automatically struck down or unenforceable as unconstitutional but rather someone in the executive branch responsible for enforcement whether a prosecutor, state’s attorney or even policeman must decide not to enforce it based on the belief that it is unconstitutional.

If none of them do, then the matter must be brought before a court and the judicial branch must say it is unconstitutional and unenforceable. If they rule it unconstitutional but non unenforceable and more to the point do not enjoin law enforcement from enforcing it, then pending appeal they may continue to enforce it.

How many laws are passed every year federal, state and local?

How many of those are actually vetted for constitutionality federal and state and for compliance with town charters?

It’s not a secret that this country’s books are filled with unconstitutional laws and that there’s practically no chance that more than a very small percentage which actually grab enough people’s attention will ever be addressed.

Here’s another point I’ve made before and you’re not going to like it but it is true.

If you go to another nation where the age of consent is vastly below the USA’s and your home state’s, or even nonexistent, and then get back and the feds are made aware, you’ve committed a crime in their book.

Remember the phrase “law of the land”? It refers to the laws being upon all who live within a land, the land being delineated by the territory controlled by the one making the laws. American laws apply in America. Canadian laws apply in Canada. Japanese laws in Japan and so on.

No more. Now your actions are held selectively against American law in foreign locations where America has no jurisdiction. Now the law is held to have jurisdiction over the individual.

In other words, it’s not the law of the land anymore. They feel they can control not only the land but the people, wherever they go, and thus they can have laws stick to you wherever you go.

This makes you chattel slaves.

That it is for something you find repugnant, child sex, makes it okay to and ignored by you. If it were a matter of going overseas to a gun meet and shooting at a range in some other nation and you came back to face weapons charges in the USA, you’d be apoplectic. Let it be in the name of something you can’t bear to discuss and debate but reflexively place in a box marked “already decided”, and you take no notice of it.

You’re still chattel. The standard is set. The slope is already greased. All you need do is keep wandering blindly to the edge.

All because that which is done in the name of things you agree with, you take little notice of. Especially when it fits your prejudices. That’s exactly how the tax the rich refrain gets traction. As long as everyone thinks the rich is someone else that got something that they should have gotten, and that they are somehow victims of a world made to work against them, then they will be easily led to get behind or at the very least not object to impositions on “those other people”.

Meanwhile the chain placed gently around their own neck is not meaningfully opposed.

I don’t doubt your ability to read. I just think it’s funny how you used to have an Ayn Rand quote in your signature from Atlas Shrugged, but now you admit you’ve never even read the book and you continually to espouse political positions that are pretty much the polar opposite of Rand’s views.

I think it speaks to your still needed to grow up a bit. I don’t discount what you say because of your age, but your utter confusion of philosophy tells me that you’re still basing most of your views on what you feel rather than what yout hink.