Tolerance, Opinions, Newspeak, and Today's America

This blog isn't, as I've written before, political. But since politics affects America's decision-making process regarding the war on terror, the topic comes up. This is one of those times.

"Liberal Minded, You’ve Been Blinded" Urban Conservative (March 12, 2008) is, in my opinion, a well-thought-out description of a particular sort of liberal. The author defines the sort of "liberal" he's describing in the second paragraph.

If you think Senator Ted Kennedy is moderate, or that all military recruiting centers should be closed, you probably shouldn't read that post. Particularly if you have high blood pressure, or a nervous disorder.

I think it's good reading, though: and gives a remarkably clear look at the differences between liberalism and conservatism in America. The 2006 comparison of Salvation Army pails in San Francisco and Sioux Falls, SD, for example, may be news to you.

The "Liberal Minded" post also highlights a set of ideas and beliefs which, in my opinion, are keeping many Americans from seeing and understanding what is going on in the world today.

One of those ideas is the curious meaning of the word, "tolerance." That's a word that's been used - and mis-used- a great deal, and is one of the ideas brought up in the "Liberal Minded" post. Here's a copy of my comment on:

Your claim that liberals, although praising tolerance, are in fact intolerant, indicates that you use oldspeak: "They worship freedom of speech for all groups and lifestyles, yet deny select groups from voicing their opinions."

In the current version of newspeak, the "opinions" of persons who engage in crimethink are generally referred to as "hate speech." Obviously, "hate speech" is not the same as "opinions," as anyone capable of doublethink would realize.

Persons with bellyfeel of today's liberal doctrines by and large also possess the blackwhite to accept this definition of "tolerance" without hesitation.

Since you clearly have an ungood attitude toward and goodthinkers and ownlife, I'll continue in oldspeak:

Your last paragraph starts: "Go ahead; call me a right-wing war monger. I’ve been called worse." I don't doubt it. However, in fairness, Let's point out that a Nobel Peace Prize did go to Yasser Arafat in 1994, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East" ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/ ). So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the illustrious trophy will go to, say, Ahmadinejad: for his peaceful efforts.

Although some goodthinkers have already made their bellyfeel known, I'll risk committing crimethink by saying that I really enjoyed this post: and think that you hit the nail on the head. I appreciate your careful definition of "liberal." There's quite a broad spectrum - one that I think isn't quite bipolar - out there.

Thanks for posting, and - keep writing, crimethinkwise!

---

About me, in the context of this post:

It's easy to assume that I'm conservative, given the views I express. I'm not.

I'm not liberal, either: and I'm certainly not "moderate" in the current political meaning of the word.

I'm Catholic.

Just the parts of my faith that relate to respect for human life, service to others, and personal responsibility put me at odds with parts of conservative ideology, and with parts of liberal ideology. It also means that I am in agreement with other parts of each of the two political poles.

All of which makes deciding how to vote a real challenge.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

---

Update (March 23, 2009)

I started a glossary of newspeak in another blog: There are 'newspeak dictionaries' on the Internet, but some are offline at odd intervals, and others are free-for-all compilations of what George Orwell actually wrote, and nifty words and phrases that sprouted up later.

Eventually, I'll go through the book myself and fill in the blanks in the list I made. But, that's low on my priority list right now.

Why Bother?

I like researching and organizing facts. This growing glossary of Newspeak is, I think, a useful guide for evaluating messages we hear, see, and read today.

People with extreme views on all ends of the ideological spectrum have produce propaganda. George Orwell was a Socialist of sorts, and a member of the British Left.

I'm a Catholic - which, in some circles, is worse, or just as bad, as being a socialist or commie. I've posted about that before ("Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic" (November 3, 2008) ).

So, here's that work-in-progress:

"Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help "
A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

"This post started as a simple definition, and grew.

"Had a Bellyful of Newspeak and Bellyfeel?

"If doublethink has you feeling ungood, or you can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that thoughtcrimes may not be as ungood as you've been told, you're not alone.

"Here's a very short glossary of terms which you may find helpful, while trying to think coherently about what you read and hear on the news. The words are from George Orwell's novel, 1984...."

Academia Listens to All Sides, and Brooklyn Bridge is For Sale

I wish that the brightest stars in the academic firmament didn't make it so hard to believe that "academic freedom" is not a joke, or some sort of doublethink.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran is scheduled to address the students at New York's Columbia University and speak at the United Nations next week. One of his goals seems to be to proved the "correct information," which has been lacking up to this point.

Before leaving Iran, Ahmadinejad gave a rousing speech as part of an Iranian parade that included "missile trucks were painted with the slogans 'Down with the U.S.' and 'Down with Israel.'" I assume that those are translations, but the news article didn't say.

Columbia invited Ahmadinejad as part of its World Leaders Forum.

I think that it is important for colleges and universities to give a hearing to diverse views.

Too bad that Jim Gilchrist's invitation to speak at Columbia October 4 was taken away. Gilchrist founded the Minutemen: a group claiming that people coming into this country should obey the law while doing so. He was shouted down at Columbia last year, due to his (extremist?) views.

Despite his being purged from Columbia's free speech card, Gilchrist supports Columbia's hosting President Ahmadinejad. "I'm defending his appearance," Gilchrist said. "I think he should speak. To say no, he cannot speak, is to support exactly the same thing that happened to me."

This sort of academic freedom, and a passionate support for free speech seems to be typical of colleges and universities. For example, the Colorado University student newspaper published a thoughtful, profound, editorial on the current American administration. The editorial, in its entirety, read "Taser this… F--- BUSH," with the expletive spelled out. According to "The Printed profanity draws Collegian complaints," in the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

Yep. Academic freedom. Free speech. Providing, of course, that the ideas conform to a correct view of the world.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Doublethink, Doctors, and Dumb Ideas

An AP report on Breitbart.com says that all eight people arrested in connection with those car bombs in London and Glasgow had something in common. They were all current or former employees of the United Kingdom's National Health Service.

The article looks like level-headed reporting, and says that the official view in Britain is that, although the suspects are foreign-born, the plot was hatched in the United Kingdom.

"To think that these guys were a sleeper cell and somehow were able to plan this operation from the different places they were, and then orchestrate being hired by the NHS so they could get to the UK, then get jobs in the same area—I think that's a planning impossibility," said Bob Ayres, a former U.S. intelligence officer now at London's Chatham House think tank.

"A much more likely scenario is they were here together, they discovered that they shared some common ideology, and then they decided to act on this while here in the UK," he said. (Excerpt from Breitbart.com.)

Meanwhile, the Daily Express ("The World's Greatest Newspaper") has a much juicier article. It says, "Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in connection with the terrorism crisis.

"The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase 'war on terror' is to be dropped."

It seems that the new PM wants to avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more 'consensual' tone than existed under Tony Blair.'"

The Daily Express may have a slight bias, as evidenced by the headline "BROWN'S SECRET PLOT TO SHUT OUT THE TORIES (GORDON Brown is to step up his secret campaign to keep the Tories out of power for ever – by changing Westminster’s voting system.)"

Even so, I don't think they made up Mr. Brown's remarks.

I wish the new British hadn't banned that word and that phrase.

First, I don't recall bans on the word "Irish" when terrorists from one of my ancestral homelands were embarrassing me with their misguided, murderous attacks.

Second, I'm very uncomfortable with this sort of censorship. Although it isn't quite newspeak, it does take a bit of doublethink to talk about M***** terrorists without thinking about the W** ** T*****.

Plus, forbidding the use of terms which have obvious connection with what was probably behind the botched mass-murders at a nightclub full of women and an airline terminal puts massive amounts of fertilizer of the fields where conspiracy theories grow.

For example, isn't it obvious that Bob Ayres is wearing rose-colored glasses? There's a vast conspiracy in Great Britain! the United Kingdom's National Health Service has been infiltrated at the highest levels! Terrorists abound in England's hospitals! The Prime Minister is in on the plot!

Panic in the streets!!!!

No, I don't believe that: although I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out that the NHS has been paying more attention to ethnicity and diversity, and less to background and beliefs, than it should have been. Who knows, maybe there really is a plot.

On the other hand, maybe this has nothing to do with the suspects' religious beliefs.

Think about it: they all seem to be doctors or medical professionals. Maybe they were just trying to pick up business.

(No, I don't believe that either. But the human condition being what it is, I suppose I have to make that disclaimer.)