Timex's Journal: 1984, all over again.

The previous post ("Lying liars...") has been intentionally removed. It will eventually be re-posted, if I feel like getting around to it. I have the whole thing saved locally, so it's a possibility.

It was NOT removed because of its content, not as such. I felt that point I was trying to make was simply missed completely: It wasn't that I was trying to substantiate any evidence one way or the other, but simply bring to light a few of the points that some have been trying to argue, that haven't yet been obliterated from the face of the earth by Big Brother.

I read 1984 in 1982. I thought that we didn't have to worry about that for a long time, because too many people would realize it if the government tried to revise history so blatantly. Little did I know that I would see it happen in my lifetime.

Today's society is, by comparison, largely ignorant. The people (and I'll stick to Americans, because that's what I know, being one) insist on having things now. If it doesn't fit into a five-second sound bite, it's too long. If it isn't summarized in the first paragraph, the point will be missed altogether. Wikipedia is considered "authoritative", even though many "facts" are subjective and completely lacking in opposing viewpoints that may affect the understanding of some subjects.

If one wants to provide evidence that a sitting president may not have been in the United States, good luck. As existing web pages are brought to light exposing what was once "common knowledge", they are eradicated or edited to hide or deny that it was ever the case. Before Obama began running for President, nobody questioned the idea that he wasn't born in the U.S. Statements from Michelle Obama that Kenya is his "homeland", statements from his paternal family that they were present at his birth in Kenya, they're all written-off as "anecdotal" at best. Apparently first-hand witnesses aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell anymore.

Instead, we as a people allow ourselves to depend too heavily on a computer system that (like 1984, hence the reference above) is easily manipulated. Editors don't seem to care if they allow "typographical errors" because they can just go back and "fix" things later. Ethics are crap, and nobody cares.

The US Constitution is moot. The people that it has empowered to govern are corrupted beyond repair. They pass laws that they themselves are not subject to. Congress attaches "riders" to laws that cannot stand on their own merits, knowing that it's the only way to get them into law. Congress members accept what basically amount to bribes from special interest groups, giving these groups more sway over how this country is governed than the people that the Congressman is supposed to represent.

In the early years of this nation, members of Congress would be elected, go spend a few months a year doing what they had to do, go back home and work, mingling with their constituents, rinse and repeat, until their term was over. Re-election was done, but not because it gave them any more clout; they were re-elected because their constituents thought they were doing a good job representing them. Congress was not seen as a "career move". Nowadays, people (generally) seem to be getting into Congress and doing whatever they can to stay there. The "junior" members are seen as neophytes, learning the ropes. "Senior" members are seen as more powerful, and the more time one spends in Washington, the more pull one has. FDR, being the only president elected for more than two terms, was seen as "too powerful", and Congress sought to limit this "power" by imposing term limits on the presidency. They never thought that they might need limits too, but good luck with getting anything like that passed through Congress.

If one cannot garner enough financial support, one doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting elected, so the "average" people are effectively being ruled by elitists. The sad thing here is that the current political parties (BOTH Democrat and Republican) are sadly out of touch. The Democrats have a golden tongue: they seem to know what to say to sucker the people into believing that they are on the side of the less-wealthy, who in turn are completely oblivious to the fact that the Democratic candidate has no idea (or has forgotten) what it was like to struggle to make ends meet. The Democratic Party has allowed itself to be taken over by people with Socialist leanings, who wish to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor", thus eradicating any incentive for people to make it out of the hole. Republicans seem to have ideas that might work (on paper), but they aren't given time necessary to fix problems created by those before them (from either party). They have been watching the Democrats and have been learning how to cajole the people into following them too, and so they are gradually changing to become more like the Democrats. I don't expect it to be much longer before the only difference between the two will be in name only.

I think this rant has gone on long enough, for the moment. You will notice that I do not have comments enabled. I'm not terribly interested in what anyone else has to say about any of this. You'll like it or you won't. It doesn't matter to me.

I am not following what others are writing in JEs (I don't have a lot of time to do so), so commentary elsewhere that is directed to me will go unnoticed.