Where are the Oompa Loompas when you need them. Willy Wonka’s helpers asked “who do you blame when your kid is a brat? Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?” The same question could be asked about publishers after Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to “update” portions of Roald Dahl’s classic books. The changes include dropping references to Augustus Gloop being “fat.” Yet, unlike the Oompa Loompas, who found sanctuary “from hornswogglers and snozzwangers and those terrible wicked whangdoodles,” there is no safe place from woke whangdoodles today.
While European publishers have refused to rewrite Dahl’s classics, Puffin Books believes that it is perfectly acceptable to change books after an author has died. Puffin simply could not abide references to things like the weight of Gloop. So they changed “fat” to “enormous.” (It is not clear what Puffin Books will do with Walter Tevis’ character “Minnesota Fats” in The Hustler. “Minnesota Enormous” just doesn’t quite have that same authentic gritty quality in a pool hall drama).
WARNING THE FOLLOWING VIDEO SHOWS OOMPA LOOMPAS REFERENCING A WORD DEPICTING A BODY SHAPE:
French publishing house Gallimard told The Telegraph that it will not rewrite such works and the revisions “only concern Britain.”
Yet, many believe that it is perfectly acceptable to rewrite the work of great authors. We previously discussed how publishers rewrote portions of Twain classics like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because people found the original writing to be offensive.
With writers and editors supporting blacklisting, it is little surprise to see support for simply changing the work of others to fit your own values. It is the reign of literary Lilliputians swarming over great works to conform them to their own vision and preferences. Rather than cancel writers, they are simply forcing them (including those long deceased) to speak in a different voice or use different words. These authors become ventriloquist puppets for others speaking through their works.
The silence of many writers and academics is deafening. People who claim to support free expression are just looking at their shoes rather than risk being targeted as reactionary or insufficiently sensitive to contemporary mores. After all, Dahl is not objecting, why should we? Of course, he died in 1990, but most writers and editors today either support such violations of creative expression or they are entirely intimidated by the flash mobs that target critics.
So Puffin Books will change these works to the thrill of activists. These woke apparatchiks will take a masterpiece that they could never have written themselves and change passages to fit their own values. It is an attack on the independence and free expression of artists and writers alike, but there is not even a single Oompa Loompa still around to object:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I’ve got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompa dah dee
If you are wise you’ll listen to me… Why don’t you try simply reading a book?
Or could you just not bear to look?
If plagiarism is, taking someone else’s words as your own, is frowned upon an unacceptable;. Then surly the deliberate alteration of those words should be unacceptable. Question. If you do not own the story itself is it legal to “rewrite and edit these works ?
Why not do the same with history books or the bible ?
They do own the stories themselves. The Roald Dahl Story Company approved the changes.
But that is not, essentially, the point. I ask why anyone other than a troubled, ignorant busybody would WANT to do this? I am more disturbed by the creation of a subculture that needs this bowdlerizing in order to deal with the world – the need to transmogrify reality to suit their abnormal state of mind.
These are the woke: they cannot create, they cannot think without being told, they cannot create so they destroy. They are mentally, creatively, intellectually, and morally bereft. It is the height of irony that in their misguided attempts to ‘save’ a world that doesn’t need saving, they may very well destroy it. This is a new Dark Ages, and a mirror is something these people will likely never encounter, nor is real, actual, history. This is a metaphorical burning of Alexandria,
I hope the sales of their nonsense plummet into non-sustainability and the Dahl estate deeply regrets their capitulation (read: they sold out. Netflix bought the rights to all of this stuff, and in case you forgot, Obama and Rice are deeply involved with Netflix). Hang onto your old books, this is 1930’s level s****. It is a joke that they call books simply removed from children’s libraries ‘banned’ when they have been readily for sale to anyone the entire time and they are pulling this crap with books that were not contested by anyone. Do not expect sanity from woke millennials, gen z, or their older handlers, and do not go gently into the winter night. So sad that dollars determine everything these days.
Charlie and the Chocolatre Factory already was rewritten to stop offending people – the Ooomopa Loompas wear originally pigmeys from deepest darkest africa.
https://theconversation.com/from-pygmies-to-puppets-what-to-do-with-roald-dahls-enslaved-oompa-loompas-in-modern-adaptations-166967
Interesting! So the movie that we all know was already a cleaned up version of the original. It seems so innocent now because we were only exposed to the movie version sanitized for children.
An excerpt from the article,
“In the first edition of Charlie (1964), the Oompa-Loompas are black pygmies who Wonka imports from “the deepest and darkest part of the African jungle” and enslaves in his factory.”
Even conservatives would be changing that narrative in today’s culture.
So changing “fat” with “enormous” is downright mild compared to the original.
The phrase “Fat Tuesday” is ripe for getting cancelled. We could continue ad infinitum.
Why do we have to change anything at all ?
Would you rewrite shakespeare ?
Regardless authors should be judged based on what THEY wrote – not what some idiots decades later rewrote.
If you are unhappy with Dahl’s work – Write your own.
Why would conservatives be changing anything ?
We need not rewrite the Bibble – lest left wing nuts are offended.
Or Socrates, or Shaekespeare or Victor Hugo or Jefferson, or Twain or Tolkein or Dahl.
Only the author should rewrite their work.
John Say,
“Only the author should rewrite their work.”
That right there.
In high school we did watch a video of Hamlet, with Mel Gibson. Thing was, it would cut to Mel Gibson actually in front of a high school class, explaining what the language at time meant. That was helpful and more entertaining.
Read a few articles where wokeist making claims that such and such person (dead) supported this woke, that woke, or even wokewokewoke.
I think I even saw someone claim Jesus supported trans.
I do not have problems with those producing a play or a moving “interpreting” the original work.
But it must be made CLEAR this is a new work that is based on something else.
West Side Story is Romeo and Julliet.
It is excellent. But it did not pretend to be shakespeare as shakespeare wrote it.
I suspect Shakespeare would have loved it.
But it was NOT his play, it was something new based on his play – and it was represented as such.
We have similar problems with Documentaries and especially documdramas or total rewrites of history like the 1619 project.
People watch them and think they truly reflect events.
You’ve already surrendered to the woke by writing “Only the author should rewrite their work” instead of “rewrite his work”.
All authors are not men.
“their”is sometimes recognized as a grammatical convenience to avoid saying “his or her”.
“In the first edition . . . enslaves in his factory.”
What the hell are you talking about? You don’t even have the facts about the 1971 movie right.
“Charlie and the Chocolatre (sic) Factory already was rewritten to” appease race hucksters at the NAACP.
Now your statement’s accurate.
A lot of people may not recognize this but many people are alive and doing better because of off-use pharmaceuticals. The Democrats should not be permitted to make laws.
—-
Not just ivermectin: New FDA authority to ban off-label uses alarms doctors
Provision is buried in omnibus appropriations bill after FDA kept losing in court. “Potentially catastrophic for use of antibiotics,” says former Public Health England director.
“Damn — 3/4 of the stuff we use Is off label,” University of Kentucky medical professor Lisbeth Selby wrote. “This is a ploy to get more money for drug companies.”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/not-just-ivermectin-new-fda-authority-ban-label-uses-alarms-doctors?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
“Researchers at the University of Kansas Medical Center were part of a multi-site collaboration that found that ivermectin has no measurable effect in improving COVID-19 outcomes.
In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the researchers concluded that taking 400 mcg/kg ivermectin for three days, when compared with a placebo, did not significantly improve the chances for a patient with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization.
The use of ivermectin also showed no measurable decrease in the severity of COVID-19 symptoms or the length of time these patients experienced COVID-19 symptoms.
“The most important takeaway from the study is that ivermectin does not help improve outcomes from COVID-19 infection and thus should not be used as a treatment for COVID-19,” said Tiffany Schwasinger-Schmidt, “
https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
“KU Medical Center was part of a nationwide initiative that allowed research institutions to collaborate on COVID-19 studies in hopes of getting results sooner than any one site could achieve on its own.”
Those who were pushing ivermectin were investors in the manufacturer including doctors who pushed for it’s use. They were looking to cash in on the pandemic to make a buck off a drug that does nothing for Covid.
“Results A total of 3484 ADEs were found in the 46 021 study patients, with an incidence rate of 13.2 per 10 000 person-months. The rate of ADEs for off-label use (19.7 per 10 000 person-months) was higher than that for on-label use (12.5 per 10 000 person-months) (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.30-1.60). Off-label use lacking strong scientific evidence had a higher ADE rate (21.7 per 10 000 person-months) compared with on-label use (AHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.37-1.72). However, off-label use with strong scientific evidence had the same risk for ADEs as on-label use (AHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.38). The risks for ADEs were higher for drugs approved from 1981 to 1995 (14.4 per 10 000 person-months; AHR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.45-1.80) and for those used by women (14.3 per 10 000 person-months; AHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.28), patients receiving 5 to 7 drugs (12.1 per 10 000 person-months; AHR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.66-3.92), and patients receiving cardiovascular drugs (15.9 per 10 000 person-months; AHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.67-4.08) and anti-infectives (66.2 per 10 000 person-months; AHR, 6.33; 95% CI, 4.58-8.76). Patients with a 1-unit increase in the continuity of care index had a 19% increase in ADEs (AHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12-1.26).”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2467782
Not your choice. Other data shows Ivermectin works.
5)He has no understanding or research, medicine or the law.
1) He is used to changing the words of others
2) He doesn’t understand the ideas behind intellectual and real property.
3) He has no morals.
4) He has no understanding of free speech or amendment #1
“Not your choice. Other data shows Ivermectin works.‘
You mean outdated data. Of course it will say it works because it’s from those folks who stood to make a buck out of it.
You still keep making insults and ad hominem attacks. Meaning you still have no argument. I understand it’s easier to do. Weak minds tend to use that a lot.
“Of course it will say it works because it’s from those folks who stood to make a buck out of it.”
6) He has no understanding of off-patent generic vs high cost new drugs.
1) He is used to changing the words of others
2) He doesn’t understand the ideas behind intellectual and real property.
3) He has no morals.
4) He has no understanding of free speech or amendment #1
5)He has no understanding or research, medicine or the law.
Svelaz, I’ll see your Ivermectin story and raise you a couple. Biden said that “if you get vaccinated you wont get Covid. Then after four boosters he still got Covid. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/biden-said-if-you-get-vaccinated-you-wont-get-covid. I can recall that Fauci said that masks were not effective before he said that they were. Then he lied when he said that the Wuhan lab wasn’t receiving any money from the National institute of health. I call your bluff.
Thinkitthrough, as usual you don’t….think it through. First it’s the Washington examiner, an outfit pretty high on the GDI list so one should take what they report with a grain of salt.
Second, when Biden first said that it was when the vaccine was effective against the original strain and it was 90% effective at the time. So in reality if you got vaccinated with the first vaccine you really did not have chance of getting Covid. When he tested positive after his booster it was a not because of the original strain. Remember there were multiple strains emerging and that is what the CDC and the vaccine makers were warning everyone of the lower effectiveness of the current iteration of the vaccine. The covid he contracted was NOT the same as the original. Nobody was saying 100% that you couldn’t get it again. Especially when a new variant emerges. Just like the flu. It’s not the same every year.
The study I posted is the latest in determining the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment. This study was conducted as part of multiple studies to verify it and the results were that ivermectin is not effective as many assume. That’s just a fact confirmed by this latest study.
Svelaz wrote, “So in reality if you got vaccinated with the first vaccine you really did not have chance of getting Covid.”
Svelaz is a bald-faced LIAR!
None of the COVID vaccines, I repeat NONE, prevent the vaccinated from contracting any strain of COVID, they were designed to reduce the symptoms of COVID if contracted.
None of the pharmaceutical companies, I repeat NONE, have ever claimed that their COVID vaccine prevents the vaccinated from contracting the virus.
To my knowledge no one at the CDC, including Fauci, actually ever claimed that the COVID vaccine prevents the vaccinated from contracting the virus.
Period, end of argument.
STUDY: Ivermectin reduces covid death risk by 92%
https://naturalnews.com/2022-09-02-study-ivermectin-reduces-covid-death-risk-92percent.html
“Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” … The powers that be really do not want people accessing ivermectin because they know it works, and that nobody would ever take the “vaccines” if ivermectin was widely available. “…
https://naturalnews.com/2022-09-02-study-ivermectin-reduces-covid-death-risk-92percent.html
naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=ivermectin&pr=NN
STUDY: Ivermectin reduces covid death risk by 92%
“Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” … The powers that be really do not want people accessing ivermectin because they know it works, and that nobody would ever take the “vaccines” if ivermectin was widely available. “…
https://naturalnews.com/2022-09-02-study-ivermectin-reduces-covid-death-risk-92percent.html
https://www.naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=ivermectin&pr=NN
Oky1, that study was not peer reviewed and it’s from September of 2022. Which means it’s outdated and is biased by according to the site.
Other studies pointing out ivermectin was effective against Covid were derived from lab results using doses too high for humans to use. That particular detail is always left out of these studies touting the drug as effective.
” when compared with a placebo, did not significantly improve the chances for a patient with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization.”
Mild to moderate symptoms don’t need pharmaceuticals.
70% of peer reviewed articles are later proven to be wrong. JAMA has been burned bad, during the last 3 decades.
JAMA only publishes studies, does not do the research.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
JAMA is neck deep in narrative setting. I have not seen JAMA quoted on the mask studies, but if they did weigh in, I know which side they come down on.
Speaking of masks, The NYT came out yesterday admitting mask mandates were useless
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html?fbclid=IwAR37oqjX6nTxfOfsX1hRt-r_yi-bRtBXcwnXSZtw-g5M86Ce6Nh8Znrvz6E
S. Meyer,
Keep losing in the courts, so sneak it in the omnibus.
S. Meyer claims: ” A lot of people may not recognize this but many people are alive and doing better because of off-use pharmaceuticals.” Says who? What study? Where’s the proof? What “off-use” pharmaceuticals, and for what conditions–or, should the US become like in Mexico and put prescription medications on the pharmacy shelf and allow people to decide what medicines they want to take, at a dosage they llike, and for what conditions without any considerations for side-effects and drug interactions? Just saying “many people are alive and doing better” doesn’t make it true. For example, the Laetrile controversy. Actor Steve McQueen had mesothelioma acquired during his time in the Navy when he worked around asbestos insulation in ships. When his condition was dire and other therapy had failed, he went to Mexico, where they gave him Laetrile and also attempted surgery despite the fact that the tumor had swallowed up much of his lungs and chest cavity. He died shortly after surgery, of course, but he believed the claim that Laetrile was a cure for cancer that Big Pharma was keeping off the market so they could sell their own less-effective versions of chemotherapy.
The claim that off-use for prescription medications is keeping people alive and well is just more anecdotal nonsense that has no basis in science–part of the fallout from Trump, which is to distrust science and believe that you know as much as people who have devoted their lives to studying the healing arts. Karen S. isn’t satisfied with the controlled studies showing that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risk, but more ominously, she thinks she knows more than the doctors and scientists and that it’s better to wait “a few years” so she can satisfy herself that the side effects are worth it. When I was a public health nurse, a grade school principal where I was assigned said that if she got a runny nose or cough, she’d take two aspirin, and the symptoms would go away, and she never got a cold. So, do 2 aspirins cure the various causes for a runny nose or cough and prevent someone from getting a cold? For her, it did, because, IMHO, it was the placebo effect. But, that’s not science and it’s not proof that 2 aspirin prevent colds or stop a runny nose. Most people don’t even know why we have a FDA. You might want to look up the story about the cough medicine accidentally laced with poison that was killing people, and which the federal government at the time had no legal authority to take off the market.
“More than one in five outpatient prescriptions written in the U.S. are for off-label therapies.”
I didn’t bother to read your cr-p because in the past it was cr-p and you never respond honestly to what other people had to say. Your belief in ‘it’s my body’ reflects your whims as here you deny patients the right to their own bodies.
It is no wonder you escaped the body of Natacha and took the name, Gigi. Time to take a new name.
“When I was a public health nurse”
If you were, since then, you either had a brain transplant, or a grave mistake was made.
Wow! What an on-point, factual and dispassionate response–not! Full of the usual MAGA-brained attack on anyone who says something you don’t like. No one said patients don’t have the right to their own bodies–what I did say is that people who aren’t scientists don’t have the skills, knowledge or background to second-guess professionals in the healing arts, and up to now, for the most part, before Trump, people trusted doctors and public health officials to recommend treatments in their best interests. If someone wants to refuse treatment, that is their right, but it shouldn’t be because they believe anecdotal stories about “miracle cures”. Steve McQueen’s case is an example from a long time ago of the risks of believing anecdotal evidence of miracle cures–not that the Laetrile killed him, because his condition was terminal anyway–but the faith some people put in rumors and anecdotal claims, sort of like pushing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID–they don’t work, and actual scientific studies prove this to be true–but people keep insisting that they know better.
The response “Says who?” was a question most people know the answer to. I provided a quick answer, one among many. That you don’t know these things is not surprising considering your responses on the blog.
You now say: “No one said patients don’t have the right to their own bodies” but you need to look at what the other person wrote. You don’t bother with that.
I wrote: “Your belief in ‘it’s my body’ reflects your whims as here you deny patients the right to their own bodies.“
You wrote: “If someone wants to refuse treatment, that is their right, but it shouldn’t be because they believe anecdotal stories”
You are saying two different things at the same time, and you are deciding what is anecdotal and what isn’t. Ivermectin has proof that it is as effective as some of the more profitable pharmaceuticals with fewer side effects. You want your judgment to prevail, but to date, you haven’t shown any judgment at all, so one shouldn’t trust you.
“Hydroxychloroquine for COVID–they don’t work, and actual scientific studies prove this to be true–“
Other studies provide a different story. You want to be a judge of efficacy and what another can put in their body. In this case, you don’t believe ‘it is my body’.
The Covid vaccine was proven a danger for the young. It also didn’t prevent disease. You stated the opposite.
Your rants reflect what you believe in that instant of time, only to be reversed a second later. There is no consistency in your rants and if anything is of danger to people’s health, it is you and your ideas. Go back to Natacha. At least then you wouldn’t be posing as a new poster.
You provide a quote from ONE doctor in Kentucky, and that’s supposed to PROVE there’s benefit to off-label use for prescription drugs? Yeah, tell that to Steve McQueen–he was treated with Laetrile for mesothelioma by actual doctors in Mexico. Then, there’s Trump’s “demon sperm doctor”, whose prior writings, before advocating for Hydroxychloroquine, included her theory that endometriosis is caused by women having intercourse with Satan while they are sleeping. You are dead wrong in claiming that either Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine is effective to treat COVID. The so-called “studies” that allegedly prove effectiveness are fatally flawed because they do not include the usual controls that the scientific community requires for validation.. Actual, controlled scientific studies prove that neither is effective, but you don’t understand this nor do you care. And for what I hiope is the last time, I never said that COVID vaccine prevented the disease–I repeated what the CDC and WHO said–that the vaccine is proven to prevent hospitalizations and death. The vaccine is the reason why the US no longer sets daily records for COVID infections and deaths, why kids are back in school, why businesses and restaurants are open for business again and our economy is humming along, with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years–Biden’s policies also brought this about. You say the vaccine is a “proven danger”for “the young”–that’s not true, either, as actual, valid scientific studies prove. There are risks for getting COVID, and vaccines carry risks, but carefully-controlled scientific studies using large, diverse populations prove that the benefits outweigh the risks. You claim I make inconsistent claims–that’s not true, either. When have I been “reversed a second later”? Why do you Trumpsters prever to believe lies over proven science, prefer to believe the lies of a malignant narcissist proven to have lost a free and fair election over the multiple recounts, investigations and court cases proving he lied?
“You provide a quote from ONE doctor in Kentucky”
I quoted from Web MD, but that was one quote of many. You state cr-p and are unable to defend it. Most of what you say is nonsense and not worth the effort to reply. Almost all are incorrect.
Steve McQueen was a dead man when he went in to take the drug. There were no satisfactory treatments. He tried a Hail Mary pass. You demonstrate how worthless your knowledge is because you cannot provide a good anecdote that fails the smell test.
“You are dead wrong in claiming that either Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine is effective to treat COVID.”
Go to the literature. The results might be mixed, but there are enough positive studies to consider using those drugs. Some show good outcomes and others show equal outcomes with the expensive new drugs whose side effects aren’t fully known.
I can’t tell who knows less, you or Svelaz. I stopped reading midway.
I DO go to “the literature”–the REAL literature, scientific studies that are PEER REVIEWED and published in reliable scientific journals, not the baldfaced BS you prefer to believe. The “results” are not “mixed”. Actual, peer-reviewed studies using controls and treatment groups, that are double-blind PROVE that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not effective in treating COVID. Those are the only studies that are scientifically valid. The bigger issue is WHY so many of you MAGA-brained people prefer to disbelieve scientists and peer-reveiwed journals in favor of lies by a proven, chronic, habitual liar. That’s going to be Trump’s legacy–in addition to being a moron who trashed our economy and our relations with our EU and NATO allies–causing people to distrust science and scientists because he couldn’t bully them into lying about COVID because he thought COVID made him look bad, which it did–not because of the virus making people sick–but because it exposed him for someone that has no leadership skills, who is clueless as to what to do in a crisis and who refuses to defer to more-knowledgeable people.
“I DO go to “the literature”–the REAL literature, scientific studies”
You are illiterate where healthcare studies are involved, and I suspect is extends outward to almost anything you discuss.You have no idea of statistics or the process of selection. You pretend but are not successful. Your world perspective is very small and that is why you are wrong almost all the times.
Nothing more need be said, but if you wish to deal with a single subject that you can focus on go ahead and let us hear.what you have to say.
Honestly you are giving her too much credit.
I doubt she has ever looked at an Actual study or paper.
She is regurgitating language from left wing talking heads.
If she understood what she was saying she would already know she was wrong.
Gigi,
Asbestos, isn’t that the toxic crap J&J was putting in the talcum powder for decades, why yes it is.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=talcum+powder+lawsuit&ia=web
People have had enough of you & your lunatic friends attacking, killing millions & harming millions more with abc outfits like the CDC, FDA, etc..
You might want to read about abestos in talcum powder and how it came to be. Asbestos and talc are frequently found together when talc is mined, and companies selling talcum powder didn’t take steps to remove or eliminate the asbestos. No one intentionally “put” asbestos in the talcum powder–they just didn’t take steps to keep it out, even after being aware that the asbestos would get drawn into a woman’s body where it caused ovarian cancer. That’s why talcum powder today has NO asbestos in it. The “abc” outfits aren’t to blame.
The claim that off-use for prescription medications is keeping people alive and well is just more anecdotal nonsense that has no basis in science
This follows your meaninless anecdote about Steve McQueen
Who ever is using chatbot for natcha, needs to adjust the dials.
Steve McQueen’s Laetrile story is very relevant–I recall how Laetrile was touted as a “natural cure” for all kinds of cancer because it is derived from peach and apricot pits and other fruits. People really believed it would cure cancer based on NO scientific proof. McQueen fell for it because he was desperate–there was no cure for his advabced mesothelioma, but it didn’t kill him because his case was terminal anyway. But, it is a lesson in why anecdotal stories about “miracle cures” should be doubted.
Anecdotal.
That word does not mean what you think it means.
Karen S. isn’t satisfied with the controlled studies showing that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risk, but more ominously, she thinks she knows more than the doctors and scientists and that it’s better to wait “a few years”
Just spent some time with my PCP. She refused to recommend a Covid booster. ESPECIALLY the mRNA injection. I’m 67 years old and overweight. I had the same conversation 6 months ago and she was neutral. Now she is against boosters.
There is no benefit, to plug into a risk/benefit analysis.
I think the current number is about 80-85% of everyone has stop with the mRNA shots that are not a vax.
The last number I’ve got, November 2022, is that confidence in the US healthcare system had dropped straight down from 77% had great confidence to only 62% then had confidence in the docs/healthcare system. I’m very interested in the up to date info. Under 50%?
https://twitter.com/DowdEdward
Naturalnews.com
My PHP, in a fit of candor, bemoaned the fact she was sooo stupid to blindly follow the CDC despite their recommendations contradicted her education, training and experience.
Yes she used the word stupid.
While the public is upset, that seems mild as compared to the actual Doctors in the field. They are PO’s big time.
If that’s what your PCP recommends, then that’s the best thing for you. If the only reason for not recommending a first or second booser is that she thinks that boosters provide NO benefit, then she’s misinformed. The first or second COVID shot you already received contained a copy of the COVID virus’s spike mRNA, so it’s in your body already, causing your immune system to recognize this and react if you come in contact with it again, which will prevent a serious infection and/or death.
The Oompa Loompas ask “Who’s to blame?”
I don’t think it can really be laid just at the feet of “the mother and the father” as the Oompa Loompas assert. What responsibility should be shouldered by professors, TV “programming” (great word, eh?) writers and talking heads, advertisers, and other media people–including TikTok (propagandists?)? Many parents are trying to fight the nonsense, but it is an uphill battle.
And social media, which has led to a spike in suicides and mental illness among teenagers.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-social-illness/
Disney has also been busy, so Slue Foot Sue and Pecos Bill no longer roll and smoke cigarettes . . .
So the morale is that people who can’t create censor?
I occasionally check this website to see what my fellow alumni, Jonathan Turley is up to. As usual, nothing changes.
The posts, and especially the comments, indicate that this is the epitome of an echo chamber. It’s a place where nuance, genuine intellectual inquiry, and respect for differing views go to die.
I am certain that any responses to my post will confirm the above.
But, just in case,here’s a link to a genuinely intelligent analysis of Dahl’s racism, despite his generally brilliant literary skills:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/12/28/roald-dahl-biography/
Give it a try.
Then why doesn’t the publisher just stop publishing his books? If he is a horrible racist bigot then wouldn’t it be better to just make him and all of his work just disappear entirely? Why should the publisher bother with changing the words that he wrote and instead just stop publishing his books and thus deprive his estate from continuing to profit off of his racism and hatred?
The publisher’s responsibility is to make money for its shareholders.
Cobb, you are obviously well informed. Is your post what they call ‘sea lioning’?
“I occasionally check this website to see what my fellow alumni, Jonathan Turley is up to. The posts, and especially the comments, indicate that this is the epitome of an echo chamber”
Cobb Hall,
History provides many racist people who have written books and created artistic works. Do you wish to overturn their sculptures and change what they were portraying along with their words based on your whims? You sound approving of those who take the law into their own hands. Welcome, America, to the Taliban.
You have a nasty way about you. Michael Avenatti was a student and later a colleague of Turley’s. Do you liken yourself to that type?
And the reason you mention being a “fellow alumni” serves what purpose?
Book-burners like you have crawled so far up your own fundment that I fear there’s no way to extract you any longer. Keep that link to your putrid echo chamber in your own brand of wangdoodles and leave us sane persons alone.
Cobb Hall
You shared a link to an article that hidden behind a paywall, that was a very foolish thing to do in context to what you wrote in your comment.
By the way, there’s no echo chamber here and that is very, very clear if you actually read through the comments. There is a wide cross section of viewpoints presented in the commentary. Only a brazen idiot would make an echo chamber claim in this blog commentary.
Seriously Cobb Hall, if “nuance, genuine intellectual inquiry, and respect for differing views” was something that you were at all interested in then why did you start off by insulting those on this sight that actually don’t trash “nuance, genuine intellectual inquiry, and respect for differing views” with your blanket smear as if everyone here kills it.
Mr Hall,
The Wapo, Oh My Godz!
Your technique is only surpassed by you brilliance.
Maybe next time you grace us with your presence you’ll gift us with a fresh joke or a limerick.
Can’t wait for the sensitivity readers to edit Mein Kampf. No question they’ll replace Aryan supremacy with black supremacy and the Jews will be replaced with whites. Hitler might even be changed to a POC.
You can thank the Gen Z snowflakes… never has a bigger class of sissy boys ever walked the earth.
We used to call Nazi word police “censors.” Now we call them sensitivity readers. See how language makes everything OK?
Is this maybe a clever way of marketing the original books? Like Coke’s brilliant move in the 1980s when it was losing market share to Pepsi. It changed the formula, then after an outcry, it went back to the original formula and called it Coke Classic? The ploy worked.
P.S. that second video said the words “mother” and “father” – how long till those words are excised too?
Mark Twain was way ahead of his time on many issues like Race.
Yet, today’s Woke brain dead Lemmings see him as being unacceptable?
That proves what happens when History is re-written or completely ignored.
All of which indicts the American Educational System that has been so infiltrated by Leftist Activists
The first thing you do to win a battle is prepare….prepare the Children to believe your own propaganda.
That is where we are folks….in a War to save this. Nation by saving our Children from the Left’s brainwashing of the young and impressionable.
Sex education for kids in kindergarten…..Text Books content that cannot be read in a public school board meeting….Drag Queen shows???
We are in a War for the Soul of this Nation…..we must fight it like a War….not with arms and weapons but with Words and political action at every level of govenment.
When do they rewrite 1984?
Why is this even an issue? This is nothing new. People have been rewriting books to sanitize certain content for centuries. Thomas Jefferson did it with the Bible when he removed the tales of miracles and the resurrection. King James changed it so that he could divorce his wife and made the Bible more accessible to the masses. The Bible has been rewritten so many times that there are literally multiple versions to choose from. Even Children’s bibles are “sanitized” by omitting or whitewashing the incestuous and murderous tales that are littered throughout the book.
Even classics are rewritten for children so they can enjoy a child friendly version. This whole “woke” angle is nothing new. Jefferson was the original “woke” author when he decided to rewrite the Bible in a more ‘realistic’ view.
This is not really a big deal. Anyone still has access to the originals anytime. Those will never change.
That entire comment is the epitome of an unethical rationalization. Here are a few of the unethical rationalizations that could somehow be be applied to Svelaz’s comment…
1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”
1A. Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it.”
2. Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad”
3. Consequentialism, or “It Worked Out for the Best“
4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.“
8. The Trivial Trap or “No harm no foul!”
8A. The Dead Horse-Beater’s Dodge, or “This can’t make things any worse”
13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”
22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”
23. The Dealer’s Excuse or “I’m just giving the people what they want!”
28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.”
33. The Management Shrug: “Don’t sweat the small stuff!”
45. The Unethical Precedent, or “It’s Not The First Time”
64. Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is”
None of what Svelaz wrote justifies what they’re doing to these books, period.
Nice job Svelaz showing everyone what not to write in a comment.
Witherspoon, there’s nothing unethical about my rationalization. What I did prove is that conservatives such as yourself NEED to have something to complain about and this whole “woke” thing is the new toy.
Rewriting books is not new. This isn’t a new concept.
“1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”
Others have done it and it’s been done for years. They have also been criticized for it like you are doing now. So yes everybody still does it.
“1A. Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it.”
This is still true. You can’t. That’s why you complain. It’s also called a different point of view. Crazy, right?
“2. Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad”
No, they are just different.
“3. Consequentialism, or “It Worked Out for the Best“”
It didn’t change anything. Why? Because the originals are still accessible and anybody can still read the originals anytime.
“4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.“
It’s not illegal or unethical. You WANT it to be unethical because it gives you something to complain about.
“8. The Trivial Trap or “No harm no foul!”
8A. The Dead Horse-Beater’s Dodge, or “This can’t make things any worse”
No, It simply doesn’t change the fact that it really doesn’t affect you. But again it gives you something to complain about.
“28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.”
This have always occurred as long as books have been in existence.
The rest of your nonsensical bullet points are just that nonsensical.
“None of what Svelaz wrote justifies what they’re doing to these books, period.”
I just wrote about the fact that reality is not as dire as you want to make it. Like Turley and those who are critical of the is idea that “wokism” is damaging things is only an excuse for you to complain about something that has always existed. You’re just being a big whiny Karen.
What is ironic is that this is free speech too. Changing a few words in a book to reflect a different context or purpose is to express a different point of view.
You know Svelaz, doubling down on your unethical rationalizations makes you look pretty damn foolish. Sobeit.
Witherspoon, as usual you go right to your emotional argument rather than the rational one. Your ignorance is your biggest barrier here.
Svalaz ignorantly wrote, “Changing a few words in a book to reflect a different context or purpose is to express a different point of view.”
No Svelaz, it’s pure b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n.
B-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements.
Witherspoon, what you are not getting because of your overt emotional reaction to not being able grasp the concept of comprehension is that this is really nothing new.
I posted a few examples and someone else posted something that the original willing Wonka story had. What you missed in your usual hair trigger rage is that what you thought was the original was also desensitized by changing a few words that changed the context of the original.
It lowered the quality of the original because the original would never pass in today’s culture. The ignorance is all on your end Steve. Don’t you think that’s why nobody really goes to your blog? It could be the banal and over emotional opinions.
For better and worse, the copyright holder can make any changes they want, and they’re making changes they believe are to their financial benefit. It’s capitalism.
Anonymous wrote, “For better and worse, the copyright holder can make any changes they want, and they’re making changes they believe are to their financial benefit. It’s capitalism.”
More of the same rationalizations.
It’s pure b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n and it’s unethical censorship.
It’s not a rationalization. It’s a set of facts:
1) the copyright holder can make any changes they want,
2) they’re making changes they believe are to their financial benefit.
3) That’s capitalism.
Note that you cannot dispute any of these facts. I don’t like the changes, and you’re welcome to your opinion about them, but opinions are not facts. If you think any of the facts are wrong, respond factually, not with opinion.
Anonymous wrote,
You’re displaying a typical ignorance and a lack of logic.
I didn’t dispute the “facts” you wrote and you can’t dispute the fact that just because those are facts doesn’t mean that they are not unethical rationalizations. Facts and non-facts can be used equally in presenting unethical rationalizations.
Read the list I provided above and follow the link I provided so you can correct your ignorance.
I already said that I don’t agree with the changes. I wasn’t rationalizing anything. Correct your own ignorance about what does and does NOT constitute rationalization.
Anonymous wrote, “I already said that I don’t agree with the changes.”
Irrelevant to the rationalization and if you truly understood rationalizations you’d actually know that.
Anonymous wrote, “I wasn’t rationalizing anything.”
You still don’t understand and remaining ignorant is a choice. Your intent is irrelevant. Your comment “For better and worse, the copyright holder can make any changes they want, and they’re making changes they believe are to their financial benefit. It’s capitalism.” in context with this sub-thread conversation IS most definitely a rationalization. It’s your choice to either own it or not but you choice does reflect on your integrity.
Anonymous wrote, “Correct your own ignorance about what does and does NOT constitute rationalization.”
Oh I’m quite clear on this; however, you clearly have what I’d call a typical b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e-d understanding of what does and doesn’t constitute a rationalization. That’s why I tried to provide some information to correct ignorance, you’ve clearly rejected this, that’s your choice. Sobeit.
Catcha later dude.
Fin
Anonymous, there’s no rationalizing with Witherspoon. Once he gets into his trench of ignorance he wont be able to get out of it and he will keep on “rationalizing” his ignorance with more of the same never learning anything new.
“This is not really a big deal.”
For Svelaz it is not a bit deal. 1) He is used to changing the words of others 2) He doesn’t understand the ideas behind intellectual and real property. 3) He has no morals.
Just wondering here if Svelaz is an AI bot. If Prof. Turley is for X, Svelaz is against it. If Prof. Turley is against X, Svelaz is for it. There’s no real independent thought there.
He is unable to have independent thought.
Oldmanfromkansas,
What you see is called offering a different point of view. Turley always encourages it. It’s a fundamental part of free speech. It’s ironic so mane here don’t seem to recognize it.
No one questions your right to free speech. They are dealing with what you say.
4) He has no understanding of free speech or amendment #1
1) He is used to changing the words of others
2) He doesn’t understand the ideas behind intellectual and real property.
3) He has no morals.
Anonymous (S. Meyer), still has no argument. Yeah people can deal with what I say. I acknowledge that is part of the consequence of exercising free speech. I don’t shrink from it. You do on the other hand.
All you have to offer are insults and ad hominems.
“All you have to offer are insults and ad hominems.”
7) He has no idea of what insults and ad hominem are. He insults everyone.
1) He is used to changing the words of others
2) He doesn’t understand the ideas behind intellectual and real property.
3) He has no morals.
4) He has no understanding of free speech or amendment #1
5) He has no understanding or research, medicine or the law.
6) He has no understanding of off-patent generic vs high cost new drugs.
Svelaz – Having a different point of view is fine. One wonders whether only a computer program is at work, however, when no matter the topic or the point of view expressed in the main article, over a period of months and years, the same commenter always disagrees. That seems to me unlikely to occur unless the commenter is in fact a computer program.
The only alternative is that the commenter has decided in advance he will always disagree no matter what. That may be done for fun, or perhaps for profit – i.e., maybe you’re a paid mouthpiece. Only you know for sure. But unless, every once in a while, your comments do not express the opposite view of Prof. Turley’s, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me (and I expect many others) that you’re an actual person who has not decided in advance to always disagree.
So what if I always disagree. There’s no hard and fast rule that says I have to agree on something. That doesn’t mean there are things that Turley writes or says that I do agree on. I just choose not to say that I agree. Just as many here choose not to say they don’t agree.
Oldmanfromkansas, do you openly express at length when you disagree with what turley posts? A LOT of posters here not all but most always agree with Turley. Some disagree in the mildest form possible, but it’s as rare as unicorn sighting.
anonymous (S.Meyer), as usual had nothing to contribute other than insults and ad hominems.
1) You have been continuously changing the context and words of others.
2) You demonstrate no understanding of property rights
3) Your morality has been questioned by many. We note your comments that regard moral issues including those involving children.
Don’t worry, Svelaz. When Gigi gets off from work, and Anonymous and Dennis McIntyre get around to it in a few hours, they will “like” your comment and you all will “like” each other’s comments and you will have earned your kudos for the day.
Svelaz:
You wrote, “Anyone still has access to the originals anytime. Those will never change.”
Unless authoritarian wokesters scrub the Internet and create an army of bookburners, as in Ray Bradbury’s novella “Farenheit 451.” This book describes the mood of our era perfectly. Perhaps it will be the next target.
For the safety betterment of society, it is imperative that history, Mark Twain, Dr. Seuss, and Ronald Dahl be rewritten. ..A COMMUNIST WOULD SAY! (an homage to Gutfeld)
This touches on the larger problem of after the fact censorship. There have been instances where Amazon has reached into their Kindle ebook readers and edited books that customers have already purchased and downloaded.
A good example is the classic Ray Bradbury novel The Martian Chronicles. Amazon at one time reached into user’s Kindles and removed the chapter “Way in the Middle of the Air” because they deemed it racially offensive.
The story is anything but, but that is beside the point.
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’” -1984. George Orwell
The fools on the left tell us that taking adult porn out of children’s libraries is censorship and yet they favor this kind of gross censoring. They demand that fat be removed but showing oral sex to 3rd graders is fine. Tell me again that the left isn’t crazy.
Hullbobby, censoring? Changing certain words is not censoring. You can still read the book or the original any time.
You whine too much.
“… there is no safe place from woke whangdoodles today.”
AND there’d be no controversy in Turley’s comment section without the woke whangdoodles nesting here, some of whom don’t even see their own reflections in the literary mirror.
This is not just insanity.
It is outright stupid.
Wife and I were talking about this last night. We plan on buying as many of Dahl’s books, used and unadulterated (there is a pun in there, somewhere).
It is just dumb. How many man hours were wasted deciding to delete, eliminate, and censor these books? I’m sure Penguin received a few loud complaints from the screaming minority, and they sat in a boardroom deciding which words to take out and which to leave alone. I’m sure that boardroom an echo chamber of feel-goodism that ends up doing nothing for anyone, but they feel better about themselves when they leave the boardroom. I’m sure they feel accomplished something, but all they did was edit and censor someone else’s accomplishment. I’m sure they think someone will bring this moment up at their funeral, and how they made a difference. Those in the back of the funeral, at the state run amphitheater, as opposed to a church, will think, “They didn’t accomplish Jack!”
This totalitarian censorship nonsense to appease the “woke” snowflakes has gone over the edge of reality, these people have lost their freaking minds.
That is the objective, to create an army of tools disconnected from reality and willing to follow any path laid before them with the final goal not even within their comprehension. We are witnessing a potential end to civilization of free humans and the creation of a new type of hybrid composed of tyrannical rule abetted by AI and I am more and more convinced that we are approaching the tipping point with the speed of light.
Alma,
You might enjoy reading this, Fear Is A Hammer & We’re Nails.
Steve,
That was a good read.
The bolder that has been there for 4.5million years, yeah. Because somehow nature represents some yahoo.
Alma Carman,
The question I have is what do they do when there is a shock to the system and they are forced to deal with reality?
They don’t deal with reality, they put on pink pussy hats and howl at the moon etc. As long as we have an over-reaching government that will sustain this lot of malcontent crazies, they will never need deal with reality. What we do need is the collapse of that over-arching support system but it would mean economic and political chaos until one side of this divide is decimated. Only one side can and will prevail in this – who are you putting money on?