Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the buy-used-and-pay-cash dept.

CNN Money reports:

The book publisher Penguin is printing more copies of George Orwell's dystopian classic "1984" in response to a sudden surge of demand.

On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning the book was #1 on Amazon's computer-generated list of best-selling books.

[...] "We put through a 75,000 copy reprint this week. That is a substantial reprint and larger than our typical reprint for '1984,'" a Penguin spokesman told CNNMoney Tuesday evening.

[...] According to Nielsen BookScan, which measures most but not all book sales in the United States, "1984" sold 47,000 copies in print since Election Day in November. That is up from 36,000 copies over the same period the prior year.

When the submitter visited amazon.com, the book was ranked #3.

Additional coverage:

Related stories:

Washington DC's Public Library Will Teach People How to Avoid the NSA
George Orwell's "1984" Telescreens are Here...
Traveling to Thailand? Don't Pack George Orwell's "1984"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:09PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:09PM (#459027) Journal

    Trump hasn't been in office a week and he's already muzzling government agencies in order to control what information gets out to the public.

    Does he actually have different policy than the Obama administration [reason.com]?

    The most immediate change was a sudden clampdown on unauthorized comments and interviews. The Obama administration made sure the word got out: The only people who talk to journalists are public affairs officers. In 2014, 38 national press organizations and transparency groups—including Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Poynter Institute—called on him to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."

    "Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees," the letter read. "We consider these restrictions a form of censorship—an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear."

    At least the press is less likely to go along with Trump on this than they apparently were with Obama.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:42PM (#459043)

    It is important to consider the entire context.

    With Obama there was no reason to think anything was out of the ordinary. Trump has given us all kinds of reasons to think things are out of the ordinary. Trump spent his entire campaign and the post-election(?!?!) doubling down on falsehoods, many of them core to these agencies. We also have the experience of the Harper government in Canada going full-censor.

    If you wait until things have already gone off the rails before kicking up a fuss, its too late. Canada showed us that -- entire libraries of scientific research were destroyed [vice.com] before anyone really had a handle on the scope of the problem.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:05PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:05PM (#459095) Journal

      With Obama there was no reason to think anything was out of the ordinary. Trump has given us all kinds of reasons to think things are out of the ordinary.

      Sorry, you just weren't paying attention the last eight years.

      Trump spent his entire campaign and the post-election(?!?!) doubling down on falsehoods, many of them core to these agencies.

      Just like Obama in early 2009. They were just different falsehoods back then. A key difference is that the press isn't going to give Trump a free pass like it did Obama. There is remarkably little Trump worship in the press. Meanwhile back in 2008, the press was head over heels in love with Obama.

      If you wait until things have already gone off the rails before kicking up a fuss, its too late. Canada showed us that -- entire libraries of scientific research were destroyed before anyone really had a handle on the scope of the problem.

      And yet Canada survived.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:10PM (#459100)

        Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM (#459144) Journal

          Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

          So you're saying I should back it with some facts? Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.

          Second, Obama demonstrated [soylentnews.org] that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.

          I gave Obama a chance until he "triangulated to the center" by voting for the amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [wikipedia.org] (FISA) in 2008 to allow for mass surveillance. When you promise something important to get nominated (such as a stand against mass surveillance) and immediately betray that trust after you get what you want, then what other betrayals are you up to?

          So there was reason to think Obama wouldn't be a great president even in 2008, IF you were paying attention. Instead, I find that with the context, it's interesting just how similar Obama and Trump really are. But then, voting for someone because of vague promises that you want to hear or because they're not someone else, tends to lead to the same sort of personalities in power.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM (#459148) Journal

            Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.

            Whoops, I thought this was part of the story about Trump freezing certain actions of the EPA. In support of my assertion that the Trump action is very similar to previous administrations (at least at present!), we have this story [nytimes.com].

            Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. On Wednesday, Douglas Ericksen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that grants had been only briefly frozen for review, and that they would be restarted by Friday.

            “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.”

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM (#459261)

              LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM (#459334) Journal

                LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."

                So? Is it somehow incorrect what was said?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM (#460190)

                  So. It is somehow ironic what was said.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM (#459157)

            > Second, Obama demonstrated that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.

            Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.

            We all know you love your climate change denialism like it was your mother's milk.
            Its obvious you are more than happy to endorse EPA muzzling because it fits your agenda.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM (#459335) Journal

              Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.

              Backing mass surveillance of innocent people shouldn't be to your liking either.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM (#459378)

            Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

            So you're saying I should back it with some facts?

            No, the original AC was saying that simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true. Do we need to tell you one more time?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM (#459457) Journal
              I've since provided more supporting evidence. I got this asserting things without supporting evidence problem figured out.

              Or are you saying that true things become not true because I post about them? Did reality change itself so that Obama didn't vote for FISA after he said he wouldn't? Or how about his most epic of lies, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Now that I mentioned it, did I retcon it into nonexistence?

              Or perhaps in your post-factual world, it no longer matters what is true?
    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:07PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:07PM (#459096)

      They're not falsehoods. They are merely "alternate facts".

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM (#459251) Journal

      You say "out of the ordinary".

      And, that is why Trump was elected. The voters were quite tired of the ordinary corruption in Washington. The past several administrations have been so very ordinary, and so very corrupt. The voters are hoping for something out of the ordinary.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:25AM (#459314)

        Yes. Extraordinary levels of corruption and incompetence!

        Yay!

        Vote for Trump, what do you have to lose?
        Turns out, everything.

        Actually they voted for trump because of racial anxiety.
        Number #1 predictor of support for Trump - fear of a brown country.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @02:52PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @02:52PM (#459479) Journal

          Yeah, because Hillary is brown, and all the women at her conventions were black or brown, and everywhere she went, she was mobbed by loyal black worshippers and - and you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown. Well, that puts you on the road to being part of a brown nation!!

          http://downtrend.com/71superb/top-ten-examples-of-hillary-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore [downtrend.com]

          #1 – In 1974, after Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Senate seat, Hillary lashed out at campaign manager Paul Fray calling him a, “f*cking Jew bastard!” This outburst was witnessed and confirmed by 3 people, so it definitely happened.

          #2 – As First Lady, Hillary called young black men “super-predators” indicating that she thought all young black males were violent criminals. She also said, “We have to bring them to heel,” like young blacks are the same as dogs. Despite thinking this was incredibly racist, blacks still support Hillary.

          #3 – While serving in the US Senate, Hillary tried to make a joke that disparaged a civil rights icon and demeaned all people from India. “I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station?” asked Clinton.

          #4 – In 2005 Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” She also, as a Senator, voted to construct a wall between the US and Mexico. Considering the main “proof” of Trump’s racism is that he opposes illegal immigration and wants to build a wall, isn’t it odd that Hillary gets off for having said the same thing?

          #5 – During the 2008 democratic primaries Hillary Clinton’s campaign started the “birther” rumors, questioning Obama’s US citizenship. They even circulated the now famous picture of Obama in full Muslim garb. Somehow Trump’s campaign to get Obama to release his birth certificate is racist, but Hillary’s role in starting the birther movement is not.

          #6 – Also during the 2008 presidential race, Hillary’s husband Bill said this of Obama: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Hillary didn’t say this one but her husband did and she certainly never disavowed it.

          #7 – Shortly after announcing her candidacy, Hillary said “all lives matter” in a black church. I don’t think this one is racist, but lefties, black activists, and Hillary herself all do, so it makes the list. Plus as is the case with most of this stuff, if Trump had said it liberals would freak the hell out.

          #8 – In November of 2015, Hillary called people in this country illegally “illegal aliens.” Trump is a racist when he says “illegal aliens,” why isn’t Hillary?

          #9 – In April of this year, Hillary joined NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio on stage at a democratic fundraiser for a scripted joke about how lazy black people are. The two liberals made reference to “colored people’s time” which is a super-racist way of saying black people are chronically tardy and lethargic.

          #10 – April was a great month for Hillary’s racism, as she also made a comment disparaging Native Americans. She said she had experience dealing with wild men when they “get off the reservation.” In essence she said Native Americans are savages who must be segregated from the rest of society.

          As a bonus:

          #11 – On a black radio show, Hillary pandered to black voters by claiming she always carries hot sauce in her purse. It was racist when Donald Trump pandered Hispanics by eating a taco bowl, but not racist when Hillary pandered blacks. How does that work?

  • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:46PM

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:46PM (#459045)

    Well.... shit. How did this not get more press coverage?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:02PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:02PM (#459059)

    I don't think you'll find many Obama apologists around here, generally it seems most people dislike him as being another Tool of the system. What's your point here? Don't worry about it because a previous tool did it, but he was considered "progressive" so you think we give it a pass? You need to Red Pill yourself quick, you're stuck in a dream world of bias and propaganda, this comment of yours is perfect evidence. Instead of condemning the stupid shit Trump is doing you prefer to lash out at your progressive "enemies" like a pouty child saying "but he took my toy first!".

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:09PM (#459064)

      You are probably right about khallow trying to pull a tu quoque fallacy, he has a history of that sort of shallow reasoning.

      But there is value to putting trump's actions in historical context. As long we don't cherry-pick the context in a partisan way. At a minimum it helps to refine the argument against trump when you acknowledge the ways he takes what was considered normal and amps it up to abnormal.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:02PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:02PM (#459134) Journal

        You are probably right about khallow trying to pull a tu quoque fallacy, he has a history of that sort of shallow reasoning.

        But there is value to putting trump's actions in historical context. As long we don't cherry-pick the context in a partisan way. At a minimum it helps to refine the argument against trump when you acknowledge the ways he takes what was considered normal and amps it up to abnormal.

        Thank you for your back-handed support. My point was not merely to say "But Bus^H^H^HObama did it too!", but to point out that this appears to be a routine practice of the transition of power, not "muzzling". Yes, let's worry about things when they become "abnormal" or worse (illegal, immoral, destructive, etc). But let's also keep in mind that a candidate like Trump, who ran on an anti-establishment platform which includes some degree of government reduction, is going to be abnormal by the choice of the voters who supported him.