SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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:
- Los Angeles Times
- The New York Times (may be pay-walled)
- 9News
- The Washington Post (owned by the founder of amazon.com)
- The Guardian
- The Man Who Invented the Science Fiction Paperback
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"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:42PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
So. It is somehow ironic what was said.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM
> 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
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
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
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
They're not falsehoods. They are merely "alternate facts".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM
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
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
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?