Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, June 26. 2007
Casting terrorists as defenders of the Constitution. JR Dunn in American Thinker. It begins thus:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
It is difficult to cope with the "leadership" we as lawful citizen must deal with. I have read enough history of the US to not be naive about poor administrations, laws , and court decisions. This would easily appear to me to be the wrong time to push the evelope on freedoms of what a prudent man or woman would call a terrorist. And yet we are rapidly conforming to laws which are not passed by our system, and thus have bypassed the citizenry in having a representative voice via the ballot box.
A few more years of this type of stewardship of our country and the fabric of the social contract will be a tatterdemalion fabric of no meaningful use.
"All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown; or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown.
I think we're do'in just about as good a job at all of them thar things as we can do..Don't you?
I mean I think we've done proved that in our case the whole is greater than the sum of it's aparts...it's like a in the Mall when you see one of those Baby-Got-Back, I mean BACK wearing spandex. whew erase that image ...
Sorry 'bout da vernacular ,sometime it juz gots ta git out.
Da point is dat we are mess'in up good in all them thar Orwell thangs you mentioned.
**Ossifying go'in on right and left
**Softness grow'n like weeds
**Stupid is as stupid does
**Arrogant'n all over the place
I mean that Orwell fella he just about Sherwin Williams'ed the whole nut.
That help any? Scale 1-10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gee, I guess I ain't smart enough to hang out with the cool kids. My bad. Sorry for gumming up your forum here with my simplistic observations.
You are right Habu, nothing in life is as simple as a simple man like me sees it. If only I read some REAL books like you cool dudes, then maybe I wouldn't have such a simple take on things.
Funny, I never put Orwell in spandex in the white trash shopping mall. Your head must be HUGE to understand both common vernacular and fancy books at the same time. You are the man!!
Oops, whered the time go? gotta run back to tha mall and hit that biotch in the Books for Dummies kiosk up for a date! Right after I get me GED.
Sorry for the OT. But, BL, just now wading into "Goodbye, Darkness". Weapon high and powder dry. Only through Preamble and Prologue so far, I will nitpick in future.
I'm half-way through, Luther, and I can't speak yet.
When I do speak, I will have to hold myself back.
(I am so glad to have this book to touch. I can say that.)
That's great--what a book--what a guy, old Manchester. A Kennedy man, too--that's really a throwback to a better time. I'm not sure what that means, but I'll leave it. Okay, I'll try: not that JFK was a heroic figure in every way, or even many ways, but that ideal with which he's associated, that principled liberal way of thinking--that's the throwback. So in the book you get the shadows of the attitude in as it stood at the height of it's darkside (around the time the book was written), when conventions were breaking down right and left. But the actual subject matter was of the attitude's largest hour, and the price paid for that, by the people who paid it.
And then when you read it in 2007, there's three differnt worlds in play--the most recent of which Manchester never saw, which in a way makes a reader want to reach him some way, to say something--but I don't know what.
Anyway, sorry for the stream of consciousness post.
P, I too like the touch of a book--a talisman-like thing. The item itself, the paper and ink, chockful of little mysterious squiggles which somehow fire neurons in your brain when you look at them. Kind of a miracle, the ink, th ink, think.
Anyhoo, the story of Tubby, the fresh 2nd Lt. behind the seawall at Tarawa--told by the guy right there, oh, Jesus. Almost too much to digest.
sheesh, Buddy. I've got you up on the same plane as Luther. Keep on with the stream-of-consciousness because you just blew it away.
If I could speak to Manchester now, I would be overwhelmed. But absolutely surely out of my mouth would come: "I'm sorry."
And it wouldn't include what he and all of them went through. It would be because I am ashamed that we are not worthy of their efforts.
If that makes any sense.
I've marked pp. 175-176. I had to put the book down so I wouldn't besmirch the feeling I had to feel.
Whew....this book does render the stream-of-consciousness into action. That usually happens when our senses are overwhelmed. Sometimes you just have to hold the book.
We have perfectly good laws to deal with 'terrorists' if we just look at their activities! Don't need to invent one single, solitary new law to deal with them!
Really! I checked out the US Code on this. I thought of what their actions sounded like and looked them up and started to figure out just what terrorism is and what it *isn't*. Seems we have been calling them the wrong thing for a few decades now because we refuse... absolutely refuse to apply the law as it is written. That old concept that the law covers is so old... why... the laws were written in the 18th and 19th century, for heaven's sake. You can read them and not get into paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and this exception and that exception... neat, clean law written by a lawyer but so it could be understood by a commmon man.
Nice penalties, too!
Plus you can go after entire organizations that aid and support them and bring them down!
Yes, all of that if you apply the law against the actions involved, and once you do the new label STICKS as it cannot go away until the organization is gone. Kaput. Out of business forevermore.
I do love those early laws that a mere mortal can understand! That is because it is a set of *commerce laws*... and the actions were an abomination to those of that era.
I looked it up in the US Code, and come to some very interesting conclusions... about how to clear out Guantanamo... mind you we will need to build some new prisons.
Last article in series, and summation, here: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-do-we-refuse-to-call-terrorism-for.html