Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
L.W.M.
Published Letters: 6225 Editor's Choice: 5
Try this as a starting point:
http://www.blogintegrity.net/2007/04/take_the_pledge.html
We can't all George Bernard Shaws or Winston Churchills...
George Bernard Shaw telegrammed Winston Churchill just prior to the opening of Major Barbara: "Have reserved two tickets for first night. Come and bring a friend if you have one."
Churchill wired back, "Impossible to come to first night. Will come to second night, if you have one."
Lady Astor: "If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "If I were married to you, I'd drink it."
And if any of you folks know some of Dorothy Parker's finest put downs, please post them.
The first amendment is designed to protect the most unpopular, incivil, disrespectful and tasteless speech and ideas because those are the kinds of expression that need protection. James Joyce was banned once, Voltaire was imprisoned. BTW, Voltaire never actually said that, but he did write things in that vein.
The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude.
http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
The "civility thing" is a dodge in my opinion. It's designed to make people (mostly Democrats) "behave" and be passive, not question or criticize or be activist. The GOP may appear on the surface to be "civil" but they are always making war on the enemy, Democrats. They would like the Democratic party to vanish.
You are "alluding" [sic] to me a position I do not espouse. Say what ever you like. I am advocating using "market forces" (you call yourself a conservative, you remember what those are) to take away Don Imus' microphone and soapbox, not codes of speech or censorship. Let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" cover his mouth. In your case, I just advocate scorn and derision and shouting you down.
Are you in the military? Or were you? Not that that makes any difference, but I'm curious.
Glenn does not profess to be an expert in these matters. Neither are you, that's obvious. If you are interested in the opinions of experts, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. You are trying to argue a point about our occupation of Iraq, I'm not quite sure what because you are not being very direct, but we have no good moves right now. Does painting oneself into a corner evoke a recognizable image in your mind? It should. That's where we are and being in that corner only makes our situation worse by the day. It's like quicksand.
What happens when the US ceases to occupy Iraq with its military and leaves? Most of the nice folks I speak to here in the US want to know the answer to this question. I want to know the answer to this question. I search for it daily.
Most people want our troops out. You are talking to the minority position. If I was an American in 1861, north or south, and the French and British came down from Canada to stop the fight and impose peace, that would have worked - for about as long as it took to join forces to kick their scruffy asses back into Cannada. Then we would set about butchering and shooting each other again, until the matter was settled. That's why all of the credible experts you haven't been reading were saying "WTF!" from the get-go. You break it you own it. And we own it. And like Bush has said, democracy is messy, it takes "hard work" and lots of bloodshed. Deal with it and don't go poking your nose in other people's business lightly. Most people, myself included, will take it personally and react violently if you try to impose your will on them. Maybe the right of self-determination is more important to some people than words like "freedom" and "democracy".
If you want the opinions of military professional officers on the progress in Iraq I can recommend this blog:
http://www.intel-dump.com/
He doesn't. He's here to sell something. No one is buying. I had a friend go there recently as a private contractor attached to DoD, for the bucks, but also because it finally became apparent to him we screwed up and he wanted to try and "help". Ex-USMC Gunny, Vietnam vet, total winger, calls me a commie, (yeah, he's a friend). He had daily intel briefs from CentCom, but he was independent of the military so none of the rumors that circulate among the grunts. He had a very good picture of what was really going on and not just in his area. He finally left. And he likes a good fight and enjoys gunplay and a good shoot-out. He's hardcore, but even he said, "Screw it! This is a giant clusterfuck." He finally started listening to me, (he's too old for that crap) stopped drinking the kool-aid and he beat it the hell outta there. It's a lost cause.
General William Odom was against it from the start. I'm pretty certain it was guys like Odom and Lang that Murtha finally started listening to. Murtha had drunk the Kool-aid at first. Lang and Odom never did.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7006
It won't collapse. The Shia in Iran (our mortal enemies) will become the dominant force in the ME.
Odom thinks that's OK. Lang, not so much. It all depends on how soon we return to diplomacy and start talking to Iran and Syria and resume being an "honest broker" between Israel and Palestine. We need to purge the neocon whiz kids from the foreign policy loop. They spend too much time in the wrong kind of "tank".
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
