Letters to the Editor
-
@bebop-o
Any amount of mead would make me happy, but I'd be happier to see a good, rainy day. Happy to meet you here, too. Happy that a soggy cat just walked all over the keyboard. The strawberries are all gone now.
I don't know why this thread now reminds me of a long-ago heated high school classroom argument about homosexuality. I didn't grow up in the South, but in the mountain West Aryan-nation militia territory. I, lone liberal, kept pushing one boy on what was so wrong with gay people, and it finally dissolved into "It's gross."
That's what people are. They come up with elaborate constructs, proofs, evidence (Bible, other thinkers, whatever) to defend what is just a visceral reaction. I wonder how that's different from my visceral reaction that prejudice of any kind is deeply wrong?
-
J.H.
That gallon of L.S.D. that YKW gave you seems to have helped.
I read that last contribution from you and am now so happily less corn-fussy I want to be a garbage man with a hobby of making a spinning wheel for YKW.
He can darn sock puppets for all the US citizens
-
@bucky1
I must reject this either/or thinking as just too simplistic for the topic. I'll give one short example; and I promise to write to you on weapon control when I get the time to do the subject justice.
The very concept of "gun control" is inextricably intertwined with that of "government".
You deny the validity of the concept of "government", yet if there is no "government", as you wish, then there is no one to enforce "gun control".
It would seem that you have not really thought out the consequences and implications of some of your political ideas.
-
@Jonathan
Sorry, should have made it clearer that the phrase "stupid, ignorant plebe" as originally used is nonsensical--meaning, I think, we agree. You said some educated people (I'm paraphrasing here) would call you the above for your lack of education. I simply meant that by that definition my neighbors would be, too. Clearly, they're not. They have no interest in reading Proust; I have no interest in learning plumbing. We're even.
Gets my fur the wrong way when anyone without an education says others will look down on them for it. Might be true, but that's only because everyone has their prejudices and their blind spots. I know one man in the UK who had to leave school at 14 to support his family, and has a lifelong chip about it now. Despite the fact that he's far more intelligent, well-read, and "educated" than most Ph.D.s I know, he constantly puts down his own abilities and thinking.
My mother, who is both brilliant and over-educated, has stopped listening to NPR or reading Harper's. Instead, she listens to nighttime AM radio because she says that's when all the truck drivers call into talk shows, and they've got more brains than packs of journalists and politicians.
-
Your anecdote, my take. No harm intended
Well, L.W.M., what I found sad was that the guy in your story had gotten lost in the world. He may have been mentally ill in the clinical sense, or maybe not. There but for the grace of God.... was genuinely my reaction to it. That and nothing more.
The rest was a meditation on the fact that when it comes to the intersection of the human being and the world, there isn't one correct outcome. A debate should take into account who we are debating, and debaters who make that easier for us, whether we like what we discover or not, should be treasured. They have value, even if we disagree with their opinions.
-
Allen and Time
Glenn,
Do you know why Allen left Time? Did Time finally 'wake up' to all this schmoozing and fire him? How long was he with Time before finally getting disappeared from there?
Do you know anything about Allen's personal politics? I mean, given the climate we've lived in for the past 6 years, I dare say there have been just as many so-called "liberals" in the MSM bending over backwards to appease the right-wing and do such suck-up "access"-driven betrayal of the Fourth Estate as there are actual right-wingers in the MSM just "doing what comes naturally" in turning so-called journalism into just what you describe Allen as doing here.
-
There is a town quite close to where I live
That has an ordinance which *requires* that citizens own a gun.
Which makes no more sense to me than the converse.
-
IntrovertGirl.
I flunked typing class looking at some gal like you.
It is going to rain today.
That means we all get a bath.
We can gather in a circle to pass a bar of soap.
It is fun to play NO drop the law-bar or you flunk.
That is going to be fun to take a bath outside together.
We get to take a bath weather permitting today.
Whether we stink or smell nice, and can you tap dance?
O, rain!
Rain, rain, rain...NO go away.
Your husband call you "darling?"
Tell him I don't like to fight.
But I do have a nasty left jab.
And a mean right hook, or a sucker uppercut...
You give haircuts? Please (tease), don't comment.
-
@bucky1
>>Does this little town have the right to (by democratic vote) outlaw private weapon ownership?<<
Without agreeing on the axioms of what "rights" are, nobody can have this conversation. You don't believe there should be government, so your answer would be no (yes?). Given the basis that I believe democracy--i.e., government--is a social contract I accept, then I'd have to say they do have the right.
But as I said in the last thread (more than once, I think), this doesn't mean that the social construct of government always makes the right decisions, or is always good. Take the example of Coral Gables, FL, which outlawed pickup trucks for their residents (someone please correct me if I'm wrong in the details). I would say they absolutely didn't have the right to do this, and you might ask me what the difference is.
My answer is that I believe enforcing lower gun ownership is, on balance, better for society than allowing any kind of ownership. Keeping someone from parking a truck on the street has nothing to do with the greater good, and seems to me to fall into an unnecessary infringement of personal choice.
Now, anyone who agrees with me that government is necessary to maintain a working society could easily quibble about the line between these two--obviously, society does quibble. But you have to agree on the starting point in order to have the discussion.
-
@Jonathan Hoag
JH: 'The very concept of "gun control" is inextricably intertwined with that of "government". You deny the validity of the concept of "government", yet if there is no "government", as you wish, then there is no one to enforce "gun control".'
The fact that you can not imagine staying safe without a big government to "protect you" does not surprise me. However, I took you to mean that you wanted to discuss "gun control" in the present situation we find ourselves.
If there had been only a non-state world in 1900, I doubt seriously that the control of weapons would be an issue today. But, it is now, and in this country.
Have you ever read of the defence posture of the Swiss? It might bring enlightenment to you on the issue. (as well as standing armies and war departments)
JH : It would seem that you have not really thought out the consequences and implications of some of your political ideas.
And I think it you who is not looking below the surface knee-jerk opinions.
I read a historian compare the murder rates in the old-west gold rush towns vs. Boston (I think Boston) and it turned out that Boston was far more dangerous in spite of all the fine Hollywood movies that make it look otherwise. (hmmm, maybe the movies are only fiction, eh?)