Letters to the Editor
-
Come on now, Che
And I submit it is a failure due to exactly what you are pointing to: failure to take a risk when it was easier not to.
That's a big reason why the nation is in this mess. Eh?
Risk-taking is what Glenn, Scott Horton and other prominent anti-neocons do, all the time, everyday, just by exposing the current regime's mendacity and pathology. By contrast, cavalier language about revolutions and putting people "against the wall" is a stoopid weapon to hand those who hate us and are looking for any colorable reason to shut us up. That's not mere risk-taking; it is foolhardiness. And not necessary to the effort. If you think a federal prosecutor could not get an indictment and possibly a conviction for such language, you are as naive as hell.
-
@LWM
Have I heard of the "prison-industrial complex"? No, I've only written about it in blog posts or comments some hundred or more times. [eyes rolling]
You know better than to ask me that, surely?
-
Don't be silly, qs!
I'm speechless!
By all means, speechify. ;-}
-
@ Mona
Still, in my strong opinion it is not a good idea to use violence-laden rhetoric that could give those whom we know keep tabs on this site any excuse to literally make a federal case out something. Does that not make sense to you?
This brings to mind the idea au courant that we shouldn't push for rights until the majority agrees with these rights; if we have the temerity to ask for such beforehand, we might anger the "majority".
Yes, you can have your rights, as lng as you don't use them in ways that Big Brother wouldn't approve.....
No thanks. See my post above to the effect that some people deserve to be kicked while they're down until they stop moving. Desserts and legality (as well as practicality and humanity), of course, are different things.
I can guarantee you won't find a lot of sympathy from me for the plight of the worst of the lot should they be haled into court on capital charges; albeit I would tender them and maybe even provide them, as necessary, a fair trial and a competent defence.
Cheers,
-
A case in point:
In WWII MacNamara participated in the Tokyo firebombing.
So did alot of airmen. Should we put them all up against the wall?
-
Famous
The F.B.I. is famous for instigating violence among groups critical of the government. The previous comment that whoever in one's group advances the use of violence to achieve its ends is likely an agent of the government. It has used this tactic multiple times to discredit anti-authoritarian groups.
-
@Mona
Have I heard of the "prison-industrial complex"? No, I've only written about it in blog posts or comments some hundred or more times. [eyes rolling]
You know better than to ask me that, surely?
-- -Mona-
I really addressed that rhetorical question to "the audience".
If I make a reference to the drug war, I know where you stand. Where's aych, btw?
And I agree with you about keeping that kind of rhetoric to a minimum. I'm not sure about the MySpace thing. I'm equally conflicted as you I suppose.
We are all so defensive lately. Make it stop!
-
@ Mona
Well, I wouldn't put it in quite such a peremptory fashion, but I agree with you. We don't need anybody dead. (Although, mea culpa, I wouldn't mind seeing 'em embarrassed a little. Purely pour encourager les autres, you understand.)
-
Mona
OkayOkayOkayOkayOkayOkayOkayOkay...
Will it suffice in the future if I append a WilliamTimbermanTypeDisclaimer® at the end of a comment likely to be deemed potentially incendiary?
-
@Larry
War is ugly.
The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were not pretty. They weren't supposed to be. The Holocaust and The Rape of Nanking were not pretty, either. We can debate about the causes of WWII until we are blue in the face. The fact remains that many of us can debate about the causes of WWII today because that real Axis of Evil was defeated. Better to become a monster fighting real monsters than become a monster fighting imagined monsters.
Read up on the Rape of Nanking. Then you won't feel so bad about the firebombing of Tokyo.
-
Hilarious
A real side-splitter. Check out the "Iranian Sources".
Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:56 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_airstrikes/2008/05/20/97564.html
-
Susan Mc
From that earlier thread...
I may have missed the one with GC! and the soup, but there have been plenty of similar episodes. One I remember that was about me had to do with some new pots and pans, and my occasional tendency to burn things (not willfully, mind you, but just when I get involved and really distracted by something else). I have sometimes wondered just exactly whom he might be channeling... ;~)
-
The fig leaf of disclaimers
If they want us, bystander, they'll come get us. Innocence or guilt won't matter to them, nor will the absence of evidence. Ché is right about that.
I don't expect to be treated any differently simply because I genuinely don't want them dead. My trademarked disclaimers are for humor's sake. They're also for me alone, as a reminder of what I stand for. On the other hand, if war were the only thing on offer, even Lord Krishna couldn't refuse it.
-
@Arne L. (and LWM)
This brings to mind the idea au courant that we shouldn't push for rights until the majority agrees with these rights; if we have the temerity to ask for such beforehand, we might anger the "majority".
My sweet, I did expect better from you! It is properly illegal to organize a violent upheaval (e.g., revolution) that advocates putting people "up against the wall." Such inherently does not involve due process or recourse to the judicial system currently in place.
I ain't talkin' about not exercising any rights we do and properly hold. My concern is with language that could be depicted by a U.S. attorney as fitting into criminal prohibitions that are justly such. What the woman in the MySpace case did simply is not properly deemed criminal, but it very likely is a wrongdoing that is actionable in civil court. Talk of putting a foreign policy analyst against a wall, however, could possibly be made to fit within existing criminal statutes. (And god knows how this trend of incorporating a web site's terms of service would inform such a charge -- that is a prosecutorial ploy that should fail.)
Does it matter whether "they" ultimately lost, if this site were disrupted and shut down in the interim? Do we really need to use such rhetoric to support the good cause?
LWM: I knew you knew better about me and the PIC.;)