well, marc, you're right that i was unaware of the "red-daiper babies", but i still don't think your point was terribly clear. at least not without having to read your sources, which i'd rather not do. i guess that i would just prefer if you would do more of the explaining yourself.
(wait, that sentence looks weird. i mean "i wish you yourself would do more of the explaining.)
TK
Marc, I have to agree with TrollKing. Your point wasn't clear, although I believe TK himself stated what you probably intended to imply. That is, that Clinton (whom you are, for some unfathomable reason, presenting to us as an icon of the left, something that makes this particular leftist chuckle in amusement) chose 11/7 as the day to make his address, whatever he spoke about, because that was the day the Russian Revolution began.
Baldly so stated, of course the suggestion is preposterous. Perhaps you would prefer to have meant something else. If so, you might want to clearly state exactly what that something else was. In fact, you might want to get into the habit of doing so on most subjects. It would significantly reduce the confusion that seems to hover around your posts like a miasma.
BTW, a lot of red-diaper babies were (and still are) Boomers, not Silent. That includes several of my acquaintances, whose parents were GI Communists long ago. Means exactly squat, of course, about the predilections of said persons, just as it means diddly to point out that a certain percentage of Xers were children of hippies.
Regarding Omar's statement: It seems to me that he's referring not to any human efforts but to divine intervention.
What do you mean by the destruction of America? Do you have a concrete plan to implement this?
The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented.
But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings.
If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction.
Osama Bin Laden has reportedly threatened that he would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against America. Is your threat related to his?
This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.
Note the references to a "huge task, beyond the will and comprehension of human beings," and the precise statement that it is not a matter of weapons but of God's help.
What he's saying is not that the Taliban or al-Qaeda is going to destroy America, but that God will. Unless one is prepared to believe in the kind of God Omar worships, no fear.
_________________
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-16 18:14 ]</font>
Oh please, Mr. Rush, this 'cloaking' device is getting absurd. And, sadly, will continue to become more and more absurd until the elastic breaks, and in the words of Fitzgerald, 'the whole gaudy thing comes crashing to the ground.'
Of course you think that the 'whole gaudy thing' was wrapped up in a Rammadan package called the WTC. And now, because you claim that because of this and that, generations are eighteen years in length, WTC means T4T! Bah! Boy Clinton was your man, woman, child, and leftist wet-dream. WTC falling was Clinton!
And even now, in the ashes of his gut-wrenching legacy, you, Mr. Rush, remain in abject denial.
But of precisely what, Marc, am I in abject denial?
Excuse me, but I have never had any wet dreams about Bill Clinton, nor any experiences for which that might possibly be a crude metaphor. Clinton is very conservative, or at any rate he governed very conservatively, for a Democrat. I could present a very long list of Clinton policies that do not meet my approval, but considering the views I've expressed frequently here, I doubt that's really necessary.
What else you're trying to say here I have no idea. I seldom do, because you seldom come to the point. It would be nice if you would do that, just this once.
Mr. Rush writes, "Excuse me, but I have never had any wet dreams about Bill Clinton, nor any experiences for which that might possibly be a crude metaphor."
'crude metaphor,' Mr. Rush? I think that I am about to 'puke.'
Get a life, pal!
"Also, Bush surely isn't GC. The thought is to puke for." --Mr. Brian Rush
Warning ? a long answer follows.On 2001-11-16 11:43, Justin '77 wrote:
I hate to get in the middle of this, but I was wondering what eljolras and/or Delsyn (who seem to be the most critical of sv81's links and/or views) thought of the nimn link he posted a while back.On 2001-11-16 10:54, enjolras wrote:
hmmm... perhaps a separate forum on the wit and wisdom of ultra right-wing, anti-jewish hate groups might be in order too? then all that wish can sample their musings without all this additional clutter. hopefully, scotty can get a lock on that as well...:wink:
At the risk of once again offending SV81 by bringing up Star Trek, I?ll answer your question with the episode ?City on the Edge of Forever? in which Kirk, Spock and McCoy travel back to New York City in 1930 and Kirk falls in love with Edith Keeler, a woman who runs a local soup kitchen. It turns out that Edith is a focal point in time. She has two possible destinies. She will either be killed in a traffic accident in 1930 or, if she lives, she will start a national peace movement in the late 1930?s that will delay the United States? entry into World War II long enough for Hitler to develop the A-bomb and capture the world.
?But she was right,? Kirk says of Edith, ?Peace was the way.?
?She was right,? Spock replies, ?but at the wrong time.?
In the end, Kirk makes the right choice and allows the woman he loves to be run down by a car, and millions of people to die for the sake of billions who would later be able to live in freedom.
Let me put out this thought ? had Edith Keeler known the fate that her peace movement would bring on the world, I believe she would have stepped in front of that car herself. You see, being an advocate of peace doesn?t mean being a fool. There are times when the only way to truly secure peace is to stand up against aggressors and be prepared to fight for it. This is not only necessary; it is, I would submit, moral. Peace-at-any-price Neville Chamberlain types like to conjure up the ghost of Orwell?s ?War is Peace? when confronted by this, completely misconstruing the point that all wars aren?t fought for the same reason and all wars are not morally equivalent. There is sometimes a price for peace that?s just way too high and peace unaccompanied by things like freedom and justice is merely the respite between beatings.
One of the unfortunate effects of the recent Unravelling?s Culture Wars is that the very valid political points of the Left have been usurped by their lunatic fringe in the same way that wacko religious fundamentalists began to overwhelm the very valid political points of the Right.
Most of what might be called ?fringe people? in today?s so-called Peace Movements actually disgrace the name of peace and real peace movements. Based on my observations, these folks tend to come in one of four categories:
1) Dilettantes rebelling against their parents or looking to get laid. They haven?t bothered to really think about the positions they parrot and can safely be dismissed.
2) Academics with their skulls are buried so deeply in their? ivory towers? that they are utterly cut off from the real world. They?ve forgotten that the reason that their minds are so free and unfettered is because their bodies are protected by brave men and women with really big guns. We tend to forget that for all the attention paid to the poor and uneducated thugs that carry out atrocities in the names of half-baked flights of fancy masquerading as political, economic or religious philosophy, these upper-middle class twits are the ones who bring these philosophies to life in their Academic Never-Never Lands precisely because they have absolutely no grounding in the real world and convince those less educated that they actually know what they?re talking about. People have a tendency to confuse education with intelligence and big words with ideas of substance..
These are the idiots who claim to speak for ?the downtrodden? and ?the minorities? without ever bothering to actually ASK the people that they claim to speak for what they really want. The faces at these rallies are almost uniformly white, well-fed and usually wearing $95 sweaters from Structure. Point out to them that what most of the downtrodden in the world want is the chance to feed their families, work for an honest day?s wage and make a better life for their kids and they?ll prattle on about cultural imperialism and the importance of ideology and respecting native cultures never realizing that they?re as culturally arrogant as what they?re accusing the West of being. They confuse poverty, illiteracy and misery with cultural purity. In the end, ideology and philosophy is only as valid as the lifestyle it creates for it?s society. That?s why there are plenty in this group who can still push for a Communist society when even a basic grasp of real world economics can tell you that Communism was and is an unmitigated disaster. Heck, they?re tenured ? they can?t be fired!
3) Ostriches with their heads in the sand hoping that if they make themselves small enough and obsequious enough to their new overlords they?ll be graciously allowed the privilege of breathing for another day. It?s hard to hate these people because they really are sincere ? they?re just wrong. You may be the last into the gas chamber, but make no mistake, you?re still going.
The folks over at Not In My Name have their share of thoughtful intellectual Jews who oppose many of the current policies of Israel (A category I?d put myself in), but a lot of their rhetoric falls into this category ? read the essay by one Rabbi who believes that Israel should be totally disbanded and Jews should return to the Diaspora because ?For over two thousand years the Jewish people accepted their exile as a Divine decree. Jews never attempted a rebellion against their host nations or other peoples. ? The sole means employed by Jewry to end their exile, throughout the ages were prayer, penance and good deeds. ?? Very true and look what that got us. I?ve got 6 million reasons why this is a really stupid idea.
True peace between neighbors requires that they at least live on the same moral planet with each other. There?s a really big chunk of the Arab world, including many Palestinians who simply will not acknowledge that Israel or even the Jewish people have a right to exist and feel that the only wrong with Hitler was that he failed. There are ultra-Zionist Jews who feel the same way about Palestinians and Arabs (If you?ve got a picture of Meir Kahane in your house I?m talking to you) and as far I?m concerned, both sides can join the Taliban in oblivion. King Abdullah?s recent proposal that recognizes Israel?s right to exist is an enormous step forward and is the starting point for true peace in that region.
4) Tools, either witting or unwitting, of tyrants around the world. They resent Western culture and particularly America because they view the West as a failed Utopia, a bankrupt culture that might have been perfect if only the right people were in charge ? them. After all, they?re the only ones who truly understand how the world works, they?re much smarter and better than the rest of us. These are the people for whom ?thoughtful Patriot? is a contradiction in terms. If you support America and American values they say, it?s only because you don?t know THE TRUTH ? luckily they?re here to give it to you.
They claim the downtrodden of the world are somehow ?purer? because they don?t seem to share Western values when in fact what they truly feel is that these people are raw clay with which to mold their Utopian visions. ?This time,? they say as they found their collective farms and write 5-year production plans, ?this time we?ll get it right.?. These people aren?t really ?pro? anything as much as they are ?anti? everything but themselves.
The real world is messy and progress moves forward in fits and starts. As I?ve mentioned America is hardly perfect but the America of 2001 is better than the America of 1981 which is better than the America of 1881 which is better than the America of 1781. And any of those Americas are better than Afghanistan under Omar, China under Mao, Panama under Noriega Cambodia under Pol Pot or Uganda under Idi Amin. Real progress isn?t good enough for these folks, though, they want it all now. In their mind America can?t ever be as good as her PR, so anything else must be better and anything that hurts America is just peachy for them. How else do you explain a prominent Canadian feminist who just a few years ago stated to the UN that the only time she might support military force would be for toppling the Taliban only to reverse herself when it looked as if America might actually do it? Better that the women of Afghanistan remain abused chattel than America be seen as a liberator!
People like this who seem to dominate the chattering classes in the media and our cowardly Hollywood celebrities (like Richard Gere, Liza Minelli or Oliver Stone has EVER said anything intelligent regarding foreign policy) are twisting around in fits because genuine proponents of peace that they like to associate themselves with but have a hard time understanding with have come out in support of America?s actions.
http://mattwelch.com/old/2001_11_11_...e.html#7079803
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011112-3.html
Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela. There?s a couple of right-wing war mongers I?d be thrilled to hang around with.
Questioning our government is a good thing and there are principled people on both the right and left who quite rightly point out the need to examine our own actions and make changes in the way we conduct our business in regard to everything from Middle Eastern oil to the WTO to the environment to the values that undergird our belief in unrestrained capitalism. Most of the people in the ?Peace Movement? couldn?t carry their trenchcoats.
You CAN think and be a Patriot at the same time ? sorry Ms. Sontag and Mr. Chomsky.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-16 20:20 ]</font>
One final thought:
From "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant"
The Oath of Peace
Do not hurt when holding is enough.
Do not wound when hurting is enough.
Do not maim when wounding is enough.
Do not kill when maiming is enough.
The greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.
In other words, Marc, you meant absolutely nothing and my confusion is understandable.
Delsyn, I haven't a clue as to who you are, but I love what you write. :smile:
What I meant, Mr. Rush, is that there is no making sense with one who makes it up as they go along.
Typical liberal b.s. Typical liberal hypocracy.
"Liberals have many tails, and they chase them all." --H.L. Mencken
Marc, if Clinton timed his speech with the Russian Revolution, then I will be looking for Junior to time a speech with the Beer Hall Putsch. Just give me the date and I will mark it on my calendar.
Nah, according to Mr. Rush, Junior already timed his speech with Wall Street circa 1929.
It's the fourth turn, Mr. Patton. Better get used to it. :smile:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Marc wrote:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=posts&start=0...
Get a life, pal!
Check out #2 and #3, not to mention the new "Marc S. Lamb". I sort of need to get a life, too, in 22nd place with 113 and counting.
:smile: :smile: :smile:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-11-17 10:11 ]</font>
Marc:
What I meant, Mr. Rush, is that there is no making sense with one who makes it up as they go along.
Well, that's rather my reaction to you, sir.
Perhaps you could clarify what you originally meant regarding Mr. Clinton and his address, and also what you meant by referring to him as a "leftist wet dream" or whatever your exact words were.
Did you, in fact, mean in the first case to imply that Bill Clinton is a secret Communist, who is sending code signals by making a speech on the anniversary of the Russian Revolution? If not, then what exactly did you mean?
Did you, in fact, mean in the second case that the left is as obsessed with Clinton as the right, and only pretends to consider him a wishy-washy, mediocre, pandering, and altogether inadequate progressive leader (though admittedly better than the alternative)? If not, then what exactly did you mean?
Both those notions are, of course, totally absurd. Bill Clinton is not a Communist, and he is certainly no icon of the left. He's your Devil, but he's not our God.
But once more, you aren't clear, so perhaps that's not a pertinent response. Actually, until you make it clear what you mean, no response can be pertinent.
Of course, perhaps that's exactly what you intended.
I sent the attached to my children and to some of my friends whom I educated about The Fourth Turning. I'd like a response from anybody's who's interested.
The Fourth Turning Is Here
Damn that bin Laden. I really thought my doom-and-gloom days were over. Now they?re back, with a vengeance, and, to judge by what I?m reading and what?s on cable TV, I?m one of the more sanguine.
I was reared on doom-and-gloom. In my family, it even beats alcohol (and we?re Episcopalians!) as our drug of choice. My parents trusted Joe McCarthy and Robert Welch. The communists were everywhere, getting stronger, and almost certain to win the Cold War, unless we won in Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, and Nicaragua. We didn?t, and they went away anyway.
Remember Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb? Don?t fret over pollution anymore, he told us in 1968. The battle for the Earth?s resources is already lost. Start taxing safety pins and baby bottles, and tell people to stop breeding. By 1987, the air in every American city will be unbreatheable, except through oxygen masks. I trusted him.
Remember Bankruptcy 1991? The unbalanced budgets of the ?70?s and ?80?s will make it impossible to conduct normal government business by the ?90?s. Sooner or later, some savvy European central banker is going to refuse to participate in the weekly auction of U. S. Government T-bills, and Uncle Sam is going to have to declare bankruptcy, or abandon Social Security, or raise taxes through the roof, and probably all three. The poor will riot. The middle class will disappear. The rich will hide away in protected, armed ghettoes. I bought the book and believed.
Remember global warming? Get out of your carbon dioxide-emitting SUVs now, place your hands against the roof, and spread your feet. Don?t make any sudden moves. Don?t burn anything, ever, that uses up our precious oxygen, and don?t use any ozone-depleting chemicals. It may already be too late. The polar icecaps are melting, and the tides may already be rising, as we speak, to flood your home. By the way, you have the right to remain silent.
Blah, blah, blah. I was just starting to ignore all that apocalyptic crap, when Osama came along. Now it?s all back, and I?m no longer the one fleeing the falling sky. Everybody else is.
So at the risk of jumping back into the same fearmongering I thought I had shed, I proclaim, with due modesty (because I?ve always been wrong before) that the Fourth Turning isn?t a theory anymore. It?s here.
Obviously, you like the Internet. So check out three articles on Slate, the online magazine at MSN.com. They are ?Muslims and Modernity? by Robert Wright (10-27-01) and two others borrowed from the New York Times Magazine (?This Is a Religious War? by Andrew Sullivan ) and The New Republic (?The Real Danger Is Nuclear? by Gregg Easterbrook). Then re-read the lead graph of page 273 of The Fourth Turning.
The nearest parallel we have to the present War on Terrorism is the mid-1930?s, when Adolf Hitler desperately tried to tell us all what we didn?t want to hear or believe: He hated us, from the depth of his soul. He believed the Jews were responsible for most of the world?s ills. They were an incarnation of evil itself and had to be exterminated. Anyone who harbored or gave comfort to them was just as evil as they were. From the Nazi perspective, to attempt to discuss the matter or seek a common ground was tantamount to giving in to the Jewish evil and becoming part of it. Therefore, compromise on any level was out of the question.
America and non-Aryan Europe were jewified and negrified and therefore incapable of dealing with the Jewish threat. Because they were so corrupted by their jewification and negrification, they would not retaliate if attacked. Even if they did, they were too weakened by the Jewish corruption to retaliate effectively.
Democratic politicians cannot communicate with such people. Democrats believe there is always a common ground that men of good faith can reach, on all issues. Compromise is not weakness. To the contrary, compromise requires strength. It is the essence of the democratic process. Their answer to der Feuhrer was as logical, to them, as his demands were, to him: Take what is only legitimately yours, and make peace with your neighbors and with us.
Looking back, we scold Nevil Chamberlain and the other ?cowards? of the pre-war days for their ?appeasement,? and we think of Hitler as evilly laughing at Chamberlain?s concessions. That view is wrong.
Chamberlain did not appease. He firmly told Hitler that he would permit a certain amount of land-grabbing but no more. Hitler could seize what was arguably Aryan, but no more. That was not cowardice. It was statesmanship. It was what he was paid to do.
Hitler did not mock Chamberlain nor view his concessions as appeasement. He viewed them as Chamberlain?s acknowledgment that he, Hitler, was right after all and that perhaps the British might join with the Germans to exterminate inferior races. If they didn?t, so what? He would exterminate them anyway and, if he had to, the British as well.
Hitler was no madman, any more than Osama or Omar, the Taliban boss of Afghanistan. Hitler was a secular zealot. The latter two are religious zealots. All three despise us and are (were) equally poisonous.
Their MO will prove to be the same as well, I predict. Hitler did not taunt the West by negotiating and then pushing for more because of meanness or cleverness. He did so because he could operate in no other way. His motives were pure: Exterminate all inferior races. Period. Because there can be no compromise, the impetus may never be stopped or even slowed down. We must press on until the scourge of racial impurity is eliminated from the Earth.
By like token, Osama?s and Omar?s motives are pure. Islam is the word of God. America threatens to destroy Islam. America is a beast, like the Jewish race. As long as America exists, Islam will be in grave danger. (As long as the Jew exists, the Aryan will be in grave danger.) A true believer either believes wholly in the word of God (or the Aryan race), or he doesn?t believe in it at all. There can be no compromise with the beast. The beast must be destroyed.
Therefore, Osama and his like can no more be satisfied with bringing down the World Trade Center than could Hitler with the land-grab of Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland. Necessary steps toward the ultimate conquests, to be sure. Important symbols, to be sure. But not the ultimate prize, not at all. The ultimate prize is a pure Aryan race or a fundamentalist Islamic world.
Therefore, keep the pressure on the beast. When he resists, press on. When he appeases, press on. When he does neither, press on. If you sit down and break bread with the beast, you become part of him. He is seductive. His charms are deadly. He may poison you with talk of peace, love, and harmony. If you listen to his talk, he will get to you. Therefore, do not listen to his words. Kill him, without thinking or listening to him. Learn to hate intensely, and take strength from your hatred.
Death is to be welcomed. There is no honor greater than dying for the fascist fatherland. There is no pleasure greater than the bliss Allah will provide for his martyrs. Do not fear death. Long for it, provided you die for the one true cause.
Al Qaeda has happened before. Non-Nazi Europeans were amazed to learn that the Hitler Youth could create youngsters of such fanaticism that they would happily torment old Jewish men and women or do battle with the advancing Soviet Army. The first act is pure cowardice (we think). The second is suicide (we think). To the Hitler Youth, the first act was affirmation. The second, sacrifice.
Heil, Hitler! Allah Akhbar!
Nor are the Nazis and the Islamists the only fanatics to ?grace? our world. They are simply the most recent to torment us. There have been many others before. There will be many others again.
Luckily for us, they share the fatal flaw: Both, to remain true to the ?vision,? must declare war upon whoever disagrees with them. That?s an awful lot of people. Most of the world was non-Aryan when Hitler decided to exterminate inferiors. Effectively, he had to declare war upon all non-Aryans and upon the Aryans who disagreed with him. That?s almost everybody.
Today, most of the world is non-Muslim, which explains bin Laden?s foolish tirade of October, when he lambasted the United Nations and declared that all Muslims who disagreed with him were infidels. That?s an awful lot of people. Too many Muslims are living too well to want to go to war against America or the U.N. Bin Laden will gain no friends by declaring holy war upon almost everybody.
Which brings up their next (and for our purpose, their most important) element in common: Both have ushered in the next Crisis. The Nazis came to power in 1933, four years after the stock market crash of 1929, credited with commencing the last Crisis. By 1939, they had started World War Two. It was the high point of The Crisis.
Bin Laden and the Taliban, I believe, have ushered in our Crisis. If the 1920?s were like the 1990?s, an Unraveling of prosperity and cultural uncertainty, then the ?00?s, like the ?30?s, will be a time of painful rediscovery of lost values. In the ?90?s, we were wondering what our mission was. In the ?00?s, we know: We must rid the world of those who have declared a war to the death upon us.
I write these words on November 17, 2001, as it appears that the Taliban is losing its grip on Afghanistan. Good riddance. But we haven?t caught bin Laden yet, and maybe we never will. Even if we do, there are tens of thousands of Muslims over there who hate us. Many will try to take bin Laden?s place and ?keep the pressure on the beast.?
They will fail. We are stronger than they. The power of pure hate is no match for the power of enlightened self-interest. Most of the world took sides against the Nazis for one obvious reason: Unless you were Aryan, they were going to get you, sooner or later. The Taliban and the other Islamic fundamentalists are equally unattractive. Unless you grow a beard and cover up your women, they?re going to get you, sooner or later.
But before they fail, they will create some major problems. No one can predict, right now, exactly what those problems will be. The authors of The Fourth Turning suggest that the ?trigger? event (the World Trade Center?) will be a ?false crisis,? an event which will challenge the existing order but which we will master, for a while. But another challenge will follow, and another, and another. Eventually, the existing order will be swept away, to be replaced, we all hope, by a better one.
I do not believe that the fall of Mazar-e Sharif and Kabul mean we have the bad guys on the run. I believe it means we have mastered the first challenge of the next Crisis. We have propped up the existing order, for a while.
But terrorists are clever. What is to stop them from detonating cheap, easy-to-make ?dirty? radioactive bombs, or toppling shaky Arab governments, or mailing anthrax to us at regular intervals, or a whole number of provocative actions, until a ?small? war tumbles out of control? There?s a lot more to come, I believe. I just don?t know what it is.
Put a little gold aside, and stock up on the canned goods and fresh water. And keep your powder dry. The Fourth Turning is here.
Brian, don't worry about buying the box of Fruity Pebbles so as to come by a secret decoder ring. I think I figured out what Marc is getting at.On 2001-11-17 07:58, Marc S. Lamb wrote:
Nah, according to Mr. Rush, Junior already timed his speech with Wall Street circa 1929.
Marc, this comes back to your thread posted elsewhere discussing how a certain problem was "dealt with" during the 1920s which was not "dealt with" in the 1850s. And this bore upon Mencken vs. FDR and whatever else.
There may be some truth to the pattern in your argument but I cannot see how Clinton represents the problem which needs to be dealt with. The man is a holographic image. He does not represent Karl Marx any more than he represents Adam Smith. However, if the votes are there, he will be either your Marx or your Smith tomorrow. He does not represent that "Leninist" contingent which you reference and thus that contingent was not discredited during Clinton's tenure. If it is still alive and kicking, then we are reliving the 1850s as opposed to the 1920s by your own argument.
Brian put it best with this comment:
Bill Clinton is not a Communist, and he is certainly no icon of the left. He's your Devil, but he's not our God.
And considering how Thomas Covenant behaved ...On 2001-11-16 20:26, Delsyn wrote:
One final thought:
From "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant"
The Oath of Peace
Do not hurt when holding is enough.
Do not wound when hurting is enough.
Do not maim when wounding is enough.
Do not kill when maiming is enough.
The greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.
Plain Dealer November 17, 2001 page A1
MAN MAKES A DASH AND CRIPPLES AIRPORT
...Hartsfield Airport officials said the shutdown was required by the federal government after Sept 11 and could happen again at any time, at any airport..."We would not have seen the same thing if this happened three months ago" DeCosta (airport's general manager) said...
sv81= marc s.lamb
Why do you say that?On 2001-11-17 18:53, tsgarp wrote:
sv81= marc s.lamb
I'm familiar with the Oath of Peace and Donaldson's stories, but I'm afraid I fail to see what you're getting at.On 2001-11-16 20:26, Delsyn wrote:
One final thought:
From "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant"
The Oath of Peace
Do not hurt when holding is enough.
Do not wound when hurting is enough.
Do not maim when wounding is enough.
Do not kill when maiming is enough.
The greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.
I sum up this bunch as the "anything but the West" crowd. I sometimes suspect that they are the first group you mentioned, the ones rebelling against their parents, are actually basically the same on a fundamental psychological level.On 2001-11-16 20:13, Delsyn wrote:
4) Tools, either witting or unwitting, of tyrants around the world. They resent Western culture and particularly America because they view the West as a failed Utopia, a bankrupt culture that might have been perfect if only the right people were in charge ? them. After all, they?re the only ones who truly understand how the world works, they?re much smarter and better than the rest of us. These are the people for whom ?thoughtful Patriot? is a contradiction in terms. If you support America and American values they say, it?s only because you don?t know THE TRUTH ? luckily they?re here to give it to you.
They claim the downtrodden of the world are somehow ?purer? because they don?t seem to share Western values when in fact what they truly feel is that these people are raw clay with which to mold their Utopian visions. ?This time,? they say as they found their collective farms and write 5-year production plans, ?this time we?ll get it right.?. These people aren?t really ?pro? anything as much as they are ?anti? everything but themselves.
The real world is messy and progress moves forward in fits and starts. As I?ve mentioned America is hardly perfect but the America of 2001 is better than the America of 1981 which is better than the America of 1881 which is better than the America of 1781. And any of those Americas are better than Afghanistan under Omar, China under Mao, Panama under Noriega Cambodia under Pol Pot or Uganda under Idi Amin. Real progress isn?t good enough for these folks, though, they want it all now. In their mind America can?t ever be as good as her PR, so anything else must be better and anything that hurts America is just peachy for them. How else do you explain a prominent Canadian feminist who just a few years ago stated to the UN that the only time she might support military force would be for toppling the Taliban only to reverse herself when it looked as if America might actually do it? Better that the women of Afghanistan remain abused chattel than America be seen as a liberator!
People like this who seem to dominate the chattering classes in the media and our cowardly Hollywood celebrities (like Richard Gere, Liza Minelli or Oliver Stone has EVER said anything intelligent regarding foreign policy) are twisting around in fits because genuine proponents of peace that they like to associate themselves with but have a hard time understanding with have come out in support of America?s actions.
He irritates us quite simply because we still regard him as a potential threat to our freedom, though vastly less now that he is out of power.On 2001-11-17 15:41, choselh wrote:
Stonewall Patton, I love reading your posts, but you know WAY more about Star Trek than any human being should :smile:
Did anyone see the Saturday Night Live after the failed impeachment proceedings? A skit had Clinton giving an address to the press that consisted of 3 words: "I ... am ... bulletproof."
Maybe that's why he still irritates conservatives so much ... they just can't seem to bring him down.
You're right, though, when someone that cold and ruthless gets away with what he's gotten away with, it's both irritating and worrisome as a precedent.
Seriously, that's something I've wondered about. Why does the Left consider Clinton better than the alternative? It seems to me he almost _was_ the alternative. A lot of his policies could have been lifted right out of a GOP wish-list: NAFTA, WTO, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', etc. It always looked to me like he sold out the Left on everything but abortion rights.On 2001-11-17 10:44, Brian Rush wrote:
Did you, in fact, mean in the second case that the left is as obsessed with Clinton as the right, and only pretends to consider him a wishy-washy, mediocre, pandering, and altogether inadequate progressive leader (though admittedly better than the alternative)?
He's not our Devil, though he might qualify as our Rasputin.
Both those notions are, of course, totally absurd. Bill Clinton is not a Communist, and he is certainly no icon of the left. He's your Devil, but he's not our God.
Why does the Right consider Bush better than the alternative? No difference.On 2001-11-17 23:20, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Why does the Left consider Clinton better than the alternative?
You are getting there. Just follow the money. Who funds the New Democrats and probably created the DLC in the first place? The same people who fund the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans (who apparently encompass the entire Republican Party now). Both sides of the political aisle are controlled in this way (as should be patently obvious by now). You as an American have a choice between Puppet A who is nominally pro-life and pro-gun, and Puppet B who is nominally pro-choice and pro-gun control. Either way, you as an American lose. Either way, the "free" trade elite wins. Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley is one of many who told us that this bi-partisan control was the goal (and it does make logical sense). And somewhere in the 1984-1992 period it came into being. As of 1992, our elections were a joke. You can thank Daddy Bush and his masters for trashing the greatest country on the face of the earth by turning it into their personal fiefdom.It seems to me he almost _was_ the alternative. A lot of his policies could have been lifted right out of a GOP wish-list: NAFTA, WTO, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', etc. It always looked to me like he sold out the Left on everything but abortion rights.
