How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness? – George McGovern

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html

==============
Dear radio opensource,

From the moment I started listening to radio opensource podcasts I enjoyed them immensely. So this is hard to say and not meant to you personally in any way. But is has to be said.

It just finished listening to your 6-part series ‘they got it right’ on a group of people that foresaw some of the disastrous effects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As is most often the case the interviewees were smart, thoughtful and reasonably well-informed. But something as bugging me all the time and now that I have discovered what is is I feel I have to share.

Shame.

Shame on the interviewer and the interviewees.

Not a word. Not one word in 6 talks about the 1.2 million Iraqi citizens (30+% of them children) that are dead. Not apology, no regret. Not even a word of sympathy. How can this be? Has even the top 1% of US intellectuals gone utterly insane? They did nothing to you. They were innocent. And you complain about the fact you’ve been lied to by your government? You think you have a problem? Every day you allow your government to stay in power you a condoning genocide.

Why should the rest of the world care what happens to the US if its citizens are unable to take basic responsibility for what has been done (and is being done) in their name? Ask ‘Why do they hate us?’ This is one of your answers.

Why are you sitting behind your computer? Why are you not in the streets by the millions taking back what is left of your country?

The dollar is falling apart, your military is unable to even occupy a single city in a third world country. You’re so far in debt the rest of the planet will soon have no choice but to pull the plug on your $800 billion trade deficit and your $3 trillion housing bubble. Your problem is not about the messed-up 2 party system or your messed-up media system it’s how you will import enough fuel to survive next winter after the dollar goes down the tube. You will need friends and navel gazing and intellectualizing about your internal politics quite frankly does not cut it anymore if your government is overseeing the largest genocide since Pol Pot.

Are you still here? Get up! Get out! Do something! Show the rest of the world that you are willing to take personal risks to end genocide financed by your taxes!

Saddened and flabbergasted but still a subscriber.

Arjen
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Zeitgeist – The spirit of the

time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

All of the following questions were NEVER ANSWERED by you. The list is incomplete. I will post part 2 of 2 this Friday. Your words in italics.

One. This is a key question.

I would be interested in listening to you go into further detail on ‘why you think some people stay in the military for life and what you think accounts for the difference between those families who lose loved ones, while remaining loyal to their country, and those who have a change of heart and speak out against it’?

Two. I can only assume that when Benjamin Franklin said: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” did so because he had seen it happen before and/or he anticipated it could happen in the future”.

Why not? However, the part you DO NOT UNDERSTAND is the difference between talk of war to come, talk of war after the war from the past, and talk of war DURING the war IN THE PRESENT TENSE! I have reiterated in many ways on this thread the differences between theory and practice: how DURING war the choices available to the people being attacked are, in the most blatant and obvious way, critically limited especially when the enemy does not play by the same rules! In order to survive, the playing field must be leveled. The CONTEXT is not the same as it is during peacetime, in a classroom or a think-tank. The language and the context of the Law in this situation are also quite complex, but like I said, I do not discuss anything seminal on the internet. (Suffice it to say that President Bush’s legacy of saving the country, along with his grace under pressure, and patriotism, will be protected well into the distant future)!

One context is theoretical and/or ideological and a priori in nature, and the other is the practice of the theory of and/or non ideological and a posteriori in nature.

And so the question arises: are you ‘able’ to see a difference between the two contexts?

If you answer ‘yes’ to this question, it does not mean that “therefore” you are admitting to some other pretext I may or may not have in mind. I simply wish to know if you are ‘able’ to see the difference. An honest answer to this question would clarify a few things for me.

Three. In reference to “Billy”, our fictitious mugger. Do I have the right to defend my life under the circumstances in the example I gave?

Four. As a citizen, what can you not do now that you could do before 911 and the Patriot Act?

Five. What are the specific circumstances in which you feel a war between America and any other country would be justified? What are the specific reasons and circumstances in which you would fight for America?

Six. My point is that is you attack liberals for not respecting people’s experiences – experiences that, in the end, are all we really have, and from which each of us form our opinions.

This is incorrect. Experiences are NOT “the only way” people accumulate knowledge.

Do you agree that this claim is a mistake?

Seven. About 911. How about a little reverse engineering? Would you invite the terrorists back to kill more people? Can we start with that question? Or is the answer “too complicated” because I don’t accept your brand of [ROS far left] Cosmic Poetry? Maybe Palestine or the Jews or Original Sin have something to do with it? You think? Could it be the FACT, the TRUTH about how the Jews suffered under Roman rule during The Second Temple Period has anything to do with the way you view (what is he nuts) contemporary reality? The FACT that because the political reality of that time was intentionally kept out of the New Testament – shall we say, has *interfered* with your ability to weigh up the truth about who the real terrorists are? Perhaps you feel that we (America) were correct in chasing down the terrorists wherever they may be, but would rather not admit it in public. I am sure that the claim will be made that I am completely wrong about all this. I am willing to be wrong, but only under one condition. That you provide an answer to the following question!

What would you have done shortly thereafter 911 about the 3,000 lives that were snuffed out by the murderers?

Eight. John Locke on Of Political Power and the preservation of property, “…Employing the force of the community …in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this for the public good”. On September 14, 2007, congress passed a joint resolution: “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Terrorism is defined by what happened on 911 when almost 3,000 American people were murdered in cold blood. Terrorism is also defined by the 25k Saddam Hussein sent to the families of homicide bombers in Israel back in the early part of the current decade.

Do you agree with the unanimous congressional approval (except for the lone congresswoman, Barbara Lee) to invade Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 as a response to the murders of almost 3,000 American citizens on 911?
……
Revisiting some of your comments.

How would I have ever known that you were raised in the inner-city?

I already answered this one, but I should have added that you did not know. Yet you chose to assume that I had “no experience”. Where did you ever get the idea that I must first live as a minority does, to “understand” what they go through? And secondly, isn’t observing, or just knowing about their lifestyle – the crime, the cockroaches, deadbeat dads, welfare, prostitution, low literacy, and the various other minutiae of hereditary incompetence – enough to “understand” (a priori), that I do not desire to ‘be’ like them? Did you EVER consider the possibility that I am well enough equipped to avoid these misfortunes in the first place?

And is it possible that you might have given the same answers had you lived/experienced their life?

You just don’t know how to stop being so presumptuous! I answered this question as well – but I must reiterate a resounding NO. The reason why my answer is no is not only because I’ve lived in a Black neighborhood for over a year, but because I have experience with Black people going much further back than that. In case you forgot I went to public school here in New York. I was not, as you assumed incorrectly, raised in the inner city, but I have been living close enough to them for most of my life. I know them well enough both personally and academically to know that I DO NOT WANT TO BE LIKE THEM, AND THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY THEY LIVE, AND THINK. Can you respect that? Is that OK with you? Or what?

At what point would you say our government’s interpretation of the Constitution is infringing upon the rights/freedoms of the people it claims to protect?

When you say “Claims to protect”, you make it sound as if you doubt the fact that they protect us? This is condescending and unnecessarily cynical, but I will answer you anyway.

Would you agree that the bureaucracy in our country moves slowly? I think most people would. Now follow me on this. There are three modes of human behavior: thought, speech, and action. Right now I don’t see anything on the “thought horizon” threatening our way of life except the forthcoming and possibly inevitable alliance with Canada and Mexico, while losing the Southwest to the latter. I also see China and Russia vying for control in the Middle East – causing trouble there and in various other locations around the globe. If you see the planet as one big happy family – which I would not argue against that it may turn out that way ‘some’ day (but obviously not today) – then the human garbage you are looking for now is in Moscow, not Washington. As of this posting, there is a crackdown on democratic reform in Russia with many arrests and people thrown in jail. Will we hear a word from ROS concerning this or, say, Chinese influence and mass murder in Darfur? Perhaps we will – but unfortunately I am all to positive that we will hear much more in the way of Bush Bashing, and other self righteous and counterintuitive appraisals of the hand that feeds us.

Our ‘perception’ is different than it was before 911 because we know that the government is watching, and that alone puts a whole new perspective on reality. Considering human nature and what people will attempt to get away with if given the opportunity, I think it is a good thing that big brother is watching. Our freedom to speak out and move around the country at will is still the same. Nothing has changed – except that the Leprechauns in your head come out of the Pope’s basement from time to time, and they have to be cut down to size. Other than that and long lines at the airport, nothing has changed.

According to your Cosmic Poetry who protects us? Putin? The Mafia? The Pope? Leprechauns? Jesus? Who? SOMEBODY must be doing it, OBVIOUSLY! So tell me who? Aliens from another planet? Black people? LOL, they wouldn’t do it. They COULDN’T do it! They can barely feed themselves and keep track of who belongs to whom in their communities. Cut me some slack here and tell me … who watches over the people in America? Who preserves their sweet innocence and their freedom to dream?

Are you now suggesting that it’s flawed reasoning for someone to be flexible when it comes to the environment and multiculturalism while simultaneously showing a lack of flexibility regarding the Constitution?

No. What I am saying is that there is an air of opportunism about it. All of a sudden Al Gore becomes a strict constructionist? According to classic political and legal theories one may expect that ‘Bush’ would act in this fashion, but certainly not Mr. Globalization himself. I think the difference between them is most striking when we make a not so difficult attempt to realize that the political and legal theories between these two men switches places in times of crises, i.e. that Gore talks a good game and would no doubt perform better on domestic issues such as health care, and by putting some economic life back in to the middle class, whereas Bush is more decisive and keen to act when it comes to threats on property, and life and limb such as 911.

Thanks.

I disagree because you did not answer some key questions. It is as if you appeared to entertain others of like mind, but then ran out on the debate. Your word must be the last, even though between the two of us you spoke first. I consider that rude. Nevertheless I am dismayed to see such a worthy (debate) opponent simply disappear. That is not my style, and I owe it to the people who were left hanging on this thread and to myself to complete my side of it. I thought we had connected on at least one point, but in reality we did not. It seemed as if Bobby and Godzilla would actually fight on the same side for their country if only … and this is part of the problem: you criticized all military conflicts to date from WW ll to Iraq, but did not spell out the specific circumstances under which we would fight together. I will list these issues and questions that you/we have avoided in a concise manner on Tuesday, November 27, on this thread.

Thank you anyway.

I’m afraid to say this conversation has come to an end; that it has run its course. Potter commented earlier that I had more patience than others; perhaps she’s right. But even my patience has its limits; and it ended where your accusations began in that last post. So, respond to my November 16th post, if you wish. I cannot stop you. However, I will not be back to read it.

Correction:

In the above post after *hereditary maladroitnes* it should read: that prevents you from understanding …

Here is the whole paragraph once again:

Wait till you hear about the Coalition Forces vs. Afghan kill ratio Bobby. It’s over 100 to 1 in our favor! And the terrorist to child kill ratio is about 15 to 1. Pretty good huh? I was just wondering how the leprechauns in your head are going to make up for these numbers. How does your cosmic poetry account for such a disparity? Some of those Afghans were innocent Bobby – just like the people in the Twin Towers!! But you don’t care about innocence, do you Bobby? Everybody is ‘guilty’ as far as you’re concerned. Guilty as charged – we’re all guilty. Obviously you can’t rap your mind around man made evil. So you invent unrealistic excuses. The leprechauns in your head possess a *hereditary maladroitness* that prevents you from understanding free will and many other legal, philosophical, historical, and current events issues. You do not understand how the lines between transcendence and immanence and existentialism intersect.

Your words in italics.

I was implying that I’d fight our own government if they encroached upon your – or anyone’s – rights/liberties.

Except perhaps for the murder victims of 911! That could have been any one of us. How did you feel at the time of 911? And is there any difference insofar between then and now as far as those feelings are concerned? Why did you turn your back on them now Bobby? And if that isn’t true, then I guess you would have fought the terrorists back then, right Bobby? Or is it Humpty?

“…Both Scalia and the ACLU appreciated/understood that no matter what the crisis, no matter what good intentions the government might offer, there has to be limits on what the government can do to protect the citizens.

I agree. Now answer the question! Did our government do the right thing by going into Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 as a response to the murders in New York a month before? Please try not to answer any other question besides this one, and please do not ‘twist’ the question into something that it isn’t.

Wait till you hear about the Coalition Forces vs. Afghan kill ratio Bobby. It’s over 100 to 1 in our favor! And the terrorist to child kill ratio is about 15 to 1. Pretty good huh? I was just wondering how the leprechauns in your head are going to make up for these numbers. How does your cosmic poetry account for such a disparity? Some of those Afghans were innocent Bobby – just like the people in the Twin Towers!! But you don’t care about innocence, do you Bobby? Everybody is ‘guilty’ as far as you’re concerned. Guilty as charged – we’re all guilty. Obviously you can’t rap your mind around man made evil. So you invent unrealistic excuses. The leprechauns in your head possess a *hereditary maladroitness* free will and many other legal, philosophical, historical, and current events issues. You do not understand how the lines between transcendence and immanence and existentialism intersect.

You have a nice day now Bobby. Have a green tea late or something.

Thanks.

PS: I am not finished answering your November 16th post. Please be patient, I am otherwise busy. I intend to finish answering you by Friday of this week. For the sake of continuity please wait until I am finished before you respond. I will let you know when I post the last posting of this response.

Your words in italics or otherwise quoted.

It’s my understanding that Representative Lee voted ‘No’ on passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists bill because she was concerned that it didn’t clearly defined the limits/scope of the powers of the president. She worried that by passing the bill, Congress was in effect handing the president a blank check. Is that true? (I’m just asking if that was her reason. I’m not asking whether you agree with her reason. Not yet, anyway.)

I have no idea what her “reason” was. The Monkeys and The Leprechauns don’t need a “reason” other than to oppose the powers that be simply because they exist; that a *hereditary maladroitness* prevents them from seeing the big picture; that they had no hand in its history, evolution, and construction – and therefore no concern for its future. They tear down whoever and whenever any chance they get out of jealously and ineptness. So let’s ‘assume’ for the sake of argument that she, as you claim, was worried about “Handing the president a blank check”. And then you ask “Is that true”? I can only say that I am not psychic and that I have no way of answering that question. However, if you have EVIDENCE to illustrate your supposition, such as a formal quote from the congresswoman, please submit it to me for review.

It must be stressed in the strongest possible terms that the exception (Barbara Lee) does not prove the rule (self preservation)! When life and limb are threatened and murderers are on the loose, philosophical notions (such as when you quoted Marquis de Lafayette: There exist certain natural rights inherent in every society of which not only one nation but all the nations together could not justly deprive an individual, and other such abstract language of a nascent democracy); inasmuch as The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence, is not applicable when people are trying to kill you!! Would you at least agree that self preservation is, if only temporarily, more important than philosophizing about rights during an act of murder? Please return your answers with the same level of accuracy and clarity in which my questions are posed.

Thanks.

It is often that people devise reasons and excuses to compensate for a lack of better judgment of the things they cannot comprehend. They may go to great lengths to invent grandiose schemes in an attempt to intoxicate their minds against things, people, and ideas that, for one reason or another, cannot be explained. Thus we sometimes attach “purpose” to the “next life”, due to a lack of courage on how to live fully in ‘this’ life: the one that we were born into. I myself am guilty of this, but I do not pass judgment on others or blame or compare them to the world view that works or does not work, for me. I take full responsibility for my achievements, and failures. It is only when other people’s view of the world comes into direct conflict with my own that I realize that a more sophisticated – shall we say less provincial and more democratic adaptation needs to be initiated – because I am educated enough to know that in order for me to get something from the system, I must first make room for others. The less flexible the person, the harder the life. I do not burden others with my own pathos and metaphysical interpretation of the Universe. It seems to me that some people are already overburdened with it. However, I do indeed take offence when I feel that others are judging me by their standards, and not my own. Deep down I am preoccupied with not judging others. It is to this raison d’être that I live my life.
……

I need a direct answer to a follow up question I have on your opinion of my example of the mugging situation. You have dubbed the mugger “Billy”. OK, let’s call him Billy. What I need for you to do is explain in the most possible detail how the following components of your adaptation of my example work.

You words in italics.

There is now a small possibility that your assailant (let’s call him Billy), though considered a criminal in the eyes of the community, has a family who thinks differently.

Stop right there! This is your first mistake. Who knows if Billy is a criminal “In the eyes of the community”? No one else knows about what is happening except the two of us. Unless you meant that he is a criminal ‘now’, for the first time at least, by robbing me, then OK. Right away you chose, for reasons unknown, to reshape my example to fit into some preexisting schema that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Your second mistake is when you suggest that his “Family [may] think differently”. According to you, when in the process of being mugged, I should ponder “the reasons” Billy may have for mugging me? LOL … any psychologist will tell you that when the danger level is to such a high pitch, under those circumstances, that access to the reflective and quiescent thought processes we would otherwise need to analyze it, are not readily available. The mammalian reflex of “fight or flight” kicks in and the self preservation mode takes over. And now, this is the funniest part, I should think about “his family”. How utterly ridiculous is that? Should I also see to it that he has the proper clothing so he doesn’t catch cold after he runs away and sweats? Perhaps I should also offer an apology for having a few dollars in my wallet because I worked for it and he didn’t? Or maybe I should just offer up my life because I am in his way? I must have really done something wrong to deserve this kind of punishment, but yet I am innocent.

Before I indulge in conjecture involving the concept of “original sin” or allegories composed of leprechauns or strange Cosmic Poetry which seems to be an ROS favorite – which is just a bunch of hereditary maladroitness based on the inability to separate the Church from the State, yet you make such a good impression. You can achieve it metaphysically, but not in some cases socially, and certainly not in a court of law!! It is a pre-enlightenment “weltanschauung”, of sorts – a concoction involving a bit of Descartes, a smattering of [misplaced] Euclidean Geometry, and a few leprechauns.

So please Bobby, spell it out for me! Describe to me EXACTLY HOW (it works), WHY (it exists), WHO (put it there) and WHAT (is the nature of) this mechanism that would allow me to ponder what is going on in the mind of a mugger, while he is mugging me. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Actually I can see your point on American citizens and their constitutional rights being observed. I don’t however think non citezens should be afforded the same protections.

As a matter of fact I think a strong case can be made that all the combatants that were picked up on the battle field could be executed under the geneva conventions definition of spies and their punishment.

It’s my understanding that Representative Lee voted ‘No’ on passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists bill because she was concerned that it didn’t clearly defined the limits/scope of the powers of the president. She worried that by passing the bill, Congress was in effect handing the president a blank check. Is that true? (I’m just asking if that was her reason. I’m not asking whether you agree with her reason. Not yet, anyway.)

Because when the Bush Administration cited that bill as grounds it could detain Hamdi – an American citizen – indefinitely because he was deemed an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’, the Supreme Court ruled (Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld) that the Bush Administration could not, in fact, detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely (unlawful enemy combatant or not), and by doing so, refuse him rights guaranteed him by the Constitution. Even Justice Scalia – the poster child of conservatism – disagreed with the Bush administration explanation. He said:

“The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly: ‘Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper…there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities…to bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom.”

What Scalia is saying– and what I’ve been proposing all along – is when our government starts interfering with the rights/liberties of its citizens – even just one citizen, e.g. Hamdi – it should cause us all to be concerned. That even “the state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of its nation’s citizens.” It’s why Thomas Jefferson said it was the government’s role to protect the liberties of each citizen, and that it was the citizens’ role to replace the government if it didn’t. So when I said “I’d be willing to serve/die – as many people have – in order that your right to respond always resides with you, and no one else.” I was implying that I’d fight our own government if they encroached upon your – or anyone’s – rights/liberties. It’s also why I get nervous when – as you suggested above – “that conservatives and the people at Fox News constantly reiterate. How is ‘one’ person’s privacy more important than the security of an ENTIRE NATION?”. Or when you asked how my rights have been “curtailed”, my answer might be to quote the ACLU – the bane of rc21’s high blood pressure – who, after being accused of turning to the dark side for representing Rush Limbaugh stated that the Bill of Rights was the true client. And it’s essentially what Scalia – as well as 7 of the other justices – stated in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. And let’s face it: Scalia would disown Hamdi if he was his son, and the ACLU lawyer that represented Limbaugh would just as soon french kissed Jabba the Hut; however, both Scalia and the ACLU appreciated/understood that no matter what the crisis, no matter what good intentions the government might offer, there has to be limits on what the government can do to protect the citizens. And they seem to suggest that invading the rights/liberties of its citizens – even just one citizen – is where that power ends. Another answer is to ask this question: When a soldier is captured by the enemy, why do fellow soldiers risk their own life to participate in an elaborate rescue mission? Why endanger the lives of other soldiers, why risk loosing millions of dollars in equipment, e.g. one helicopter costs the tax payer how much, just to save one man? It doesn’t make sense? But they do it anway. It’s equivalent to John Adams (Founding Father/President) who, knowing that his career, his very reputation was on the line, nevertheless represented the British soldiers (the enemy) who were accused of shooting into, and subsequently killing, American civilians. (Boston massacre) Adams recognized that they had rights/liberties, (the true client) that needed rescuing. In some respects, it’s why I admire the courage of Representative Lee when she voted No. Now we can certainly disagree with her reasons; I have not problem with that. But I admire someone who can stand alone even as the entire Congress is glaring at her; even while fellow citizens are calling her a traitor, or threatening her life/family. Conversely, just because someone voted Yes doesn’t imply they, therefore, must be patriotic. Because I’m willing to bet a few voted Yes simply out of peer pressure; or because they were coming up for reelection. I’m sure there were some who secretly agreed with Representative Lee, yet voted Yes, not because they were willing to put aside their views in order to protect the greater good of the nation. No, I’m willing to bet there were some who voted Yes because they were too cowardly to do anything different; because they were frightfully aware, as Representative Lee surely was, that they’d be crucified if they didn’t vote Yes. It’s why there are times when I find myself respecting someone who may endorse a view I disagree with, while suspicious of someone who purports to share my views. I know there will be times when I can at least trust the former; he’ll always speak on behalf of his principles. I can’t trust the latter; he’ll always speak on behalf of himself.

“On the one hand you come off as a “patriot”, a pro war person willing to ‘go to war at the drop of a dime’ (or so it seems)…on the other hand NONE of the wars mentioned in our correspondence, so far, have met your professional approval. Only you alone can give approval for a “just war”? Forgive me for being so suspicious but … how can I account for this huge schism – this apparently bipolar description of your words not matching your reasoning?”

If I came across sounding “bi-polar”, I apologize. It wasn’t my intention. When I asked what the reason was for us going to war in the past, when I asked what Eisenhower should have told rc21’s father and my grandfather if asked why they were storming the beaches, I wasn’t implying that the reasons hadn’t met my ‘professional approval; rather, I was simply suggesting that the answer/reason should always be the same: to defend the Principles upon which this nation was founded: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Furthermore, it wasn’t my intention to come across as someone willing to “go to war at the drop of a dime”. War is ugly; plain and simple. And I’d question the humanity of anyone who says otherwise. But I also recognize that sometimes there is no alternative. That being said, we – the United States – had better be damn sure are reasons honorable when the bombs start falling.

“Imagine that you are the only one walking down the street and suddenly you see someone coming towards you. The closer they get, the faster your mind races thinking of all sorts of scenarios. You can tell it is a man. As if from nowhere he is now about three feet away standing directly in front of you holding a knife. He says “give me your wallet”! The options available to you in this situation are very limited.”

I assume you presented this scenario as an analogy to 9/11? Either way, my answer is this: I use to carry a concealed weapon. (I no longer do now, though) And – like any military unit, athlete, etc. – I would practice ‘real world’ scenarios. I’d meet each week with a private instructor and he and I would practice on the range and then at the end we’d review. Now my reason for even bringing this up is because the lessons my instructor continually drilled into my head relates to what we’ve been discussing (it also might clarify my “bi-polar”

First lesson: If you have to shoot someone in self-defense, you better be able to show that you first exhausted all other options, that you were incapable of doing anything else except use your firearm. Also, when you do shoot/kill your assailant, do so with the notion that you’re not fighting/killing an enemy insomuch as you’re protecting the right of every citizen (that includes you AND the assailant) to walk safely down the street; to be able to go outside and not be harmed. Doing this keeps it from getting personal; it’s why I now appreciate how Justice Scalia can protect Hamdi’s rights, when he’d rather dip him in blood and then feed him to a family of starved rabid wolves.

Second lesson: Never draw your firearm until you’re ready to use it. The idea being: (1) simply pulling out your gun to threaten, intimidate, etc. presents scenarios that are potentially hazardous to yourself, e.g. the perpetrator somehow takes your gun and uses it on you, or perhaps a police officer or another armed citizen walks into the scenario and – ironically – shoots you, because (you guessed it) a person should be able to walk outside and not be accosted by someone with a gun. (2) more importantly: when you draw your firearm, the entire situation has now escalated. i.e. if there were other options that could have brought a more “diplomatic” ending, they are less likely to be utilized. Because when tensions are high, when both parties are looking at the gun, each thinking, “$hit!!! Now what do I do?” everyone’s ability to reason – obviously – is now hindered.

Third Lesson: (something I’m not sure I would have ever thought about, but my instructor said is is essential to remember if one decided to carry a gun. It’s also something I actually thought about 9/11) If you do have to shoot your assailant, and even if you can prove your actions were warranted, and no charges are pressed, there is now a small possibility that your assailant (let’s call him Billy), though considered a criminal in the eyes of the community, has a family who thinks differently. And now Billy’s mom is pissed. She doesn’t like you; and is now looking to avenge her son’s death. So, be aware that a day may come when you find yourself standing fact-to- face with a woman you’ve never seen before, a woman who is holding a gun in her hand, and screaming at you for killing her precious little Billy (that also may be the first time you learn the name of your assailant) and now you must pay. The point being (and what I sometimes believe Americans who say we ‘invited’ 9/11 may – but not always – be trying to say) is this: though you certainly didn’t ‘invite’ this maniac woman into your life, and though you could not have predicted this scenario would be a consequence of your actions when you shot your assailant (Hell! You were minding your own business to begin when Billy got in your face), and though it is by no means justifies the woman’s actions – because she too will now be held accountable for her actions – you realize that had you not shot Billy, you would not be facing this crazed woman now. It’s similar to the idea of ‘Blowback’, that there can be unseen consequences stemming from actions taken, e.g. Sept 11. Again, it’s not to presume it’s our fault for what happened, and it certainly does not excuse those responsible; it’s simply making an observation without making a judgment. Anyway, it’s simply an observation I’ve thought about when looking back over the last 7 years. I’ll now step off my soapbox

I know this because I was once one of them and I know and am friends with many of them now. I think it may just be that some people hate a winner or a person or entity that projects power.Not unlike a certain segment of the population that hates the Patriots or hated the Yankees when they were always winning. There really is no rational reason.

The sad thing is these people/groups are taking over the democratic party. Moveon, DailyKos,George Soros and his group all exert great power in the Dem party. With people like these running the govt who needs enemies.

Why would someone deny reams of data, statistical evidence and correlation, and even in some cases personal experience, just to deny that another way of looking at something exists? I have experienced this many times here on ROS. So I ask myself – are the people here on ROS really that ignorant? I don’t think so. It’s not that. Are they simply incapable of seeing what I see? That could be part of it, but not all of it. Could it be that the agenda here on ROS is so strong, so far left, that as a matter of principle they will disagree with ‘anything’ I have to say? I think this one is most likely the one that applies the most. I know they stick together and pass the torch when I debate with them, and that’s OK, because I’m very good at what I do and I enjoy the challenge. But like Bobby said recently (paraphrasing) I hope that when the chips are down that we would run to the others side with the readiness to defend each other if life and limb were threatened. I know I would. And it is to that spirit that I offer my time to ROS; to act as a liaison to “the other half”, and hopefully bridge the gap between cooperation, and oblivion. Because the latter is too terrible to contemplate.

Yes I should clarify. When I went back and read my post I should have made the distinction between being attacked and being at war. I think all people be they from the left or from the right of the political spectrum Know we were attacked. Yet many don’t think we are at war. Sorry for the confusion.

Not that they “deny” that we are at war, but that they do not agree with the ‘reason’ for it. To “deny” that we are [currently]: the operative word here I guess, ‘at war’, is the same as denying that you are alive or that there are other people in the world besides yourself. But that would be so ROS – so revisionist, so funky and off base. Right rc?

My response is to say I don’t give a $hit. However, I’d be willing to serve/die – as many people have – in order that your right to respond always resides with you, and no one else.

That goes without saying … I guess we’ll put you on the front line then.

Thank you.

There’s something more fundamental at stake. I believe I – and everyone else – have a right to check out any book I want, and know that what I check out is simply between me and the librarian. Now, you may not agree with that. You may think everything I’ve said is a bunch of nonsense.

Now here is a question that needs to be answered; that conservatives and the people at Fox News constantly reiterate. How is ‘one’ person’s privacy more important than the security of an ENTIRE NATION? ‘This’ is the question of the day. How much of a miscreant and a low life scum bag must one be to suggest that his or her phone call or tryst in a motel with another adulterer or homosexual lover is, in some cosmically poetic but yet realistically inconceivable way, “more important” than the life and limb of 300,000,000 people?

When our government starts putting limits on our rights – no matter how innocent or temporary – or when they start tampering with them – even if we’re unaware of it happening – all in the name of national security, then that’s a problem.

Explain HOW, once and for all, your freedoms have been curtailed! Be descriptive, give evidence, and please be direct and to the point. Allegorical responses will not work here. Poetry has NOTHING to do with this! I know you’re a good poet, a good writer, a thoughtful person. I listed a few things in yesterdays post illustrating how I feel nothing has changed. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it now, or you will be held in contempt!

What accounts for your inconsistencies and misapplication of logic and analysis is as follows. In part one of this response posted yesterday I gave short answers to your past wars question: “What exactly did they die for”? This indicates to me that none of these wars met your approval. (I’m sure you can see why I got that impression from the way you phrased it. Correct me if I’m wrong). So when you say “…I’d be down at the local recruiter’s office signing up. I’d don my uniform, grab my rifle, and head straight to the front line’ “…I’ll be damned if I let anyone tell us that we can’t share them’ “…I wouldn’t put up with that $hit for a second, GodzillaVsBambi, and I hope you wouldn’t either”, I’m sure you can see why I am confused. On the one hand you come off as a “patriot”, a pro war person willing to ‘go to war at the drop of a dime’ (or so it seems), who enjoys listening to drunken Scotsmen say the word f**k every other word in a sentence on his old “stomping ground”, and on the other hand NONE of the wars mentioned in our correspondence, so far, have met your professional approval. Only you alone can give approval for a “just war”? Forgive me for being so suspicious but … how can I account for this huge schism – this apparently bipolar description of your words not matching your reasoning?

According to your description we would be fighting on the same side. I agree, but that doesn’t answer my question. I shall reinsert the question here for the sake of continuity. >> I would be interested in listening to you go into further detail on why you think some people stay in the military for life, and what you think accounts for the difference between those families who lose loved ones while remaining loyal to their country, and those who have a change of heart and speak out against it.

Your words in italics.

Suppose the Unites States were attacked, and I knew if we lost the war it would entail that you and I would no longer be able to share ideas, e.g. exactly what we’re doing now; I’d be down at the local recruiter’s office signing up. I’d don my uniform, grab my rifle, and head straight to the front line thinking, “Sure, GodzillaVsBambi’s ideas are usually full of $hit, and that he probably thinks the same about mine! HOWEVER! I’ll be damned if I let anyone tell us that we can’t share them. That’s total bull$hit!”

Very well said. So would I. And this is why it is important to remember that Congress voted unanimously to go to war with Afghanistan in ‘01 – except of course for that one monkey who dissented. The country pulled together when, as I have been pointing out to you, our collective safety was deemed to be, and still is, in peril. Perhaps they were under some sort of spell or mass hallucination of some kind or controlled by aliens from another planet. Could it be the Planet Leprechaun from the Anarchy Constellation in the Latin Quarter of the Galaxy? (It’s not ‘really’ Latin, but we’ll save that for a rainy day).

Sorry about this. ROS is not taking my post correctly. It could be the way I used Word. What I will do is insert them back in as sections, one at a time.

Your words in italics.

Suppose the Unites States were attacked, and I knew if we lost the war it would entail that you and I would no longer be able to share ideas, e.g. exactly what we’re doing now; I’d be down at the local recruiter’s office signing up. I’d don my uniform, grab my rifle, and head straight to the front line thinking, “Sure, GodzillaVsBambi’s ideas are usually full of $hit, and that he probably thinks the same about mine! HOWEVER! I’ll be damned if I let anyone tell us that we can’t share them. That’s total bull$hit!”

Very well said. So would I. And this is why it is important to remember that Congress voted unanimously to go to war with Afghanistan in ‘01 – except of course for that one monkey who dissented. The country pulled together when, as I have been pointing out to you, our collective safety was deemed to be, and still is, in peril. Perhaps they were under some sort of spell or mass hallucination of some kind or controlled by aliens from another planet. Could it be the Planet Leprechaun from the Anarchy Constellation in the Latin Quarter of the Galaxy? (It’s not ‘really’ Latin, but we’ll save that for a rainy day).

According to your description we would be fighting on the same side. I agree, but that doesn’t answer my question. I shall reinsert the question here for the sake of continuity. >> I would be interested in listening to you go into further detail on why you think some people stay in the military for life, and what you think accounts for the difference between those families who lose loved ones while remaining loyal to their country, and those who have a change of heart and speak out against it. When our government starts putting limits on our rights – no matter how innocent or temporary – or when they start tampering with them – even if we’re unaware of it happening – all in the name of national security, then that’s a problem.

Explain HOW, once and for all, your freedoms have been curtailed! Be descriptive, give evidence, and please be direct and to the point. Allegorical responses will not work here. Poetry has NOTHING to do with this! I know you’re a good poet, a good writer, a thoughtful person. I listed a few things in yesterdays post illustrating how I feel nothing has changed. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it now, or you will be held in contempt!

There’s something more fundamental at stake. I believe I – and everyone else – have a right to check out any book I want, and know that what I check out is simply between me and the librarian. Now, you may not agree with that. You may think everything I’ve said is a bunch of nonsense.

Now here is a question that needs to be answered; that conservatives and the people at Fox News constantly reiterate. How is ‘one’ person’s privacy more important than the security of an ENTIRE NATION? ‘This’ is the question of the day. How much of a miscreant and a low life scum bag must one be to suggest that his or her phone call or tryst in a motel with another adulterer or homosexual lover is, in some cosmically poetic but yet realistically inconceivable way, “more important” than the life and limb of 300,000,000 people?

My response is to say I don’t give a $hit. However, I’d be willing to serve/die – as many people have – in order that your right to respond always resides with you, and no one else.

That goes without saying … I guess we’ll put you on the front line then.

Thank you.