Why a civilized society needs “LAW” is, again, demonstrated in the Sunday, March 13, 2011, issue of the Times-Standard, As It Stands by Dave Stancliff. This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people to deprive others of the very same rights they enforce upon other people. Here Stancliff piously rails against a religious people (Baptists) for enforcing their legal rights that offends his moral sensitivities while he wantonly commits the same sin.
I'd like to point out that everyone one of these soldiers freely chose to put their lives on the line. As such they made themselves morally, ethically and legally responsible for the consequences their actions. Vietnam era military faced a different situation. Most of them were compelled by law as they involuntarily drafted. It took strong moral convictions to stand against the obscenity of that war and the lives lost. History has judged the value of that conflict and everyone that supported it.
When you consider the history of the American military's wanton butchery of innocent civilians from the U.S. Civil War to the present, and the attitude as expressed in this article by Dave Stancliff, it is easy to see how he can justify this kind of thinking when he considers the military, in particular “the fallen” his family; his brothers and sisters. You can also understand the morally corrupt, anarchistic attitude of the father of the deceased soldier, Albert Snyder, justifying the Rule of Man to use violence because he like the Supreme Court's ruling. Alber Snyder should look to his own conscience before judging someone else over his deliberate actions as he tries to justify the death of his son.
What these people are doing may be in bad taste. This Report is certainly NOT supporting them anymore than the Times-Standard and their incitable Opinion. It is for these very kinds of people emulated in this example that we need Law. It's the only protection we have from these hate and warmongers' ultimate tyranny. These are the real "bad people" everyone should fear.
[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
To the Times-Standards credit they published, right under a fitting cartoon on page A4 for Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Nat Hentoff's rather lengthy article: “Our First Amendment protects speech we despise, too.”
Mr. Hentoff's approach to this issue is far more evenhanded and levelheaded than Dave Stancliff's regarding the much cherished and sacred right of free speech for EVERYONE.
[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
What happens when you lie to the American people for why they should go to way and the dutiful military fall into lockstep. Death is the ultimate cost of war that EVERYONE needs to face up to. The following is an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Salon.com article:
[W]hat's even more striking is that a mere 17% of the American citizenry "strongly believes" that the war was worth fighting (see this very good analysis of how dubious is the administration's new positive war spin).Read the complete article here.
It may be that some policies should be continued as desirable no matter how little public support they command. But war is different. Wars are supposed to be fought only when the citizenry is behind them and they are absolutely necessary. It's almost impossible to imagine a situation where a war should be continued when only 17% of the nation's citizen "strongly believes" it's worth fighting. Almost by definition, a nation shouldn't be fighting a war -- especially in another country -- if such a small fraction of its citizens believe it's truly necessary. What justifies sending fellow citizens off to die -- let alone killing people in the country we've invaded -- if so few people believe it's worthwhile let alone necessary? But this underscores yet again the most ingenious and valuable achievement of the National Security State: enabling endless war while appearing to impose costs on only a tiny percentage of the population, thus ensuring that pointless, unnecessary, unjust wars will continue without much resistance even when the vast majority of the public recognizes them as such.
--Joe
"This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people.."
ReplyDeleteYou're showing your true colors again Joe, by personally attacking the messenger (me)with words designed to demean (and thus supposedly weaken my opinion)such as "effeminate." Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me.
You say you're not supporting the WBC to summerize...
so is a person supposed to ignore everything you said prior to that claim?
Perhaps you ought to re-read what you wrote.
You expect respect (and howl wehen you think someone has affronted you)but you show NO RESPECT for others opinions.
You're the one who needs to examine your conscience; not the grieving father (Albert Snyder)you've chosen to demonize.
What gives you th right to judge anybody...especially so harshly and mean spiritedly?
I just hope you don't have a loved one who dies someday - and their funeral is disrupted by a hate group (please don't waste your breath saying the WBC is not a hate group - read up on them).