|Hard wisdom about national security from||OldEdScott|
Feb 11, 2003 7:22 AM
|my old friend and teacher Wendell Berry.
|Nah. Peanut butter, duct tape, a $5 tax on airline tickets||128|
Feb 11, 2003 8:26 AM
|and an occasional dash of fear. There's your real domestic security strategy.
(Thanks for the article)
Feb 12, 2003 9:00 AM
|Thanks, Ed. Thoughtful, intelligent analysis is such a contrast to the leadership style of our cretin administration. And this morning I read that the administration intends to further expand the Patriot Act in the name of national security. I keep thinking about Franklin's statement that the society that trades liberty for security deserves (or gets, can't remember) neither. Makes me sick.|
|Preemptive war put in its place...||PdxMark|
Feb 12, 2003 10:04 AM
|thanks for the post|
|an alternate opinion||DougSloan|
Feb 12, 2003 10:44 AM
|From a Pacifist:
While this was apparently directed at Afghanistan, the general themes would equally apply to Iraq, depending upon what you believe about Iraq (or more particularly, its dictator).
I think some people, including me, have a difficult time differentiating the action and the actor. That is, are they in favor of or against invading Iraq based upon their view of Bush, or of the situation alone? I do believe that many people are so biased one way or the other than they cannot differentiate. If so, just admit it. Don't veil a truly partisan position in neutral terms. Some will not accept *anything* Bush does or proposes, and war just happens to be the issue du jour. Me? I'm not sure I'd support everything he does (I'd have him reign in spending more), but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
My view is that the Berry article is unquestionably biased against Bush. It is not even the slightest bit objective or fair. I believe he had good intentions, but good intentions don't protect us.
|an alternate opinion -- and another||DougSloan|
Feb 12, 2003 10:46 AM
|To clarify something||OldEdScott|
Feb 12, 2003 11:14 AM
|Wendell isn't biased against Bush, he's biased against the policy he's writing about.
Wendell is the ultimate iconoclast. There isn't a partisan bone in his body. He believes what he believes and the rest of the world be damned. He has no more use for Democrats than he has for Republicans, and he's never even remotely presented himself as 'objective or fair.'
|To clarify something||DougSloan|
Feb 12, 2003 11:19 AM
|I can accept that, even if I still disagree with him. My statements largely were more general, meant to include reference to those voicing approval.