What is "terrorism"?
Within the US Justice system alone, there are 44 separate definitions of the term, each unique in some way or another. Ryan's question in his last post is a good one, but it seems like its almost impossible to answer.
Looking at our own history, can we better define the term? Or is it in the best interest of the government to keep it broad, general and ambiguous? Should "terrorism" be left to the sort of determination that Ryan so frequently employs with GOP candidates... "we'll know it when we see it"?
Seriously... let me give you an example:
In 1975, a single man went on a shooting rampage that lasted nearly three years and killed 6 while wounding 7. The killings and the letters sent from the "killer" paralyzed the City of New York, creating a wave of hysteria that has rarely been rivalled since. Police were overwhelmed with calls and tips from tens of thousands of citizens each week who thought they knew who the "killer" was, and this volume of activity actually hampered the investigation more than it helped.
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam killer) was proven to be mentally unstable, and is serving 6 life sentences right now... but his actions fit perfectly with the current model and definition of a "terrorist" according to the FBI. He was targeting individuals with no regard to political or military activity, his actions were intended to create fear and anxiety in the entire society, and his "goal" seems to have been the destruction from within of the entire City of New York.
Was Berkowitz a "terrorist"? If Major Hasan was a "terrorist" for his actions at Fort Hood... how is Berkowitz not? If McVeigh was a "terrorist" then weren't Harris and Klebold the same thing at Columbine High?
To suggest that someone who does what Klebold and Harris, or Hasan, or Berkowitz did is "crazy" or "mentally deranged" and that makes them NOT terrorists is silly, I think. Where the men who flew the planes into the WTC or the Pentagon any MORE stable or rational than the rest?
What about the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914? Was Princip a terrorist? Or was that a "political assassination" with cause?
How would we define "terrorism" here?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Murdered Soldiers
2 Airmen on a bus outside one of our US bases in Germany were killed yesterday when a German boarded a USAF bus & opened fire. Details on the suspect arrested were few & far between, wich made my eyebrow raise.
Sure enough, by this evening, we learned it was a "German Muslim."
The various news outlets, including Fox, are repeating the line,"It is not a suspected terrorist attack."
My question is, what constitutes a terrorist attack? More than one man? Political ends? Seriously, what is the threshold which separates felonious activity & an act of terrorism when assailants in both are screaming Allah Akbar and attempting to strike a blow at the infidel?
Sure enough, by this evening, we learned it was a "German Muslim."
The various news outlets, including Fox, are repeating the line,"It is not a suspected terrorist attack."
My question is, what constitutes a terrorist attack? More than one man? Political ends? Seriously, what is the threshold which separates felonious activity & an act of terrorism when assailants in both are screaming Allah Akbar and attempting to strike a blow at the infidel?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
On Sheen...
Whatever.
Beck was rambling about him all morning, too. I couldn't care less... its so sad its tragic.
I will say this, though... there are some damn interesting videos and sound bites coming from these "union round tables" in Wisconsin, and Wilkow and Webb both had clips of them on their shows. These are shockingly revealing clips, mind you... one guy in particular was practically quoting Marx and Lenin. They are using the exact terms and phrases that Lenin used both in Switzerland and once he was back in St Petersburg. Calling for "peaceful" protest, but also talking about what happens when the "power is in our hands". That is when the "bourgeois" will no longer be needed, and they can be "turned out with the trash".
I kid you not... "turned out with the trash" was the very quote, and it was given the day before yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin by a leader of one of the protesting union leaders in the convention center of a local hotel. Assuming that the entire Democratic call for "civility" is out the window, when are we going to here someone answer the rather biting question: Who speaks for the Unions? Is it really the man using THOSE sorts of phrases and terms?
Fox News and conservative radio needs to saturate this story everywhere...
Beck was rambling about him all morning, too. I couldn't care less... its so sad its tragic.
I will say this, though... there are some damn interesting videos and sound bites coming from these "union round tables" in Wisconsin, and Wilkow and Webb both had clips of them on their shows. These are shockingly revealing clips, mind you... one guy in particular was practically quoting Marx and Lenin. They are using the exact terms and phrases that Lenin used both in Switzerland and once he was back in St Petersburg. Calling for "peaceful" protest, but also talking about what happens when the "power is in our hands". That is when the "bourgeois" will no longer be needed, and they can be "turned out with the trash".
I kid you not... "turned out with the trash" was the very quote, and it was given the day before yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin by a leader of one of the protesting union leaders in the convention center of a local hotel. Assuming that the entire Democratic call for "civility" is out the window, when are we going to here someone answer the rather biting question: Who speaks for the Unions? Is it really the man using THOSE sorts of phrases and terms?
Fox News and conservative radio needs to saturate this story everywhere...
Charlie Sheen
Let me just say ... enough. No Mas.
The guy couldn't get high enough with booze. So he went to sex with hookers. That didn't get him high enough. So he went to drugs. Still the high wore off. So he combined booze, drugs, & porn stars with the fame brought by a hit show (@ $2 mil an episode) so he could be on every news outlet at every second, allowing us to watch him destroy himself in real time - the attention high. Now he's lost his show & his kids were removed from the house. He's got to keep going. Higher, and higher. And it's not going to end well. The highs will kill him.
In the mean time our economy's got its' pants down around the ankles, the Mid East is on fire, and gas & food prices are climbing higher then ... well, you know who. So unless this guy's new high is announcing his bid for president, can the media just PLEASE move on from Mr. Charles Estevez???
The guy couldn't get high enough with booze. So he went to sex with hookers. That didn't get him high enough. So he went to drugs. Still the high wore off. So he combined booze, drugs, & porn stars with the fame brought by a hit show (@ $2 mil an episode) so he could be on every news outlet at every second, allowing us to watch him destroy himself in real time - the attention high. Now he's lost his show & his kids were removed from the house. He's got to keep going. Higher, and higher. And it's not going to end well. The highs will kill him.
In the mean time our economy's got its' pants down around the ankles, the Mid East is on fire, and gas & food prices are climbing higher then ... well, you know who. So unless this guy's new high is announcing his bid for president, can the media just PLEASE move on from Mr. Charles Estevez???
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
On Libertarians...
I retract my statements that caused Ryan such concern. I used the word "Libertarian" rather than "libertarian". Both Beck and Ron Paul are far closer to the "libertarian" view of what government should be in this nation than they are the Republican view... especially since they repeatedly make demands of the GOP that will simply never be met.
They are the far right of the current GOP spectrum, though... of that I feel confident in saying. Of course, Beck has the lattitude within his radio and TV format to say what he wants, rather than follow the more constrained phrasing that the Honorable Mr. Paul must. Ron Paul is far more likely to feel the need to say what people want to hear, since it is in his best interest to do so as an elected official. I'm not beating on Paul here, either... surely even his most rabid supporters will admit that he can't simply say things the way Beck and other pundits can, since they are not "representing" constituents within the US Federal government the way Ron Paul is. Does that make sense?
Anyway... I stand corrected.
They are the far right of the current GOP spectrum, though... of that I feel confident in saying. Of course, Beck has the lattitude within his radio and TV format to say what he wants, rather than follow the more constrained phrasing that the Honorable Mr. Paul must. Ron Paul is far more likely to feel the need to say what people want to hear, since it is in his best interest to do so as an elected official. I'm not beating on Paul here, either... surely even his most rabid supporters will admit that he can't simply say things the way Beck and other pundits can, since they are not "representing" constituents within the US Federal government the way Ron Paul is. Does that make sense?
Anyway... I stand corrected.
desperately seeking prozac...
Holy expletive Batman!
That was like a Red Fox record, no offense to the late Mr. Fox. I'm concerned that the neck hole in Mr. Seekers Che tee shirt is a size too small, and cutting off much needed oxygen.
But, as Titus has already masterfully handled the man with a child's temper, I'll just leave it at that.
I do, however, need to comment on Titus' original post. There were some glaring errors, and ones that are oft repeated in the mainstream, sometimes even conservative, press ...
I am certainly not a Libertarian. And neither is Glenn Beck. Nor is Ron Paul. No, not even Ron bares that title. Let me explain:
I will forgo explaining why and where I disagree with the Libertarian Party (as I think by and large you are familiar with the reasons), and move on to Beck. He is a rabid opponent of "open boarders." He is also opposed to the idea of disbanding the CIA, and the FBI. In addition he opposes the legalization of narcotics, and is firmly pro life. These are fundamental differences with the Libertarian Party. In fact Beck has held debates on both his radio and television programs with Judge Napolitano (an authentic Libertarian), numerous times on a variety of issues. Beck is very conservative, but he is no Libertarian, and has said so on more then one occasion. You can visit his website (either the one that bares his name or The Blaze); you can search his archives; you can listen frequently to his 3 hour radio program or 1 hour television show, and in each case you will not find Glenn using the word "Libertarian" to describe himself, and for a simple reason - he is not one.
Ron Paul. Lets start with the obvious. His title is Representative Ron Paul (R) TX. He runs in the Republican congressional primary every 2 years. He ran (more then once and will again in 2012) in the Republican presidential primaries. He has repeatedly rejected calls from the Libertarian Party to defect. You can peruse his website HERE, and you will never see the word "Libertarian", not even once. In addition he stands contrary to the Libertarian Party in 2 fundamental areas: 1) the man is adamantly pro-life. His full title, in "real life", is Dr. Ron Paul. He's been a practicing Obstetrician for more than 40 years, claiming to have delivered over 10,000 babies. 2.) He is forcefully opposed to open boarders (source: HERE). He wants to physically seal every port of illegal entry as a stand alone bill, before addressing the millions already here. He flatly opposes amnesty and even wants to end birthright citizenship. And he voted against both NAFTA and CAFTA. Some would describe him as an isolationist. He would argue he's a proponent of "true" free and open trade - no limits of imports/exports (he lectures particularly on the imbalance of the latter), including doing business with such nations as Cuba, Iran and China. Again my point here, as well as with Beck, is Ron Paul is an extremely conservative Republican (in the traditional conservative sense), but by definition, and by self proclamation, he is not a Libertarian.
Now, his stances on drugs and foreign policy do in fact overlap with positions identified with the LP, no question (and yes, his inability to recognize the threat of terrorism in the 2008 GOP primary did prompt me to dub him, "mayor of crazy town", but I don't seriously question the man's lucidity, nor do I think his every word drivel, I just wouldn't be able to pull the lever for him). But any Conservative is going to find overlapping common ground with Libertarians, it's unavoidable. However, a Libertarian that does not make.
My point is we should be careful not to willy-nilly throw the term around, and assign it to people without first doing some rather basic homework on those we are describing. It leads to ill-advised statements such as:
"... Ron Paul (the only nationally known Libertarian candidate in the modern era) ... Mike Church is a Libertarian, as is Glenn Beck... and they are BIG names in talk radio ... It is my biggest problem with people like Beck... there is a degree of naivety and stubbornness in their views [Libertarian] that I think makes me not want to take what they say and see as valid and serious at all."
Otherwise, good Titus, people might not take what we say and see as "valid and serious."
That was like a Red Fox record, no offense to the late Mr. Fox. I'm concerned that the neck hole in Mr. Seekers Che tee shirt is a size too small, and cutting off much needed oxygen.
But, as Titus has already masterfully handled the man with a child's temper, I'll just leave it at that.
I do, however, need to comment on Titus' original post. There were some glaring errors, and ones that are oft repeated in the mainstream, sometimes even conservative, press ...
I am certainly not a Libertarian. And neither is Glenn Beck. Nor is Ron Paul. No, not even Ron bares that title. Let me explain:
I will forgo explaining why and where I disagree with the Libertarian Party (as I think by and large you are familiar with the reasons), and move on to Beck. He is a rabid opponent of "open boarders." He is also opposed to the idea of disbanding the CIA, and the FBI. In addition he opposes the legalization of narcotics, and is firmly pro life. These are fundamental differences with the Libertarian Party. In fact Beck has held debates on both his radio and television programs with Judge Napolitano (an authentic Libertarian), numerous times on a variety of issues. Beck is very conservative, but he is no Libertarian, and has said so on more then one occasion. You can visit his website (either the one that bares his name or The Blaze); you can search his archives; you can listen frequently to his 3 hour radio program or 1 hour television show, and in each case you will not find Glenn using the word "Libertarian" to describe himself, and for a simple reason - he is not one.
Ron Paul. Lets start with the obvious. His title is Representative Ron Paul (R) TX. He runs in the Republican congressional primary every 2 years. He ran (more then once and will again in 2012) in the Republican presidential primaries. He has repeatedly rejected calls from the Libertarian Party to defect. You can peruse his website HERE, and you will never see the word "Libertarian", not even once. In addition he stands contrary to the Libertarian Party in 2 fundamental areas: 1) the man is adamantly pro-life. His full title, in "real life", is Dr. Ron Paul. He's been a practicing Obstetrician for more than 40 years, claiming to have delivered over 10,000 babies. 2.) He is forcefully opposed to open boarders (source: HERE). He wants to physically seal every port of illegal entry as a stand alone bill, before addressing the millions already here. He flatly opposes amnesty and even wants to end birthright citizenship. And he voted against both NAFTA and CAFTA. Some would describe him as an isolationist. He would argue he's a proponent of "true" free and open trade - no limits of imports/exports (he lectures particularly on the imbalance of the latter), including doing business with such nations as Cuba, Iran and China. Again my point here, as well as with Beck, is Ron Paul is an extremely conservative Republican (in the traditional conservative sense), but by definition, and by self proclamation, he is not a Libertarian.
Now, his stances on drugs and foreign policy do in fact overlap with positions identified with the LP, no question (and yes, his inability to recognize the threat of terrorism in the 2008 GOP primary did prompt me to dub him, "mayor of crazy town", but I don't seriously question the man's lucidity, nor do I think his every word drivel, I just wouldn't be able to pull the lever for him). But any Conservative is going to find overlapping common ground with Libertarians, it's unavoidable. However, a Libertarian that does not make.
My point is we should be careful not to willy-nilly throw the term around, and assign it to people without first doing some rather basic homework on those we are describing. It leads to ill-advised statements such as:
"... Ron Paul (the only nationally known Libertarian candidate in the modern era) ... Mike Church is a Libertarian, as is Glenn Beck... and they are BIG names in talk radio ... It is my biggest problem with people like Beck... there is a degree of naivety and stubbornness in their views [Libertarian] that I think makes me not want to take what they say and see as valid and serious at all."
Otherwise, good Titus, people might not take what we say and see as "valid and serious."
And now for something completely different...
Moving beyond "Seeker" and his rather ostentatious presentation of his ability to include the f-word in a sentence as many times as possible...
I was watching the wheel sections last night, and talking with a backup shift that I get along with very well. His old man was a Marine in Korea, and he has a real appreciation for the sacrifice made in serving in the military, so we were discussing the passing of Frank Buckles. In the middle of a sentence, he interrupts me and points to someone behind me. It is a frail-looking old man with a Veterans cap on. The cap is brand new, and is designed with the large image of the Bronze Star offset from the center of the cap and bill, with "WWII Veteran" across the top, and "Normandy Beach" in the edge of the cap's bill. The shift (his name is Chris) walks over and shakes the man's hand, and asks which unit he landed with.
Seems the man (his name was Clyde, and he was a 1st Lt. on the day of the landing) waded ashore at Omaha Beach with the 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One), watched as 4 out of every ten members of his platoon died while he somehow managed to move from sand hole to sand hole for nearly an hour before they could get close enough to the Germans to find real cover. Clyde earned his Star for keeping the men around him together and alive until the second wave of landing craft arrived. He didn't want the award, and only wears the hat because he's proud of his unit. Both Chris and I mentioned that we were talking about heroes right before we saw his hat, and mentioned that Buckles had just passed. He said he'd read that, and that Buckles was more of a man then he'd ever be... he went back to war in 1941 after seeing WWI, and Clyde vowed he'd never see or fire another bullet once his fight was finished. He then explained that he tried to re-enlist in 1951, but was rejected due to injuries suffered in WWII.
Another frequent visitor to the joint is named Joe, and he loudly and proudly tells anyone that asks that he followed Clark all the way up the Italian "boot". He's got two Purple Hearts and a "whopping big cane" to show for the effort, too... and even though he's an old Italian himself (from Philly) he still can't eat olives without wanting to puke.
If I learned anything from meeting Frank Buckles, its that I'm going to shake the hand of every veteran I see. You won't believe the people you meet when you do... and it is an absolutely great way to make some damn fine friends, too. Joe has actually brought in pictures and details about a house he owns near the casino, because he heard me talking to someone about wanting to move closer to work. Clyde talked with Chris and I for more than 30 minutes, and ended up making a spectacular comeback in roulette, turning a $200 loss into a $1100 win. He promised to come back and look us up next time he and his "girlfriend" were in town (the man is 88 years old).
Oh, and Clyde, if you read this... the zero/double zero really AREN'T in the first dozen. I wasn't making that up. Sorry, my friend.
I was watching the wheel sections last night, and talking with a backup shift that I get along with very well. His old man was a Marine in Korea, and he has a real appreciation for the sacrifice made in serving in the military, so we were discussing the passing of Frank Buckles. In the middle of a sentence, he interrupts me and points to someone behind me. It is a frail-looking old man with a Veterans cap on. The cap is brand new, and is designed with the large image of the Bronze Star offset from the center of the cap and bill, with "WWII Veteran" across the top, and "Normandy Beach" in the edge of the cap's bill. The shift (his name is Chris) walks over and shakes the man's hand, and asks which unit he landed with.
Seems the man (his name was Clyde, and he was a 1st Lt. on the day of the landing) waded ashore at Omaha Beach with the 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One), watched as 4 out of every ten members of his platoon died while he somehow managed to move from sand hole to sand hole for nearly an hour before they could get close enough to the Germans to find real cover. Clyde earned his Star for keeping the men around him together and alive until the second wave of landing craft arrived. He didn't want the award, and only wears the hat because he's proud of his unit. Both Chris and I mentioned that we were talking about heroes right before we saw his hat, and mentioned that Buckles had just passed. He said he'd read that, and that Buckles was more of a man then he'd ever be... he went back to war in 1941 after seeing WWI, and Clyde vowed he'd never see or fire another bullet once his fight was finished. He then explained that he tried to re-enlist in 1951, but was rejected due to injuries suffered in WWII.
Another frequent visitor to the joint is named Joe, and he loudly and proudly tells anyone that asks that he followed Clark all the way up the Italian "boot". He's got two Purple Hearts and a "whopping big cane" to show for the effort, too... and even though he's an old Italian himself (from Philly) he still can't eat olives without wanting to puke.
If I learned anything from meeting Frank Buckles, its that I'm going to shake the hand of every veteran I see. You won't believe the people you meet when you do... and it is an absolutely great way to make some damn fine friends, too. Joe has actually brought in pictures and details about a house he owns near the casino, because he heard me talking to someone about wanting to move closer to work. Clyde talked with Chris and I for more than 30 minutes, and ended up making a spectacular comeback in roulette, turning a $200 loss into a $1100 win. He promised to come back and look us up next time he and his "girlfriend" were in town (the man is 88 years old).
Oh, and Clyde, if you read this... the zero/double zero really AREN'T in the first dozen. I wasn't making that up. Sorry, my friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
