3.06.2003
I didn't mean that they actually were rent-a-cops, just that their mentality was of the doerflerish variety- I reread my post and I realize I was unclear on that. My fault.
Another thing to think of with the "International terrorist" shirt is how libel affects Free Speech. Now there can be a legal debate back and forth (and there is), but the way I understand things now that it is illegal to make outright false publications about somebody. Now obviously there are people who are going to find a slough of information about how Bush once profited from the sale a baseball card from a card shop to some mid-level terrorist who was a Rangers fan or something like that and use that as evidence that Bush supports terrorism and qualify their position that he is a terrorist. It is the new McCarthyism. Everybody is pointing fingers at each other, calling them terrorists. The ONDCP says drug users support terrorism, and if you follow the money, at some point they do. The drug users (recreational and otherwise) point the finger at everyone who buys and sells oil in its many forms as supporters of terrorism, and if you follow the money, at some point they do. Bush is a terrorism supporter because he had financial dealings with oil companies. I am a terrorism supporter because I buy gas occasionally for my car, have clothes that were probably made in a sweatshop, blew up fireworks made by little kids in China, and even owned stock for a short time in an energy company in my short-lived stock trading endeavour. You are a terrorism supporter for the same reasons. See how the term has been devalued? But this is a digression from what we are talking about, free speech. Anyhow, back to the International Terrorist shirt. You have to admit that a shirt that has the President (whoever he may be and whether you like him or not) and the words "International Terrorist" on it could be construed as inflammatory, at least, and simply incorrect at worst. If I wore a shirt that had a picture of an aborted baby and a saying about how "Abortion is Murder" or something like that, I would definitely (and I reluctantly admit, rightly) be asked to turn it inside out, because it is inflammatory and simply not necessary or proper in a school setting. But if I were in an abortion protest, in the correct forum, that should be (and is) allowed. In the end, I echo what I said last night, that there are limits on free speech, and there is a correct and proper way to speak freely. I guess I look at what I say and ask "is this, first of all, correct?" and then "Should I in fact be saying this right here and right now?".
I admit it is difficult, nigh unto impossible to get dissenting opinions to the masses. But I guess I leave it up to the individual to seek out that information for himself and not push it on him. There are sources available (tv/radio/traditional media are admittedly parodies of dissenting opinion, but on some level they make you aware it is out there, at least), in particular, the internet. I just did a Google search and found over 2 million hits in 0.06 seconds on the phrase "war on Iraq". If that isn't easy, I don't know what is. I love Google...:) I don't like being force- or spoon-fed information by biased sources (which, as we have defined earlier is nearly any source) anymore than you or the next guy. And I don't think that opinion is really changed by this spoon-feeding. Everyone by this point has pretty much made up their mind about it one way or the other, barring some totally new event. Changes in opinion come more from changes in current events than from mobilizing a protest, however large. I can only directly speak for myself, and my view is kind of a middle of the road one, that war may be indeed necessary, but that we should be very careful about jumping into it. As in slow nearly to a fault. But when/if the time comes, and it is appropriate (indeed, necessary), then to do otherwise would be negligent.
I should read the Stupid White Men book... I have to say that the title is a little off-putting, but "never judge a book...". I will look for it in the library here at school. Most likely they have it right here.
I guess that given my current dataset on Colin Powell, I don't really see how he is any more corrupted than any of us. It is impossible for anyone in a position of any power at all to be unbiased and free of any taint. In the end, we just choose our stains...
anyhow, good discussion... makes you think a bit, which is a welcome thing.
Another thing to think of with the "International terrorist" shirt is how libel affects Free Speech. Now there can be a legal debate back and forth (and there is), but the way I understand things now that it is illegal to make outright false publications about somebody. Now obviously there are people who are going to find a slough of information about how Bush once profited from the sale a baseball card from a card shop to some mid-level terrorist who was a Rangers fan or something like that and use that as evidence that Bush supports terrorism and qualify their position that he is a terrorist. It is the new McCarthyism. Everybody is pointing fingers at each other, calling them terrorists. The ONDCP says drug users support terrorism, and if you follow the money, at some point they do. The drug users (recreational and otherwise) point the finger at everyone who buys and sells oil in its many forms as supporters of terrorism, and if you follow the money, at some point they do. Bush is a terrorism supporter because he had financial dealings with oil companies. I am a terrorism supporter because I buy gas occasionally for my car, have clothes that were probably made in a sweatshop, blew up fireworks made by little kids in China, and even owned stock for a short time in an energy company in my short-lived stock trading endeavour. You are a terrorism supporter for the same reasons. See how the term has been devalued? But this is a digression from what we are talking about, free speech. Anyhow, back to the International Terrorist shirt. You have to admit that a shirt that has the President (whoever he may be and whether you like him or not) and the words "International Terrorist" on it could be construed as inflammatory, at least, and simply incorrect at worst. If I wore a shirt that had a picture of an aborted baby and a saying about how "Abortion is Murder" or something like that, I would definitely (and I reluctantly admit, rightly) be asked to turn it inside out, because it is inflammatory and simply not necessary or proper in a school setting. But if I were in an abortion protest, in the correct forum, that should be (and is) allowed. In the end, I echo what I said last night, that there are limits on free speech, and there is a correct and proper way to speak freely. I guess I look at what I say and ask "is this, first of all, correct?" and then "Should I in fact be saying this right here and right now?".
I admit it is difficult, nigh unto impossible to get dissenting opinions to the masses. But I guess I leave it up to the individual to seek out that information for himself and not push it on him. There are sources available (tv/radio/traditional media are admittedly parodies of dissenting opinion, but on some level they make you aware it is out there, at least), in particular, the internet. I just did a Google search and found over 2 million hits in 0.06 seconds on the phrase "war on Iraq". If that isn't easy, I don't know what is. I love Google...:) I don't like being force- or spoon-fed information by biased sources (which, as we have defined earlier is nearly any source) anymore than you or the next guy. And I don't think that opinion is really changed by this spoon-feeding. Everyone by this point has pretty much made up their mind about it one way or the other, barring some totally new event. Changes in opinion come more from changes in current events than from mobilizing a protest, however large. I can only directly speak for myself, and my view is kind of a middle of the road one, that war may be indeed necessary, but that we should be very careful about jumping into it. As in slow nearly to a fault. But when/if the time comes, and it is appropriate (indeed, necessary), then to do otherwise would be negligent.
I should read the Stupid White Men book... I have to say that the title is a little off-putting, but "never judge a book...". I will look for it in the library here at school. Most likely they have it right here.
I guess that given my current dataset on Colin Powell, I don't really see how he is any more corrupted than any of us. It is impossible for anyone in a position of any power at all to be unbiased and free of any taint. In the end, we just choose our stains...
anyhow, good discussion... makes you think a bit, which is a welcome thing.
< 12:13 >< /j >
