Re: Kerry, Mighty Hunter

REPLY TO BUSTER IN "THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION"*
(Oct. 21, 2004)


There's nothing trivial about the manhood of U.S. presidents, so it's a sad but true fact that Dems feel the need to communicate to gun owners on NRA's terms. Why, here in Muscatine just this morning, John Edwards made a point of praising hunting and fishing and "Second Amendment rights" (whatever that is). GW Bush has no need to prove his manhood 'cause everbody knows he's all about blue jeans and swagger and chainsaw and ranch. (Edwards suggested "outsourcing" him back to the ranch.) The phenomenon reminds me of the flap in Russia about Yeltsin bagging a bear. I don't remember if it was tied up or just conveniently cornered or stunned or what. Who cares? (Some of my relatives and good friends, just for starters. That's who.) --Dan

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
Along with the larger structural and ideological causes of the war in Vietnam, the experience, personality, and temperament of each president played a role in deepening the U.S. commitment. Dwight Eisenhower restrained U.S. involvement because, having commanded troops in battle, he doubted the United States could fight a land war in Southeast Asia. The youthful John Kennedy, on the other hand, felt he had to prove his resolve to the American people and his Communist adversaries, especially in the aftermath of several foreign policy blunders early in his administration. Lyndon Johnson saw the Vietnam War as a test of his mettle, as a Southerner and as a man. He exhorted his soldiers to "nail the coonskin to the wall" in Vietnam, likening victory to a successful hunting expedition.

At 7:25 PM -0500 10/21/04, Buster Blocker wrote:
Why lie over something so blessed trivial?


* THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION is an unmoderated discussion of topics related to Muscatine, Iowa USA. Info at http://www.topica.com/lists/muscatine/.

We are not terrorists!

MY POST IN "THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION"*
(Feb. 8, 2004)

[I was answering messages supporting a grand jury investigation of some Iowa peace activists. The probe was dropped later amid nationwide publicity and protests.]


Scoff away, friends.

Your jokes are not funny. They are threats--probably more than you realize. The distance from intolerant "jokes" to vigilante terrorism is shorter than you might think.

We "peaceniks" are not terrorists or anything like, and you should know it. You may not like us or the things we say and do, but you should know we operate nonviolently and in the open. If you don't believe this, it's because you don't know us and believe misinformation.

So, why were the organizers of the Des Moines anti-war conference called before a grand jury, if not to punish them and warn others who might consider taking public stands like theirs? This is not about "taking a look"--it's about intimidation, pure and simple.

Have you ever had your life threatened because you were labeled unpatriotic? You'd take your free speech rights very seriously if you had.

In the scariest instance [in my experience], someone fired rifle bullets through my office window, through my own desk and chair. One month later, my colleagues and I evacuated that Des Moines office after a never-explained bombing caused considerable damage but--miraculously--no deaths or injuries. The official investigations never got to the bottom of it--supposedly. If the perps were not on some government payroll, there's every reason to think they were right-wing terrorists operating with some sort of immunity.

It happens. Believe it. For me, it ruined Christmas 1975 and affected my perspective ever after. The experience led directly to creation of the Iowa Peace Network in 1976. You may not know I was the first IPN staff member.

One of those ordered before the grand jury next Tuesday is Patti McKee, my successor as IPN coordinator.

The following e-mail was widely distributed before the November conference. [I appended an e-mail invitation including text announcing the "Saturday Nov 15th State Wide Anti War and Occupation Conference and a Sunday Nov 16th legal demonstration and direct action at the STARC Armory in Johnston IA".] Recipients surely included all Ashcroft's spooks and spies who cared to pay attention. Whenever I have been involved in such an effort, I have assumed I was being watched, and behaved accordingly. I know these folks well enough to believe they did, too.

Go ahead and laugh. But answer this: If it's okay to deny civil liberties to those who "protest a war against terrorists and terrorism," who else is it okay to violate? And then how many steps is it from there to losing YOUR rights, O Smug Ones?

Dan


* THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION is an unmoderated discussion of topics related to Muscatine, Iowa USA. Info at http://www.topica.com/lists/muscatine/.

Who can stop a war?

QUESTIONS I ASKED IN "THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION"*
(Sept. 14, 2004)

[We were debating charges against John Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Vets. Someone had just mentioned William Calley.]

1. Is it possible for any particular war to be wrong in its entirety?

2. If so, who may say so? Who should say so?

3. When is killing human beings "a job" and when is it a "war crime"? Who decides?

4. Can any war characterized by war crimes be a good or just war?

5. How much "war crime" is allowed before an entire war is wrong in its entirety?

6. Does an "indiscretion" in war become a "war crime" before someone condemns it as such?

7. Who may allege a war crime? How and where should the allegation be raised?

8.Is it possible to declare an entire war wrong without making a "blanket"condemnation of all those loyal warriors who obeyed orders and did their jobs in that war?

9. If not, which is worse: not opposing the war or risking the anger of all who equate opposing the war with not supporting the warrior "troops"?

10. Who can stop a war after it has started? Who should stop it?


* THE MUSCATINE CONVERSATION is an unmoderated discussion of topics related to Muscatine, Iowa USA. Info at http://www.topica.com/lists/muscatine/.

Bogger is a real word.

Turns out it's about driving in mud.

As in bogs, I guess. Huh...

After using it for my first test blog, I did a Web search. Altavista found it 19,500 times.

I'd used it because it came out of my fingers, because it sounded good--I don't know.

I have googled sometimes, but I usually altavista. Habit, I guess. Different, too.

So, Google owns Blogger? Huh.

In the Beginning

Blogger.

Bogger.

Never too old to try something new?