What to do?

[Rudyard K]

Sys, I don't think it is quite as black and white as you portray it.

1st, it ain't just the twin towers that is at the forefront here...my God, that was 9 years ago now. But there are plenty of other examples worldwide of successful and unsuccessful attempts on non-islamics by the more radical types. I'd guess more than any other group.

2nd, though...the line of needed aggresion is far from a single line. Let anyone make even 1/2 the aggressions towards the Prez and they would find themselves in cuffs so fast it would make their head spin. It's pretty much the same laws that protect him as protect us. Is John Q citizen supposed to just hunker down while the big dogs get protected?

This ain't brain surgery here man. I never understand why the discussions must first require an absolute proof that these folks have it in for us...and there are lots of 'em. You know it...I know it...hell, everyone knows it.

City folks are the ones in the most danger here. That's because that's where most the folks are, and the most likely targets are populated areas. It's not much fun to set a bomb off in a cow pasture.

But make no doubt about it...98% of this country is not in the cities. Since most of the ruckus goes on in the cities, the country folk are not taking up arms. But let it start spilling out of the cities and those country folks are not going to keep turning the other cheek like city folks do.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sys, I don't think it is quite as black and white as you portray it.

I don't know that I think it's a matter of absolute black & white, RK. I'm simply pointing out that rather black & white model of free speech does a pretty good job of answering the questions we all seem to be wrestling with. If it's not broke...don't fix it.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

1st, it ain't just the twin towers that is at the forefront here...my God, that was 9 years ago now. But there are plenty of other examples worldwide of successful and unsuccessful attempts on non-islamics by the more radical types. I'd guess more than any other group.

Are they more persistent/dangerous than other radicals; OR, does a 24/7 news cycle simply make us more aware of their efforts. I dunno with any certainty...but I can't help but wonder what CNN/MSNBC/Fox_News would have done with the anarchists/communists of the 20s & 30s...how much worse the activities of the House Subcommittee on UnAmerican Activities would have been with that kind of bully pullpit...etc, etc..

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

2nd, though...the line of needed aggresion is far from a single line. Let anyone make even 1/2 the aggressions towards the Prez and they would find themselves in cuffs so fast it would make their head spin. It's pretty much the same laws that protect him as protect us. Is John Q citizen supposed to just hunker down while the big dogs get protected?

Red Herring, my friend...unless the discussion is strictly limited to American citizens on US soil. Then, the argument that the Prez gets protections the rest of us don't holds some water. Call it what you will...a perk of the office....or that whomever occupies the office is a symbol for all of us & gets some extra "love" as a result...

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

This ain't brain surgery here man. I never understand why the discussions must first require an absolute proof that these folks have it in for us...and there are lots of 'em. You know it...I know it...hell, everyone knows it.

Ummnn...because we are a nation that allegedly believes in the rule of law. It's what is supposed to make us BETTER than them in the first place. I'm not worried about everyone who "has it in for us"...I'm only concerned with those that attempt to DO something about it.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

City folks are the ones in the most danger here. That's because that's where most the folks are, and the most likely targets are populated areas. It's not much fun to set a bomb off in a cow pasture.

But make no doubt about it...98% of this country is not in the cities. Since most of the ruckus goes on in the cities, the country folk are not taking up arms. But let it start spilling out of the cities and those country folks are not going to keep turning the other cheek like city folks do.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I think that we as a nation are judged by history in how we treat the least of us. The corollary in my mind would be that an attack on any of us is an attack on all of us. Any terrorist that blows up your cow, RK, ought to be hunted to the ends of the earth. Anybody that says your cow ought to be blown up is an idiot & ought to be identified & shunned as such...

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I'm with Justice Douglas as long as it's just talk. An, "act in furtherance of...", is a horse of a different color. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is an act of speech one knows...or reasonable foresees... is designed to do harm to others.

And all this time I thought it was Cardozo...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

And Hank...I have no idea the answer to your query. Maybe you two mental giants can start your own brain trust to figure it out.

I spied a humorous similarity in regards to fervently preferring “smooth peanut butter” over “nutty peanut butter,” or vice versa, and Jonathan Swift’s satire. Hence, I was jokingly referring to the little people (the Lilliputians) featured in Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”; wherein, Swift satirically describes an intra-Lilliputian dispute over the proper way to breakfast on soft-boiled eggs. Let me explain.

In his story, Swift relates that Lilliputians formerly cracked their eggs at the large end and then ate them. More recently, in the history of Lilliput, an Emperor of Lilliput decreed that all eggs be broken at the smaller end. What ensued was a fundamental dispute between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians. This dispute manifested itself in “six rebellions . . . wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown.” Swift’s literary Big-Endian/Little-Endian controversy satirically reflected England’s struggle with religious doctrine between the reign of Henry VIII (ruled 1509-1547) and the reign of William and Mary (ruled 1688-1702).

Under King Henry VIII, England rejected Ultra Montes Catholicism (i.e., Big-Endianism) and became a Protestant (Little-Endianism) kingdom. Protestantism, i.e., Anglican/Episcopalian, prevailed and strengthened under Edward VI (ruled 1547–1553) and Queen Elizabeth I (ruled 1558–1603). There was a momentary hiccup during “Bloody Mary’s” reign (1553-1558). She decreed that all English subjects revert to Catholicism – under penalty of death (BTW records show that Henry VIII was more “bloody” than Mary in stamping out heresy). The religious controversy in England was further exacerbated by first a Catholic (Mary Stuart) then a Presbyterian Scotland (under King James I who ruled simultaneously the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland from 1603–1625).

The years between Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church (1534) and the Glorious Revolution (1688), when the Protestant rulers William and Mary were installed, were fraught with religiously spawned revolts and rebellions. As Swift related, one king, Charles I (ruled 1625–1649), lost his life. Another king, Charles II’s son James II (ruled 1685–1688), lost his crown and fled to France. The English Civil War(s) (1642–1651), the Commonwealth of England (1649–53), and the Dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell (1653–59) factor among the religious intolerance and rebellions to which Swift alludes.

This brings me back to your original post:

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm not sure I know what the answer is here...since as a society we tend to want to allow free speech.

It is during this period of English history that an Englishman’s rights were codified, i.e., the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) and the English Bill of Rights (1689). William and Mary had to formally recognize these rights (the English Bill of Rights) as a pre-condition to being accepted as the “constitutional” king and queen of England. You will recognize that some of these rights reappear in the U.S. Constitution; including the guaranteed right to free speech.

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled [English Convention Parliament of 1689] in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal; [Article II of the Constitution]

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal; [Article II of the Constitution]

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious; [a free a separate judiciary: Articles I, II and III of the Constitution]

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal; [taxes imposed only by constitutionally elected representatives: Article I of the Constitution and Amendment XVI]

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal; [Amendment I]

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; [Amendment III]

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; [Amendment II]

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free; [Articles I and II of the Constitution]

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament; [Amendment I]

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; [Amendment VIII]

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders; [Amendments V and VI]

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; [no corresponding clause in the U.S. Constitution]

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently. [Article I of the Constitution]

Of note, of course, is that the English Bill of Rights, while on the one hand guaranteeing certain inalienable rights, specifically forbids Catholic monarchical rule in England and Catholic gun ownership. So it did not extend a guaranteed right to freedom of religion such as the right enjoyed by Americans under the provisions of the 1st Amendment.

Of further note, the English Bill of Rights was not just a reaction of Englishmen against autocratic, Catholic-monarchical rule. It also reflected, but less obviously, a rejection of Oliver Cromwell’s Puritanical Protestant dictatorship: AKA “The Protectorate.”

So, the fundamental rights we today enjoy were born out of centuries of violent, religious strife. Thus, it’s an irony that these same rights may be suborned to effectively deal with our contemporary, religiously-ensconced strife. History records that religious wars are the most difficult to resolve; because, there can be no compromise between the adversaries—the most fervent believers, from both sides, will never subscribe to earthly arbiters.

Sorry for being so long here in my explanation and for being obtuse in my original joke.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sorry for being so long here in my explanation and for being obtuse in my original joke.

Enlightening!! Actually, very enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I would have never been able to read between the lines enough to have discerned all that.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Well I would have thought it was obvious...at least to those who wear big boy pants...but going back to the original concept...

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sys, I don't think it is quite as black and white as you portray it.

Which is it Rudyard....big boy pants black and white or gray like I first asked?

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I don't necesarily know the answer...it is a tough question indeed. But it is one that needs an answer, lest weaker minds (WTF, you there?) figure out their own answer.

You can't figure out an answer , yet you are scared a so called weaker mind might beat you to the draw? No damn wonder you have trouble following a bouncing ball.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

And Hank...I have no idea the answer to your query. Maybe you two mental giants can start your own brain trust to figure it out.

I got as far as “Gulliver’s Travels” but never was able to stick the peanut butter together.

Really nice point Hank but RK does not believe that religion has anything to do with this.

[Rudyard K]

I went ahead and googled it for you...

Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes gobbledegoo) is any text containing jargon or especially convoluted English that results in it being excessively hard to understand or even incomprehensible.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I went ahead and googled it for you...

Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes gobbledegoo) is any text containing jargon or especially convoluted English that results in it being excessively hard to understand or even incomprehensible.

Good gobbledgook!

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And all this time I thought it was Cardozo...

Douglas was the 1st Amendment absolutist justice. He was fond of beginning his free speech opinions with, "Congress shall make NO law abridging..."

Cardozo was the justice who wrote some of the seminal opinions on criminal conspiracy. The Olmstead case, in particular, leaps to mind.

My apologies if the transition was too quick or too rough. I'll try to write slower next time...

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I spied a humorous similarity in regards to fervently preferring “smooth peanut butter” over “nutty peanut butter,” or vice versa, and Jonathan Swift’s satire. Hence, I was jokingly referring to the little people (the Lilliputians) featured in Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”; wherein, Swift satirically describes an intra-Lilliputian dispute over the proper way to breakfast on soft-boiled eggs. Let me explain.

[Brilliance snipped for brevity's sake!!]

So, the fundamental rights we today enjoy were born out of centuries of violent, religious strife. Thus, it’s an irony that these same rights may be suborned to effectively deal with our contemporary, religiously-ensconced strife. History records that religious wars are the most difficult to resolve; because, there can be no compromise between the adversaries—the most fervent believers, from both sides, will never subscribe to earthly arbiters.

Sorry for being so long here in my explanation and for being obtuse in my original joke.

Nicely done, IBH!!!! Ah to the men on the conclusion!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Originally Posted by WTF

Really nice point Hank

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Nicely done, IBH!!!! Ah to the men on the conclusion!!!

Happy to contribute.

[Clerkenwell]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I went ahead and googled it for you...

Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes gobbledegoo) is any text containing jargon or especially convoluted English that results in it being excessively hard to understand or even incomprehensible.

Gobbledegoo is something quite different. It renders ladies incapable of speech.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Gobbledegoo is something quite different. It renders ladies incapable of speech.

Sometimes WTF's posts have the same effect.

[pjorourke]

Sometimes?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Gobbledegoo is something quite different. It renders ladies incapable of speech.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sometimes WTF's posts have the same effect.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Sometimes?

Awwwwww shucks fella's . many more compliments like that and I'll be blushing soon enough