trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 04:49 PM
Original message |
"On Simple Human Decency" - Oh baby! Check this: |
|
On Simple Human DecencyPosted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006. Originally from Harper's Magazine, June 2006. By Ben Metcalf. "I am therefore led to wonder what the common citizen is allowed to “say” anymore, in print or otherwise, and still feel reasonably sure that some indignant team of G-men, or else a pair of gung-ho local screws, will not drag him away to a detention center, there to act out, with the detainee as a prop, that familiar scene in which one hero cop or another is patriotically unable to resist certain outbursts against the detainee and what were once imagined to be the detainee's constitutional rights. Because I am loath to violate whatever fresh new mores the people have agreed upon, or have been told they agree upon, and because I do not care to have my ass kicked repeatedly in a holding cell while I beg to see a lawyer, I almost hesitate to ask the following question. I will ask it, though, out of what used to be called simple human decency:
Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?
Let me be clear that I have no wish to perform such a deed in fact, nor do I want anyone else to destroy bodily what is, at least in the technical sense, a fellow human being. (Let me be equally clear that the above qualification, although true, is intended primarily as a legal ploy and should in no way be attributed to my claimed pacifism, which today's prosecutor might find a way to use against me. I would also like excused from the proceedings my personal feelings for George W. Bush, embarrassment and rage, as they could probably be turned to my disadvantage as well.) In truth, I bring neither a message nor a promise of violence. I seek only to gauge what level of discourse is still acceptable in this country by asking, in the hope that I might someday participate in that discourse, whether I am free to posit that it would probably be great fun, and a boon to all mankind, if I were to slaughter the president of the United States with my bare hands." http://www.harpers.org/OnSimpleHumanDecency=1149635660.htmlMUST READ!
|
Ecumenist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This person is only voicing what millions of people feel...:eyes:
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Wow! This is being sent to my entire email list! |
trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"In 1917, before even a handful of presidents had been offed (and when Wilson, one of the worst, remained on), our first red-scare Congress resolved to build up a legislative wall between the chief executive and his many potential executioners. Murder was already a crime in this country, as was the attempt to commit murder, but the law did not differentiate between a president and a dirty voter, at least where victimhood was concerned, despite the fact that the president clearly was not of the people, was not a common citizen given great responsibility by the people, but was rather a great man in need of uncommon protection from the people. That is, he was a party hack, often delusional, whose permission to rob and mislead the people for the benefit of his friends had not yet been cemented into law, and whose ability to perform that function was being compromised every time one of the suckers managed to shoot him.
I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. What I mean to imply is that his free ride on our backs was made possible by the clever solution Congress found to its conundrum back in 1917: a law that deems (quote) guilty of a federal offense anyone who knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail . . . any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States . . . or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat. . . .(unquote)"
|
trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 05:30 PM
Response to Original message |
4. kick This is TOO good. |
Lars39
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message |
5. What a wonderful read! |
Lars39
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-01-06 05:47 PM by Lars39
:D
|
trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Yeah. Who is this guy Ben Metcalf? |
|
Never heard of him until today.
|
Kingshakabobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message |
Wilms
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-01-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:34 AM
Response to Original message |