My Photo

October 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

BlogStats


« The Rising Tide of Civil Asset Forfeiture | Main | Supes hear State of Jefferson prezo (updated 18may15) »

09 May 2015

Comments

Russ Steele

I posted Charles Murray’s field guide to civil disobedience at Sierra Foothills Commentary here: http://sierrafoothillcommentary.com

George Rebane

RussS 1231pm - Just finished posting the update; thanks again Russ.

Russ Steele

Readers,

You can make the infographic larger by clicking in it,making the text much easier to read. I recommend that you share the URL for this infographic, as it tell a compelling story. Murray's book will be released at Amazon on 12 May 2015. I have preordered the Kindle edition, to appear like magic on all my reading devices. I predict this will be one of the books we will be discussing all year long.

Paul Emery

George

I agree about Civil Disobedience. Mario Savio very eloquently put it in his speech at Sproul Hall delivered 2 December 1964, The University of California at Berkeley


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!"

Scott Obermuller

Paul - Mario's speech is typical left-wing jibberish. The 'machine' becomes a magical thing, always morphing and changing to omit or include a whole cast of characters depending on their standing de jour in the eye's of the 'social justice' police.
"...to the people who own it -- " Just who, exactly are these people and who gets to define them? That always seems to be a pretty murky and nebulous pool of self-appointed social dictators that don't seem to value the Constitution as it was written.
"...that unless you're free" - free to do what? Own property and be able to defend it? Free from the mob being able to turn the govt into a thief?
Sorry, Paul - vague platitudes and good intentions such as Mario's have historically always turned into totalitarian nightmares.
No thanks.

Bill Tozer

X

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelBerryFanPage/photos/a.363467236699.163471.115017781699/10152129185246700/?type=1&theater

Bonnie McGuire

Years ago I bought an ancient history book about England. Ever hear about the Free-necked men? They were called that because they owned their land and had weapons to defend themselves....and free necked because they never bowed to a Lord. In fact, the King depended upon these men to protect their kingdom from invaders, because they had weapons. Evidently in order to be free you have to posses land to be self sufficient, and weapons to defend yourself and land from thieves. Evidently our country's Founders had this common sense. Private ownership of property, weapons and a militia for self defense built into the laws of the United States of America...necessary to maintain freedom. It's amazing how many of those who swear an oath of office to uphold these laws to convince us they are trustworthy, but do otherwise. Don't believe anything they say but rather look at what they do. I don't know how it can be morally I mproved for the better with so many in government and the private sector addicted to government grant money hand-outs if they agree to its questionable cause....that won't be known until complete. Then it will be too late to escape. Most hunters and trappers know this technic works very well.

Russ Steele

My kindle copy of the Murray's book arrive last night about 9PM. Read the introduction chapter and looks like a very interesting book. Look forward to your comments.

George Rebane

RussS 1146am - yes, mine is also safely in my iPad. Look forward to reading it after getting back from the SoJ prezo at the Rood Center this afternoon.

Bonnie McGuire

Last night we watched the movie "The Iron Lady" about Margaret Thatcher...starring Meryl Streep. It was almost like watching what we're going through now....except the thugs burning Ferguson and Baltimore using racism as an excuse to destroy the property of good people who provide their community with jobs, necessities, and taxes to keep everything going...including welfare payments for those rioting.

Margaret Thatcher was a fantastic individual. There aren't many people with that much courage. One woman surrounded by cowardly dog pack men who poked fun at her in the beginning, nodded approval after awhile, and then betrayed her in the end to save their political standing. Same old story over and over.

George Rebane

Dear Reader - I draw your attention to Ms Judi Caler's 941am comment under 'Scattershots - 3may15 (updated 8may15)' wherein she expands on the convention of states, and more importantly on the legitimacy and effectiveness of 'nullification' which bears directly on 'Just say NO!' and Murray's call to civil disobedience.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/05/scattershots-3may15.html

Paul Emery

Adding to the call for "Just say no" should be an individual denial of support for unconstitutional wars such as the war in Iraq provided by faulty intelligence and a desired rush to war by the Cheney (whoops I mean Bush) administration. Just when it looked like Bush the second was going to be invited to his brothers party it looks like he's being asked to stay home. Here's the latest from Bush the 3rd known hereafter as "The Flipper."

"The former Florida governor said Thursday that, if he were president, he would not have invaded Iraq had he known that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

"Knowing what we know now, I would have not engaged. I would have not gone into Iraq," Bush said Thursday at an event in Arizona."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-iraq-war_n_7285094.html

George Rebane

PaulE 605pm - Not sure that your argument can be followed. There are many (most?) decisions we would not have made or would have modified had we known then what now the passage of time has provided. And the argument that we really did know then what we know now has always been fatuous, but today even more so with the publishing of several essays by those who were then there and in a position to know what information was available to whom.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad