Some Folks Take Looting Very Seriously and Consider it a Cholera-Worthy Offense
Guess I offended Plains Feeder
To quote him, "Nobody deserves to die of cholera, but some cats have got it coming."
posted by Lin @ 4:25 PM
DottyNana
Observations on life by a sometimes normal woman who also happens to be a Nana.
About Me
- Name: Lin
- Location: Topanga, CA
I was born in Washington, DC to a young English warbride and an American pa. I grew up equally comfortable on either side of the Atlantic. In late spring, my mother would take me out of my American school, we'd hop a plane or a ship and make our way to England where she'd promptly stick me in a school in my grandparents' neighborhood. As a result, both countries are a comfortable fit. My husband (Himself) is English, our first child was born in London and the second in Washington, DC. And now we're in Southern California, comfortably hunkered down in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Previous Posts
- Walmart Arms New Orleans, Thank You So Much Mr. Wa...
- An Indirect Hit so Horrific that I Can't Even Imag...
- There is Actually a Website "For Those Who Live to...
- KATRINA
- Prescient said Betsy...Perfect Screamed I
- Dejeuner en Venice...California
- Some Days I Don't Feel Quite So Old
- Take a Picture of My Feet, Nana and My Dolls, Nana
- Cindy Sheehan
- Summer's Bounty
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
To quote him, "Nobody deserves to die of cholera, but some cats have got it coming."
12 Comments:
Speaking as a Brit (again) I'm finding it increasingly terrifying that so many Americans consider waving guns around to be some kind of inalienable human right. Richest country on earth. Big powerful superpower. Gave us jazz, Ken Kesey, Jackson Pollock, Thomas Edison etc etc I could drone on for hours about how great you guys can be. A great big, positive, can-do nation like no other in history.
So how come you can't get these weapons under control?
You didn't offend the old feeder, DottyNana, you got me started thinking critically about why moral relativism has encompassed the insurance racket.
It used to be 'it is no sin to steal what you need' then came 'its OK to steal from the rich', next it was 'OK to steal from big corporations', and now you have added 'its covered by insurance' to this shameful list of immoral excuses.
The Eighth Commandment admits none of these weasel words. What is wrong is always wrong. And I specifically said NOBODY deserves to get cholera. But if you wade in sewage tainted water, you might have a dose of it coming. I guess I'd feel more compassion for brave rescue workers who get sick than I would for looters. But that's just me.
And Mark, you who still bend your knee in subjection to a monarch, you've got a nerve! We have a Bill of Rights which is worth more that any of Ken Kesey's doped-up drivel or Jackson P's dopey dribbles.
I just can't figure outo just where I said it was okay to steal if insurance is going to cover it.
Hey PTG - fair comment about Kesey and Pollock. That's subjective. You like Hemingway? Capote? Doctorow? Norman Rockwell? Heck, there are dozens of great Americans and I'm sure we could find some to agree on.
What I can't agree on is your assertion that the Bill of Rights is worth more than my (or your) favourite writers. First, there's no comparison. Second, the Bill of Rights is a working document, or ought to be if it has any value. Which means it can be changed if you see a better way to live.
I just had a look. Here's the text I think you should consider changing:
'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
They wrote that in the 18th century, and it sounds like it. Nobody talks about militias anymore - the War of Independence is over, and the native Americans are pretty much part of your scenery now. And when they talk about 'arms' I think they had single shot rifles in mind, not automatic weapons, or even repeater pistols.
All I'm saying is that with a little creative thinking, you could modify the amendment, outlaw the weapons that keep scarring your otherwise admirable society, and make everybody a whole lot safer into the bargain. Sure, you'll have to make allowances for hunting and sports shooting. Plenty of people over here do that kind of stuff, too, but the guns are controlled. It doesn't stop murder (nor will it happen overnight), but it significantly reduces the risk.
Come to think of it, isn't that what they were on about when they suggested a 'well-regulated' militia? Isn't proper gun licensing and control exactly what 'well-regulated' means?
Sorry, Lin. I'm taking over. I'll be more succinct in future.
PS: this Brit has never bent his knee to any monarch. I'd remove her tomorrow. Or downgrade her, like they did in Holland.
The Constitution wasn't a 'working document' when I studied it at the University of Nebraska College of Law. And, as a sworn Officer of the Court, I feel compelled to uphold and defend our Constitution from zenocratic intermeddlers like yourself.
Do a little legal research into the intent of the founding fathers who authored the US Constitution. You will find nothing to support your ill-informed interpretation.
So you'd remove the Queen tomorrow, eh? I bet you'd wet your pants if you met Her Royal Highness. And as for the Dutch, to hold them out as a model is a joke, isn't it?
Lin,
I read my entire cache this morning looking for where I got the part about the insurance. I couldn't find it. Its entirely possible I was having a 'senior moment' when I typed those words. I'm sorry.
But then you wouldn't be the first blogger to change their post 'post-facto' as it were, then accuse me of being wrong. Without proof, I concede the point.
PTG - please re-read my previous post. I didn't say it was intended as a working document. I said it ought to be.
As a legal officer of the court (it would help if you could be more specific so I know what that means) you should understand that law has the capacity to change. In fact it changes all the time, to accomodate new circustances in society. What I meant by saying it ought to be a working document is that if you're prepared to improve it, you'd get an even greater constitution. If you pickle it in aspic, it'll die with history.
You seem like an intelligent guy. Don't let the intransigence of your opinions drag you down.
PS: If I met the Queen, I'd be polite. Nothing more. And lay off the Dutch: they're one of the world's most civilised and tolerant people, and sneering at them is just plain silly.
Dutch tolerance and their flavor of Marxist civilization don't impress me at all. If they hadn't been virulent imperialists for so long they would't even have chocolate to their credit. Last I was there I had to step over their tolerated junkies to get into the train station. As for Dutch justice: how does the Holloway cheese in Aruba smell to you?
I hate to admit it, but I am an attorney by profession. I went to law school on the 'know your enemy' theory.
PTG - phew. I had to dig a bit to figure out what you meant by that Aruba thing. Don't really know the details of the case, so I wouldn't presume to comment. Except to say it sounds to me like you're damning all the Dutch in all the world because of one case?
I'm still baffled, now I discover you're an attorney, that you don't accept the Bill of Rights could be changed. Or are you just resisting the specific change I suggested?
Golly, mg, the 'Dutch Case' was an example, not an exhaustive list of my gripes with a whole country. Must everyone love Holland and the Dutch? I don't hate the Dutch like I don't hate pulpo gallego. There are things about it I just don't like.
Of course our Constitution can be changed. The amendment process has been used to make many important changes. Not only to reaffirm existing rights, as in the Bill of Rights, but to make sustantive and procedural changes as well.
To amend is serious business, and the process is deliberately made ponderous to reflect this gravity. To me, overreaching legislation and facile rulings by judges who answer to no constituency erode the DNA-like stability required to hold a Union of free states such as ours together. Now I'm writing sentences like a German!
PTG - glad we agree it can be done. Now all we have to do is agree on the one part of the Bill of Rights that ought to be changed, no matter how ponderous the process.
Forgive me for not being an American. I'm just watching the news from outside. But it seems to me that everybody - looters and police alike - are running around with guns in New Orleans. Which is making it doubly difficult to help the victims. Didn't seem to happen after the tsunami, and I doubt it would happen in most European cities. Sure, you'd get lawlessness, but not ARMED lawlessness.
It seems to me that America could fix this, if it chose to.
Call me selfish, but I know from rude experience that I am much better off in a 'state of lawlessness' (read: in a mob engaged in vicious looting, rape and murder) when I am armed.
If I was really selfish, though, I'd want to be the only person in the mob that was armed. That would be the position of the State, if your views were adopted. They would be the only ones with guns.
Maybe you trust the State to look after you, mg, but I sure as hell don't. Not any State, real or imagined. Where were the State's guardians when the recent flood 'lawlessness' victims needed them?
I'd love to debate Second Amendment Constitutional Law with you until the cows come home, but DottyNana would probably agree that we should take that one out on the street!
Post a Comment
<< Home