Pages

Friday, January 02, 2009

Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO, CA, for January 2,2009

End with farce, open with promise

Instead of the Lord of Misrule being driven out of the Great Hall with a hail of rotten potatoes flying after him, we got our final farcical ending in the form of a TV clip of an Iraqi journalist hurling his shoes at President Bush during a Baghdad press conference, part of Bush’s photo-op stealth “farewell visit” to Iraq. The shoes, a profoundly powerful insult in Iraq, came with a cri du coeur: “This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

The President noted that the shoes were a size ten and said, “So what if a guy threw his shoe at me,” a trivialization that was perfect in its obliviousness, an attitude of stunning indifference that can be summed up in two words he uttered to an interviewer who finally got him to admit that, contrary to what he’d said during the falsified run up to war, Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq and hence a reason to invade; they arrived after we got there. Replied Bush, “So what?”

“So what,” and a hurled shoe, the perfect boffo comic ending – the palace lies in ruins, the countryside has been laid waste, the kingly coffers are bankrupt, but . . . So What?

Well, it is the perfect slogan to define this obliviously catastrophic era. But amidst the gloom, it’s possible that there may be many silver linings on the way for one simple reason: Big change seems to be impossible without big catastrophe because human beings run on the philosophy of “I’m All Right, Jack.” When enough people can no longer say that, then real change can come.

Take for example, what passes for our national medical health system. For years, a sufficient number of people were “all right.” They had health coverage as part of their work benefits, and any attempt to get some kind of national health insurance program was always killed in the crib by the combined forces of insurance companies, the AMA and other major players. But as our economic system changed, as jobs were outsourced and businesses raced to the bottom on wages and lower-to-non-existent benefits, more and more people found themselves NOT “all right.” Add in millions of lost jobs and suddenly a whole lot of people finally understand the real meaning of the words, “prior existing conditions,” as they join the ranks of the uninsured and uninsurable. And doctors, strangled by a morass of insurance forms and restrictions are now urging the public “do something” about reforming health care, while employers have finally realized that they’re now left holding the bag on medical costs, thereby reducing their global competitiveness.

In short’s it’s been the perfect storm of not all-rightness. But storms can finally force needed repairs to the roof and there’s nothing like a flood to make clear that what you needed all along is a big levee, all of which are expensive repairs and preventive projects, but the disastrous alternative can now be seen more clearly. Dark cloud, possible silver lining.

And with millions of jobs gone, and millions of people suddenly no longer “all right,” what better time to switch gears and jobs and thereby move the economy to serious “green” mode which will finally change the way we live in the world? Making changes to help slow and/or adapt to the effects of global warming will cost a lot now. But it will cost a whole lot more later.

And such change can come very quickly. For example, the fast run up in gas prices actually saw huge numbers of people making changes in their lives that had real potential to shift our car-buying and driving habits. If we finally understand that “cheap gas” is a very expensive delusion, are we now ready to cap and tax old “carbon based energy” to finally reflect its real costs?

If so, then perhaps we’re finally ready to reboot all our paradigms: How we live, where we live, how we get around, how we grow and manage our food, how we organize our communities, what kind of social safety nets we want, how we want to care for one another and how we will move in and with the rest of the world.

We now know what “So what?” got us. Maybe in the new year, it’s time for, “What now?

36 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Perhaps the “ability” to throw a shoe on camera for the world to see, without any ogre ordered “consequences” should be factored into any “final act” review.
I’m certain that when Sadam was in “power”, that “journalist” would never have thrown his shoes as he most likely would have been beheaded or thrown into a plastic bottle shredder.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Too bad the US is woefully inconsistent in creating forums for the freedom of shoe throwing. I guess if a country doesn't have resources we covet, we don't "need" to invade, despite the beheadings and shreadings of citizens under other despotic rulers.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

How much "resource" has Iraq "provided" us?

Churadogs said...

If you scanned the various PNAC documents, the original plan was to use the invasion to crack open the middle east and turn it into a corporate-friendly, corporate-owned, westernized free market capitalistic system, a "point man country" to further bust into the rest of the autocratic middle east. (Naomi Klein's "Shock Econcomics" spells things out quite clearly. Her Harpers essay, "Baghdad Year Zero" spelled out exactly how and when that original PNAC plan went awry.) It will remain to be seen if, eventually, something of the sort does finally evolve, but so far we've just created a fragile, dangerous mess. And Lynette's right, there are a whole host of countries filled with people being terrorized and shredded by their own leaders about which we do nothing, so our claim to being bringers of freedom seems to be highly selective.

Watershed Mark said...

So you both are in favor of US led invasion?

Lynette, Please tell us how much resource is being transfered from Ireaq to "us".

Churadogs said...

Mark sez:"So you both are in favor of US led invasion?"

Where on earth did you get that idea from what I wrote?

Watershed Mark said...

And Lynette's right, there are a whole host of countries filled with people being terrorized and shredded by their own leaders about which we do nothing,

This suggests that you are in favor of stomping our boot upon the necks of dictators.

Well, it is the perfect slogan to define this obliviously catastrophic era. But amidst the gloom, it’s possible that there may be many silver linings on the way for one simple reason: Big change seems to be impossible without big catastrophe because human beings run on the philosophy of “I’m All Right, Jack.” When enough people can no longer say that, then real change can come.

So you seem to understand there must be a "John Wayne" if there is to be "Law and Order". you cannot have one without the other.

You don't want to agree woth me about that journalist/demonstater's ability to throw and not be "thrown"...

[Rooster confronts the four outlaws across the field]
Ned Pepper: What's your intention? Do you think one on four is a dogfall?
Rooster Cogburn: I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned. Or see you hanged in Fort Smith at Judge Parker's convenience. Which'll it be?
Ned Pepper: I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.
Rooster Cogburn: Fill your hands, you son of a bitch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/quotes

This type of confrontation is what makes this country a GREAT place to live.




Lynnette,

How about those resources from Iraq???

Churadogs said...

Mark sez:"This suggests that you are in favor of stomping our boot upon the necks of dictators."

I'll ask again, what suggests that I've said that??

Mark sez:"So you seem to understand there must be a "John Wayne" if there is to be "Law and Order". you cannot have one without the other"

Again, you're reading your own interpretation into this. John Wayne is not necessary. Perhaps you'd like to go see that documentary "Praying the Devil Back to Hell" No John Waynes there, no boots to the neck. Just a sufficient number of people (women, in this case) who peacefully and non-violently said NO. Gandhi is another nonJohnWayne. He also said, NO. Non serviam. No. Get a sufficient number of people who do the same and the world will be transformed. No boots needed. But it does often take a catastrophe before a sufficient number of people wake up and decide to say no more.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark,

I am not in favor of war. The war in Iraq has been a hideously costly mistake in my opinion.

I object to inconsistencies around the reasons stated for going to war. If you make the claim that you are freeing people from tyranny, then apply that everywhere, not just in countries with resources that you want to take advantage of. If you cannot be honest about why you are going to war, (in this case to secure a favorable climate to keep supplying US oil needs), yet the real reason is transparent to everyone else, your pseudo-reason make you out to be dishonest.

I guess you missed Ann's post (#4 down) as to how the Iraq war had brought us "benefits," (for your answer to "How about those resources from Iraq???").

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,
If you are getting your war facts from this blog, I understand your confusion.

Why not cut and paste those points you are using to hide your _________?


Ann,
I'll settle for one common sense move at a time.

If you don't like John how about Ted?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30095

If pacifism works why are there still problems?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs.

Are you attempting to say that the $585,818,104,875 (and counting) that the US has spent, the 4,000 + deaths, the maimings (and that is just Americans), has somehow helped us? Please list the benefits.

Maybe you can explain how if battle works, why are there still problems?

Shark Inlet said...

Besides the $20k spent per US resident (boy, how much education and health care would that provide?), I tend to agree with 'Toons for another reason.

It seems clear that the "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" (presumably about terrorists) strategy, along with the attack of a country which wasn't demonstrably supporting terrorism has caused massive feelings of ill-will towards the US. Now, some might say that Iraq was supporting terrorism, but evidence of this hasn't been provided.

While there seems to have been fewer terrorist attacks on the US and on American civilians abroad, I suspect that that lull is only temporary because we've given our terrorist enemies some good recruiting tools.

Watershed Mark said...

We will soon see if a "new" President can turn things around to your satisfaction, although it sounds like you will be blaming Bush for everything that happens during the next Adminstration.
A typical liberal "tactic"...

When you do not have a plan it gets difficult to lead, but we shall soon see.

I hope he doesn't let the dogs out...
Remember the first attack on the WTC was during Clinton's term.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

How much are the lives of your children worth?

Is flushing your toilet worth more?

Watershed Mark said...

A few figures for the fire…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll


http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2008/10/october-lowest-death-us-death-toll-in.html


Is Chicago a "civil war, a quagmire....another Vietnam?"

It's official, the month of October 2008 saw the lowest death rate of U.S. troops in Iraq for any month since the war began.

Meanwhile, the murder rate in Obama's home town, Chicago, already the highest in the nation, continues to climb. The murder toll in Chicago for 2008 is 426, which exceeds the U.S. death toll in Iraq for 2008 by 144.

After decades of liberal control with massive federal spending the problem in Chicago just gets worse and worse.

Maybe it is time for a change...

Watershed Mark said...

Then there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg

When President Lincoln ordered American to fight Americans.

In just 3 days the Union under George G. Meadehad 3,155 men were killed while the Confederate under Robert E. Lee lost 4,708 men.

So you see, when you ask about the worth of war, you must wait until history plays out, in oeder to be fully aware of the consequences.

Do I want war, no. Is it necessary, apparently.

Remember the Iraqi Yellow Cake (Resourse) that was recently taken from Iraq and deliverted to Canada?


The Pentagon says the US military secretly transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada this year.

Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Monday that the 550 metric tons of uranium was moved to Baghdad's fortified Green Zone and then transferred to "a third country" by military aircraft where it was shipped to Canada.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=62908&sectionid=351020201

Perhaps it disdn't make your paper.

Churadogs said...

Like Viet Nam, the Iraq War will be fought and refought for years to come. The majority of historians have come to some pretty firm conclusions regarding Viet Nam. A minority of people will NEVER agree because they have too much at stake to have an objective view. The same will happen here. Heck, there are die hard right wingers who still cry over "losing" China, as if China was ours to lose. And as if Viet Nam was ours to lose as well.

Hubris, hubris, hubris and a total lack of historical knowledge always creats messes. In Vietnam, if The Best & The Brightest had bothered to study Viet Nam history, they would have seen that NOBODY invaded and ruled for long. NOBODY. And if the NeoCons had called up some of the old British Hands in their rest home, the old hands would have said, of an Iraqi invasion, "Don't do it sonny." Or if the NeoCons had read the history of the middle east they would have known better. Ignornant Hubris, always gets us into such trouble. Worse, we learn nothing from our debacles.

Worse still, Bush and the NeoCons and the Republicans got stuck in the Cold War Mind Set and locked themselves into the wrong paradign by using the word "war," when what they should have been looking at was "criminal." Muslim terrorists are not "warriors," they are muderous criminals and must be isolated and tracked down by all the world's nations as criminals, not heroic warriors battling Christian Crusaders, & etc.

This "war" on Terror got itself trapped into and blinded by the wrong rhetoric. Same thing happened to the Cold War "domino effect" thinking, with Eeek, Commies in Viet Nam, Cuba, etc. Wrong rhetoric blinds you to the actual reality on the ground.

Hubris, hubris hubris. We never learn.

Watershed Mark said...

Please cite a country in which a war fought by the USA where "we" Ruled ,after it was over.

1871 MIA in Viet Nam http://www.gmasw.com/pow_list.htm

Ann wrote: A minority of people will NEVER agree because they have too much at stake to have an objective view.

You have just described "a" reason for war.

Hitler, represented a small group of people who would not agree...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

If blaming Bush is a typical liberal tactic ... wouldn't giving credit to Bush for the benefits of actions taken under the Clinton administration a typical conservative tactic?

Face it ... when things aren't going well, politicos on both sides say "hey, it's not our fault ... we were dealt a bad hand" and when things are going well, these same folks say that they deserve the credit.

The real question is this ... did the Bush administration have proof ... before invading Iraq ... that the government or people of Iraq were a danger to US citizens or residents? No. Case closed. If later someone finds some hidden U238 it doesn't justify the earlier lack of proof.

Mark, you're arguing essentially that a war can be justified post-hoc, that the lives of Americans count for more than the lives of folks in Iraq and that spending any resource for "safety" is wise. I reject all three arguments.

You have not provided a convincing argument that even if there was Uranium in Iraq that my life or the lives of any US Citizens were threatened. (And if one is a gonna use that line of reasoning, why Iraq and not North Korea or Iran?)

You have not provided us any accept your "us versus them" mentality is appropriate in this situation. Sure, terrorists are a problem ... but we invaded Iraq, a country which wasn't involved in terrorism. A more sound argument could have been made for invading Pakistan than for invading Iraq.

You also haven't convinced me that the cost of this war has been worth it. Again, $20k per human in this country could easily have been spend on other activities which would have done far more to stimulate the economy and to keep us healthier and smarter.

I remain open to hearing a good argument for invading Iraq even though we were attacked by terrorists based elsewhere ... but I haven't seen a sound one yet that isn't hamstrung by some simple questions like "Why not Iran?" or "why not Pakistan?" or "Why not Darfur?"

Until someone puts forward a sound analysis and justification, I'll continue to believe that this war along with the current defense of it is based in sloppy and wishful conservative thinking.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

Putting all politics aside:
We liberated Iraq. Everyone including Kerry and both Clintons argued that there was a nuclear threat possible.
I am happy we didn't wait until the yellowcake was weaponized and delivered.

“No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.”


General George S. Patton

In just 3 days the Union under George G. Meadehad 3,155 men were killed while the Confederate under Robert E. Lee lost 4,708 men.

Please argue the highest value of the lives above...

Please argue that we are not at war with terrorist. You can skip the when and why.

Remember Clinton presided over the first WTC attack.

Watershed Mark said...

BTW Steve, you never did answer the questions:

Steve,

How much are the lives of your children worth?

Is flushing your toilet worth more?

Watershed Mark said...

In just 3 days the Union under George G. Meade had 3,155 men that were killed while the Confederate under Robert E. Lee lost 4,708 men.

Please argue "which lives" were of the higher value...

Watershed Mark said...

hamstrung by some simple questions like "Why not Iran?" or "why not Pakistan?" or "Why not Darfur?"

Why not Chicago?

Watershed Mark said...

wouldn't giving credit to Bush for the benefits of actions taken under the Clinton administration a typical conservative tactic?

Steve please list a few...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Your question about the value of my kids' life is entirely off topic (and rhetorically dishonest to boot) unless you can demonstrate that the war in Iraq has benefited their lives, a claim which I already rejected. Off topic = no need for me to answer to answer. Get it?

Second, because there has been no linkage between Iraq and terrorism, we are not at war over terrorism, but instead for some other reason. Purportedly the reason was to liberate Iraqis or because Saddam refused to follow UN rules about providing information about WMDs.

(As a series of side questions ... Did we ask them whether they wanted to be liberated? did we explain the cost of our liberation effectively throwing their country into chaos? did we mention that considerably more people would die than had Saddam's despotic reign continued? Did we point out that a great many Iraqis would still be subject to the whim of some despot even if there is a democratic government of some sort? Somehow there are a whole set of very predictable outcomes for this war which were glossed over and ignored.)

Do you listen to the radio other than Hannity and other conservative mouth-frothing reactionaries? Do you watch news on TV other than FOX? Do you read the NYTimes, WSJ, LATimes or Washington Post?


The only solid argument for invading Iraq was invented out of thin air and wishful thinking. Conservative dogma and careful handling of the media and public prevented critical thought where it needs to be the most ... in the White House and in the Senate.

Saying that some Uranium was found somewhere in Iraq in the last year or two by no means justifies an invasion five years ago based on invented "intelligence". If there was a solid reason to go to war, it should have been presented before the war. Any fabrication of evidence to achieve the goal of justifying a war is morally reprehensible. Did Jesus preach that the ends justify the means? Did Jesus tell his followers to not evaluate evidence critically?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Mark asks "why not Chicago?"

Assuming you are serious, let me respond by saying that no argument for invading Iraq would apply better to an invasion of Chicago. Stripping the context from my quote obscures the idiocy of your question.

As for actions taken during the Clinton administration which Bush has taken credit for ... um ... the budget was far far closer to in balance under Bill than George II and yet we still hear the myth about how liberals are gonna bankrupt the US but conservatives are the fiscal responsible ones.

No other president has tried a sizable war without arguing for taxes to finance the war. Any fiscally responsible leader would have at least tried to find a way to fund the war during a time when the economy is sound. Long term and/or sizable deficit spending can only be justified during tough times, none of which Bush faced until the last year or two.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,


As you work for "the gubment", I'll assume you are not in business and do not create wealth, so I can understand, but do not agree with, your perspective

If you can name a "fiscally responsible leader” (Save Lincoln) who tried to find a way to fund a war, please advise.
The United States Congress has been deficit spending since WW2 when Democrats held the reigns...

http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/col.cfm?id=237366
After the President submits his budget request, Congress develops its own budget. The Senate Budget Committee writes and passes a budget proposal, which is then voted on by the entire Senate. A parallel process takes place in the House. Next, members of the Senate and House Budget Committees come together to hammer out a joint Congressional Budget Resolution, which specifies how much money Congress may spend and how much revenue should be collected in the coming fiscal year. This Budget Resolution then goes to the full Senate and House to be debated and voted upon.

So you see the Constitution doesn’t let the President create and fund a budget all by himself as you seem to suggest.
I see you are degrading into the labeling game(another liberal tactic) to help you feel good about your beliefs.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

To which I say- RIGHT ON Buddy, that's why we fought the British in 1770's.
FREEDOM is an important part of my belief system, perhaps the most important.

I read, listen and very sparsely watch everything I can.
To tell you the truth it is becoming increasingly difficult to find pure information.

There was intelligence about Uranium and it was found. No fabrication. Case closed.

You seem bored and in need of someone to banter with and I'm sorry, just haven't got the time.

As far as being conservation or liberal, how about we leave it that I am an American. I believe we had better begin to work hard "together" in order to address the real problems that we are "presenting" at this time.

Ya'll are staring down the barrel of a very serious financial commitment. I suggest you begin to ply your efforts towards a real solution.

A Gravity Ox-Ditch will leave a hole in LO/BP that could swallow even professors from Cal-
Poly "whole". If you think there won't be cuts in your budget, you might want to think again.

$200.00/month is a serious nut, just to flush your toilet.
When you run out of water as a result of losing the ability of replenishing your aquifer, you'll be in need of SLOCO supplied Lake Water at who knows what cost.

But those are your problems.
$200.00/month, after taxes, would be a great college fund for your kids, but that's just my opinion.

Watershed Mark said...

wouldn't giving credit to Bush for the benefits of actions taken under the Clinton administration a typical conservative tactic?

Steve please list a few...

Please try again...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark now writes that he doesn't have the time to discuss the issues he raised.

Hmmm ... to me it seems like you have a whole lot of time based on the number of comments you've made.

But ... if you aren't interested in a discussion of the topics you raised, I won't bother. Thanks for playing.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

What? The ws mark of innumerable posts doesn't have the time to banter? I think he is running out of props for his position and rather than really having to think about it, and perhaps give some ground, he would rather bail. Well, ta-ta!

BTW, we have already assessed ourselves to pay for this thing, and since the COUNTY has the project, just what is it you think wecan do? We are following a carefully laid out process which is almost over.

What collection system to you prefer, since that is the largest cost in this project mark? Maybe you'll have time to talk sewer if not politics?

Past the 1/3 of the water to be returned to the lower aquifer from Broderson (from which we drink) it will up to the water purveyors to figure out how to best use the other 66%. Last I noticed, my portfolio does not include a water company in Los Osos.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
When you cannot answer the request for supporting your statements and coninue to scramble around without answering a direct question about a comment you made:
wouldn't giving credit to Bush for the benefits of actions taken under the Clinton administration a typical conservative tactic?

Steve please list a few...

What more do I need to say? This is what I mean when I write I don't have time to banter.

Lynette,

Get a grip. You have some answers outstanding.
Does Iraqi resources ring a bell?

E/One for collection and ECOfluid for treatment.
You'll get a refund on that $25K assessment, instead of more assessment(s).

You two are really quite cute…

Shark Inlet said...

So, do you wanna discuss this issue or not. I made an offhand comment about your offhand comment and now you're trying to make it into a big deal.

However, because you seem pretty obsessed with the issue, it started when you who said that if things go poorly for the Dems, they'll just blame Bush (presumably you feel this would be unfair and dishonest).

This would be about as fair as if the Republicans were to claim that when things go well it is because of their leadership. In both cases, the state of the nation is based on the actions of both groups who led in the recent past.

I already gave you an example, the budget. You want another? The economy. During the early years of this presidency, things were going really smoothly on the economy front and it wasn't because of the actions of the Bush administration. Economists argue that it takes 2-4 years before the impact of the president's policies are felt.

Let me toss another gem out there about deficit spending. Why is it that the US debt grows so much quicker during Republican administrations than during Democratic administrations? Certainly since Carter this has been the case. Can you really say that the recent Republicans have been fiscally responsible? Deficit spending is fine ... during bad times when it is necessary (Keynes and all that), but it must be followed be some belt tightening during good times to balance things out. The Republicans have been in power during some spectacularly good years, economy-wise under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ... and yet they've continued to spend like drunk college students in a liquor store.


Now to a real issue. You suggested earlier that my kids were safer because the US invaded Iraq. To me it seems that because of the increased ill will toward the US, my kids are probably less safe because of the war. They will be poorer, however. So ... do you have any reason for thinking that the war has made us safer? Please explain.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark, perhaps you did not hear or understand what Mark H. of the County said regarding alternative systems. If you can find a contractor that meets the qualifications to bid on the two parts to the project, collection and treatment, please do so! Let us know how that goes! Don't forget, part of the project to bid on will be returning 1/3 of the treated WW to Broderson, OK? If there are no contractors willing to bid on these jobs using these systems, tell us about that too, OK?

As to Iraqi resources ringing a bell, I don't get what you mean unless you are implying we have spent billions and killed and maimed thousands for being able to acquire access to resources? And we did it because we chose to believe lies to justify doing it? Please tell me that isn't what you meant!

Alon Perlman said...

The Word Verification today was
"Salam" which peace in Arabic.
Finally there is a Hero, Muntadar Al-Zeidi, that both Americans and Iraqis can agree on.
And yes, in a third world country shoes are expensive. Feet are,
"Dirty"
and throwing a shoe may well be equivalent to throwing "that which Los Ososans can't agree on".

Churadogs said...

Mark sez:"Please argue that we are not at war with terrorist. You can skip the when and why."

Using the words "at war with terrorists" is simply the wrong description. You might as well say, "We're At War Against EvilDoers." What the hell does that mean? It's ridiculous. Terrorism is a tactic. There are "terrorists" and "rebels" and "revolutionaries" and "patriots," & etc. depending on the country, the issue, the times, so great care must be used to separate sheep from goats. Furthermore, acts of terror (bombing, shooting, burning, etc.) are all CRIMINAL acts and need to be treated as criminal acts by specific people, not some kind of grand philosophy worthy of being called "war." Timothy McVeigh was a criminal. So Kozinsky (sp) the mad mailbox bomber. Criminals. When you use the word "war" you're setting up the wrong paradigm and having the wrong paradigm means you'll reach for the wrong instrument -- like when you call a screw a nail and then reach for a hammer, not a screwdriver. Wrong word results in wrong instrument results in wrong end result.

Watershed Mark said...

The word terrorist can mean:

terrorist is a term with many definitions that usually involve violence against civilians for the advancement of a political view or religious belief.

McVeigh and some gang members are terrorists.

Folks who engage in violence against civilians are those who we are at war with.