One of the Zero Hedge commenters adds: "BREAKING: Washington Redskins drop "Washington" from their name because it's embarrassing." Ross Douthat, on the other hand, probably would say their methods are unsound. And Glenn Beck organizes volunteers to clean the Mall up, because the National Park Service has been too busy harassing veterans to do its job.
Weaslezippers has a good round up of pictures as well as video and live stream. One of my favorites is the sign posted on the Spite House fence saying, "I was only following orders" didn't work at the Nuremburg trials, they won't work here either. And then there's the "Recycle....for a brighter future" sign placed in the middle of a stack of *Barrycades*.
ReplyDelete*snicker*
*snort snort*
heh
0>;~}
I'm appreciating this Outlaw streak you're showing lately, Tex. :)
ReplyDeleteOne of the things some of my liberal friends say is that there's no point in resisting, because no resistance could overcome the might of the US Armed Forces. That's questionable on several levels, but it doesn't hold at all if the elected government convinces the military that it is illegitimate. Messing with veterans and veterans' memorials -- to say nothing of cutting off death benefits for fallen Rangers -- is unwise in the extreme.
I just wonder if the NPS is going to put all those Barrycades back up...
ReplyDeleteIt's your impression I seemed less lawless earlier? :-)
ReplyDeleteMLB, they did this morning. Doug Powers has the the round-up on Michelle Malkin's site.
ReplyDeleteOh, and shouldn't that be Mrs. Ladybug now??
0>;~}
Tex,
ReplyDeleteLawless? I wouldn't apply the word to you. That you have chosen your laws for yourself doesn't make you less lawful. Those principles you have taken for your laws appear to guide you with something like the force of laws of nature.
This is no criticism, just an observation. :)
Well, isn't that the same thing as an Outlaw streak? It's just a question of being inner-directed.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm not outstandingly lawless when it comes to facing personal consequences--only in the sense that rules don't trouble me psychologically unless I agree with them. I usually play it pretty safe when it comes to consequences. So I admire people who take risks in the name of doing what's right.
It may be the same thing as you having an Outlaw streak. :) But there are different kind of outlaws. Your kind may be among the more creditable. There's the worst kind, too, which has only a passing and lawless will -- a thing that desires what it does, without regard to principles.
ReplyDeleteWhat you seem to do when thinking about a problem is to decide which of your set of principles to apply to it, and then do so to determine what you think is right. You make no appeal to the authority of governments or bodies of people, but you do stand on the authority of certain sets of ideas you consider proven.
These ideas -- free-market capitalism, say -- act in their sphere like laws of nature. The correct solution, for you, is the one that correctly applies the right set of the laws given the kind of problem you see.
So it's a very lawful approach, and not a very willful one. It's different from how I approach problems, but it's also different from the "worst kind" approach I mentioned above. And yet all three could be described as Outlaw, in their way.
Yes, it's a question of which law one applies. I do believe in laws, just not always the same ones as other people, and I'm comfortable with the difference. I don't feel shame unless I agree with the law. I do feel caution.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with caution. :) My wife always praises me highly when I manage to recognize that it's appropriate and exercise it. I'm just not afraid very much.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, the issue is whether the laws we think we know are valid. That occupies a lot of my attention. In a way, it's the real business of philosophy: going down to the very foundations, and shaking them to see if they're solid.
Not sure that's really a better way to be, but it's mine. It's incompatible with a lawful approach in a fundamental way, because I'm never sure I believe the laws exist at all.
Right--I never consider a human law binding per se, but there are times when I consider a higher law to obligate me to obey a human law.
ReplyDelete