I think my hand would stay down, too
Influence: Dean Barnett posting at Hugh Hewitt's website. He is a GREAT addition to that site, by the way!
Blogger/author Glenn Greenwald set out to debunk Mark Steyn on his website the other day. In the midst of his article he writes:
"The ironies of this disturbed war dance are virtually infinite, the most obvious one being that the Steyn Warriors can never point to any sacrifices they make or risks they incur. But the most striking irony is this. [sic] So much of the neoconservative warrior cries are built on an ethos of deep fear, of exactly the desperate desire to be protected and saved which Steyn and company claim is the hallmark of the girlish, soul-less West. As they strike the warrior pose, they are desperately willing, even eager, to fundamentally change the character and principles of our republic and to sacrifice the core liberties which define it because they are scared and want, more than anything else, to be protected."
All right, how about this in response: everyone who DOESN'T want --more than anything else--protection from threats to your life and the lives of your loved ones, raise your hand.
Anybody?? Bueller?????
I didn't think so.
Talk about your non-sequitors. (I've ALWAYS wanted to use that term! Did I use it correctly?)
My favorite part is the "[s]o much of the neoconservative warrior cries are built on an ethos of deep fear, of exactly the desperate desire to be protected and saved which Steyn and company claim is the hallmark of the girlish, soul-less West" line. Well, if he's writing about protection and "being saved" from physical harm, then I daresay that most conservatives would probably tell you that the "girlish, soul-less West" (I'm assuming from the context that he is describing how the right refers to liberals--although these are new words to me) DOESN'T have an interest in being protected or saved--or at least not at the expense of being seen as "unenlightened" or "boorish". I can assure you that I, for one, would never describe "protection" from physical harm as a hallmark of liberal thought.
Greenwald goes on to point out the number of people (intellectual lightweights, you'd assume from how they are highlighted in his piece) who have noted that civil liberties don't mean much when you're dead. Granted, the verbiage used by the highlighted mouthpieces may not be the height of stimulating intellectual debate on the conservative side. But what these supposed simpletons are likely trying to describe, however clumsily, is the relation between the government's job of protecting the rights of the citizens and its job of protecting the lives of the citizens. The quoted subjects in Greenwald's piece are stressing the belief that the rights granted by a government to a citizenry mean little if the government is unable to protect the lives of those citizens. And that's a point that considers more than a brief consideration, regardless of the wording used to get the point across.
I remember hearing somewhere--maybe even somewhere famous, in a document written by the most enlightened people of the time or something like that-- that the purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And maybe I'm being crazy, but I have to believe that the authors listed them in that order for a reason.
You see, there was a time when authors were actually articulate and were able to express precisely the thoughts that they wanted to convey to the audience.
Life before Liberty--that isn't an accident, folks.
Blogger/author Glenn Greenwald set out to debunk Mark Steyn on his website the other day. In the midst of his article he writes:
"The ironies of this disturbed war dance are virtually infinite, the most obvious one being that the Steyn Warriors can never point to any sacrifices they make or risks they incur. But the most striking irony is this. [sic] So much of the neoconservative warrior cries are built on an ethos of deep fear, of exactly the desperate desire to be protected and saved which Steyn and company claim is the hallmark of the girlish, soul-less West. As they strike the warrior pose, they are desperately willing, even eager, to fundamentally change the character and principles of our republic and to sacrifice the core liberties which define it because they are scared and want, more than anything else, to be protected."
All right, how about this in response: everyone who DOESN'T want --more than anything else--protection from threats to your life and the lives of your loved ones, raise your hand.
Anybody?? Bueller?????
I didn't think so.
Talk about your non-sequitors. (I've ALWAYS wanted to use that term! Did I use it correctly?)
My favorite part is the "[s]o much of the neoconservative warrior cries are built on an ethos of deep fear, of exactly the desperate desire to be protected and saved which Steyn and company claim is the hallmark of the girlish, soul-less West" line. Well, if he's writing about protection and "being saved" from physical harm, then I daresay that most conservatives would probably tell you that the "girlish, soul-less West" (I'm assuming from the context that he is describing how the right refers to liberals--although these are new words to me) DOESN'T have an interest in being protected or saved--or at least not at the expense of being seen as "unenlightened" or "boorish". I can assure you that I, for one, would never describe "protection" from physical harm as a hallmark of liberal thought.
Greenwald goes on to point out the number of people (intellectual lightweights, you'd assume from how they are highlighted in his piece) who have noted that civil liberties don't mean much when you're dead. Granted, the verbiage used by the highlighted mouthpieces may not be the height of stimulating intellectual debate on the conservative side. But what these supposed simpletons are likely trying to describe, however clumsily, is the relation between the government's job of protecting the rights of the citizens and its job of protecting the lives of the citizens. The quoted subjects in Greenwald's piece are stressing the belief that the rights granted by a government to a citizenry mean little if the government is unable to protect the lives of those citizens. And that's a point that considers more than a brief consideration, regardless of the wording used to get the point across.
I remember hearing somewhere--maybe even somewhere famous, in a document written by the most enlightened people of the time or something like that-- that the purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And maybe I'm being crazy, but I have to believe that the authors listed them in that order for a reason.
You see, there was a time when authors were actually articulate and were able to express precisely the thoughts that they wanted to convey to the audience.
Life before Liberty--that isn't an accident, folks.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home