I' m just expressing the opinion that censorship is wrong and that when a country says "they are the land of the free" and that they have "free speech" when advocating the strictest censorship policies...
Explain.
YdF
A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
If it refers to my post about Americans raising their children otherwise than English do, the study was talking in terms of extroversion (to the utmost in the case of US) and introversion.
This said, nobody is a foul, and one knows when someone acts very arrogant, even rude, while using only exquisite polite manners.
Censorship is like the rest : good and bad. It depends of how and why it is used.
This said, nobody is a foul, and one knows when someone acts very arrogant, even rude, while using only exquisite polite manners.
Censorship is like the rest : good and bad. It depends of how and why it is used.
Pardon me, but I certainly know that there's "Former Yugoslav Republic of" Macedonia, and they (Macedonians) do speak Macedonian language. It is even teached at many South Slavic cathedras in Europe and US (and at my college in Zagreb, Croatia also).Jinx wrote:There is no such thing as a Macedonian language, unless of course you are reffering to the ancient greek dialect in which case I can assure you that not only it is not forbidden but it is also taught at highschool...
The other thing is similarity of Macedonian with Bulgarian (the both languages are the division of Eastern South Slavic linguistic group), because of what Bulgarian are claiming that Macedonian language doesn't exist. But that's typical Balkan thing, as Serbs are claiming that Croatian language doesn't exist (as Serbian and Croatian are part of same Central-South Slavic linguistic group).
The other other thing is that Greeks are claiming that Macedonia doesn't exist, because that Slavic people - living on territory of ancient Macedonia - took the name of region they're living for centuries. Maybe that get you wrong: there's ancient Macedonian dialect, probably teached at classical philology colleges (I don't know, in high school I learned only classical Greek dialect), and there's Macedonian Slavic language, as there's Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian or Russian language.
Leonard Cohen Newswire / bookoflonging.com (retired) / leonardcohencroatia.com (retired)
(right Tom. That's what I meant. )
My intention is not to insult any one nation.
But very naive.
I mentioned before the problem about crying "fire" in a
crowded theater, when there is no fire, because I believe
that is still the first freedom-of-speech paradox that kids
are required to think about here, in kindergarten.
Later, in high school civics class, kids are forced here
to think about all the other intrinsic conflicts between
"freedom of speech" (non-censorship) on the one hand,
and other values on the other, such as the right to privacy
(read what Dylan has to say about A.J.-garbology-Weberman in Chronicles I),
protection from defamation, copyright protection, etc, etc.
All problems exasperated by the internet.
(search on: "Hellenic Data Protection Authority")
Everybody begins by thinking that censorship is simply evil,
and that freedom is an unadulterated good.
But think just a little deeper into it and you should quickly
see that the devil really is in the details. Especially in countries
unlike Greece that have large minority populations. But even
in Greece I'm sure it can't be that different. Because everybody's
freedom conflicts with and encroaches on everybody else's.
The mature problem is the very real and difficult one of justly
balancing everybody's different interests. Comic book heroes
need not apply for this kind of job.
http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html
It should be compared with the Greek national anthem:
(which is either 2, or 158, or (arbitrarily) in this case 16 stanzas:)
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/solomos2.html
Both anthems are about freedom/liberty.
And I have to admit that the music of the "Star Spangled Banner"
still stirs me, although I can't say if this is on account of its intrinsic
worth, or if it's just a Pavlov-dog reaction on my part. The lyrics
in any case are very fine psychedelia, recording the hallucinogenic
moment of seeing, "by the dawn's early light," old gory, still flying
over Fort McHenry, after a all-nighter of "rockets red flairs
and bombs bursting in air". (I have often felt exactly that way
on finding my car still there, where I parked it, after an all-nighter.
Very inspiring.)
Dionysios Solomos' "Hymn to Liberty" is probably better lyrics.
('though they say it's hard to translate.)
The difference, it seems to me, is that Francis Scott Key's
song is about a moment of almost lost, but not lost, -liberty.
A close-call. One deep exhalation. And then forgot about.
(Americans do take their freedom for granted.)
Solomos' "Hymn to Liberty" does not take liberty for granted.
It's an epic poem about liberty won, lost, betrayed,
won back again. I have been reading up on modern Greek history.
And although the Hymn was written much earlier, I can see it
can be read today as an indictment of the EU and the US.
(Greeks do have much to resent the west for, especially from
around the time of the junta. This is what you and Demetris
should never let be forgotten - rather than criticizing other's
cultural traits that you don't understand.)
These anthems are both about freedom and liberty,
but the "Hymn to Liberty" is really closer in spirit to, say,
"We Shall Overcome", than to the "Star Spangled Banner."
(note: there was once a strong movement in the US to replace
the SSB with WSO as our national anthem.)
Nevertheless the two anthems are just songs.
You can not say they are what "a country says."
A country is not a person.
A country can't say anything.
Or - the one thing you could say "a country says" - is its constitution.
Our "bill of rights". The first 10 amendments.
In fact, it's the very first one.
This is it, in full:
Part I, Section II, Article 3 of the Greek constitution:
Our golden words bubble up in us all the time. But, like
the air, we are never very conscious of what they mean,
until, reading something like the Greek constitution, we
are left gasping for air.
Every day you'll hear someone here saying how it is
that they may not agree - and may even despise - what
someone else is saying - but will defend to the death
their their right to say it. It's that part of Bush's
knee-jerk reaction to Cindy Sheehan:
- and not the "country", - that you meant by:
The difference is absolutely self-evident to an American.
As it can not be, I suspect, to a Greek.
Because you have it in your very constitution - that you can
be prosecuted for "insult to the person of the President of the Republic".
There's just no modulation in that. No safety-valve.
You must either go along your president, or be silent.
Or else you have no choice in the matter - but bloody revolt.
And I think that is a very dangerous setup.
In general you have no idea what a horror it is for an American
to read what I quoted above from the Greek constitution.
The US may or may not be the most religious country on earth.
But one thing is definitely sacrosanct here:
Also there is simply no "by exception" in our first amendment.
It's for these reason that we are indeed "the land of the free".
- rather than totally non-specific about,
- is exactly who it is you mean to say
is "advocating the strictest censorship policies",
(- as YdF also wondered. )
Wal-Mart chose to sell Willie Nelson's "Countryman" CD
with a palm tree in place of the marijuana plant:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/11/wi ... eggae.html
Which is indeed censorship.
But that's Wall-Mart.
It's not the country.
It may even be the attitude of the president. But it's not the government.
Our government could never (well - almost never - blithely ignoring "the patriot act")
- get involved in anything like that.
Please try to become perfectly clear about this.
People are the same everywhere. You find the same types of people
in every place and every time, and in roughly the same proportions,
namely:
10% always saints
10% always evil mothers
10% who always go with the flow
10% who don't understand the question,
10% who don't show up for the class photo,
and the remainder 50% who are actual
or potential Leonard Cohen fans, - ie, too
confused and depressed to be sensibly classified.
Which is to say, you can certainly find and hear
people here advocating "strictest censorship policies"
- and every other hair-brained thing that has
ever popped into a homo sapient skull in history.
And even advocating changes to the constitution
to better reflect their pretty images of themselves.
But you find these people everywhere.
The difference - the thing that does makes this
"the land of the free" - is not that people here
are in any way better or smarter or nicer, or
that everyone here wants it this way. The
difference is in the flukes of history - specifically,
the luck to have a very powerful and flexible and
continuous legal system, rooted in an incredibly
effective and brilliant constitution (by comparisons
to all others.) It takes an awful lot to change our constitution.
This protects us. We tend to take it for granted until times
like now, when the supreme court is under threat.
What it would be is hypocritical, as in:
- IF, that is,
- both the proclamation of freedom,
- and the advocating of censorship,
(- whatever it is you mean by that )
- come from the same domain.
As for, example, they do come from the same domain
in the Greek constitution:
It isn't that exceptions are never desirable or necessary.
It's that they SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
There is no "BY EXCEPTION" in our first amendment.
And yes, our way can and does quite routinely lead to absurdities,
such as Lorena Bobbit claming it her first amendment right
to have cut off her sleeping husband's penis
- her right to self-expression.
But it's far better, we think, that freedom be granted absurdly broadly,
(- not "granted"; --these are our "inalienable rights!" )
-- than that our constitution be weighed down with arbitrary exceptions,
such as loony dictators are famous for cooking up,
that can only be applied by whim
(- as in the case of Gerhard Haderer.)
Not perfect. The US is the oldest existing democracy.
And our laws have been honed over time. They've had to be.
They've had to evolved. they have to continue to
evolve. They worth studying for that reason alone.
Wall-mart's freedom to sell or not to sell whatever it chooses
- in other words, its freedom to censor - is not a constitutional issue.
It's from an altogether different domain.
A Texas radio station's refused to play the Dixie Chicks
is not a constitutional issue.
It is never the government - the country - that does things like that.
More over, that kind of thing is always counter-productive here
on account of the greatest protector of freedom there is - free enterprise.
When anyone tries to suppress anything here - a movie for example
- all it does is attract attention and create a market ,
- the opportunity for someone else to make a buck.
There is nothing that guarantees freedom of speech more decisively than advertising.
For example, the "religious far right" is indeed constantly
"advocating the strictest censorship policies".
But they have no expectation that they will ever substantially suceed at it.
So why do they do it? They do it precisely because it is outlandish here.
It's outlandish here because it's un-constitutional.
That's what attracts attention to it, here.
(I'm not sure what attracts attention to it there,
-when there are far more serious issues closer
to your boarders that you really should be bringing to the
world's attention instead!)
Attention get money.
That's why they do it here.
Besides, an "oxymoron" is a single word or a short figure of speech,
- not distant quotes from the national anthem and the constitution.
Your joining of "land of the free" with "strictest censorship policies"
is what I'd call a "carbonmonoxymoron."
I don't know if you're being sarcastic (ie, racist)
or really don't know what I'm talking about.
The "Macedonian" language in question is a Slavic one.
Here are some random links you can check out about it:
http://www.florina.org/
http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/index.html
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/25963/
http://www.macedonianamerican.org/press ... isCent.htm
So.
I know some about that.
And Tom certainly knows more than I do about it.
But you, apparently, know nothing about it.
And if that's really the case, then obviously censorship
in Greece is very effective indeed, and quite perverse.
And children there do not "turn out fine".
============
But a much clearer expose of your assertion:
is the recent case of Gerhard Haderer.
eg:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/sto ... 08,00.html
http://www.indexonline.org/en/indexinde ... comi.shtml
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/F ... rd_Haderer
~greg
Likewise.Jinx wrote: What a thing to say...
I certaintly am not arrogant and my intention was not to insult anyone's nation...
My intention is not to insult any one nation.
That's wonderful.Jinx wrote: I'm just expressing the opinion that censorship is wrong
But very naive.
I mentioned before the problem about crying "fire" in a
crowded theater, when there is no fire, because I believe
that is still the first freedom-of-speech paradox that kids
are required to think about here, in kindergarten.
Later, in high school civics class, kids are forced here
to think about all the other intrinsic conflicts between
"freedom of speech" (non-censorship) on the one hand,
and other values on the other, such as the right to privacy
(read what Dylan has to say about A.J.-garbology-Weberman in Chronicles I),
protection from defamation, copyright protection, etc, etc.
All problems exasperated by the internet.
(search on: "Hellenic Data Protection Authority")
Everybody begins by thinking that censorship is simply evil,
and that freedom is an unadulterated good.
But think just a little deeper into it and you should quickly
see that the devil really is in the details. Especially in countries
unlike Greece that have large minority populations. But even
in Greece I'm sure it can't be that different. Because everybody's
freedom conflicts with and encroaches on everybody else's.
The mature problem is the very real and difficult one of justly
balancing everybody's different interests. Comic book heroes
need not apply for this kind of job.
You are quoting from our national anthem:Jinx wrote: and that when a country says "they are the land of the free"
http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html
It should be compared with the Greek national anthem:
(which is either 2, or 158, or (arbitrarily) in this case 16 stanzas:)
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/solomos2.html
Both anthems are about freedom/liberty.
And I have to admit that the music of the "Star Spangled Banner"
still stirs me, although I can't say if this is on account of its intrinsic
worth, or if it's just a Pavlov-dog reaction on my part. The lyrics
in any case are very fine psychedelia, recording the hallucinogenic
moment of seeing, "by the dawn's early light," old gory, still flying
over Fort McHenry, after a all-nighter of "rockets red flairs
and bombs bursting in air". (I have often felt exactly that way
on finding my car still there, where I parked it, after an all-nighter.
Very inspiring.)
Dionysios Solomos' "Hymn to Liberty" is probably better lyrics.
('though they say it's hard to translate.)
The difference, it seems to me, is that Francis Scott Key's
song is about a moment of almost lost, but not lost, -liberty.
A close-call. One deep exhalation. And then forgot about.
(Americans do take their freedom for granted.)
Solomos' "Hymn to Liberty" does not take liberty for granted.
It's an epic poem about liberty won, lost, betrayed,
won back again. I have been reading up on modern Greek history.
And although the Hymn was written much earlier, I can see it
can be read today as an indictment of the EU and the US.
(Greeks do have much to resent the west for, especially from
around the time of the junta. This is what you and Demetris
should never let be forgotten - rather than criticizing other's
cultural traits that you don't understand.)
These anthems are both about freedom and liberty,
but the "Hymn to Liberty" is really closer in spirit to, say,
"We Shall Overcome", than to the "Star Spangled Banner."
(note: there was once a strong movement in the US to replace
the SSB with WSO as our national anthem.)
Nevertheless the two anthems are just songs.
You can not say they are what "a country says."
A country is not a person.
A country can't say anything.
Or - the one thing you could say "a country says" - is its constitution.
That is a quote from our constitution.Jinx wrote: and that they have "free speech"
Our "bill of rights". The first 10 amendments.
In fact, it's the very first one.
This is it, in full:
Which has to be immediately constrasted withCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Part I, Section II, Article 3 of the Greek constitution:
and to Part II, Article 14, of the Greek constitution:Article 3 [Relations of Church and State]
(1) The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ.
The Orthodox Church of Greece acknowledging as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ
is indissolubly united in doctrine with the Great Church of Constantinople
and every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine.
It observes steadfastly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodical canons
and the holy tradition. It is autocephalous, exercising its sovereign rights
independently of any other church, and is administered by the Holy Synod of Bishops
and the Parliament Holy Synod which emanates from the former
and is constituted in accordance with the Constitutional Chart
of the Church and the provisions of the Patriarchal Document
of 29 June 1850 and the Synodal Deed of 4 September 1928.
(2) The religious status prevailing in certain parts of the State
is not contrary to the provisions of the aforegoing paragraph.
(3) The text of the Holy Scriptures shall be maintained unaltered.
The official translation thereof into any other linguistic form,
without the sanction of the Autocephalous Church of Greece
and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.
http://www.hri.org/MFA/syntagma/artcl25.html
Americans certainly do take their freedoms for granted.(1) Any person may express and propagate his opinion orally, in writing, or in print,
with due adherence to the laws of the State.
(2) The press is free. Censorship and all preventive measures are prohibited.
(3) The seizure of newspapers and other printed matter, either before or after circulation,
is prohibited.
By exception, seizure after publication is permitted
upon instruction by the Public Prosecutor
because of:
a) insult to the Christian and all other known religions,
b) insult to the person of the President of the Republic,
c) a publication which discloses information relating to the composition,
armament, and disposition of the armed forces or the fortifications of the country,
or aims at violently overthrowing the political system or is directed against
the territorial integrity of the State,
d) obscene publications which manifestly offend public decency,
in the cases specified by law.
. . .
http://www.hri.org/MFA/syntagma/artcl25.html
Our golden words bubble up in us all the time. But, like
the air, we are never very conscious of what they mean,
until, reading something like the Greek constitution, we
are left gasping for air.
Every day you'll hear someone here saying how it is
that they may not agree - and may even despise - what
someone else is saying - but will defend to the death
their their right to say it. It's that part of Bush's
knee-jerk reaction to Cindy Sheehan:
And I'm almost certain that it's none other than our presidente Bushshe has every right in the world to say what she believes.
This is America.
- and not the "country", - that you meant by:
Because we never confuse president with country here.Jinx wrote: when a country says "they are the land of the free" and that they have "free speech"
The difference is absolutely self-evident to an American.
As it can not be, I suspect, to a Greek.
Because you have it in your very constitution - that you can
be prosecuted for "insult to the person of the President of the Republic".
There's just no modulation in that. No safety-valve.
You must either go along your president, or be silent.
Or else you have no choice in the matter - but bloody revolt.
And I think that is a very dangerous setup.
In general you have no idea what a horror it is for an American
to read what I quoted above from the Greek constitution.
The US may or may not be the most religious country on earth.
But one thing is definitely sacrosanct here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Also there is simply no "by exception" in our first amendment.
It's for these reason that we are indeed "the land of the free".
The one thing which you really should have been totally specific about,Jinx wrote: when advocating the strictest censorship policies...
- rather than totally non-specific about,
- is exactly who it is you mean to say
is "advocating the strictest censorship policies",
(- as YdF also wondered. )
Wal-Mart chose to sell Willie Nelson's "Countryman" CD
with a palm tree in place of the marijuana plant:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/11/wi ... eggae.html
Which is indeed censorship.
But that's Wall-Mart.
It's not the country.
It may even be the attitude of the president. But it's not the government.
Our government could never (well - almost never - blithely ignoring "the patriot act")
- get involved in anything like that.
Please try to become perfectly clear about this.
People are the same everywhere. You find the same types of people
in every place and every time, and in roughly the same proportions,
namely:
10% always saints
10% always evil mothers
10% who always go with the flow
10% who don't understand the question,
10% who don't show up for the class photo,
and the remainder 50% who are actual
or potential Leonard Cohen fans, - ie, too
confused and depressed to be sensibly classified.
Which is to say, you can certainly find and hear
people here advocating "strictest censorship policies"
- and every other hair-brained thing that has
ever popped into a homo sapient skull in history.
And even advocating changes to the constitution
to better reflect their pretty images of themselves.
But you find these people everywhere.
The difference - the thing that does makes this
"the land of the free" - is not that people here
are in any way better or smarter or nicer, or
that everyone here wants it this way. The
difference is in the flukes of history - specifically,
the luck to have a very powerful and flexible and
continuous legal system, rooted in an incredibly
effective and brilliant constitution (by comparisons
to all others.) It takes an awful lot to change our constitution.
This protects us. We tend to take it for granted until times
like now, when the supreme court is under threat.
No it isn't.Jinx wrote: Well that's an oxymoron...
What it would be is hypocritical, as in:
follow me the wise man said
but he walked behind
- IF, that is,
- both the proclamation of freedom,
- and the advocating of censorship,
(- whatever it is you mean by that )
- come from the same domain.
As for, example, they do come from the same domain
in the Greek constitution:
[caps mine, showing the internal contradictions](1) Any person may express and propagate his opinion orally, in writing, or in print,
- WITH DUE ADHERENCE TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE
(2) The press is free. Censorship and all preventive measures are prohibited.
(3) The seizure of newspapers and other printed matter, either before or after circulation, is prohibited.
BY EXCEPTION, SEIZURE AFTER PUBLICATION IS PERMITTED
UPON INSTRUCTION BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BECAUSE OF:
A) INSULT TO THE CHRISTIAN AND ALL OTHER KNOWN RELIGIONS,
B) INSULT TO THE PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
C) A PUBLICATION WHICH DISCLOSES INFORMATION
RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION, ARMAMENT, AND DISPOSITION
OF THE ARMED FORCES OR THE FORTIFICATIONS OF THE COUNTRY, OR AIMS AT VIOLENTLY
OVERTHROWING THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OR IS DIRECTED AGAINST
THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE STATE,
D) OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS WHICH MANIFESTLY OFFEND PUBLIC DECENCY,
IN THE CASES SPECIFIED BY LAW
...
http://www.hri.org/MFA/syntagma/artcl25.html
It isn't that exceptions are never desirable or necessary.
It's that they SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
There is no "BY EXCEPTION" in our first amendment.
And yes, our way can and does quite routinely lead to absurdities,
such as Lorena Bobbit claming it her first amendment right
to have cut off her sleeping husband's penis
- her right to self-expression.
But it's far better, we think, that freedom be granted absurdly broadly,
(- not "granted"; --these are our "inalienable rights!" )
-- than that our constitution be weighed down with arbitrary exceptions,
such as loony dictators are famous for cooking up,
that can only be applied by whim
(- as in the case of Gerhard Haderer.)
Not perfect. The US is the oldest existing democracy.
And our laws have been honed over time. They've had to be.
They've had to evolved. they have to continue to
evolve. They worth studying for that reason alone.
Wall-mart's freedom to sell or not to sell whatever it chooses
- in other words, its freedom to censor - is not a constitutional issue.
It's from an altogether different domain.
A Texas radio station's refused to play the Dixie Chicks
is not a constitutional issue.
It is never the government - the country - that does things like that.
More over, that kind of thing is always counter-productive here
on account of the greatest protector of freedom there is - free enterprise.
When anyone tries to suppress anything here - a movie for example
- all it does is attract attention and create a market ,
- the opportunity for someone else to make a buck.
There is nothing that guarantees freedom of speech more decisively than advertising.
For example, the "religious far right" is indeed constantly
"advocating the strictest censorship policies".
But they have no expectation that they will ever substantially suceed at it.
So why do they do it? They do it precisely because it is outlandish here.
It's outlandish here because it's un-constitutional.
That's what attracts attention to it, here.
(I'm not sure what attracts attention to it there,
-when there are far more serious issues closer
to your boarders that you really should be bringing to the
world's attention instead!)
Attention get money.
That's why they do it here.
Besides, an "oxymoron" is a single word or a short figure of speech,
- not distant quotes from the national anthem and the constitution.
An oxymoron is a phrase or expression with an apparent inbuilt contradiction such as "Hugely
tiny", "The Best of Leonard Cohen", "Minimalism to the Max", "Laura Ashley Style","police
intelligence" or "government assistance". Of course, whether the last two are oxymoronic depends
on your point of view. The main joy of oxymorons is being able to demonstrate that you know what
the word "oxymoron" means at dinner parties and being able to keep a flagging conversation going
for at least another 5 minutes with some shining examples.
http://wossname.thingy.com/modest.htm
Your joining of "land of the free" with "strictest censorship policies"
is what I'd call a "carbonmonoxymoron."
Jinx wrote: And Greg I can't understand what you are talking about... There is no such thing as a Macedonian
language, unless of course you are reffering to the ancient greek dialect in which case I can
assure you that not only it is not forbidden but it is also taught at highschool...
I don't know if you're being sarcastic (ie, racist)
or really don't know what I'm talking about.
The "Macedonian" language in question is a Slavic one.
Here are some random links you can check out about it:
http://www.florina.org/
http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/index.html
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/25963/
http://www.macedonianamerican.org/press ... isCent.htm
So.
I know some about that.
And Tom certainly knows more than I do about it.
But you, apparently, know nothing about it.
And if that's really the case, then obviously censorship
in Greece is very effective indeed, and quite perverse.
And children there do not "turn out fine".
============
But a much clearer expose of your assertion:
Jinx wrote: By the way, We don't have censorship or PG ratings here in Greece.
And our children turn out fine...
is the recent case of Gerhard Haderer.
eg:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/sto ... 08,00.html
http://www.indexonline.org/en/indexinde ... comi.shtml
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/F ... rd_Haderer
~greg
Dear Greg,
Let me add my bravo's to Bee's. I have a couple of items to discuss that fit in with your discussion vis-a-vis the constitution of the U. S. I read a transcript of the oral arguments made before the Supreme Court a few years ago in the landmark decision that held constitutional the burning of the U. S. Flag as an act of free speech. The court questioned closely whether someone stealing a flag or spitting on it, for example, as a dispute among neighbors, would be covered by laws meant to protect property. It became clear to the court that the act of defiance in protest of the action of the country was a clearly held "right" under our constitution. There is now a movement afoot to place "flag burning" under a constitutional amendment that would protect it from desecration. I think this is very unlikely to happen.
I have mentioned before the paradox that the two most revered documents in our country-the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are at odds with each other. There is a pole of liberty and a pole of order and we swing widely back and forth amidst our diverse political climate. Circumstances and historical perspective govern the will of the people. It is no secret that the September 11th attacks pushed this country further toward the pole of order. The Patriot Act is a direct result of this desire. You can be sure that there will be future circumstances that will cause us to move closer to the pole of liberty.
But one of the blessings of our country is the relative political forgiveness that is granted and has since the days that George Washington chose to allow the Tories to remain citizens in good stead. This favorable climate has survived from the time of the Civil War to the pardoning of Richard Nixon and the amnesty granted the Viet Nam War protestors.
Anne and I traveled to Greece via Turkey. When we came through immigration, there were two lines-one for those from E. U. countries and one for those who were non-E. U. countries. As a result we were two lone Americans in a sea of Turks. It was clear and plainly told to us that the immigration people had bigger fish to fry than Anne and I.
Like Greg, I have no desire to engage in a series of political finger-pointing. I can only echo F. R. Scott in admiring the architecture of the U. S. Constitution.
Joe
Let me add my bravo's to Bee's. I have a couple of items to discuss that fit in with your discussion vis-a-vis the constitution of the U. S. I read a transcript of the oral arguments made before the Supreme Court a few years ago in the landmark decision that held constitutional the burning of the U. S. Flag as an act of free speech. The court questioned closely whether someone stealing a flag or spitting on it, for example, as a dispute among neighbors, would be covered by laws meant to protect property. It became clear to the court that the act of defiance in protest of the action of the country was a clearly held "right" under our constitution. There is now a movement afoot to place "flag burning" under a constitutional amendment that would protect it from desecration. I think this is very unlikely to happen.
I have mentioned before the paradox that the two most revered documents in our country-the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are at odds with each other. There is a pole of liberty and a pole of order and we swing widely back and forth amidst our diverse political climate. Circumstances and historical perspective govern the will of the people. It is no secret that the September 11th attacks pushed this country further toward the pole of order. The Patriot Act is a direct result of this desire. You can be sure that there will be future circumstances that will cause us to move closer to the pole of liberty.
But one of the blessings of our country is the relative political forgiveness that is granted and has since the days that George Washington chose to allow the Tories to remain citizens in good stead. This favorable climate has survived from the time of the Civil War to the pardoning of Richard Nixon and the amnesty granted the Viet Nam War protestors.
Anne and I traveled to Greece via Turkey. When we came through immigration, there were two lines-one for those from E. U. countries and one for those who were non-E. U. countries. As a result we were two lone Americans in a sea of Turks. It was clear and plainly told to us that the immigration people had bigger fish to fry than Anne and I.
Like Greg, I have no desire to engage in a series of political finger-pointing. I can only echo F. R. Scott in admiring the architecture of the U. S. Constitution.
Joe
-
linda_lakeside
- Posts: 3857
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea..
~greg,
Another wonderful post! You certainly seem to know what your point is and make it, backed by facts (as well as your own sly sense of humour). Although, I'm sure there is plenty of room for debate from some corners, and plain ol' crabbiness from others.
Thanks for giving us all something to chew on.
Linda.
Another wonderful post! You certainly seem to know what your point is and make it, backed by facts (as well as your own sly sense of humour). Although, I'm sure there is plenty of room for debate from some corners, and plain ol' crabbiness from others.
Thanks for giving us all something to chew on.
Linda.
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
Thanks Greg to illustrate what I meant. Extroversion.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens - but I guess we could go with just one "Sapiens" for buddies - has a big brain reported to be the main tool of survival of the species, although some also say that it could end in the secretions of the viscera. Go figure. It may be like for censorship (and money) : it depends of how one is using it.
Reminds me of the big question : should we tolerate intolerance?
As far as I can see it is the follow-up of an old argumentation between some of you, the sport of eloquence being more important than anything else - the more impressive forms win, even over the issue of the discussion. Just like Ancient Greeks were doing. Funny. (And I think to myself "Lets rock the craddle", a little bit, where ever it is now.)
Homo Sapiens Sapiens - but I guess we could go with just one "Sapiens" for buddies - has a big brain reported to be the main tool of survival of the species, although some also say that it could end in the secretions of the viscera. Go figure. It may be like for censorship (and money) : it depends of how one is using it.
Reminds me of the big question : should we tolerate intolerance?
As far as I can see it is the follow-up of an old argumentation between some of you, the sport of eloquence being more important than anything else - the more impressive forms win, even over the issue of the discussion. Just like Ancient Greeks were doing. Funny. (And I think to myself "Lets rock the craddle", a little bit, where ever it is now.)
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am
As far as I can see it is the follow-up of an old argumentation between some of you, the sport of eloquence being more important than anything else - the more impressive forms win, even over the issue of the discussion.
O.K. Greg, no more eloquence...just use emoticons from now on.
The Great Unconsciousness has spoken.
YdF
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
Oh dear...
I am sorry but my time is limited so I will just answer what I think is important to clarify...
First of all I'm sorry for the bad timing.
Having said that:
Greece does not recognise "Macedonia " as Macedonia. That is not to say that we do not recognise the nation or their language... It is to say that there is a Macedonia in northern Greece and we don't want the historical region that gave birth to Alexander the Great (although I'm not a fan of the guy) to be confused with another country...
I am not a racist. That's one of the worst insults you could hurl at me...
I don't like being patronized, I'm not naive and I didn't mean Bush (Clinton wasn't much better)
It's America's political system which is at fault, not it's presidents and certaintly not it's people.
That's about it.
Oh, and you don't need to quote constitutions and hymns and whatnot...
they don't mean a thing in the real world's "man in the street"
I am sorry but my time is limited so I will just answer what I think is important to clarify...
First of all I'm sorry for the bad timing.
Having said that:
Greece does not recognise "Macedonia " as Macedonia. That is not to say that we do not recognise the nation or their language... It is to say that there is a Macedonia in northern Greece and we don't want the historical region that gave birth to Alexander the Great (although I'm not a fan of the guy) to be confused with another country...
I am not a racist. That's one of the worst insults you could hurl at me...
I don't like being patronized, I'm not naive and I didn't mean Bush (Clinton wasn't much better)
It's America's political system which is at fault, not it's presidents and certaintly not it's people.
That's about it.
Oh, and you don't need to quote constitutions and hymns and whatnot...
they don't mean a thing in the real world's "man in the street"
And I thank you, I thank you
for doing your duty
You keepers of peace, you guardians of duty.
Your vision is right, my vision is wrong
I'm sorry for smudging the air with my song...
for doing your duty
You keepers of peace, you guardians of duty.
Your vision is right, my vision is wrong
I'm sorry for smudging the air with my song...
But you could consider your (Greek) attitude to Macedonia, i.e your opinion that the name of historical Macedonia can't be given to Slavic people living in that area. I do not know any Macedonian and never was there, but I learned some thing from Yugoslavian wars. This idea about "historical" right is rooted in *very* nationalistic ideas, like Serbian idea that Kosovo is their because it's "historical" Serbian province although there are now vats majority of Albanians (Kosovars are they called now, it seems). Or Croatian idea that Bosnia is their because it used to be Croatian province in middle age, before the Turkish invasions. First, I am not sure that Greek has any "historical" rights to claim Macedonia was Greek? Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought there was ancient Greek, Athens, Sparta etc, and Macedonia. Alexander anyhow occupated the classic Greek, didn't he? Obviously, today Macedonia is part of Greek natioan myth.Jinx wrote:Greece does not recognise "Macedonia " as Macedonia. That is not to say that we do not recognise the nation or their language... It is to say that there is a Macedonia in northern Greece and we don't want the historical region that gave birth to Alexander the Great (although I'm not a fan of the guy) to be confused with another country...
I am not a racist. That's one of the worst insults you could hurl at me...
Slavic people in Europe mostly didn't have their own natioan names in early middle age, but they took various names in their genesis. Croatian and Serbs were only to have its won name among South Slavs. Consider how many Slavic people are actually called "Slavs". In Croatia there's region called Slavonia, next to Croatia is country Slovenia (people Slovenians), and beside Chech Republic is Slovakia (people Slovaks). Slovenian nation, and Slovakian, were built in national movement around 1848, as most of contemporary European nations. Monenegro (Crna Gora) is, as both international and original name says: Black Mountain. Macedonian (Slavic) nation was shaped as nation in early 20th century, and they took the name of the province they lived in (six Yugoslav republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia). Macedonia got state under Tito, in 1945, so Greece is 50 years to late to claim the name: it had to be done then, with Tito. And speaking of making the nation: Bosnian nation is shaped only no, in last ten years. In Yugoslavi, Bosnia-Hercegovina was having three nations: Croatians, Serbs and Muslims. After they made state in 1992, Muslims are developing their own nation and they claim the name Bosnians - according to country they live in. Of course, there are far to many Croats mad about it - just like you in Greece about Macedonia - but you can't forbid someone to decide what the name of his language (Bosnian) or country or nation will be.
Leonard Cohen Newswire / bookoflonging.com (retired) / leonardcohencroatia.com (retired)