Today's Lesson is "Who is the Greatest Dang Terrorist?"
Who is the Greatest Dang Terrorist?
or
Some Especially Hard Core Boring Political Commentary
In the good old days when literacy was more widespread, terror was narrowly defined by Ms. Merriam Webster, 4th entry, 9th ed. as violence (as bomb throwing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. Terrorism, on the other hand, was defined as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion. Ms. Webster does not define terrorist, but we may assume that if she had, defined terrorist, the definition would have run something like a person who practices the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
Interestingly, the terror and terrorism and terrorist definitions make no specific mention of the possiblity that terror may be practiced by those holding state power. Yet, those holding state power have terrorized segments of their own populations and the populations of other countries, also. For example, Comrade Lenin, aggravated by attacks against the fledgling presumptive Bolshevik government remarked something like, The solution to the White Terror is the Red Terror, and Lenin was one of those kindly fatherly figures that meant just what he said, so a great many of the White Terrorists perished at his hands, the Red Terror. This included taking hostage (oh my goodness) the families of suspected terrorists. Saddam Hussein is another practitioner of state terror, although technically, that remains to be proven.
Which brings us to Harry Belafonte and the spells he has pronounced recently. The spell Harry Belafonte used that especially caught the attention of all the TV liars and gluttons was "Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world". We, the Cow Barn Druidry, surmise that Bush is a terrorist, maybe* (his prosecution of the war in Iraq, remember Shock and Awe, and subsequent developments, seem close enough to the defintions of terror and terrorist to convince us that Bush is the same difference as a terrorist), but we are perplexed by Mr. Belafonte's use of the qualifier "greatest". So far as we are aware, Bush's terror campaign has been limited to Iraq, with maybe just a few teeny-weeny and secretive excursions outside Iraq so we are not sure he is the greatest terrorist. Also, we are not sure what Mr. Belafonte means by greatest. But then we are no longer sure what anyone means by greatest. Greatest is a very confusing adjective/spell. On the other hand, we are also, generally speaking, not black, so Mr. Belafonte, who is black, may know something we don't. After all terror was? employed against blacks for a very long spell in these parts.
What if we were to spell, Osama bin Laden is the world's tallest terrorist? That might not raise many eyebrows, for Osama is known to be taller than average. But would the spell reflect reality or merely be an attempt, by us, to influence perceptions of reality? Or, we might spell, Kim Il Jong is the shortest practitioner of state sponsored terror. Now, and this is important, please note that in these two examples, the qualifiers, tallest and shortest, are measurable, or would be if we could round up all the data elements and subject them to a proper range wanding.
Druids, shielded by the Goddess and our trainin', don't take much stock in terror. Meaning we are not scared of some character stealin' one of our own airplanes, ag'in and runnin' it into the CB. Moreover, we are not foretellin' any other likely possibilities of that general category. On the other hand, we are foretellin', that if ye give too much power to a crazy person that has liars and gluttons as his most intimate associates, misfortunes will certainly result.
_____
*Terror promulgated by state action, either directly or through surrogates, has long been routine probably, but shrouded in secrecy, maybe. And now perhaps, with avowed terrorists getting themselves elected to governments, perhaps the veil of secrecy will be lifted.
The Arkdruid
_____
Hold it Arkdruid. We fergot some stuff.
Many are those who might presume to have a prideful opinion like, "Yes, Bush is the greatest terrorist, and he's our terrorist." Purty funny when ye think about it.
Or, it's OK to terrorize terrorists, and anyone else who may be in the same country as the terrorists, although we are sorry about the latter if they were truly innocents which they probably weren't, innocents. Actually though, we really don't care.
It's also OK to wage terror campaigns against other countries because you don't like the way they look and you want to change the appearance of their leaders. This usually occurs when they have something you want.
But seriously, there are also many who believe a president of these Yorenited States could never, no matter how remotely, be spelled, terrorist, because such a spell is a contradiction in terms. And any activities resembling terror, and that have the same results as terror, must be spelled something other than terror, like the precious "Shock and Awe" campaign.
Beans and peas are the same difference.
or
Some Especially Hard Core Boring Political Commentary
In the good old days when literacy was more widespread, terror was narrowly defined by Ms. Merriam Webster, 4th entry, 9th ed. as violence (as bomb throwing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. Terrorism, on the other hand, was defined as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion. Ms. Webster does not define terrorist, but we may assume that if she had, defined terrorist, the definition would have run something like a person who practices the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
Interestingly, the terror and terrorism and terrorist definitions make no specific mention of the possiblity that terror may be practiced by those holding state power. Yet, those holding state power have terrorized segments of their own populations and the populations of other countries, also. For example, Comrade Lenin, aggravated by attacks against the fledgling presumptive Bolshevik government remarked something like, The solution to the White Terror is the Red Terror, and Lenin was one of those kindly fatherly figures that meant just what he said, so a great many of the White Terrorists perished at his hands, the Red Terror. This included taking hostage (oh my goodness) the families of suspected terrorists. Saddam Hussein is another practitioner of state terror, although technically, that remains to be proven.
Which brings us to Harry Belafonte and the spells he has pronounced recently. The spell Harry Belafonte used that especially caught the attention of all the TV liars and gluttons was "Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world". We, the Cow Barn Druidry, surmise that Bush is a terrorist, maybe* (his prosecution of the war in Iraq, remember Shock and Awe, and subsequent developments, seem close enough to the defintions of terror and terrorist to convince us that Bush is the same difference as a terrorist), but we are perplexed by Mr. Belafonte's use of the qualifier "greatest". So far as we are aware, Bush's terror campaign has been limited to Iraq, with maybe just a few teeny-weeny and secretive excursions outside Iraq so we are not sure he is the greatest terrorist. Also, we are not sure what Mr. Belafonte means by greatest. But then we are no longer sure what anyone means by greatest. Greatest is a very confusing adjective/spell. On the other hand, we are also, generally speaking, not black, so Mr. Belafonte, who is black, may know something we don't. After all terror was? employed against blacks for a very long spell in these parts.
What if we were to spell, Osama bin Laden is the world's tallest terrorist? That might not raise many eyebrows, for Osama is known to be taller than average. But would the spell reflect reality or merely be an attempt, by us, to influence perceptions of reality? Or, we might spell, Kim Il Jong is the shortest practitioner of state sponsored terror. Now, and this is important, please note that in these two examples, the qualifiers, tallest and shortest, are measurable, or would be if we could round up all the data elements and subject them to a proper range wanding.
Druids, shielded by the Goddess and our trainin', don't take much stock in terror. Meaning we are not scared of some character stealin' one of our own airplanes, ag'in and runnin' it into the CB. Moreover, we are not foretellin' any other likely possibilities of that general category. On the other hand, we are foretellin', that if ye give too much power to a crazy person that has liars and gluttons as his most intimate associates, misfortunes will certainly result.
_____
*Terror promulgated by state action, either directly or through surrogates, has long been routine probably, but shrouded in secrecy, maybe. And now perhaps, with avowed terrorists getting themselves elected to governments, perhaps the veil of secrecy will be lifted.
The Arkdruid
_____
Hold it Arkdruid. We fergot some stuff.
Many are those who might presume to have a prideful opinion like, "Yes, Bush is the greatest terrorist, and he's our terrorist." Purty funny when ye think about it.
Or, it's OK to terrorize terrorists, and anyone else who may be in the same country as the terrorists, although we are sorry about the latter if they were truly innocents which they probably weren't, innocents. Actually though, we really don't care.
It's also OK to wage terror campaigns against other countries because you don't like the way they look and you want to change the appearance of their leaders. This usually occurs when they have something you want.
But seriously, there are also many who believe a president of these Yorenited States could never, no matter how remotely, be spelled, terrorist, because such a spell is a contradiction in terms. And any activities resembling terror, and that have the same results as terror, must be spelled something other than terror, like the precious "Shock and Awe" campaign.
Beans and peas are the same difference.
posted by ray pistrum at Sunday, January 29, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home