--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [was: RE: [PEN-L:30875] Re: bullying] > > Charles J. writes: > >So why don't you go after those people for > their > cyncicism? Or better yet, why do you think they > are cynical?< > > good idea. Do you have any tips about how to do > this?
Don't waste your time with me discussing the Bill of Rights or the political nature of the American Revolution? I'm kidding, o.k.? Think nothing but happy emoticons. > > Charles: > >It [the Bill of Rights] was basically > establishment libertarian > thinking that gave us the Bill of Rights, not > plebian.< > > I don't know what's meant by "libertarian" in > this context, since the > "Founders" included a bunch of slave-owners > (including Jefferson) who didn't > free their slaves. Right wing libertarianism. Give me my right and privileges, don't tax me, and to heck with the rest of you. But of course, people overseas have no rights at all. > > But no matter. _Of course_, the establishment > responded to the grass-roots > revolt with their own version of what the > revolters wanted. It was a > compromise, one that was an imperfect > expression of what plebeian forces > wanted -- and is reinterpreted every day based > on past and current > struggles. The revolution was much more radical at earlier stages. > > But the Bill of Rights is still something > that's worth defending against the > modern versions of John Adams (and worse). Most > people in the U.S. would > agree, though some would want to restrict > speech more than I would or would > interpret the Bill of Rights differently (as > with Ashcroft's interpretation > of the "right to bear arms"). I see nothing wrong with Chomsky choosing to call himself whatever he wants to call himself. CJ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
