and i suppose there's no reason for me to stick my pointy nose back in on this one, but i really wasn't that concerned with the term, 'cepting as a rhetorical device to frame my anger at the global hegemony which the united states of america's political administration is currently ABUSING SEVERELY, in my humble opinion. there are facts of law, as well, that i believe show this out, but i'm not going to be so naive as to think that the logical and linear demonstration of this administration's culpability in many wasteful, disproportionate and downright destructive circumstances around the world, and the way that they are "dealt" with.
but the bigger danger that i worry about the most right now on this planet, facts being as they are (damn the opinions to fucking hell), is that it is like a decadent tea party back-slapping wholesale give-away of opportunity, access to money and power, and meanwhile, while everyone's out celebrating their good luck, the whole thing goes to hell because no one's minding the hen house, and they're all hung up on stupid semantic games that don't matter because this religious book says this or this religious book says that. it's got to stop somehow, because it's stunting intellectual growth, it's spawning simplistic pseudo-crusades and wars, on drugs, on terrorism, on illiteracy. that one always makes me laugh because access to education is one of the ways that class power and political power is played out in the real world. and those talk radio dumb-asses and their sanctimonious prattering about who knows what the fuck? their sentences don't make logical sense, they stay as far away from facts as they can. that's how ideology can turn to fascism.. fear of facing truths. they always impress their opinions and priorities on their environment. this great darwinian experiment in organized war! arrgh!! indeed!! that's why i was incensed to write these tirades with my own loud arrogant voice!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! LISTEN TO ME NOW!!! BLAAA!! On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Halvard Johnson wrote: > Well, the first duh had to do with the trivial > matter of nomenclature. What USAers prefer > or happen to call themselves is echoed all > over the world, even in Latin America. Some > Mexicans and other Latin Americans do prefer > to call "Americans" North Americans, as though > Mexico is not part of North America. Clearly > that's an insoluble problem that your word > choice is not going to have much effect upon. > > When I'm in Mexico I refer to myself and other > Canadians and USAers as gringoes. In New > Mexico, I'm an Anglo. Here in NYC I'm just > another damned Yankee. > > The fact is that "American" shifts meaning > according to audience and context. No problem > there, as far as I can see. So do lots of other > words. > > Lots of luck with your crusade to reform the > language. > > Hal > > Today's special: Hamilton Stone Review > http://www.hamiltonstone.org/hsr6.html > > Halvard Johnson > ================ > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard > blogs: http://entropyandme.blogspot.com > http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com > > > On Sep 27, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Lawrence Upton wrote: > > > There is behind your duhs and double duhs perhaps a position which > > assumes > > it's veracity is self-evident; and if there is then it is part of the > > problem that makes important remembering USA is only a part of the > > Americas; > > and it is therefore a kind of special pleading > > > > I hope this is a wrong reading on my part; but I am not hopeful > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Halvard Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:30 PM > > Subject: Re: aarggh > > > > > > > >> Double duh. > >> > >> Hal > >> > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Lawrence Upton wrote: > >> > >> > >>> It is, yes. > >>> > >>> L > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Halvard Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:12 PM > >>> Subject: Re: aarggh > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Duh, like that's a point that really needs to be > >>>> made. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
