Apocalypse... now?

The Citizen ^ | 7-28-03 | Ron VanNostrand

[Kudsman]

By Ron VanNostrand

Just after the tragic events of 9/11, my son asked me if this was the beginning of World War III.

I assured him that the perpetrators of that tragedy were a small group of angry people.

I told him that before a world war began, there would be many alliances formed and great powers would divide into opposite sides, each brandishing their own weapons of mass destruction. With the daily headlines reporting little but doom and gloom, I may have been wrong in my assessment.

Recently, at a breakfast table discussion, my spouse and I discussed this same subject.

She took the stance I had with my son about the need for a division of power before such an event could take place.

I'm starting to believe that a worldwide war could be presently happening around us. What makes it so hard to recognize

[Chad Fairbanks]

So true... o0r as my youngest answered once, "It all started when SHE hit me back!"

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Ron VanNostrand writes his liberal viewpoint each Monday in The Citizen.

How refreshing to see such a disclaimer in a newspaper.

[TLI]

You mean something on the scale of say 911 if it had been a complete success for the planners and taken out the white house?

BINGO! If the White House had been hit like the Pentagon and WTC, the retaliation would have been near nuke-kler.

Several Arab countries would be attacked, not all, but several. Not just radar, missile sites and other such pure military targets, but seats of their government as well.

Why hell, we MIGHT have even done something about illegal immigration!

[dmeara]

>>Why hell, we MIGHT have even done something about illegal immigration!

---

Heh. Dream on.

[Sawdring]

bump

[William Terrell]

The whole article

---

Apocalypse... now?

By Ron VanNostrand

Just after the tragic events of 9/11, my son asked me if this was the beginning of World War III.

I assured him that the perpetrators of that tragedy were a small group of angry people.

I told him that before a world war began, there would be many alliances formed and great powers would divide into opposite sides, each brandishing their own weapons of mass destruction. With the daily headlines reporting little but doom and gloom, I may have been wrong in my assessment.

Recently, at a breakfast table discussion, my spouse and I discussed this same subject.

She took the stance I had with my son about the need for a division of power before such an event could take place.

I'm starting to believe that a worldwide war could be presently happening around us. What makes it so hard to recognize is the fact this conflict is not between great powers, but between the "haves" with the best military capabilities that their money can buy and the "have nots," who have so little, they've nothing left to lose.

One side is made up of the industrial military complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned everyone of so long ago, the other is composed of religious and cultural groups and the economically under privileged fighting to hold on to the last of their dignity, their land or their customs.

I have a friend who admitted how, sometimes, she feels almost troubled that she is blessed with such abundance, when there are so many people suffering in Iraq due to the invasion.

She almost wishes in some way, she could go there and share in their burden of pain.

Perhaps I was being cynical when I told her it would soon be unnecessary to travel far. If the disparity between the richest few and the impoverished masses widen, while food and energy prices continue to escalate and programs for the neediest are cut, we're sure to see more domestic unrest on our soil.

So, although I am saddened by the warriors killing each other all over the globe, I'm powerless to make them stop.

The road of violence is their choice, but will not lead to a decisive battleground where the continuation of our species will be determined.

No, the final battle will be and is being fought in our individual hearts and minds.

Yes, we can be victorious if we open our ears to hear the messages of kindness, compassion and unconditional forgiveness.

Otherwise, can you spell Apocalypse?

---

[Brad C.]

So, although I am saddened by the warriors killing each other all over the globe, I'm powerless to make them stop.

Guess there would be no further point in writing about this stuff anymore, now would there?

The road of violence is their choice, but will not lead to a decisive battleground where the continuation of our species will be determined.

Sometimes, the road gets chosen for you. We did not start this war with violence against others, but you can bet we will finish it with such,

No, the final battle will be and is being fought in our individual hearts and minds.

Sounds like the author already fought this battle in his mind, and decided he was powerless, must have been a short battle. (Maybe the French were involved.)

Yes, we can be victorious if we open our ears to hear the messages of kindness, compassion and unconditional forgiveness.

How can "we" be victorious if "we" have already decided that "we" are powerless before the battles begin.

Might I suggest that the author take an opportunity to journey over to Iraq so that he might hear the messages he speaks of. I just wonder if he will hear them from the locals who are killing our brave soliders, or rather from our troops as they provide 1st aid, comfort, food and water to those who fought against us.

[boris]

"I have a friend who admitted how, sometimes, she feels almost troubled that she is blessed with such abundance, when there are so many people suffering in Iraq due to the invasion.

She almost wishes in some way, she could go there and share in their burden of pain."

I'll buy her a ticket.

"Perhaps I was being cynical when I told her it would soon be unnecessary to travel far. If the disparity between the richest few and the impoverished masses widen, while food and energy prices continue to escalate and programs for the neediest are cut, we're sure to see more domestic unrest on our soil."

When this idiot bankrupts himself and gives all his posessions to the poor, then he will have the moral authority to lecture the rest of us on our insufficient compassion--as measured in dollars--toward the poor.

The U.S. is rich because it (once) embraced the ideas of Liberty, Capitalism, and individual rights. The "poor" are poor because they failed to. The wealth of the U.S. is a badge of honor...and we are also the most generous (overgenerous) nation on Earth, both in 'supporting' our home-grown poor, illegal immigrant poor, and "foreign aid."

--Boris So, although I am saddened

[Kudsman]

Thanks Will. I still am not sure on protocol for republishing intellectual property so I excerpted this guy's editorial. I remember reading when I first started to get involved how FR was sued and settled claims over what I thought was copyright infringement. I thought excerpting was one of the outcomes. I would like to republish entire editorials but I'm not sure and I don't want to get JimRob in hot water.

[William Terrell]

You can't post articles from the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post or any of their subsidiaries and minions. The list is posted here. The whole thing is an image and not searchable.

Just recently, Jewish World Review has evidently been added to the list. Presumably, Jim wants to favor this commerical site over other equally deserving commercial sites to help them make money because it is Jewish, and therefore entitled to rights and priviledges the common herd does not enjoy. I have seen no general announcement, no discussion. JWR threads have just beeen pulled and excerpted with no explanation.

[Jim Robinson]

The editor of JWR has come on to FR many times asking people to excerpt and link to his articles rather than post full text. Most people were happy to comply with his requests, but there are some who post full text anyway.

As a result of our settlement with the LAT/WP we now have the excerpt feature built into our software. Also, as of the settlement, I have been honoring any publication's request to not have full text posted. So, when the editor repeated his request for us to excerpt and link to JWR, I added his url to our excerpt only list.

We still feel that we have a right under the fair use exemption to use copyrighted materials for discussion purposes, but we also have decided to respect the requests of those who object. I think most publications enjoy the hits, additional exposure, increased readership and attention coming to their websites from ours whether we post full text or excerpts.

We have not seen a rush by the media to sue us, like many thought would be the result of our settlement, or even to request excerpt only posting. There have only been a handful of requests that I'm aware of and we've complied with them all.

In addition to the sites listed in the LAT/WP settlement, we are also complying with the requests of jewishworldreview.com, aim.org, bsudailynews.com, and startribune.com to post excerpts only. There may be other sites added to the list if additional requests are received. The posters are notified of the excerpt only request when they attempt to post from these sites.

[William Terrell]

I can certainly understand FR's desire to accomodate the wishes of commercial sites whose income depends on traffic generated ads. I agree that it is in FR's interest to maintain a friendly relationship with media sources. My only possible objection is what appears to be inequatable favoritism. Evidently my concern is misplaced; all requests are honored.

I haven't seen any forum-wide new policy statement to date, and I read a lot on FR. This is the first time I've heard this, so I'll assume most aren't aware of it either.

I have been in the habit of posting the full article text whenever I come across an excerpt not on the LAT/WP list. Since you added the "excerpt" feature on the posting page, many people think they have to use it.

That has resulted in an increasing number of unnecessary excerpts. More than several times I have searched the archives for information, only to find the article in which I was interested had been pulled and was not available. Sometimes it has been replaced during the active life of the thread.

Now, I could continue expanding frivolous excerpts but I don't know what sites are currently protected, or, as time goes on, what new sites are protected. I've decided I'll just stop expanding the excerpts and not worry about it. If I come across an excerpt, I'll simply skip it unless the conversation of the posters themselves, in my opinion, call for comment.

Concerning JWR, before I found FR in mid-1997, I hit their site and read their articles often and for some months thereafter. Then the editor started posting fundraisers on FreeRepublic threatening the the site was going out of business, they needed hits from FR to keep their head above water, among other specious, as it turns out, reasons.

This was done more than twice. My subsequent examinations of their site revealed it's growth, while at the same time not very much excerpting on FR of their articles. Still they posted regular appeals using the same rationale. I don't mind helping a business out, but I object being lied to and courted by deceit, toward a policy that undermined the operational capabilities of a site I like (this one).

Of course, you have sovereignty on your site, and I support you and it's growth/influence 100%, but I no longer support or visit JWR because of the greasy tactics of its owners.

[Kudsman]

Thank you for your letter to the editor. It was published today. I am sorry but I have no link to show you because they don't put letters to the editor on their site. I would be happy to mail you the copy of the paper if you would like it. Freep mail. And if I can ever return the favor please feel free to post one of your regular leftwacko contributors. This could be fun answering others Libs. More could participate. Hmmmm. What do you think?

[boris]

Cool. And I had back-to-back letters in the Los Angeles Daily News--something that is not "supposed to happen". They have a "one letter per person per month" policy.

--Boris

[normy]

"Perhaps I was being cynical when I told her it would soon be unnecessary to travel far. If the disparity between the richest few and the impoverished masses widen, while food and energy prices continue to escalate and programs for the neediest are cut, we're sure to see more domestic unrest on our soil."

Here is the problem with these limousine liberals, they alone could ease their conscience and solve the problems of the poor.
If I make 1,000,000 a year I could pay 32 poor people 30,000 a year to do nothing and still make 40,000 a year myself. Then I could take the extra ten thousand I still earn more than the others and give it to the Salvation Army or the Peace Corp.
If we could find 1,000 actors, athletes, politicians, talkshow hosts, comedians etc. who are careing enough to lead by example we could save 32,000 of our poorest. Plus various charities would recieve 10,000,000 per year.
Naw, maybe they could just spend my money and save theirs for houses, land, cars and political donations.

[Kudsman]

Het guess what? Mr. Lib answered you in this weeks column also. Seems he's not ready to take you up on the free ticket offer.

He is right about one thing, he usually doesn't answer anyone that calls him out. Guess you hit a nerve. Good shot. :-)

[boris]

Cool.