questions questions on the minds of young america...

I haven't responded to these latest ramblings of our friend Sir Mortis. Mainly because I have pretty much given up reading his posts. They tend to leave me with a headache from trying to decipher what he is trying to say. Mental chess I enjoy, vague mental games I do not. But this latest requires a retort.

I have no idea what Sir Mortis wishes for us to deduce from this disjointed diatribe. The discussion here was originally about executive orders and whether or not they had the potential to be abused and possibly be used in a nefarious way to infringe upon the rights and security of we citizens.

The reference of, and fixation upon, one obscure writer of one article leaves me befuddled. What is it that he wishes for us to infer from this?
"specifically a listing of EO’s and their slanted meanings as written by a Diana Reynolds" Slanted meanings?
After a thorough re-read of the cited article I see no "slanted" views being proffered. A simple stating of facts and a prognostication of potential abuses. The same type of prognosticating we regularly engage in here.

While I know nothing of this author and had never heard of her before reading this article a simple study and brief bit of elementary research (of which our Sir Mortis tauts as his forte, even citing a "team" that he can call upon for assistance) would have cleared up much of the questions that he puts forth as "evidence" of this writers sinister ulterior motives.

Found in the "End notes" of the cited article;
"At the time she wrote this article in 1990, Diana Reynolds was a Research Associate and Program Director at the Edward R. Murrow Center, The Fletcher School, Tufts University. She was also an Assistant Professor of Politics, Bradford College and a Lecturer at Northeastern Univeristy. Research assistance for this article was provided by Charles Haber"

So the fact that Sir Mortis cannot find her on the "facility" (faculty) of Northeastern University
"as of 21 Jun07" means what? Or the fact that Bradford College closed in 2000? Like I said, I keep the tylenol close.

"But I do invite all to examine where the EO article originated. The Public Eye." Again the research is severely lacking here. The article did not originate at this particular website it was simply re-printed there for the perusal of their members. "Thanks to the staff of Covert Action Information Bulletin for providing the disk for this article."

So does the political leanings of the Monkey reflect on the credibility of the articles cited here? That seems to be his premise by citing the website that reproduced this article published elsewhere. It does indeed seem to be a left leaning organization with core values that would seem to run contrary to those held by most here. So what is it he wishes for us to glean from that?

"Look beyond the article. Learn ‘About’ the people behind the website and the article." So we don't read anything unless it comes from people or places that we share ideaology with? Hmm, not very beneficial to a balanced and effective research model.

" "All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas." This is common within the Conspiracy Theories. " This seems not to be regulated entirely to so called "Conspiracy Theories", it appears it is an effective tactic employed by conspiracy deniers also. And why the reference to conspiracy theory here? What conspiracy does he reference? The issuance of these executive orders is documented fact. The idea that they consolidate power is fact, the idea that power can be abused is documented fact. So where is the conspiracy? Discussing the possibility that these EO's may pose a threat to the populace? Isn't that the essence of survival. Of which he claims to be an expert in and former instructer of.

Survival in any situation involves assesing your surroundings for any potential threat. And determining if something is, or could become a threat. Yet what I garner from this post and other similar ones is that we should not worry about things that some consider a "Theory".

I propose that that type of logic is not conducive to a proper survival mindset. And borders on total irresponsibility. If you were to adopt that type of mindset in a dire survival situation I would surmise that your chance of persevering would quickly diminish.To ignore a potential threat unless and until it becomes a glaring, bona fide, recordable danger is the hieght of arrogance and ignorance. And quite possibly fatal.

I am not attacking Sir Mortis here, simply following his sage advice "THINK FOR YOURSELF. Allow no one to do your thinking for you. And CHECK your sources to insure they are on the same path as you are."

It seems to me that our Sir Mortis wishes to be our resident "Conspiracy Denier". He seems to be obsessed with countering anything he percieves as "Conspiracy" type discussion. I don't object to any kind of debate about any subject. But this kind of obscure, disjointed, rambling discourse seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to counter and stifle anything that he percieves as not worthy of our attention. Therefor I felt compelled to expose the flawed and prejuduiced logic that was being proffered as "proof", no matter how subjective said "proof" might be. MM

 

After perusing the previous post I had one final thought. However the software for editing doesn't seem to be cooperating so I post it here.

It is not my intent to disuade our friend from further discourse here, quite the contrary.
There are many more windmills ahead Sir Mortis, tilt away sir, tilt away.