February 09, 2005
i recommend a name-change
If the name weren't jennifer's history, I might like this site a lot better. I've encountered a really BAD "Jennifer" in my life. But I can't argue with this:
Robert Heinlein is not only a superb storyteller, but he’s a truly free thinker. He has a libertarian bent, which makes for a good political read, and he’s usually ready to address the hard questions through some unusual approaches, to illustrate a point. He’s fun to read. Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Stranger in a Strange Land should be on anyone’s must-read list for the questions they ask and address about relationships, government, and service.
Try Door Into Summer, The Green Hills of Earth and The Puppet Masters, too. I read everything he ever wrote. Boy, did HE put an eggbeater in my head. Heinlein believed in freedom, but understood clearly that freedom isn't free. It is EARNED and DESERVED. The crotchety old bastard was anything BUT a liberal, I started reading him when I was 12 years old and I still agree with him today.
And if your blogger-bash crashed, you didn't plan it very well. Come to Jawja next time.
Hmmmm . . ..
Lessee . . . "freedom isn't free"? Then it can only be its opposite . . .slavery. o - K . . .
And how does someone supposedly born free in a free nation where freedom isn't free suddenly become a slave, and who makes that decision?
And how does said slave to such illogic "earn and deserve" that freedom . . . which isn't free?
Just trying to keep up witchoo, there, Smif . . .
Hey JB, Read "Citizen of the Galaxy" by RAH and get back to me with the answers to your "keeping up" questions. Robert Anson Heinlein is one of the best writers of your time, and don't forget to read "Have spacesuit will travel".
My favorites were "Methuzala's Children", "Time enough for Love", and "I shall fear no evil". Time enough for Love embodied a whole philosoply of life - Lazarus Long is my hero!
I specifically addressed your illogic regarding "freedom not being free," which comes straight out of the jingoistic handbook of TI's and DI's in boot camp.
It makes no flipping sense, and never will.. It is just the mind-numbing swill new recruits are fed to dumb them down to taking every order without question.
Freedom isn't free? After you explain that to me, try the "Water ain''t wet" . . . "air doesn't breathe" and the "sun don't shine" lines with me . . .
Bears don't shit in the woods, either. ;-)
BTW--we have had a discussion on Heinlein in a far more positive vein two years ago, if you will recall . . . I am familiar with the man . . .
I took issue with your logic.
"Lessee . . . "freedom isn't free"? Then it can only be its opposite . . .slavery. o - K . . ."
If you don't work at maintaining it, your freedom will flee, if you don't have the guts to defend it, it will be taken from you.
"And how does someone supposedly born free in a free nation where freedom isn't free suddenly become a slave, and who makes that decision?"
By giving freedom away for security or comfort JB. Many times it's the slave that makes the decision.
"And how does said slave to such illogic "earn and deserve" that freedom . . . which isn't free?"
By KNOWING freedom isn't free, taking it by the balls and doing what it takes to maintain it.
"Just trying to keep up witchoo, there, Smif . . ."
BZZT! Sorry JB, Rob was rounding the third turn before you even left the gate.
You words demonstrate precisely the jingoistic mindset boot camp wants . . . and which has spilled out into the general way of thinking about freedom.
Thanks for the assist. :-)
JB, if you honestly believe freedom is free, more power to you. And when you lose your freedom because you don't think it's worth defending, you can kiss all our jingoist asses.
Uh, just a simple observation regarding the meaning of words, McG . . .
If freedom does not mean "free," then the word is completely useless, and we should simply quit calling it freedom. Why perpetuate linguistic asininity or falsehood? You cannot define words by the threats against the concepts of the words, or the words themselves have no meaning and the threats have no target to attack..
If you will scroll to the beginning of this thread, you will simply see I made light of Rob's total illogic, and I have been treated . . . by you and others, to a defense of Rob and a total slighting of the entire concept of freedom. You and others tried so hard to defend Rob's illogic that you are creating a greater illogic than even Rob intended..
But as I told DM3 . . . I do appreciate the assist.
Words have meaning, or language is useless.
That was my point, and you missed it totally.
Most do. But you are "free" to do that, you know ....
All the best . . . jb
JB, you have been my blog-brother for a long time, but you are totally full of shit. I'll tell you waht to do. Laminiate a copy of the US Constitution and tape it to your door
Then let Me keep a loaded .357 magnum by MY door.
When the evil people come, you wave that laminated copy of the Constution and you PREACH, brother,
Let me grab the .357 and see who gets a listening audience.
Take a look at the REAL WORLD, JB, not what you want it to be.
What's this "evil people" shit??? ROTFLMAO! Do you think . . . nah, you might think some others would think that meant something, but to me--this "evil people" shit? Now that is too funny!
As to my laminated copy of the Constitution, I would prefer the unbastardized Articles of Confederation, which did not permit, as did the Constitution, the rise of the federal government YOU are always preaching against, Rob.
But my words simply had to do with the definition of freedom, and neither you nor anyone else could define it, which says far more in terms of negatives and "evil" than any of that for which you wish to point the gun of your choice. If you hafta have the .357 by the door, and I am tiying to get a consensus on the definition of freedom, who might have more "freedom?"
You shot shit and I called you on it and your groupies bitched and moaned and now your gun is the issue . . . now that is so flipping impressive--
You speak of yourself all the time as someone who imagines himself somewhat of a linguist and writer and all . . .
You simply misdefined "free" . . . confusing it with all sorts of other claptrap that does not lend any definition to the word.
It's ok to say so . . .
You are either "free" to do that, or you are not . . . or free to get your gun and start shooting because you cannot define freedom. But you are "free" to do any of that!
Shit, man, either define a word or go back to your usual bombast and please your groupies. Beck tore you a new one tonight, and you are still trying to enslave the meaning of freedom to some macho military "freedom ain't free" bullshit that was old news and bullshit before either of us was born!
For the record, too, I, like every male in my family before me, did my time in the Armed Services of this country. I have great uncles without limbs, dead cousins, and POW uncles to testify to the ramifications of protecting freedom, and I followed in their footsteps fully understanding what protects freedom, without mangling the definition of freedom with the infusion of the crap here in the comments tonight.
If you do not know the meaning of a word, then protect your freedom to be ignorant and shut up.
As to the real world, Gut? Don't you dare lecture me,. You know better than that. Posture for your audience if you must, but don't you dare lecture me on the real world. They might think you are cool, but you know I know better.
Let it rest, and use your dictionary rather than your emotions to define words from here on out.
Stay cool, Dude! And be free to be cool . . ..
That's still free, too!
Rob, I knew there was a reason I liked you, you hillbilly Jawa bastard.
Freedom isn't free. The power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints carries a cost.
And the content of JB's responses are a perfect example, even as he argues the contrary. Rob certainly has the freedom to speak as he wishes, but if he exercises that freedom, it will cost him something, in time or energy, or perhaps even the respect of friends.
"If you don't run your own life, someone else will." But running your own life means taking responsibility for your actions, instead of blaming others. Lots of people don't want to pay that price, and consequently lose their freedom.
You must escape the box. . . . trying to preface what you say to discredit my contention--by casting the existence and definition of freedom in terms of "externally imposed restraints" merely serves to validate precisely what I said all last evening. I thank you for your (unintended, I am sure) assistance to what I was saying.
If freedom isn't free, then it cannot be freedom. How much simpler must it be, "free" of the political and jingoistic sayings we have mouthed all our lives without thinking, before we make a distinction of what we are by our very nature?
You are speaking, as was Gut with his original comment and others on down the line, of the various ramifications of being free. I have no quibble with that idea--and if you read what I wrote closely, I served my country as did all my family. I understand the ramifications and the implications of defending freedom implicity, and probably better than most. But that was not my point
To say, in any way, that freedom isn't free makes no sense logically or otherwise, and is in itself of a denial of that for which everyone wants to defend.
The ramifications of either defending freedom, or losing freedom, are NOT part of the definition of freedom, as I stated repeatedly-- but rather, just ramifications. They may be incredibly important with regard to freedom, but they do not DEFINE freedom.
Freedom IS free . . .
Or the word has no meaning except whatever someone gives it, or the various and sundry ramifications resulting FROM freedom, which is what you are saying . That was my point of distinction, and simply put . . .
Objectively speaking, freedom is free.
Any dictionary will prove me right. Really quite simple, and if you wonder how politicians wander off on some oddball governmental scheme to run our lives in some new way , , , it is because they have lost all objectivity, and want everyone to react viscerally or emotionally, which is decidedly NOT objective. So how do most react--no matter their political affiliation?
Just as the politicans hope.
But you know--everyone is entitled to their own opinions, even if wrong, because we are FREE.
Dang it, there I go again . . . :-)
ATB . . . jb