My Personal Quotes this Sunday

Published on July 25, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Surely there is a sharp distinction between resolute action and obstinate muddling.

If the nation is indeed divided evenly then why are conservatives mainstream and liberals extreme?

It is cowardice to be for peace and heroic to be for war.

View Edwards in the dark cast of trial lawyers, and Cheney in the sunshine of Halliburton.

Though at a bar Kerry — an outdoors man — .would captivate his drinking buddies with his knowledge of manly activity, but suddenly the bar empties when he shifts to nuances of politics and social philosophy; whereas, the drinking buddies of Bush would be enraptured by his past experience as an owner of the Texas Rangers, politely ignoring the Sosa trade — and, of course, mesmerized by his chain-saw expertise on the Crawford ranch — then, when he engages in the philosophy of Jesus, they order another round and huddle closer in reverence.

Comments

psychx

on Jul 25, 2004

It is cowardice to be for peace and heroic to be for war.

Sigh, sad but it seems to be the status quo today.

Herrkurt

on Jul 25, 2004

Good post.

stevendedalus

on Jul 25, 2004

Thanks, fellow bloggers. I think this kind of original quotes beats the blogger who boasts that he has tricked the point system by copying a quote a day. There's another one of mine a few weeks back under philosophy that you might want ot peek at.

WiseFawn

on Jul 27, 2004

I'm working on getting caught up with your writing, it so lovely to have you back regularly! Great quotes.

Shulamite

on Jul 27, 2004

On cowardice and war:

Steven, you know I'm an avid reader of CS Lewis. He wrote an essay called "Why I am Not a Pacifist." (Also found in the book of essays called The Weight of Glory.)

In it, he suggests we are against war because it brings upon the soldier all the horrors we dare not face. Impoverished lifestyle, poor living conditions, food shortages, illnesses, maiming, and most harsh, the real possiblity of death.

Also, I found interesting the following thought: A nation cannot be stopped from taking what it wants except through war. The nation that tolerates pacifism within its borders is a free nation, allowing free thought. Yet the neighboring nation that does not tolerate pacifism, disallowing free thought, proves itself a sincere threat. If the tolerant nation allows pacifism to grow to a certain point, the nation becomes weak and easily toppled by its dangerous neighbor, therefore self-destructing. However if the tolerant nation's pacifism never grows to the point of weakening the nation, then what good is pacifism?

I'm not equating your word-for-word quote with pacifism, as you clearly chose the word peace, but I think you'll see where I make the inference.

I'm curious as to what you think about the above reasoning and how it relates to being "for peace." What does "for peace" mean to you if it isn't pacifism? Thanks for the interesting quotes -- I do so enjoy them.

Abe Cubbage

on Jul 31, 2004

"View Edwards in the dark cast of trial lawyers, and Cheney in the sunshine of Halliburton."

lol

"In it, he suggests we are against war because it brings upon the soldier all the horrors we dare not face. Impoverished lifestyle, poor living conditions, food shortages, illnesses, maiming, and most harsh, the real possiblity of death."

Hmm... no mention of taking a person's life.

"I'm curious as to what you think about the above reasoning and how it relates to being "for peace." What does "for peace" mean to you if it isn't pacifism? Thanks for the interesting quotes -- I do so enjoy them."

I am "for peace" and I am a pacifist, and if you are a real threat to me or mine I will do my best to eliminate that threat.

stevendedalus

on Aug 01, 2004

Pacifism takes on a religious connotation as in Quakers. To be for peace does not rule out war as a last resort when truly threatened. The peaceniks of the 60s and 70s were against a war they felt unnecessary and immoral, but did not suggest that had North Vietnam actually threatened or proven that it was the initial stage of the domino theory, I believe they would have not protested--perhaps even the draft.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!