<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
It's popular in China to put English words or English-like words on
product brand names, signs and on T-shirts. Some of it is
incomprehensible alphabet soup, some it sort of like Anglicized dog
Latin, and occasionally there are some interesting neologisms (QUIEK
brand Jam which surely was intended to be "Quick") and naive
malapropisms of direct translation ("Don't piss on the floor.") or
unbridled optimism ("This is the most comfortable notebook you have
ever run into. You will feel like writing with it all the time.")<br>
<br>
I had ordered seven OPPLE brand light bulbs at the hardware store which
they put in a nice polycloth bag for me. I noticed later that the bag
was advertising another brand of light bulb called BEAMISH.<br>
<br>
In regard to the outgribing, it seems that the winning argument against
the war is not always an intellectual one but rather an emotional
compassionate appeal to mercy. The standard preventative measure is
to dehumanize the enemy. It's harder to discredit the sorrow of war.<br>
<br>
How ever much it may be that the gyring and gimbling slithy 1% is
running the show, they are still doing it in the name of the 99%, which
seems to be sufficient cause for a lot of ufflish thought and frumious
outgribing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/4/2012 8:12 AM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:69A62982-5E28-4DB0-ABC9-1BA15DA1776E@illinois.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
The whole article is worth reading, even if it perhaps minimizes our
responsibility, as citizens of a putative democratic republic, for US
aggression over the last 25 years.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(Although I did enjoy reading about Charles Maier, whom I knew
slightly, recommending a New Republic article; our intellectual enemies
are not well-armed.) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>•
Mome rath: Humpty Dumpty says following the poem, "A 'rath' is a sort
of green pig: but 'mome" I'm not certain about. I think it's short for
'from home', meaning that they'd lost their way". Carroll's notes
... state: "a species of Badger [which] had smooth white hair, long
hind legs, and short horns like a stag [and] lived chiefly on
cheese." Explanatory book notes comment that 'Mome' means to seem
'grave' and a 'Rath' is "a species of land turtle. Head erect,
mouth like a shark, the front forelegs curved out so that the animal
walked on its knees, smooth green body, lived on swallows and
oysters." In the 1951 animated film adaptation of the book's
prequel, the mome raths are depicted as small, multi-colored creatures
with tufty hair, round eyes, and long legs resembling pipe stems.<br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>•
Outgrabe: Humpty says " 'outgribing' is something between bellowing and
whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle". Carroll's book
appendices suggest it is the past tense of the verb to 'outgribe',
connected with the old verb to 'grike' or 'shrike', which derived
'shriek' and 'creak' and hence 'squeak'...</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--CGE</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:49 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ewj@pigsqq.org">ewj@pigsqq.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Times,Times New Roman">
<p>Tom Woods is a nice guy. Here he writes about how he<br>
went from being a war spectator to a principled opponent of war.<br>
</p>
<p>Read the full text " <font face="Times,Times New Roman">I Was
Fooled by the War-Makers</font>"<br>
<font face="Arial,Geneva,sans-serif" size="2">at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1206e.asp">http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1206e.asp</a></font><font
face="Arial,Geneva,sans-serif" size="2"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial,Geneva,sans-serif" size="2">excerpt:<br>
</font></p>
<p>The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was the first U.S. conflict of my
college career. During the months-long U.S. military buildup in the
Gulf known as Operation Desert Shield I eagerly promoted the mission to
anyone foolish enough to listen.
</p>
<p>When war came, it was swift and decisive. Very few American
casualties
were suffered, while the Iraqi forces were destroyed. Some 100,000 were
burned alive by a chemical agent or buried alive in the desert while
making a retreat.
</p>
<p>Believe it or not, that actually bothered me, in spite of how
voracious
a consumer of war propaganda I was. No one defended Saddam Hussein’s
invasion of Kuwait, which he launched in response to that country’s
slant oil drilling, but was the outcome of the Persian Gulf War not a
terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people — virtually none of whom had had
anything to do with Saddam Hussein’s fateful decision — all the same? A
far poorer country than ours suddenly had a lot more widows and
orphans, not to mention a great many civilian deaths to grieve over and
much destruction to repair.
</p>
<p><br>
<b>Lopsided counts</b>
</p>
<p>Mothers and fathers were crying themselves to exhaustion over
children
they had lost, or who, worse still, were dying agonizing deaths before
their very eyes. There is no worse anguish for parents than to watch
their children suffer and to be helpless to do anything about it.
</p>
<p>Was it really right that we Americans should meanwhile be
celebrating
with a Bob Hope special, and — on cue — flattered by the ceaseless
reminders that ours was the awesomest country ever?
</p>
<p>It later transpired that the Kuwaiti government had hired a
public-relations firm in the United States to sell the idea of military
invasion to the American people. We later learned that the major
atrocity story — that Iraqi troops had removed Kuwaiti babies from
incubators and thrown them onto hospital floors — had been a fraud: the
emotional young woman who testified to that effect in Washington turned
out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. </p>
<p>Although I had strongly favored military action by the U.S.
government
from the start, in the wake of George H.W. Bush’s declaration of
victory I could not stop thinking about the lopsided casualty counts,
the waves of killing rained down on a ramshackle army facing the
greatest military machine in the world. Now these were soldiers, not
civilians, so by the logic of war I was supposed to hate them or at
least not care about them, their deaths being cause for celebration
rather than regret. </p>
<p>I was having trouble doing that.<br>
</p>
<div><font face="Times,Times New Roman"></font><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p><font face="Times,Times New Roman">I went to see my European
history professor, Charles Maier, to
discuss my misgivings about the war. Maier, a liberal in the <i>New
Republic</i> mold, suggested I read a recent article in that magazine
making the case for the war. I did, and (believe it or not) that helped
to suppress any contrary thoughts for a while.
</font></p>
<font face="Times,Times New Roman">
<p>I was already beginning to read libertarian literature by the
early
1990s because of my support for the market economy. My reading of the
economic works of Murray Rothbard led inevitably to his philosophical
works. The Rothbard essay “War, Peace, and the State” leaves an
impression on the mind one can never quite shake.
</p>
<p>Rothbard famously observed that one could uncover the
libertarian
position on X by imagining a gang of thugs carrying out the state
action in question. If thugs can’t just grab your money, for instance,
neither can a well-dressed group of thugs calling itself “the state.”
</p>
<p>“War, Peace, and the State” takes that analysis and applies it
to war.
If you steal my TV, I can take it back from you. But I may not walk
down the street firing a gun every which way and harming third parties
in order to make you surrender my TV. Likewise, even assuming a
warmaking state to be absolutely in the right, it has no greater moral
entitlement to harm third parties in pursuit of its ends than a private
individual does.
</p>
<p>Simply because some politician utters the word “war,” we have
been
conditioned to believe it just and good that the rights of everyone
within the confines of an arbitrary border are abruptly cancelled. What
would in any other circumstance be murder and atrocity becomes an
antiseptic matter of public policy. </p>
<p>The lingering effects of war can inspire callousness even after
the
guns have fallen silent. Many of us have seen the notorious clip from <i>60
Minutes</i> in which Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations and soon-to-be U.S. secretary of State, declared that
the price of half a million dead children as a result of the sanctions
against Iraq during the 1990s had been “worth it.” Note that she did
not dispute the figure. She looked the interviewer in the eye and said
that the deaths of half a million kids were worth it in pursuit of one
man she and her colleagues didn’t like.<br>
...<br>
</p>
<div><font face="Times,Times New Roman"></font><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p><font face="Times,Times New Roman">One of the great triumphs of
the government propaganda machine in
self-described democracies is the “we are the government” line. It
makes the subject population somewhat more compliant than it might be
if a particular family passed down the power to govern from one
generation to another, with no chance (short of outright revolution)
that anyone else will ever hold the reins of power. More important,
criticisms of their government’s foreign policy now come to be seen as
personal affronts. We are the government, after all, so how dare you
criticize “our” foreign policy!
</font></p>
<font face="Times,Times New Roman">
<p>For that reason, opponents of American foreign policy should,
when
speaking on this topic, eliminate the pronoun “we” from their
vocabulary. “We” did not kill those Iraqi kids. In 2002 and 2003 “we”
did not repeat transparent untruths about the alleged threat posed by a
devastated Iraq. “We” did not lay waste to an already-suffering
country, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing four million
others.
</p>
<p>They did this. The American political class. We did not.
</p>
</font>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
</font>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
</font>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>