 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I turned the second part off after a few pages were burned.
The reference to The Girl Scouts is my own invention. I have this idea of a Warrior who Stands in Defense of Liberty and there are some examples I can offer of this picture, but not now, suffice to say that it should be a Man. The girls are stepping up the game, it seems, in the absence of testosterone.
That was the reference to the Girl Scouts.
Here, from other misdirected angles (I think we are all in a way misdirected) are more of the people I call The Girl Scouts (my literary invention):
Wasfi
Edmonds
Fitts
That is what I call the Girl Scouts: meaning those who risk something for something, even if they are mislead.
We are all misled.
The book being burned, on the other hand, to me is not a direct message from God, or is it, I don't know, but I would not take offense, it is ink on paper. The messages being burned, to me, are translations, copies, and the symbolism is offered as a challenge to specific people.
I think the people being addressed are those people who supposedly have the authority to order The Military.
Here is where I think the concept of The Military may be better understood to be anyone, anywhere, capable of Defending against aggressive, criminal, attack, by a large force, or military, and that includes anyone.
A power struggle perspective. If there is a criminal power, what power can defend against it?
The lady burning the book appears to be a typical military person who is mislead, recognized bad leadership, on the one hand, but fails to recognize bad leadership on the other hand, as I think you correctly point out.
My point was to point out how boldly some people are, going against convention, going against such things as "Political Correctness", and speaking their minds, despite the risks.
How about one of those male version of the Warrior, at this point?
I can offer one, and if you can look in the mirror, please see one, and here is one that may have made many mistakes along the way, too, but one that appears to have taken a less conventional course, despite the risks:
Bradly Manning
For all I know, because that case is very publicly reported (not censored effectively despite much power available to do so), that case may be less than accurately reported.
Next may be less well known - these days - or ever.
Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.
That is from here:
Trial by accident?
So I guess my point is to point out that speaking out, unconventionally, appears to have an appeal to me.