Posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 6:10:13
necessarily means you are 'against' something else.
Purely' postitive' and 'constructive' statements are nearly impossible to make. I said once that the Civility rules require us to omit anything that could imply, lead to the inferring, or link to (but not double-link to- we are only mortal and cannot foresee the unpredictable actions of those who, willingly or not, encounter incivility in their travels through the Internet) anything that could make anyone feel bad about the human condition. The human condition, let me reiterate, is an excellent one. Particularly if God has blessed your nation with favorable armed forces. God, Napoleon said, is on the side of the army with the bigger battalions, and this inspired a theological argument between then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. For his heresy (Napoleon was a poor theologician, and those who follow him have always been trouble) Mr. Powell was excommunicated, and is now a religious renegade making sniping comments at Mr. Rumsfeld. Shame- shame.
To my point. I found an article that illustrates the dilemma in a particularly pure form. the article says nothing uncivil. The opposing parties both claim only the highest, most disinterested motives. It cheers my heart to read something I can post unadulterated by endless interpolations (if my interpolations seem intrusive, imagine how assaulted you would feel by the endless nasty comments that people seem impelled to make about each other. it used to be only Democrats who made these kinds of comments. I notice signs of restiveness among politicians with 'R' following their names. Strange and saddening. The Republicans were the party of decency and dignified government.) here is the article, a perfect illustration of how beautiful CIVILITY looks when practiced as it should be, even in the face of mutual disagreement. And if CIVILITY fails, BANISH the poor souls who cannot control themselves:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'West Point' Off Limits to Anti-War Alums By WILLIAM KATES, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 5, 10:48 PM ET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - The Army warned an anti-war group of former U.S. Military Academy cadets to stop using the words "West Point" in its name, saying they are trademarked.
A co-founder of West Point Graduates Against the War countered Friday that his organization is simply following the cadets' code."At West Point, we were taught that cadets do not lie, cheat or steal — and to oppose those who do," said William Cross, a 1962 West Point graduate. "We are a positive organization. We are not anti-West Point or anti-military. We are just trying to uphold what we were taught."
The group, open to West Point graduates, spouses and children, claims about 50 members.
West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the academy sent the April 12 warning letter because the group failed to go through a licensing process to get permission to use the term "West Point." The group's anti-war stance is irrelevant, he said.
"This is not a political issue. They did not ask for permission. We are doing what any college or university would do to enforce its trademarks," Cassella said.
The Army registered the words "West Point" — as well as "United States Military Academy," "USMA," and "U.S. Army" — as trademarks in 2000 to control their use on educational material and commercial goods.
An attorney hired by Cross and his colleagues said the warning raises questions of First Amendment speech protection and selective enforcement. Joseph Heath said he noted the concerns in a response sent to the Army on Monday; he has not yet received a reply, he said.
"I would hope that the Army would be proud of these men and their willingness to promote democracy and freedom of speech," wrote Heath, a Navy veteran who also opposes the war.
Heath also noted widespread commercial use of the words "West Point."
Cassella said the Army has negotiated agreements with local businesses allowing them to use the phrase in their names.
___
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:640550
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/640550.html