We all do what we can. I, being an old phart am not likely to take to the streets these days to fight for justice. I am far more effective with the pen (keyboard) than the sword. My witty and snarky comments here and elsewhere serve to fire up the justice warriors of the world.
Plus I don't like Seattle. It's 3rd on my list of least favorite cities behind Las Vegas and El Paso. To be fair the country to the east of Seattle is some of the most beautiful in the country which is why Ted Bundy (famous republican) left so many bodies in that part of the world.
Aw, yes…………… The pen is mightier than the sword.
I remember that. Like it, agree with it as well.
Which begs the question, why is the first amendment, our right to the written/spoken word, not attacked by the left with all the vigor they love to attack the second amendment with do you think?
For some reason they all want untold restrictions on our arms. Today's arms are so much faster, more accurate, efficient etc., than the arms of the time these rights were guaranteed so they must be restricted.
Yet no mention of restricting the use of words for the same reasons. Today's massive printing presses, wide spread abilities to actually read, uncountable books, papers, magazines are out there and available to all. Unlike the very limited, hand block loaded ancient printing presses, feather quills dipped in ink pens, no paper deliveries outside town stores, little education etc. in the times the first amendment was written.
Not to even mention the effectiveness, the speed, so much further reaching the spoken/written word has with todays technology such as radio, TV and the internet compared to traveling cross country speaking off a caboose, at a town hall meeting or on a stump in a town square.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, why is there no demand to restrict the use of it because it is now so much more effective at what it is it was intended to do?
Any ideas?
www.wcvb.com
