“I sympathize with Ahab’s cause, but question his technique.”

There’s a discussion shaping up at Claire’s place over two wildly disparate interpretations of that I-594 demonstration in Washington last week.

Personally I can’t wholeheartedly sign on to either view. I disagree with one side’s compromise and the other side’s tactic. But then I’ve never been an agitator.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “I sympathize with Ahab’s cause, but question his technique.”

  1. MamaLiberty says:

    I’ve always been an agitator, to one degree or another. I just don’t like crowds or “demonstrations.” I’d rather agitate pretty much on my own. 🙂

  2. GoneWithTheWind says:

    Home Grwon Terrorism.

    Terrorism: violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

  3. Joel says:

    That’s interesting. Did you see any violent acts? I must have missed that.

  4. Joat says:

    terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    Sounds like government to me.

  5. GoneWithTheWind says:

    Oops. My mistake. I was (in my mind at least) addressing the I-93 roadblockage. When I clicked the link my system didn’t connect (I think the problem is my server but my computer has been stupid since I bought it last year). My revised comment is I support those guys in Washington, keep it peaceful and let’s get the courts to overturn this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *