--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote:
>
> Barry,
> 
> You seem to forget the situation in Paris and anywhere 
> else in France. Recently, there have been unrest and 
> riots in Paris for many reasons, including those 
> perpetrated by terrorists. I don't believe you're  
> any safer over there than here in the USA.

[ Trying my best to capture John Cleese's inflection
when speaking this line in "A Fish Called Wanda" ]

Are you DERANGED?

NO ONE is safe anywhere. 

But those of us who live in civilized countries that
value freedom more than we do the illusion of safety
don't let that fuck up our day. 

You can cower under your bed and fear Big Bad Terror-
ists lurking around every corner if you want to. Me,
I'll sit in sidewalk cafes like the one I'm in, and
enjoy the night air. 

John if you haven't traveled outside the US in recent
years, you really have no idea how paranoid and stupid
Americans are regarded by the rest of the world. As
Bhairitu's Benjamin Franklin quote pointed out, you 
are willing to trade loss of your rights -- including
loss of your right to think for yourself -- for a 
little safety. May it bring you peace as you cower
in your houses, terrified of terrorists. As I've said
before a couple of times, it's people like YOU that
make terrorism WORK. 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Some still have the ability to think, and more important,
> > *write* about the larger issues revealed by the events in
> > Boston:
> > 
> > http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/how_boston_exposes_americas_dark_post_911_bargain/
> > 
> > For those who are going to try to write this guy off as
> > some kind of whiny politico, Andrew O'Hehir is Salon.com's 
> > regular film critic. It's just that, like Roger Ebert, he 
> > does not feel the need to limit the subjects he writes 
> > about *to* film. Here he takes on the dark underbelly of 
> > America since 9/11, the thing that ALL expats I've met 
> > in Europe know about, and the main reason we're here, and 
> > not there.
> >
>


Reply via email to