This is in reply to Roberta Ecks who responded to yesterday’s post.
1) You are correct. No one owns the words "occupy" or "tea party." There has to be more than coincidence in the use of "occupy" for this particular action. Given the nationwide actions under that rubric—agree with the sentiments or not—to use the name for a gathering of any sort of political implication is to try either to use it for that momentum or to discredit it. Either way, if Mr. Hallgarth does not agree with the ideals of OWS, he should not use the word. Because if his use of the word is to take advantage of a phenomenon in which he does not believe, he is intellectually dishonest. If he does so to discredit the movement, the wrongfulness of his using the "occupy" is even more intellectually dishonest.
2) I feel confident with the evidence in regard to the National Alliance reference. I have a printer. However, my liberal (I know, you probably wince at the word "liberal") arts education (major in poly sci) was short on computer tech. DePauw had one computer in 1973, my first semester. It was the size of a small house and had all the memory of one of today’s smart phones. When you make reference to a tool I can use on Windows, I will look up some tutorials to address that problem. Thank you for that criticism. And yes, calling anyone and political name is serious. Again, I will refer to Mr. Ogden’s column. (We co-host a web show, as you probably know. You really think Paul is level-headed? See, I read your blogs, too. He read that one. Now he is pumped up.) The sources are there. I am confident that what I wrote is true.
3) Go and exercise your First Amendment right to free assembly. (We also have that right protected by our own Indiana Constitution.) I will not be there. 11 p.m. is rather late, the purposes of the event are questionable based upon the person who perceived a need and called for them (as I think my two previous blogs make clear), and I am not comfortable with the idea of so many people armed around so many people who are drunk. Yes, I too live in Broad Ripple (although not the now-more-trendy SoBro where you reside). In most of the bars here, at least a few of the people carry. This is Indiana.
4) Did you write, in reference to my invitation to debate private gun ownership: "Basic, intrinsic human rights are not up for debate, pal"? Unfortunately, today, in many instances, basic, intrinsic human rights are not up for debate. Those rights are taken away without discussion. One point I would like to debate is whether firearms are an effective means of self-defense against tyranny. I think it could be (and has been by some) argued that was one reason the Framers wrote the Second Amendment. Please don’t castigate me for suggesting open discussion and debate of the matter. Also, if you watch the show "Civil Discourse Now" I do not remember addressing opponents as "poor deluded fools." I have not condescended to anyone. (Well, maybe Paul once or twice, but hey, I couldn’t help it. Oh, and perhaps Carlos May, but he went to Wabash and we were doing the debate on the day our respective alma maters played for the Monon Bell, and please do not remind me of the score of that game.) Open discussion and debate (and what political candidates engage in is not debate but posturing) reduces tensions and educates. If you wish to advance your belief in gun ownership, take me up on my invitation.
5) I will drop, for now, the neo-Nazi from the title because several people, such as you, have voiced support for the gathering, indicated you will attend, and expressed disgust for Nazis (and, by extension, neo-Nazis). I continue to maintain the matter was a sham because of the reasons stated in my previous two blogs. It still is a sham to the extent it employs the word "occupy" in its title.