Considering the frivolous article, in The Daily Mash, 17th September 2015 (which opens: 'We Need To Look After Our Own', see URL below) and, where concerning a viewpoint that includes an attitude whereby toward the prospect of ever taking in Immigrants, a notion of 'Least Exclusion' is a Principle of Tolerance, applying, even, and especially, for bigots who might conjure such undeserving comment!
A love-as-dare-not-speak-its-name points a finger-of-blame, and yet can stay-its-hand, protecting its own, first. How come it shouts about town, however, from the rooftops? It's supposed to be not speaking its name? Unless its policy were largely based upon Convention...misleading, perhaps, its own confidence to any Principled way out of a fix...? What to do with Investment Cycle Price Discriminant types and their conjurable slurs of 'Homo' and 'Nigga', last century, and 'Paedo' and 'Jihadi', this century? Someone's Conscience is eased that they can protect themselves behind the scenes, but can they shout about it the woeful way in public! Deja vu Occupy!
She thinks she's walking-on-egg-shells, whereas cracking-nuts-with-sledgehammers is more likely! As comparative sloganeering: 'Bigots out!' is like 'Slave-drivers, go home!' It could be 'Murderers, out', 'Perverts, go home', conversely, if only that maybe the Interests, involving and participating in Copyright and Patent Laws knew who they were, but to tell themselves from Hitler and Churchill, perhaps, some lesson maybe already by now learnt!
The problem that makes it Irish: The Matrix would be spotted by us---if it contained any mistakes, that is... Contemplating Occupy with this story...E.g. Why now...? Why after Barry McElehinney (Shot dead, north of the border, 2013?), Why after Vedran Kohut (Died in M50 Road Accident November 2015)? Which of our own does she think she can protect? 26 counties? Seems an unfair bargain for ROI IRL IMO to me (btw, why URL?)
Versus 'Paedos and Jihadis' she thinks she's in with the heavy-weights, saying figuratively, as Irish Water might, "I can be racist, too". However, c. 1900, and we wouldn't discuss 'Homos and Niggas'. Yet it's not a different Economy, as far as speculative risk is concerning, except, of course, how observable.
Between a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing and mutton-dressed-as-lamb, you-can't-make-a-silk-purse-from-a-sow's-ear, but to risk throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater, but only to end up throwing even your-granny-from-the-bus...Where concerns such Investment concerns likenable to French Revolutionary times' 'Butchers, Bakers, & Candlestick makers', one must observe rules for 'Rock Paper & Scissors', and 'call a spade a spade', but do with a spatula what you will, within bounds of 'the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black', and 'jumping-from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire', so as that the lessons of Liberty, Egality, & Fraternity are not lost on us in our times, for Security, Privacy & Free Speech are just as important to get in the right order; so hence, despite risking being labelled a 'murderer' even but to be complicit in all things, unseemly, but...the weather...?
If you were given a homework assignment to bash one of the Political Parties, would you save your favoured one first? Someone's Conscience is eased that they can protect themselves behind the scenes, but can they shout about it in such a woeful way in public! Or conversely, as a Hollywood Director, if you were given a film for an assassination-plot, and you had to pick a Party, would you save your own first? Or, would you, at least, see a silver-lining, woman - and apply 'The Principle of Least Exclusion', where tolerance is assumable?
"Least Exclusion" is a Principle of Tolerance, even, and especially, for bigots!
No comments:
Post a Comment