Local NPR station does the favor of providing a tabloid author's sentiments in covering the Rob Ford story. :D
The author(s) of such a story remind people therein why privacy matters using such example, or in other words, that 'we need a private space to do bad things.' :D
I am not so certain what 'bad' exactly means...if its masturbation that isn't exactly bad, or forbid that we should have legislation criminalizing such behavior in this country.
The memorial day talk segment goes onto characterize 'secrecy' as bad...really?!
This definition wouldn't be provided if 'secrecy' meant communications encryption for the sake of protecting innocent dissident lives fleeing from a U.S. defined war torn dictatorship? 'Secrecy' I might imagine might be applied to the grandmother shielding from public view a 'secret sauce' recipe list? Secrecy could apply with respect to those having made a living selling a formulation for a product that weren't wholly known, or generally while the industrial world abounds in industrial trade and production secrets, if it were coveted in the individual sense, it might be evil.
Secrecy is the evil as to why mystery and the meaning of life aren't immediately provided to us.
Secrecy is the evil as to why others hadn't dare spoken what they were truly thinking, or at least hadn't dare convey to us that we might actually be right in our thoughts.
Privacy on the other hand is uplifted since it implies that we provide an exemplary way and conduct about our lives. As though we coexist in the light which supposedly makes us transparent about the world, but generally choose not to do so even if it is far from true that we might have so much desire in making ourselves transparent to the human confessional of church state. Nearing closer to omission, I have recalled another segment under the TED talks banner having mentioned the castigation of the lesser and lowly for having committed so much sin. Castigation leading to exiles in the flock, all the while sin were committed in the more egregious manner by church leader. It is ironic isn't it? Such a definition of 'secrecy' given for a personal context, and never given more often than not castigation of institution?
Secrecy is often the 'veil' in concealment to one's activities when one also has done no wrong, and others are lured by one's use of secrecy. After all those arguing might use the political logic that wrong doing therefore must have been committed if 'secrecy' weren't evidence enough. After years of this narrative, documents are released public, and all for naught nothing of wrong doing is given...albeit wasting taxpayer time and money in the process of attempting to uncover wrong doing because 'secrecy' were employed compelling others to see that wrong doing must be occurring, yet it is along the defensible line given by any government in providing anything that need be defended for the sake of national security.
I have said little of secrecy up till now, nor should I hope have confused terminology or having made false moral precedence of such language.
I wonder who hires these talk show people?
But thanks to synthetic light shown its people, transparency might have revealed any contempt for a social body that would make less human, the humanity of one individual or group of individuals? At least to usher in one social revolution and having tossed old mores aside given through the roof hypocrisy?
Moralists make use of 'I have nothing to hide' and having all the while being exemplary to the eyes of Cathedral, and there is an omission of thought or that one might not have thought that were any expectancy in like kind. The truth is that there would never be anything in the fullest given in like kind here, and why should there ever be anything of the fullest given? That is, we are to prove that we are worthy, not the other way around. It remind me so much of a sermon that one might expect...and Cathedral couldn't be more infallible. Is it so hard to accept iconoclasm of the State?!
I've heard another speak of the concerns in so many words of secular 'idolatry'. That is, in terms of a meaning that I have understood, a belief and faith in a country as it were wholly 'religious' in meaning. 'Religious' in the context that its symbols are without reproach, and that its connection at times to values and principles couldn't be more at odds. What use are ideas and political philosophy if at times there is little connection given in reality? That is where faith is left with respect to the belief in a given institution because of the traditions of its existence, because it is nonetheless expected. The less childish narrative given to us, is one that the world couldn't be more chaotically at odds, and that the only right choice in life were one given to that of 'order', that secular right having descended from Hobbes, or the necessary sacrifice given for individual liberty were that existential necessity of state precedence in limiting the rights of man. You are to read Shakespeare and be settled with Elizabethan social antiquities as applicable to today's reality. Were you convinced that you continued to need sacrifice your rights so heavily in aiding the state here? Were you convinced that Cathedral would collapse at a moments amid all political and social turbulence and disarray otherwise? I know I see dangers in the quiet streets lurking all about me. That a dangerous social revolution were gaining foothold, and that the State should secure itself so much more in the face of these dangers. It is true that the sacrifices made by the State have meant shielding power and wealth, as one might expect in the litany of repetitions, in so far as criminal wrong doing in so far as financial sectors of our economy, and they have in turn at times bestowed a shown idolatrous patriotism. It is true that they have been profiteers of war, and so much sacrifice for the sake of individual liberty not be necessity but in having the power alone in deciding while less right might be given to all others in questioning.
It is the last hurrah of the state mouthpiece I know, a tabloid's self memoir on their feelings about their 'art'. They had job security here, maybe for some time to come, or maybe the next day as the other tenuous as ever.
Bernie Sanders could be reproachful here, but maybe not, in the general context of dialogue, a sad society should want as much to sweep under the rug the equivalent of a forgotten war.
The author(s) of such a story remind people therein why privacy matters using such example, or in other words, that 'we need a private space to do bad things.' :D
I am not so certain what 'bad' exactly means...if its masturbation that isn't exactly bad, or forbid that we should have legislation criminalizing such behavior in this country.
The memorial day talk segment goes onto characterize 'secrecy' as bad...really?!
This definition wouldn't be provided if 'secrecy' meant communications encryption for the sake of protecting innocent dissident lives fleeing from a U.S. defined war torn dictatorship? 'Secrecy' I might imagine might be applied to the grandmother shielding from public view a 'secret sauce' recipe list? Secrecy could apply with respect to those having made a living selling a formulation for a product that weren't wholly known, or generally while the industrial world abounds in industrial trade and production secrets, if it were coveted in the individual sense, it might be evil.
Secrecy is the evil as to why mystery and the meaning of life aren't immediately provided to us.
Secrecy is the evil as to why others hadn't dare spoken what they were truly thinking, or at least hadn't dare convey to us that we might actually be right in our thoughts.
Privacy on the other hand is uplifted since it implies that we provide an exemplary way and conduct about our lives. As though we coexist in the light which supposedly makes us transparent about the world, but generally choose not to do so even if it is far from true that we might have so much desire in making ourselves transparent to the human confessional of church state. Nearing closer to omission, I have recalled another segment under the TED talks banner having mentioned the castigation of the lesser and lowly for having committed so much sin. Castigation leading to exiles in the flock, all the while sin were committed in the more egregious manner by church leader. It is ironic isn't it? Such a definition of 'secrecy' given for a personal context, and never given more often than not castigation of institution?
Secrecy is often the 'veil' in concealment to one's activities when one also has done no wrong, and others are lured by one's use of secrecy. After all those arguing might use the political logic that wrong doing therefore must have been committed if 'secrecy' weren't evidence enough. After years of this narrative, documents are released public, and all for naught nothing of wrong doing is given...albeit wasting taxpayer time and money in the process of attempting to uncover wrong doing because 'secrecy' were employed compelling others to see that wrong doing must be occurring, yet it is along the defensible line given by any government in providing anything that need be defended for the sake of national security.
I have said little of secrecy up till now, nor should I hope have confused terminology or having made false moral precedence of such language.
I wonder who hires these talk show people?
But thanks to synthetic light shown its people, transparency might have revealed any contempt for a social body that would make less human, the humanity of one individual or group of individuals? At least to usher in one social revolution and having tossed old mores aside given through the roof hypocrisy?
Moralists make use of 'I have nothing to hide' and having all the while being exemplary to the eyes of Cathedral, and there is an omission of thought or that one might not have thought that were any expectancy in like kind. The truth is that there would never be anything in the fullest given in like kind here, and why should there ever be anything of the fullest given? That is, we are to prove that we are worthy, not the other way around. It remind me so much of a sermon that one might expect...and Cathedral couldn't be more infallible. Is it so hard to accept iconoclasm of the State?!
I've heard another speak of the concerns in so many words of secular 'idolatry'. That is, in terms of a meaning that I have understood, a belief and faith in a country as it were wholly 'religious' in meaning. 'Religious' in the context that its symbols are without reproach, and that its connection at times to values and principles couldn't be more at odds. What use are ideas and political philosophy if at times there is little connection given in reality? That is where faith is left with respect to the belief in a given institution because of the traditions of its existence, because it is nonetheless expected. The less childish narrative given to us, is one that the world couldn't be more chaotically at odds, and that the only right choice in life were one given to that of 'order', that secular right having descended from Hobbes, or the necessary sacrifice given for individual liberty were that existential necessity of state precedence in limiting the rights of man. You are to read Shakespeare and be settled with Elizabethan social antiquities as applicable to today's reality. Were you convinced that you continued to need sacrifice your rights so heavily in aiding the state here? Were you convinced that Cathedral would collapse at a moments amid all political and social turbulence and disarray otherwise? I know I see dangers in the quiet streets lurking all about me. That a dangerous social revolution were gaining foothold, and that the State should secure itself so much more in the face of these dangers. It is true that the sacrifices made by the State have meant shielding power and wealth, as one might expect in the litany of repetitions, in so far as criminal wrong doing in so far as financial sectors of our economy, and they have in turn at times bestowed a shown idolatrous patriotism. It is true that they have been profiteers of war, and so much sacrifice for the sake of individual liberty not be necessity but in having the power alone in deciding while less right might be given to all others in questioning.
It is the last hurrah of the state mouthpiece I know, a tabloid's self memoir on their feelings about their 'art'. They had job security here, maybe for some time to come, or maybe the next day as the other tenuous as ever.
Bernie Sanders could be reproachful here, but maybe not, in the general context of dialogue, a sad society should want as much to sweep under the rug the equivalent of a forgotten war.
No comments:
Post a Comment