Yeah, like public schools, right? Where there are more molestations than at any Catholic church, right? What right do teachers unions have to demand anything, right?
Where did I write or even come close to expressing the idea that "the blogger should be shut down"? That's just a lie. That's just you taking my argument to an extreme so you can debate the extreme and not what I actually wrote.
The same goes for this absurdity: "Andrew Breitbart approves every word written and must apologize for every idiotic thing said."
But I guess that's your transparently pathetic way of attempting to absolve Beck's responsibility for something he OWNS.
No, Stupid. The Dems as they are now were the racists who wanted to keep Blacks in line. The Repubs were, as they are now, those who believe in human liberty and freedom and the dignity of the individual.
Could you be any more ignorant? Read a book.
Now rewrite this ignorant drivel in the knowledge that it was Republicans and Christians who were the abolitionists and the ones who stood against segregation -- and that it was the Democrats who fought ending slavery and opposed and filibustered Civil Rights and loved them some white hoods.
My God, man, you are about as ignorant as they come.
But what does Atticus do at the end? What is his arc as a character? He covers up the truth surrounding a crime. He's going to break the rule of law and let a lie stand for the greater good. He learns first-hand that this "rule of law" is unjust -- that for justice to be done, you sometimes have to break the law. This rule of law cost him the life of his client and blew a hole in the family of his client. This rule of law almost cost him his children. Atticus had already failed twice following the rule of law and wasn't going to allow it to happen again.
ADDED: Whether she knew it or not, Lee was foreshadowing through Atticus what decent men would have to do to win the inevitable Civil Rights battle that was just heating up. Personally, I think she knew it. and was eloquently explaining to America why it was moral and necessary.
You are looking at the text of the scene, the spoken. I'm seeing the subtext, the symbolism. It's only my opinion, but I think it's a justified one. Moreover, the fact that Atticus hasn't touched a gun in years (and it's obvious he refuses to), and refuses to buy Jem one, is another sign of the pacifism ... that he takes too far. His inaction and pacifism only emboldens and angers the man. The inaction turns out to be an act of provocation on Atticus's part -- one that very nearly results in the death of his two children. To be honest with you, I don't know of any other way to interpret it.
So you're both agreeing with me and criticizing me for it. Hope you didn't strain anything.
What do you think that rabid dog scene meant, then? Was pretty clear to me.
It's not unrealistically stupid, though. He's motivated by guilt, which we buy. Stupid, yes. As was taking the money. but not unrealistic in the least. Not a contrivance to move the plot.
Yes. Will be reviewing that later this week.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch