Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Legal or not yet criminalized?

motherland.jpg

From the New York Times article about a Republican Tom DeLay, who has been found innocent of the corruption charges (to the liberals’ chargrin):
But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.
Say what? Many of my actions remain legal only because the lawmakers of this country have chosen not to criminalize them.

For example, it is still not illegal to say that most liberal journalists are idiots. It is still not illegal to wear black shoes with brown pants (and black belt). It is still not illegal to have fleischigs for breakfast. Or walk without an umbrella under rain. Who knows, however, what the lawmakers will choose to criminalize tomorrow?

In general, long ago Douglas Adams has noted: in the West, everything is permitted which is not explicitly forbidden (we are only talking about legality; not morality, propriety, etc.). In the Soviet Union, everything was forbidden unless it was explicitly permitted. Once again, liberals show a perfect example of socialist thinking.

[via arbat: “Revolutionary Thinking”]

6 comments:

e said...

And this has to do with Russian boys playing with airplanes because...

e said...

letchik=pilot?

CA said...

Surely, as an atheist, you must know that some things don't have some deep predestined purpose for their existence, and are there merely for decoration.

Yes. Lyetat' = to fly. Polyot = flight. Samolyot = airplane (self-flier).

CA said...

...decoration or setting the mood.

The Real Shliach said...

Airplane?

ЦА said...

Indeed. Самолет.