Nobel winners arrested at war protest

Police have arrested two Nobel Peace prize winners along with more than 60 other people protesting
near the White House against the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Swissinfo : swissinfo.org...

Well does that really make alot of difference?

"A spokesman for the U.S. Parks Police said nine people had been arrested for crossing a police line opposite the White House
and that the rest were held for protesting without a permit. "We expect them all to be released within a couple of hours," he said."

They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for crossing a police line, and not having the required permits (the White House security staff is kind of funny that way, they like to know in advance when a bunch of people gather outside the White house...go figure... )

"Well does that really make alot of difference?"

Well it does In the way that that shows the fact that it's not just 'militants and anarchists' that attend these rallys like a lot of people think.

Oh what a shame, poor protesters.

Every American has the right to protest, the constitution is very clear on that.

Also the police and other armed forces make sure that freedom is defended�as long as you protest where no-one can see you.

Could you quote that part of the constitution?

I was sort of hoping it would be Kissinger, Tutu, Arafat and Annan (and perhaps Toni Morrison for Crimes against Literature); but -alas -no.
The Peace Prize is given of course to one who "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" - no doubt why Carter and de Klerk got it.
Alas, this is no more than the due punishment for illegal conduct.

Not all Nobel Prize winners have good judgement on what's right or wrong.

I was listening to a Western Traditions teacher, teaching about Rome, and was sickened when he explained that "Pax Romana" meant (It's definition IS Peace Rome but he said this) that Rome was the power, and they were going to bring peace where ever they wanted, and did with their Army.

Of course he said more than that, but that is exactly what he was meaning, and it was clear, he was also alluding it to what the US is doing now (bringing freedom to the Iraqis).

Now he's totally wrong, because Pax Romana was the name given by Augustus to his Empire, because he brought peace to the Empire.

Not to anywhere else, before him the Empire was in upheaval, and civil war, and once he declared himself emperor, he reunited the Armies, and ended the bloodshed.

It has nothing to do with "Imperialism" or what not.

I hate how the educated "liberals" take pot shots at policies they disagree with, it is wrong when they are changing the actual meaning of something.

Can we say "New Speak"?

Quite why the drivel-sodden media imagine that a profound knowledge of the Higgs boson ( or the ability to kick a ball or lip-synch to musak) confers any special status on one's views on life continues to elude Estragon.
In my own little sphere of expertise I revere Noam Chomsky this side of idolatry ( to borrow from Ben Jonson) - when he starts talking politics, however, it is frequently quite embarrassing.

5pof i wouldnt call that new speak. It is just a dumb professor not know the hell what he is talking about. For it to have been new speak the word would have actualy had to been changed in the dictionary. I do not think new speak will every happen.

You know, with all of the damned strikes and protests that the French engage in on a weekly basis, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal.

ilovepizza, it is much harder in the real world than in 1984, to make history change or disappear, however it is easy to let professors say their ideal version of history.

Which is exactly what this professor was doing, which is sad because he is a great speaker and teaches well, but should teachers be allowed to say history in their own form? Or should the be forced to follow a strict observance of how it was then...though allow for discussion?

Right now, I think each university allows the former.