unthinkable thoughts

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 12:32, Terrance wrote:
> 
> 
> Paul Mackin wrote:
> > that some of the gaffes might actually be pynchonean humor naturally
> > occurred to me. However if this is the case he's seriously misjudging a
> > significant portion of his readership's ability to "get it."
> > 
> > P.
> 
> 
> He does expect the reader to Get the fact that when national security is
> on the line, how far we should go to protect it and protect civil
> liberties at the same time, is a question that history and Orwell's
> novel has something to tell us about. It was within weeks of the 9-11
> attacks (not mentioned by P in the Foreword) that Ashcroft (not
> mentioned) put together an omnibus anti-terrorism bill that would give
> the executive branch more power to fight terrorism (none of this
> mentioned by P in the Foreword to _1984-). 


Every infringement on civil liberties, even necessary ones during a time
of national danger, has to be considered a danger to freedom. In time of
war (and assuming a substantial degree of democracy) two countervailing
forces will be put in play, each enunciating its own message. The
message of those responsible for the protection of life and property
will be the demand for greater restrictions on normal freedoms. The
message of those who have taken on the role of freedom protectors
(ACLUers) will be the demand to keep these restrictions to the very
minimum or perhaps not have them at all. Each message may be seen by
some as unseemly. Neither message however it wrong.

Sounds Poly-Annist but Pynchon thinks it worth a mention.

P.



. 
> 
> The Bill, "The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
> Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act"--the
> USA Patriot Act was signed by Bush in October of 2001. None of this is
> mentioned by P
> 
> The Act gives the Justice Department broad information-gathering and
> surveillance capabilities. P could have mentioned this. But he didn't.
> Instead, he talks about the irony of naming. He waves his joint at the
> FBI. 
> 
> The emergency legislation is not mentioned. Although critics have
> written some pretty cool stuff about P's allusions to war powers and the
> like--the reagan war on drugs, the alien sedition act of 1790, the
> suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the suppression of
> free speech during W.W.I, and so on ... in P's fictions, specifically
> Vineland--his most overt political novel, they have to be, as I am,
> disappointed that P says nothing of the sort here in this Foreword. So,
> take it out on Paul M., or drag up some old shit and fling it into the
> fan. 
> 
> The 1st, the 4th, the 6th, the 10th amendments (here I disagree with
> Robert's claim that these changes in the USA are minor when compared
> with the truly Orwellian nightmare endured by the peoples of Iraq and
> Afghanistan) are under attack. There are some very dangerous things
> going on in AMerica, but P says nothing about them . 
> 
> I guess he just wanted to write a Foreword on the book and the man who
> wrote it.