NP Homeland Security Act

[jbor]

> So you FINALLY see our point there:
>>

Same as always. Something along the lines of "anything means anything only
so long as it fits with 'our' political viewpoint"?

And in terms of interpretative procedure there's a definite double standard
in operation which perhaps you've FINALLY noticed.

There's also the issue of aptness to the context of the rest of the passage,
of course, which, in the "homeland" case, was never satisfactorily
established. In my opinion, that is. Though the possibility remains, as I've
always allowed.

best
 
>> So, on planet otto, the word "crusade", which is in
>> the text and does definitely relate to Christianity,
>> which is also referred to in the passage, cannot
>> possibly refer back to the historical crusades
>> (which were an early manifestation of Western
>> imperialism and as such most certainly paved a way
>> for the rise of capitalism later on); and yet the
>> word "homeland", used by Pynchon in reference to
>> England during the Blitz in WWII in the Orwell
>> 'Intro', must definitely refer to the US Homeland
>> Security Act of 2003? See what I mean about double
>> standards.