As regards the PR students, don't forget the other part of the formula:
Bottom line, whatever they think (or were taught) is the best approach, when PR Student becomes PR Guy, they need to do/make/write their PR to correspond to whatever the Boss's position is.
So if the PR Guy says, "You really should go public and apologize. It's the fastest way for this to blow over." and the employer decides, "No way! I can't do that, write me a plausible denial." The PR guy may try to argue him out of it, but in the end the PR Guy has to do it.
Of course, with the news that Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal, this could also be a case that the corporations and puppetteers who own the papers are appointing editors who
a) are not capable English speakers;
b) are demanding these changes from the writers -- or putting them in over objections -- regardless of accuracy; and
c) believe, as Hearst once said, that since they are editting the news, they are also creating it [i.e. "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war"]
Either way, "Hooray for the free press! Bartender, an order of petards all around!"
And curses again.
As Clifton Royston points out in 117 I am the victim of being calendar lost and a bad RSS posting --
My homepage cued it as a new link one minute old,
And I thought the date looked right, only the time was closer to 1/2 hour
Sorry all
Charlie Stross @ 122
Pedantic peasant @110: if a terrorist is someone who tries to inspire terror for political ends, then yes, we are pissed at the terrorists. Because our leaders and their media sock-puppets fit that definition perfectly. And that broad definition (nothing in it about blowing things up or shooting people: you can be a terrorist by committing a thought crime!) seems to be the one that they themselves are working with.
Curses to the fact there is no (or I don't know) a code for sarcasm in text posts.
I agree completely.
My post was essentially intended to point out how quickly -- under 40 minutes! -- the thread broke 100 messages.
My question was sarcastic and rhetorical, pointing out that (as others had pointed out earlier in the thread -- many of the administrations actions can be counted as homegrown or internal terrorism, and that based on response volume, it appeared we were madder at that than so many other things.
Sorry to be unclear.
110 comments in under 45 minutes!
Is that a new record?
And if so, what does it mean ...
other than the fact we're all scared and pissed ...
... and not just at the terrorists.
jmmcdermott @ 92 (and earlier)
We have a draft system, whether we like it or not.
Um, no, we don't. We have a selective service registration system which may be used IF we institute a draft.
Your initial argument does raise an important point: What happens when a politician's child is captured? Yes, they will bw a high-stakes hostage. If it is a president or Congress-critters' kid, this is especially true. A Governor or other state or local figure, still valuable, but less so.
If their children are threatened, what will those politicians do? And how much leeway is there in the system to let them do anything?
Several years ago The West Wing broadcast a scenario where the President's daughter was kidnapped by terrorists. In that case the President stepped down, much like your analogous surgeon. In the real world, this probably would not work out so well.
But the point you have not answered is why "so many disagree with me about exempting politician's young adults from the draft.
Why are those particular young adults -- and their parents -- special?
You have pointed out these "children" are in fact adults -- so are all other potential draftees. Why should some adult children be denied their choice, while others are exempted?
You stated: "The horrors of war are exacerbated when the soldier can be used as a media tool." This is true. Why is one soldier more valuable than another? We already have seen numerous hostages -- military and civilian -- on camera and tortured in order to manipulate us as a country.
If all citizens are forced to send their (adult)children into this danger, why should those who make the decision to send them be exempt? Why are their children and their grief more important or more valuable than mine?
Yes, a "politician's child WILL be used as a political tool dramatically more than any other soldier." This, as politicians and others tell us, is part of the cost of waging war. Why should they pay this cost using others' currency?
In #89, Dave Bell pointed out that others have previously dealt with this issue. Also, your analogy to surgeons, while clever, is not accurate. A surgeon wants to be level-headed, and so will not operate on their own loved ones so their is no emotion to affect the healing.
The politicians sending the troops to war are not healers, and are not doing so from a pure, enlightened, and level-headed analysis of the risks.
I hesitate to imagine what would occur if, drafted, Jenna Bush's convoy was captured and she was taken by any insurgent with a webcam.
And if, lacking Jenna Bush, the same insurgent uses my 19 year old draftee as his example, why is it OK for the government to have sent my child into that situation against his or her will, and not Jenna?
Admittedly, in terms of the current administration, your scenario does scare the bejeezus out of me -- if George Dubious Bush were to face a scenario where anything he wanted or valued was threatened, I have little faith that he has sufficient character not to do whatever he was told, even to the point of attacking London or Israel.
On the other hand, maybe that sort of draft would also make Americans more careful who they elected.
You also said: why must we keep twisting the language? We keep calling them "Politician's Children", "Their Children", etc. Yes, they are the children of politicians, but they are also adults. The way we speak, it makes these young adults sound like property or juvenile wards, when the "children" are decision-makers, and adults. We're talking about adults, not children.
Yes. But so what? The point is these people -- whether you call them "children" or "adults" are exactly the same as all the other draft-eligible people. Equal in age, equally adult, equally "decision-makers." So why should those few get special treatment?
Your last point, however, is wrong.
You stated: As far as the military recruiting heavily among the poor instead of the rich, we also forget basic math. Poor outnumber rich. There should be more soldiers from lower socio-economic backgrounds in the military because there are a heck lots more of those in the nation at large. Recruiting to the rich kids is a bad marketing ploy simply because there aren't as many of them.
"Basic Math" indicates that your argument is true if -- and only if -- the make-up of the US Armed Forces has the same percentage break-downs as the US population. Generally, however, the percentage of minorities and the poor who enter the armed services is statistically higher than their presence in the population at large.
I'm not arguing with any of the forgoing, but I think there is a sub-text of sorts in the news article that has been missed in the thread:
At Book I everyone knew this was to be a seven-book series, so (some) people have literally been waiting for Harry Potter 7 for ten years, as opposed to serially waiting for the next book in the infinitely recursive series.
In that sense it kind of reminds me of all the talk after Return of the Jedi over the fact that there were four films left, when would they come out, how would the three prequels work, and would the last one return to the "original" cast, or be a larger view of the entire universe post-Jedi with all-new characters.
It is a slightly different style of waiting than "when is the next Discworld/Honor Harrington/Batman/Anita Blake" story coming out -- with no real anticipation of a pat, finite end to the universe.
The closest I can think of was back in the 80's, as the break away from fantasy trilogies started: The third book of Dave Duncan's "A Man of his Word" series had just come out. I grabbed and devoured it, expecting the story to end, only to find out at the end it was continued further. That was one of those cases where, like Potter, there was an expectation of (eventual) completion, an end point, which was being waited for.
Kudos to the comment on logic vs chips on shoulders.
As Xopher says, no hostility, though "viewing with concern" probably applies.
And as has been said, if I misinterpreted your words, I do apologize.
And to all and sundry, as the one who (I believe) made the original reference to the twit trio as "Christian terrorists," [back in # 912] let me apologize, and make a side point.
While the comment was intended primarily as hyperbole, it was also to point out what they were doing, in literal truth:
Don't let the current state of the union/globe re-define terrorism as "blowing things up." Terrorism is performing acts intended to scare, intimidate, or terrify in order to produce change.
So why protest on the floor as opposed to outside? Somone made a comment earlier on the thread that the Hindu speaker looked nervous as the ruckus started. And if part of their goal is to scare potential non-Christian speakers so they won't dare come speak, or to intimidate Congress into not inviting any more so as to avoid another scene, then by a literal interpretation what these three did was a terrorist action, albeit of a less serious scope than our current norm.
Or that's my interpretation, anyway, FWIW.
Earl Cooley III @ 909
What exactly is your point?
In #900 you defended the shouting down of the Hindu, saying:
Perhaps their [the Christian protesters/terrorists] protest would have been better received had they decried the [Hindu] practice of abusing those widows who choose not to immolate themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, by shaving their heads and turning them out on the streets homeless, a morally indefensible tradition.
Now in #909 you acknowledge Xopher in #901 is correct that Suttee is an illegal act practiced only by fanatic extremist elements, but add:
It doesn't make any difference that it's banned, because it still happens. Widows who refuse it still have their heads shaved and are thrown into the streets with nothing to fend for themselves.
I don't have a problem with banning religion in Congress as you suggested, but it'll never happen while a hideously large percentage of the voters are religious fanatics of various stripes.
Are you really trying to say that it's OK that those US Christian fanatics ran the Hindu chaplain out of Congress, because there are Hindu fanatics, too? That what happened would only be wrong if Hindus were perfect?
Or are you trying to say that it would have been OK for them to shout him down and violate separation of Church and State if thet were protesting something he (probably) had nothing to do with?
JESR @ 906
GOD, yes! And thanks for an even better example. Wish I'd thought of it.
Greg,
Best wishes and blessings.
May you be well quickly.
Rob Rusick @ 899
I believe they are referencing the first of the ten commandments. They aren't attempting to quote: Since they are talking to God, they are recasting it from first (as given) to second person.
General
First, I love the opening of their press release. "Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god." While one does not expect cold logic from zealots, it is interesting to note the flaw. If he is a "false god" then how can he violate the chamber?
Second, as Xopher in 902 and Cosmic Dog in 903 have already said, it's crap to say that those three were standing as the founding fathers stood. The founding fathers stood for the separation of church and state. Franklin was a deist, Paine an aetheist. And while the Declaration makes mention of a "Creator," there is no mention of "Christ" anywhere.
Bloody illiterate ignoramuses drive me bonkers ...
I'd tell them to look at the parable of the Samaritan, if I thought they actually had the potential to understand that Christ was saying non-believers doing good works are more likely to be saved than loud, self-righteous believers who are not charitable.
Which majority was caused by, and which push is powered by, the overwhelming repudiation of Bush’s Iraq war by the American voters.
Yeah, but this worked before his (re-)election campaign. It's all part of the old-fashioned "Big Lie" strategy: You tell a big enough lie, and people can't believe it's not the truth, because "Why would he lie?" Despite all the facts having been out, the White House's press spin managed to keep enough people confused until after the election ...
Is Iraq really a good place for anyone to plan operations outside of Iraq? It strikes me that the international airport isn’t really in good order. That the embassies aren’t routinely issuing visas. Aside from getting combat training in operating against real US soldiers who are using real US tactics and real US equipment, from al Qaeda’s point of view what advantage does Iraq have over any other place in the world?
Actually, that's the one argument that kinda-sorta makes sense: Our being over there makes everything a mess, but at least we can "control" the airport and everything. If we relinquish that control then things like the airport would start running, and anyone could use it ...
... You know, unlike any other international airport in the world.
Josh jasper @ 2
BTW, al-Libbi? Scooter al-Libbi? Heh.
Yeah, I noticed that. Did you also see
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe? A little close to John Doe for me ...
If I thought that a) they were clever enough, b) they cared enough, and c) they were honest enough, I'd think they were trying to signal what they were doing ...
Greg London at 5
They're international terrorists. Even if we could secure Iraq, they would just go elsewhere.
That's it, we must conquer the world to save it from terrorism...
wait, did I say that out loud?
Yeah, you did, but you're probably not alone. My own thought was
"Crap, wait'll the radical right realizes they can stop terrorism and immigration at the same time:
"They're international terrorists! To win the War on Terror we must kill all non-Americans!"
sheesh!
Serge @ 6
Bush is expected to use declassified intelligence
It's about time he started using intelligence, any kind of intelligence, after all those years of not relying on that thing between his ears.
New from the FDA: Declassified Intelligence! Now cleaned, processed, and safe for Public Consumption.
Seriously, I don't know which is scarier:
That they are actually trying this, or that the
track record of the American public suggests it might actually work!
Gods above and below, I envy you all!
Have fun, (and tell us all about it later)
A couple quick thoughts:
First, just to play devil's advocate, e have no way of knowing what happenned before Judge Pearson started the suit. It is certainly possible (although, I admit, not likely) that the cleaner's did lose the pants, did subsequently "find" a pair of pants that weren't his (I've had a similar experience with a shirt).
If at that point the cleaner's gave the judge a hard time, or especially told him "tough he couldn't do anything about it" it would be easy to see how he could start the suit to "teach them a lesson." Especially if he's stressed already from being stuck in a messy divorce, and is (as Bruce indicated in #3) a nasty, stubborn kind of guy. The cleaner, once stuck in the suit, is certainly not going to say "Yeah, I started it"
But, do I thin k that's necessarily what happenned? No, probably not.
Yeah, I expect any judge who gets the case to toss it. I expect if Pearson isn't a total nutbag he calmed down and is trying to figure if it's more humiliating to say "I overreacted, I'm dropping the case." or to wait and let it get thrown out.
While the Tort Reform people probably are on the bandwagon, I'm not sure the case is a set-up. It is a truism that bad news gets ratings, and the past ten to twenty years has certainly made the "stupid lawsuit" story a news staple. [Hot coffee anyone?] The media may be following this idiocy solely from that perspective, and the Tort folks thanking their respective gods.
Also, as far as Mythago's point in # 7, the lawyer may bear all cost of the litigation, but one of the news stories said Pearson is representing himself in the case. So, no "extra" legal fees, unlike the dry cleaners. So, if he has a mad-on over them, and thinks he has the ability to outlast the dry cleaners, this could be an attempt to drive them out of business in revenge for a real or perceived affront.
Again, not that he's not a loon, but he's a loner loon.
Old Jarhead Many thanks, excellent post.
Tina @ 12 Thank you for pointing that out. In general in any situation -- college RA, retail clerk, human bean going about an average life -- the rule you always hear from training crew, bosses, police, counselors and all manner of other experts is that one should cooperate with the guy with the gun. As was already pointed out (either here or in the origin thread) the reason the passengers took on the hijackers in the third plane is by that time they knew they were dead either way, and cooperating would not keep them safe. Without that proof, what is to say the "defenders" do/did not cause sufficient anger/panic that the gun-toting nit-wit kills more people than he otherwise would have?
PJ Evans @ 21 the second amendment was intended to keep the militia supplied with armed warm bodies, more than it was to assure the legality of hunting I don't know for sure, but given that large portions of the poorer population supplemented their food by hunting or fishing (although mostly game birds, not deer, etc. IIRC) I am not sure this is entirely true. However, given they were doing it from need not fun I'm not sure it matters, either.
Connie @ 56 Re: regulation
Lord knows the NRA and company would scream bloody murder, but I agree completely. The devil of it all is, of-course, that the amendment says the people (the militia) is what must be well-regulated, not the arms. It specifically states that rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is a great line in the movie Parenthood where Keanu Reeves says something to the effect that the government regulates so many things, but anybody can be a parent. Guns (at least to me) seem to be another example of apparently skewed priorities. While guns are somewhat regulated, it seems they are far more dangerous than many other things (like cars and alcohol) that are regulated more heavily. I'd love to see someone broker a deal with the NRA (who always seem to say there are enough existing laws about guns that we don't enforce -- and then when something happens, pay for lawyers to help ensure that non-enforcement) to drop all the laws on guns in favor of a much more stringent regulation program.
My four cents on the issue:
Yes, possibly because of our "origin myths" of Washington, MinuteMen, Cowboys and the like, America tends to worship the gun more than other cultures. It's a part of our identity.
This makes it hard to get rid of.
I grew up in a rural/suburban area. Did the Boy Scout thing and shot a rifle on the range in my early teens. I wasn't particularly good, and didn't particularly care. My dad had a rifle for potting squirrels and woodchucks poaching from his backyard garden. He did generic gun safety: locked away the ammo, and both hid the gun and put it out of reach. He did attempt to teach shooting, but I was both not good, and not interested. In college, working as an RA at the dorm, I occasionally found myself in close proximity to the local police. Working a second job 20 minutes walk from campus, same police would occasionally (on cold winter nights) give me a lift to the campus. One thing I found I was always aware of was the guns (not just handguns: the squadcar had a shotgun that clipped (racked?) to the dash). They don't scare me exactly, but whenever I see a gun I am very aware of its lethal potential, and find myself more focused than usual on where it is...
I don't like guns.
One of the common arguments about gun control is that it makes for a safer, friendlier more courteous populace. I don't know if this is true or not. Two stories which work both ways:
1. Supposedly, after concealed carry was passed in Florida, muggings and assaults on Floridians went down, while attacks on tourists went up. This was touted by at least one person as proof that gun-contol works -- that the criminals changed targets based on a gun-threat analysis. But even still, is this a pro-gun or anti-gun example?
2. On business in the south, my father (supposedly) saw the following incident: The driver of a sporty car was honking, tailgating, and giving the finger to a pickup in front of them. After a while, the sporty car pulled into a mall. The pickup pulled into the mall by a different entrance, cruised the lot until it found the car, waited while the driver entered the mall, waited several minutes more, then the driver of the pickup calmly got out, took down the shotgun off the gunrack, carried it over to the car, and calmly -- and with great deliberation -- fired one barrel into the grill and the other into the front windshield, then got back into the pickup and drove off. When the sporty car's driver came out shortly after (along with countless others) the window and upholstery were totalled, and the car was sitting in a rather large puddle of various-colored fluids. Again, I don't really know if this is pro or con.
Finally, while we treat these as new problems, I find it significant that one of Rudyard Kipling's poems talks about:
As long as those unloaded guns we keep beside the bed
Blow off, by obvious accident, their lucky owners' heads.
This is not a "current" or "new" issue. It's the same three questions:
1. When is an individual's safety society's responsibility?
2. Where is the dividing line between two individuals' rights? (To crib from Spider Robinson, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.")
3. Where is the divide between one individual's rights and the rights of society as a whole?
Tina @ 112
I sometimes wonder if school-run mandatory gun safety classes, including what happens when you mess up, might not be a bad idea. The people I know with what seem to me the sanest treatment of guns seem to all have had either early or prolonged exposure to gun safety and most of them have seen a gun's effects in action, whether it be hunting or active military service or knowing someone who was shot or volunteer or paid work in a hospital.
On the one hand, this sees like a good idea. On the other, I suspect it would be difficult to incorporate true, living examples of consequences in a mandatory program, and films don't have the same impact. Think of drunk driving -- almost all schools now have some program to warn students and demonstrate consequences, but how much does it really reduce the frequency of alcohol-related accidents? Not enough.
Unfortunately, a lot of students treat school as a hypocritical dog and pony show, and whether because of "I'm-too-cool-for-this-shit" peer pressure or the fact that students can recognize attempts to brainwash/change their thinking very often even 100% accurate portrayals are seen as propaganda and discounted. "Dude, it's not real, it's all special effects. They just want to control us."
Tina @ 96:
I think it's also a matter of having nothing left to lose and therefore no reason to control/restrain oneself.
It's kind of a psychological/adrenaline vicious circle:
No one wants to be stuck on bottom, and as social creatures we require belonging to some society.
We can manage (somewhat) if one of these is taken away, but when denied opportunity for change or improvement, and isolated from the community group we start to go nuts.
Being stuck at the bottom generates frustration, which leads to anger;
with no one else to speak to, there is no outlet for these feelings, so it is internalized, and amplifies itself;
meanwhile, as the situation does not change, more stressors are imposed externally;
repeat until reach containment failure.
Pretty much each incident makes the person feel more isolated, and he eventually becomes convinced everyone is actively acting against him, which ratchets up the stress further, and makes it personal.
This gradually morphs into a need to strike back at the persecutors who are causing this anger and frustration.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 46 |
| 2006 | 87 |
Total: 134 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Ulysses N. Owen:
Show all comments by Ulysses N. Owen.