a letter from someone which needs DECONSTRUCTING

[Michael Eisenstadt]

someone wrote:

> There are some problems with the above excerpted phrases.  First, "the PR
> heat."  The public relations industry, founded and developed in the U.S., is
> an industry focused on persuasion, self-serving goals, and deceit.  The PR
> industry does not attack the U.S. - it tends to promote the U.S., as when
> Edward Bernays helped the U.S. deceive the American public about the U.S.
> overthrow of Guatemala's democratically-elected government.

Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud was an alter cacker who
invented public relations to sell consumer goods such as
soap and cigarettes. His heyday was in the teens and 1920s 
so he had nothing to do with CIA in Guatemala in the 1960s 
as he was retired by then. He was born in 1891.

The angry rhetoric of the quoted paragraph makes Roger's rantings
seem almost reasonable. And its scatterbrain logic of the rest
of the letter suggests that its author is a crank who far
exceeds OUR crank (I mean Roger of course) in crankiness.
How many cranks does one maillist need?

Isnt this the same subscriber who was bragging on his stock
market gains when he got subscribed and then threatened 
legal action because he had convinced himself that I was 
dicking with the computers in his home? 

As far as I know preemptive unsubscription is above my
pay grade. But you never know. I'll look into it as it
may be covered in some subsection or other of Rule 22.



 















> 
> "USA haters."   To cite negative facts about or to criticize one's
> government is not to demonstrate hatred for one's government.  Such an
> emotion-based phrase seems to reflect an emotional intolerance for freedom
> of speech, combined with a generalized attack on a select group of people.
> The phrase seems to demonize its target.
> 
> "critics want to bitch."  Another example of an emotion-laden phrase.  Note
> how this phrase, like the previous examples, is general rather than
> specific.  It also projects desires to the general group, the group that
> "wants to."
> 
> Finally, the personal references.  While the names are specific, their
> nature or condition is rather general.  I'd imagine the implications are
> negative.  Unfortunately, I can't see any relevance of Zen or millionaire
> status to the rest of the message.  Its best characterization may already
> have been made:  grumpy.
> 
>                                            ---------------------------------
> ----------------------------
> The topic of the Taliban doing nothing wrong in harboring bin Laden and his
> training camps reminds me of history, the history of piracy.   While piracy
> is an international crime and is not governmentally-authorized robbery and
> killing, profiteering is.  Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress could issue
> "letters of marque" and therefore make use of privateers during wartime.
> That is, pirates who preyed on the civilian and military-related commerce of
> the enemy.  Privateering was carried on during the American Revolution, the
> War of 1812, and by the confederacy during the Civil War.  The U.S., having
> failed to support the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which abolished
> privateering, renounced privateering during the Spanish-American War.
> 
> Since the privateers were similar to terrorists and engaged in "crimes
> against humanity," we can consider whether or not it would be appropriate to
> characterize the U.S. as harboring terrorists during that era.
> 
> The piracy of Jean LaFitte eventually allowed him to fight under General
> Andrew Jackson.  After that war (of 1812), LaFitte moved to Galveston and
> returned to piracy.  He remained there with his 1000 followers for years,
> unmolested, until he attacked an American merchant vessel.  LaFitte was
> allowed to leave peacefully.
> 
> Don