something we ignore in the stats

[Jon Ford]

Don-- I enjoyed your response! Even in times of war, we don't  always have 
to rely  on hate-speech and emotional appeals-- I'll leave that to George 
Bush and Company and the Prince of Evil (as Bush likes to call him) ,  
Osama.

Jon

Jon "the Zen saint" Ford



>From: "Don  Laird" <dlaird1@austin.rr.com>
>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>CC: <dlaird1@austin.rr.com>
>Subject: Re: something we ignore in the stats
>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:28:56 -0500
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: telebob x <telebob98@hotmail.com>
>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:10 PM
>Subject: something we ignore in the stats
>
>
>the PR heat, >
>USA haters >
> > critics want to bitch >
> > ...maybe we should all go back to being Zen saints like Jon or retired
> > millionaires like Roger?
> >
> > telegrump
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>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.
>
>"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
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp