 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 9:50:56 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jason Mosely
E-mail: jmosley(at)talkobjectivism.com
URL: http://www.talkobjectivism.com
I just did this myself... I wonder if I will get locked up for talking about the facts on my podcast. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:14:39 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Dan G.
To the Director of Double-Speak:
I keep hearing all this talk about a single-payer health care service, and how it is not socialized medicine. Perhaps the Executive Office should stop spreading disinformation about what, in fact, they’re attempting to achieve and not worry about what the citizens of this nation are saying. Both acts, the double-speak about socialized health care and the overt concern with the free expression of ideas are both rather fishy, please stop it now.
Yours Truly,
Dan |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:24:27 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: patrick garrett
E-mail: karen.garrett(at)comcast.net
I have also turned my name in. If I get a response I will let it be known. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:26:57 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Stella Zawistowski
E-mail: stellavision(at)gmail.com
URL: http://reasonpharm.blogpost.com
I just sent the following, subject line "Sod off, Big Brother!":
The only "fishy" information I'm hearing about healthcare "reform" is the awful proposals coming from the President and from Congress. I believe in a free market in health care -- which probably makes me one of your targets, but it's you who are feeding the false information. Shall I report the White House to the White House?
It disgusts me that you are asking Americans to report each other's conversations to the White House, as though we are living in Communist East Germany and we are all Stasi.
Not your comrade,
Stella Daily Zawistowski |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:29:30 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Charise
Done, and done. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 11:08:25 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Tim Peck
E-mail: timothypeck(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://timpeck.blogspot.com/
I did my duty and turned myself in:
http://snipr.com/ouqyt |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 11:33:31 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Roger
E-mail: RTheriault99(at)yahoo.com
Dear Minister of Propaganda,
I would like to report myself. I am a firm believer in the efficacy as well as the morality of laissez-faire capitalism and I believe it should be applied to all realms of commerce, including the sale and purchase of health care. What the Obama administration is trying to do, despite its claims to the contrary, is nationalize the health care industry. I believe that this is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of individual rights and will result in the virtual enslavement of health care professionals. I have, through concentrated efforts of persuasion, managed to convince many, many others of the veracity of my convictions. My ideas are, even now, infecting the individual brains of scores of American citizens. I will continue to exercise my First Amendment right to the free expression of ideas unless I am stopped. My name is Roger Theriault and I live in Nashua, New Hampshire.
Sincerely,
Roger D. Theriault |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 12:23:24 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.blogspot.com
I like your greeting Diana. But also don't forget to report Obama, Barney Frank and Jan Schakowsky for all saying that this bill WILL lead (eventually) to Single-payer universal insurance as has been recorded and posted on Youtube. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 12:37:11 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Ryan C
My letter:
Hello my fellow patriotic American/Czar/Comrade, my name is Ryan Calhoun and I am a fishy individual.
I am fishy because I oppose any expansion at all, by Democrat or Republican; senator or president, of our already failing government health system. In fact, I oppose any continuation of government health care. I am one of those fish that opposes theft on principle and would like to see it one day eradicated. I think any expansion would be downright evil, but not at all surprising. I will continue, with my fellow fish, to swim against the current of ever-expanding government and ever-disappearing concern for individual rights. I just thought you should know
In case my e-mail did not indicate, my name is Ryan Calhoun. I wish you the best, fellow patriot, and I hope that one day your ideas and profession shall change for the better.
-RC. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 13:03:12 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: TubbyHubby
E-mail: danruch(at)comcast.net
Well, they specifically want us to report fishy people fishily flying below the radar by disseminating fishy information via such fishy mechanisms as email. So I cc:ed them on this little ditty I sent out this morning (shame the links were removed):
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN
Save your neighbors and children the trouble of turning your name in to the White House if you actually believe the President and Congress are going to screw up your health care if they get their hands on it. If you are the sort who may be willing to spread links to videos showing congresscritters and the president himself describing "the public option" as a necessary toehold to universal "single payer" (ala the UK or Canada) because US citizens don't want single payer and would never accept it as anything other than a fait accompli, then you are exactly the type of nonbeliever one of our latest Czars wants to hear about. If you simply want to know why 1) Stimulus, 2) Cap and Trade, 3) Health Care Reform, and 4) a budget with more deficits IN SIX MONTHS than the lousy deficit spending of the entire eight years of Bush all had to be passed in less time than it took to pick out a dog for the first family, you may qualify. If you have "a computer and a lot of time on [your] hands” and might want to use those to communicate information like, oh, the President says we need to overhaul health insurance because it's too expensive and we need to bring its costs down, while the Congressional Budget Office says all the proposed plans will increase cost, then you can save our current government and its supporters a lot of time and effort in tracking you down by simply turning yourself in.
Instead of giving you just the email to the White House hotline for turning in non-believers (flag@whitehouse.gov, by the way. As in "red flag, e.g. trouble spot", not like "star spangled banner" type flag), I present you with a link to a page on the White House web site, describing why we need to turn ourselves, and our neighbors, and our family members in to the White House. Even the “facts” on that page are misleading. Please note the underlined sentence on the White House blog entry: "the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them". In Sunday sermons we have been taught that is a “lie of omission”. You know, the truth, just not the whole truth. He omits mentioning the leading current plan says you can never get another private health care plan outside of a government approved one. Even if your provider wants to increase your benefits, then it no longer qualifies as “your plan” and is not protected (see Section 102 of H.R. 3200). Get it? You can keep your plan, but if your neighbor or your father or your senator has a better private plan, you will never be able to buy into it. You can only keep yours or move to an approved "Exchange" plan, or the public option. Dontcha just love the way our government embraces the free market? So, please visit the White House site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ on your way to turning yourself in.
And, to those receiving this email via CC: to flag@whitehouse.gov, it is the understanding of the SENDER of this message that the RECIPIENTS are in no way complicit in dispersing this message. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 13:03:35 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Augman
Done.
My only worry is that they will have to find an EMAIL CZAR to read all the responses |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 13:30:18 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Paul
E-mail: prt2000(at)gmx.net
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth....or was it the the Ministry of Love? Really sad to see this....but it was expected. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 15:47:48 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: anon
Dear Ministry of Truth,
It's a dangerous things when people use their brains to infer what is obvious. I couldn't agree more with what you are doing. Just because some in the population are too stupid to make arguments against the President's actual plans - and instead attack his speaking record - doesn't mean that The White House shouldn't be proactive. I mean, sooner or later the intelligent people are going to look past what the President might have or might not have said and clear it up for the rest of us. We can't have people actually criticizing his ideas, so what better way than to make an example of those people who criticize his character. Not only does it muddy the waters long enough until this darn thing gets through Congress, but it also lets the rest of those intellectually-honest, and even worse - clear thinking - political opponents know what you're really made of.
I don't have any one to report at the moment, but I thought I would write just to tell you that I think it's great what you're doing. More power to you (not that you need my well-wishing to get it... what with all of those cops and troops and all)!
Sincerely,
John Q. Public |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 16:00:45 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: anon
Dear Ministry of Truth,
It's a dangerous things when people use their brains to infer what is obvious. I couldn't agree more with what you are doing. Just because some in the population are too stupid to make arguments against the President's actual plans - and instead attack his speaking record - doesn't mean that The White House can't make a little hay with the opportunity. Good for you for being proactive!
I mean, sooner or later the intelligent people are going to point out that whether or not The President has been consistent isn't the issue at all. I agree, we can't have that happening. We can't have people actually saying what the rest of them are trying to say: that the idea The President is putting forth, at this very moment, is so obviously an opening of the flood-gates towards a complete government take over of health care. If that became the mantra, his plans would be doomed! So what better way than to make an example of those people who criticize his character? They're not The President's real opponents anyways.
I completely support what you're doing. Not only does it muddy the waters for awhile so this darn thing gets through Congress, but it also lets the rest of those intellectually-honest, and even worse, clear thinking political opponents know what you're really made of. Hopefully they will just learn to shut up and go along!
I apologize that I don't have any one to report at the moment, but I thought I would write just to tell you that I think it's great what you're doing, and that I will have my eyes peeled.
More power to you (not that you need my well-wishing to get it... what with all of those cops and soldiers and all),
John Q. Public |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 16:55:44 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Bob M
E-mail: rsmurph(at)gmail.com
I just sent mine as well. I await my tax audit or visit from the goon squad. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 17:31:36 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Amit Ghate
URL: http://amitghate.blogspot.com/
Dear Mr. President, Mr. Macon and the Whitehouse Team,
I have to hand it to you! Even though I’m extremely contemptuous of your administration’s policies and approach, I thought it would take you a while to come up with something more repulsive and anti-American than your attempts to socialize medicine. You’ve proven me wrong! Setting up a thought police and a Stasi-style informant campaign is much worse.
Ayn Rand once observed: “Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.
Now granted you’ve chosen coercion and subjugation instead of freedom in each of these key realms, yet the consistency of your policies still serve to substantiate her insight. Indeed it seems that every step and action you take highlight the accuracy of Rand’s analysis and conclusions.
So for what it’s worth, I thank you for doing your part to so dramatically show the nation the life-and-death contrast between your philosophy and Rand’s. It will be the one redeeming part of your awful legacy.
Amit Ghate |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 17:45:44 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: djr
E-mail: dan.rohr(at)yahoo.com
NPR / Marketplace had an angle tonight " something like, these mobs (yes, they used that term) at the town-hall meetings are probably organized by lobbyists, and lobby-funding must be reported, although the law's unclear...
It would appear that they've found one of their pragmatic arrows and are taking aim at free association & speech. What a surprise. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 19:30:15 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Kevin Delaney
E-mail: ctprods-at-yahoodotcom
URL: http://www.KevinDelaney.net
I love the email address: flag@whitehouse.gov.
"Flag" -- as in "flag this post as inappropriate"?
Obama & co. are making it clear who will moderate this discussion. |
|
| Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 21:58:54 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: PTL
I sent in the following:
This webpage is one of the most visited fishy sites on the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 4:33:46 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: atlasfan(at)earthlink.net
From a conversation with my sister, I gather that this has become a major grass roots effort. My letter to the truth czar was sent today. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 6:35:48 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Rational Jenn
E-mail: rationaljenn(at)gmail.com
URL: http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com
Subject: I'm Telling!
I'm telling on myself, because I often tell people in "casual conversation" that the government needs to stay completely out of healthcare. Not only is there no need for "health care reform" or "health insurance reform," all of the regulations that doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and employers currently need to follow should be completely repealed.
A Republic, if you can keep it!
Jennifer Casey |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 6:45:00 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
Kevin,
I think the flag is supposed to conjure up visions of patriotism. Maybe Stasi-like behaviour would have qualified as patriotic in East Germany.
Kind of like the number in Seattle for reporting carpool violations. I don't remember the exchange, but as posted, the snitch line was 800-###-HERO. Sheesh!
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." -- Oscar Wilde
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson
While I think that patriotism, properly defined as support for a government that protects one's rights is a legitimate virtue, with this mob in the White House and Congress, the above quotes apply. In spades. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 7:29:47 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Khartoum
E-mail: track2me(at)gmail.com
URL: http://khartoum-khartoum.blogspot.com/
Great, great reply! |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 8:37:25 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu
OK, I've reported Paul Hsieh to flag@whitehouse.gov for his subversive activities, with multiple links to web pages where he writes "fishy" things. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 10:53:40 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: TK
URL: http://tklounge.blogspot.com/
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to perform my patriotic duty and inform you some negative ideas that I have come across in regards to Health Care. Because this is a much debated issue at the moment I have had many conversations and e-mail exchanges with individuals and am pleased to say that I have shown true believers that ObamaCare is a terrible plan that will lead to a decline of the medical profession worldwide and will eventually shorten the lifespan of people everywhere. I also feel obligated to tell you that I am going to continue to have these discussions and you have given me renewed enthusiasm and means to win over those still sitting on the fence.
By asking people to turn in their neighbors for suspicious conversations or e-mails you have proven that you are intimidated and are resorting to "thought police" type tactics (see "1984", Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia). I was concerned that the lasting legacy of your administration was going to be a slip into socialism that will be reversed later on, but it has turned out to be something much greater. I encourage you to continue on your current course of action because it will only embolden the people to see that socialism and your force tactics against free speech are linked by definition.
Your great blog post alerting the public to act as "thought police" has made it incredibly easy for me prove to people that you are an enemy to the Bill of Rights and free speech. For this, I thank you.
In conclusion, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom to individuals and rights to ACTIONS (like casual conversations and e-mails) NOT to goods and services that are provided by others (like medical care). The founding fathers knew that if you guaranteed goods and services then you are enslaving those who would be required to provide them (i.e. doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc...). By granting freedoms to act, they made it possible for each individual to live according to their own lives and NOT at the mercy of others. This is why America became a super power and the greatest nation in the history of Earth. If you want to fix health care, get government out of the way. Dissolve any legislation or governing powers (FDA) involved with the medical field and all the "problems" with medicine (rising costs, etc...) will dissolve shortly after.
---TK
Biomedical Engineering PhD Student |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 13:09:44 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
I responded to this one by blogging about it; you can see the entry at http://whswhs.livejournal.com/62498.html#cutid1 if you're curious. However, I went ahead and sent a short note to the White House link giving them the URL, and inviting them to take a look at it at their convenience. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 16:07:51 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: madmax
William,
You seem to be holding out some possibility that the Obama campaign acted in good faith. I can't see how you cold even entertain the possibility after the last six months. I also think that Obama has proved that the Democrats are an order of magnitude worse than the Republicans. Yes the Republicans are bad but the totalitarian impulse was very minimal in Bush whereas Obama has revealed himself to be an aspiring despot with tyrannical ambitions. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 17:13:26 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: SurahAhriman
Madmax, I think William has the correct approach to this. (And William, iamredmage is my decade old Livejournal account.) Absolute denunciations, while fun, rarely seem convincing to the opposition, and in the current climate I suspect they will just make it easier for leftists to shout you down by claiming you're a crazed, right-wing Limbaugh lunatic. People who claim to represent our conclusions (though they fail at the reasoning) are doing an awful lot to discredit any actual anti-UHC movement at this time. I think it's wiser to maintain the more coolly rational composure that I appreciate about FIRM so much.
Besides, I can conceive of this being at least benign. Some idiot hipster staffer suggests going "grassroots" with the effort to argue with the opposition. Hell, many of them likely believe that they *would be* collecting *misinformation*. They consider many on the far right to be excessively stupid, and about as reasonable as theocrats (which many are). In this scenario, that website is more snide than Stasi. Posts like Williams maintain a dignified, well reasoned composure that is much more difficult to belittle or rationalize away. Of course, that requires having conviction in addition to self-control, but I've always thought Objectivism lends itself very well to that sort of thing. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 17:48:19 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: anon
SurahAhriman,
I agree. Besides, the lady at The White House is right, The President doesn't intend to eliminate private health insurance coverage. If he did, he would still be on the South Side of Chicago, stirring the pot. What he wants is to be in power. To go on The Ellen Degeneres Show and show off his dance moves. To smile, and be smiled back at, wherever he goes. To get honorary degrees from any college he wants. To raise - and - lower - his - fist - with - every - word - he - pronounces. That's all he is. He's ballast. He's trash. Caligula. Nero. Any punk who's ever burned ants with a lens and thought he had guts cuz the rest of us wouldn't. The President is a do-anything, say-anything second-hander all the way through.
What's scary, however, is that his meticulous underlings, content with remaining underlings, want to turn this battle of morons - and that's all it can whenever two groups fight over the man instead of the issue - into a display of their diabolical muscle. Not only will flag@whitehouse.gov show anyone who thinks beyond personalities that he's lost up a creek with no one to paddle, but it conditions BOTH SIDES to accept a spy society as helpful and normal. People will shut up if their neighbor or barber is not just an asshole, but an asshole with a link to The White House. They know that they'll be the ones answering the phone - no matter who's name is on the letterhead. From the top or the bottom, ballast is ballast, and they know it. But who's got the ballast determines the course of the ship.
That's all they want out of this. Universal health care's just gravy. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 18:26:19 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Mike
E-mail: mikedialj(at)netscape.net
Here's the letter I sent to the White house:
Dear Commissar of Propaganda,
I would like to report myself for recently sending 'fishy' e-mails to friends and family telling them that the health-care proposals being considered by the Obama administration and Congress will eliminate private health insurance. I've been saying this because the current bill prohibits private insurance companies from writing new policies after the bill is passed.
I've also been telling them that Democrats are trying to make private insurers go broke, because they want private insurers not to require that peope who are more likely to become ill, or people who are already ill, pay higher premiums. Where else would money come from, if people who are already ill don't pay higher premiums?
I've also been telling friends and family that the only reason the Democrats have adopted the latest, most dishonest tactic of villifying the insurance industry is that they want to distract our attention from the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are colossal failures, in that they are going broke, and that even at that they don't cover all expenses of elderly people and must be supplemented by PRIVATE INSURANCE.
I've been saying these things and many others about the government's arrogance and presumptuousness in getting involved in my health decisions. I have plenty of evidence to back up my assertions but, being a loyal American, I wanted to report myself to you so that you can take appropriate action.
Yours,
Mike Dial |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 18:30:42 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: barb
E-mail: barbsmith1(at)comcast.net
Here is what I sent, as did my ex:
There is a guy here who thinks that Huessen Obama is a
National Socialist. He says that, just like the Nazi's, Obama
thinks that all things should work to the good of the
Government because the government is the only
real representative of the people.
He showed me a listing of National Socialist Aims and a listing
of the things he brought down from the Obama campaign
website. And most of the two were the same.
He pointed out that the government takeover of the Auto,
Banking and Insurance companies was an example of how, in the
name of national emergency, Government takes over our lives.
Hitler spent his government into reconstruction and then to
pay the bills, he had to conquer other countries and steal their
resources. It seems said my friend that we are going along the
same road. What are we going to do when we spend more than
we can tax our people to pay. We may have to steal someone
else's money.
He says the Health Care bill is the same kind of work that the
Nazi's did when they took over the government. All dissent was looked
as at as detrimental to the good of the government. Dissenters were
ridiculed, no cooperation was sought, just bills witten in the middle of
the night, passed before they could be read and before you knew it
it was "Hail Hitler".
We had a taste of this last fall when jackbooted Black Panthers,
were intimidating voters in a Philidelphia polling place. They were
charged with violating the voting rights act but the Obama White
House saw to it that the charges were dismissed.
Could my friend be right?????
|
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 18:50:41 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
madmax: In the first place, I was specifically NOT arguing about the policy issues. A blog post needs to be focused. And I have blogged in the recent past about some of the harmful effects to be expected from the Democratic Party's health care proposals. This time I was commenting on the way the Obama administration is approaching the debate over those proposals.
In the second place, whether or not the Obama administration acted in good faith in any sense, there are people who do believe that it did so; people, moreover, who hold that belief in good faith. My comments must be addressed primarily to them. So I need to appeal to the objective consequences of Obama's actions, not to inferences about his motives.
And in the third place, I'm talking to people I know . . . and most of the people I know are liberals or leftists. My friendships are based, in the first place, on shared pleasures and interests; most of them are with science fiction/fantasy/comics fans, role-playing gamers, and the like. Now, these people are predominantly liberals or leftists. But though I have not concealed my political views from them, that has not led to their refusing to associate with me, whereas the conservative Republican science fiction fan I used to be friends with was so enraged over my political views (such as my support for abortion rights and my objection to the claim that the United States is a Christian nation) that we are no longer capable of being friends. I would rather associate with people who are capable of civilized disagreement than with people who defend some things I believe in for emotionalistic reasons. And to continue such association and have my own views taken seriously, I must treat those people and their views with respect . . . which means, not agreeing with them, but explaining clearly and rationally why I don't agree with them.
And, yes, I would rather associate with people who have sounder political values. But I don't know any significant number of such people among the people who share my pleasures and my recreations. And my pleasures and recreations are selfishly important to me. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 18:57:21 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: rachel
E-mail: fubaglady(at)aol.com
Hmmm...I wrote in and turned in Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Dodd and Frank because everything they say is "fishy". |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 19:04:21 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Joyce
E-mail: arthaven(at)aol.com
I sent in a couple of snitch letters. One just asked them to place me voluntarily on their enemies list. Why beat around the bush with a lot of pointless explanations? They don't really care. They just want to get their fascist list together. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 21:03:41 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: madmax
William,
My experiences have been different than yours. I find that the libertarian-right people I know, even if slightly religious, are open minded and decent people. The leftists I know are hate-filled nihilists. I do know some good and decent liberals (as distinguished from leftists), but they are not that interested in politics (in any theoretical way). So from what I have seen, there is little reason to appeal to with leftists. But your experience seems to be different than mine. |
|
| Friday, August 7, 2009 at 21:14:36 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: madmax
Surah,
Sometimes you have to call the totalitarians out. Sometimes it is appropriate to express emotions of outrage and contempt. Yes, the intellectual arguments have to be made. But rational, life-loving people are not Vulcans. I think Lindsay Perigio is right when he says that many Objectivists and rational-libertarians lack passion and when he argues for a rational rage. I'm also begining to see why Billy Beck gets so disgusted sometimes.
So I have to disagree with you that taking the time to write the White House to inform them that they were insensitive and innocently misguided and how they could do it differently next time is anything other than a *waste of time*. As if political leftists would ever even entertain anything contrary to their socialist ambitions. IMO, the White House needs to be bombarded with vitriol. They deserve it and it lets them know that they are not ruling over sheep. This is why I think William's response represents a type of meekness and timidity although I am sure he will disagree. |
|
| Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 8:32:15 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
madmax: Well, let's start out with the Miss Manners approach: In a situation of personal contact, a display of overt rage is actually not the most effective way to gain cooperation. I have found that a quiet, but consistent adherence to the objective works better. At most, letting it be seen that you are resisting the urge to make a display of your anger gets the point across, without making you someone to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible.
Now, in dealing with politicians and bureaucrats, you are not actually in contact with them anyway. They need to pay no more attention to you than they choose to. It's not as if you were Hank Rearden with the State Science Institute coming to him. Your displaying your anger does not threaten them in any meaningful way. Rather, it emphasizes your helplessness, and confirms to them that you feel helpless and resentful. So not only do they have a reason to dismiss you, in that you're making yourself unpleasant, but you've shown them that they can do so with impunity. There's a reason for the old saying, "Never let them see you sweat."
Besides that, the kind of anger you recommend activates some very basic emotional machinery that we share with the other primates, and likely with most mammals: the impulse to aggression in defense of territory or of a social group. And the natural tendency of those emotions is to end up with two groups of people screaming threats and insults at each other. People who are in that emotional state are seldom in any condition to think rationally about anything. So on the one hand, if there is anyone on the other side who might have the impulse to consider the validity of your concerns rationally, you have made them less likely to do so. And, on the other hand, you have transformed your own position from one you hold rationally to one you adhere to out of emotional impulse . . . and then it's no longer the same position, because it's become detached from its cognitive foundations. In this context, for example, bombarding the White House with hostility is simply going to encourage them to frame this as a drama of the good people (them) heroically acting on their principles despite the hostility and unjust attacks of the evil people (you).
And whether or not you believe there are people at the White House who might respond to a rational argument, you also need to consider the impact on your general public. In my case, in particular, I didn't write my comments for some White House staffer to read; I wrote them for the people who follow what I write of their own accord to read. Sending the link to the White House was a display of integrity, in publicly avowing my own convictions, rather than doing so secretively. But with my primary audience, I wished to get credit for having a rational position, and not simply one of emotional hostility; that would do more to get them to take my ideas seriously, even if they disagree with me. I would rather have them go away thinking that maybe I had a point, or that my legitimate concerns weren't being address, than have them go away thinking what a hostile, partisan jerk I was.
When you come right down to it, I try to maintain a tone of rational discussion out of self-respect. Becoming violent, or angry, or engaging in playground mockery, is descending to a lower level. Obviously I'm going to do it sometimes . . . all of the virtues are hard, and take effort . . . but I try to resist the inclination to do so.
Now, if you suppose that there is NO audience for your remarks who might be open to rational persuasion . . . well, that sounds to me like the time when someone goes on strike. Don't talk about it; don't threaten it; don't tell the White House, or the media, that you're going to pick up your marbles and go home. Just do it. And if you follow that course, why give the enemy any information about your actual views? Think of John Galt living ten years as a railroad laborer in New York: Do you see him writing letters to Mr. Thompson, telling him how evil his policies were?
Self-control is beneficial when you're dealing with people who are open to rational persuasion . . . but with people who aren't, it's vital. |
|
| Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 16:02:09 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: madmax
William,
What do you think about all the protest e-mails that NoodleFooders and other like-minded individuals (on this issue anyway) have sent to the White House? Some of these e-mails open with "Dear Ministry of Truth". Such letters are clearly disrespectful of those now in power. Do you think that such e-mails encourage leftists to believe even more strongly that their opposition are a bunch of evil "right-wing" fanatics? Do such e-mails trigger our ancient primate emotional machinery in a bad way? Should we even protest at all? |
|
| Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 12:50:08 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
madmax: I don't have a rigorously thought out answer to that. But I personally wouldn't care to offer such a response, not so much because of its effect on the recipients as because of its effect on me. I don't respect people who use that kind of rhetorical device when they disagree with my views, and I would rather not damage my own respect for myself. |
|
| Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 19:16:17 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: madmax
William,
That's a non-answer. But it doesn't matter. I think I already know your opinion of the protest e-mails presented in this thread. We may share the same philosophy but have totally different personalities and temperaments, especially when it comes to evaluating the Left. |
|
| Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 10:29:42 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"In a situation of personal contact, a display of overt rage is actually not the most effective way to gain cooperation."
I'm not fucking *interested* in "cooperation". I'm interested in *freedom*. Do you understand? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
