Categories
Political Social Media

Verbal weaponry in the war against terrorism

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I knew something was up when I kept getting all these hits from Josh Trevino’s weblog. Seems Josh has been using me for an adjective again.

(I do seem to generate all these strong feelings, don’t I? How nice to know that I generate such love/hate – leaves me all warm and tingley all over, as if I’ve been rubbed down with a loofah sponge, or licked with a particularly rough tongue.)

Since Josh was kind enough to open up a conduit to this weblog from the bible totin, gun packin, flag wavin, war lovin, All American crowd, I thought that now would be the ideal time for me to roll out the first installment of The Bird’s Tips to being a Good American: Verbal Weaponry in the War Against Terrorism.

Before proceeding with the tips, it’s essential that you keep one thing in mind – a Good American has a duty to find and root out evil; to correct the misinformed; to stifle disagreement; and to do all that’s possible to prevent the weakoning of America’s resolve in this our War Against Terrorism.

Now, pay attention:

Tip 1: Never whisper when you can shout

Never use clash, when you can use near-riot. Never use near-riot, when you can use riot. Try to work violence into the mix if you can.

Whatever degree of adjective is used by the neutral, up the ante by adding at least five decibles (plus or minus) of noise when describing the event.

Don’t leave your audience confused about possible viewpoints and opinions – if you yell loud enough, they won’t be able to hear themselves think, a state preferred for Good Americans.

Tip 2: Never retreat – Attack! Attack! Attack!

When your opponent uses reason, use passion. When your opponent disagrees, no matter how gently, use extreme prejudice and take him or her down. Grab the person by the privates, trash them, bash them, and make them bleed. Verbally, of course.

If you respond mildly to another’s writing, your reading audience may assume that the person has a legitimate opinion. This might lead to your audience listening with an open mind. Do not allow this! Good Americans do not have Open Minds.

An Open Mind might lead to people questioning the government’s current actions, and other subversive, dangerous activities.

Tip 3: Degrade and Mock

The most effective weapon against respect is to degrade and mock. This is also an effective way to make the opponent seem less human, and therefore less sympathetic.

If you feel you’re losing the battle, resort to a personal attack, and don’t forget to add a sneer to your voice – do a good job and you get bonus points.

Tip 4: What facts?

Why use fact when innuendo will do?. Nothing better than a cold rumor presented as argument stated as heresay published as fact.

As a precaution, use one of the following phrases to cover your butt:

– could be
– rumor to the effect
– a reader passed this one to me but I haven’t been able to substantiate it yet
– someone ought to look into this
– it seems to me
– where there’s smoke…
– I was there

And if you’re caught out, say “…I’m just a weblogger expressing my opinion”. Works everytime.

Tip 5: If you’re not Pro, you’re Anti – If you’re not with us, you’re ag’in us

This one is my personal favorite because it’s practically indefensible. If a person says, “Well, I don’t support all of Israel’s moves”, you label them anti-Semitic or pro-terrorist. If the person doesn’t support Bush or Ashcroft, you call them a bleeding heart liberal and anti-American. If the person just plain disagrees with you, call them a moron or an idiot (interchange these or people will catch on that you’re using a script – note this is interchangeable with Tip 3).

And if the person says “I want to understand all the issues”, then you bring out the big guns and say (all together class, you know what’s coming):

Moral Equivalency!

Since no one knows exactly what “moral equivalency” is, they can’t fight the term, and you can’t be sued. Slick, eh?

That’s it for the tips. Study them. Use them.

Sadly for all Good Americans, there is one defense against all of these verbal weapons, and this was provided by Mike Sanders, a long time ago, in a universe that’s now far far away:

It is impossible to be objective about ourselves. Others can see things that we never can. If we want to improve our writing and thinking it is helpful to be judged by others. If what they say is valuable, we can apply it. If it is without merit, we can ignore it.

Remember: Only You can prevent Moral Equivalency

Categories
Political Technology

Bush-Cheney-Gates: We are watching you

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dave Winer can sometimes be over the top at times (in truth, so can I), but he’s not far off the mark when he writes“…foreclosure. That’s what MS is doing with everything we hold dear.”.

What Dave’s talking about is Palladium, Microsoft’s newest innovation.

What’s it all mean? Well, think about that machine you’re using to look at this post. Now think of it modified to include a “security chip” that will most likely, among other things, have a unique identifier that lets anyone know, anyone, where you’ve been and what you’ve done with your machine. In addition, that nice open protocol that you used to gain access to the Internet? Well, kiss it good-bye and see it replaced with something developed under the benevolent auspices of Microsoft.

This is the worst piece of technology-related news I’ve heard in a long time. This is also an example of how corporations can manipulate the US while the American citizens are hiding with their heads in the sand.

While we give Bush et al high marks for “doing a good job”, our beloved president and his gang are selling this country to the highest bidder – in this case, Bill Gates and Microsoft. And as we let the Bush gang manipulate and discard the Constitution and our freedoms in order to wage “war on terrorism”, so now we’re allowing Microsoft do the same to wage war on hackers.

More:

Microsoft’s Palladium: A new security Initiative
Palladium: Microsoft’s Big Plan for the PC
Who trusts Microsoft’s Palladium? Not me
Microsoft Security: Will it be different this time?
Cringely: I told you so
The Big Secret
Why Intel loves Palladium

Categories
Political Weblogging Writing

SFSU “Blog burst”

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Several bloggers have gotten together to express their opinions of the SFSU pro-Palestinian/pro-Israel clash. You can view a summary of this event at Winds of Change.

Of particular interest to me was Facts of Israel claims of bias at the San Francisco Chronicle. The reason for my interest is the Jewish Bulletin pointed out what it also considers bias of the Chronicle. However, the Bulletin also carefully mentions that the current Chronicle Execute Editor, Phil Bronstein, “…got his start as a young reporter at the Bulletin in 1973.”

One comment: Facts of Israel needs to link to online articles if they’re going to paraphrase and editorialize on the SF Chronicle content. With this, the reader can then verify for themselves the validity of the interpretation of the material.

In the interests of equal representation I’m also linking to an IndyMedia posted comment representing the General Union of Palestinian Students viewpoint. Note, though, that IndyMedia is not known for being an unbiased publication.

Only one weblog (armed liberal – see link and full quote later in this post) from the Blog Burst effort references the material I’ve presented about the DA referrals resulting from this clash. And armed liberal equates turning over pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian students as “…moral equivalency…”

On to other things.

I am concerned about this so-called Blog Burst. Though bloggers are not Journalists and may express their opinion at will, what do you call a formalized process to gather like minds together, resulting in multiple voices united in expressions of anger, paranoia, and hate?

Selected readings:

“The sort of people who run colleges certainly love Palestinians — love them because they are so incompetent and useless. They dote on feckless minorities, because they need to feel superior to someone. If they really cared about them they would tell them to pull up their socks and work hard and make something of themselves.” Random Jottings

 

“There is a difference between yanking down a flag and stomping on it while yelling words that basically mean, “You should be dead”, and calling someone a “camel jockey”. It’s inappropriate to use ethnic slurs, but that is not morally equivalent to wishing someone dead because of his or her race or ethnic origin. This reluctance to call evil “evil” is the same thing that gives Arafat and his homicidal thugs the ability to continue playing both ends in Palestine – targeting innocent Israelis repeatedly while holding up their hands to the world and saying, “I’m just protecting myself” when called on it.” cut on the bias

 

“Now, I’m not on the ground in San Francisco, and I’ll defer a little bit to some folks who have first-hand experience of the events there. But there are a few things that are incontrovertible and clear:

The pro-Israel/pro-Jewish side seems to be taking all or a vast majority of the physical damage;

 

The acknowledged racist comments are all coming from the pro-Palestinian side;

 

The powers that be are taking a ‘children, children, you shouldn’t both be fighting’ moral equivalence stance. They have turned three students over to the District Attorney’s office for possible prosecution – two pro-Palestinian and one pro-Israel.” armed liberal

Though not part of Blog Burst, Mike Sanders wrote:

“The riot incident at SFSU on May 7, 2002 is just a symptom of the climate at SFSU campus and many other American campuses. Hate speech is not free speech and is not sanctioned by the law. The fine line between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic is easily crossed and I have yet found an acceptable set of guidelines for making the distinction. This is partly because it is not just the words that are being said, but who is saying them, and what have they said before. America is founded on both freedom of speech and freedom of religion and we must insure that both freedoms are protected under they law”

“I have yet found an acceptable set of guidelines for making the distinction.”

The concept of Blog Burst disturbs me. The results of this event disturbs me.

Lewis Carroll wrote one of my favorite poems, The Walrus and the Carpenter. I’ve always felt that one particular verse of the poem typifies weblogging:

The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing wax —
Of cabbages — and kings . . .”

Today is not the day to talk of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax; and I have no heart for cabbages and kings.

Categories
Political

Perspective, it’s all perspective

Today in SF Gate an article regarding the pro-Palestinian/pro-Israel clash at SFSU that I’ve covered in previous postings:

San Francisco State University police asked the district attorney’s office Thursday to prosecute three students accused of hate crimes during a campus clash between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups.

In a strongly worded letter distributed on campus on May 13, Corrigan denounced the clash. “A small but terribly destructive number of pro- Palestinian demonstrators, many of whom were not SFSU students, abandoned themselves to intimidating behavior and statements too hate-filled to repeat,” he wrote.

But after reviewing the tapes and interviewing witnesses, the administration has learned that the pro-Palestinian demonstrators were not alone responsible for the incident.

“I support the administration in their efforts to ensure a non-intimidating atmosphere on campus, an atmosphere that promotes free speech and is tolerant of people of different backgrounds and viewpoints,” said Seth Brysk, executive director of S.F. Hillel, which serves Jewish students.

Chronicle reporters: Henry K. Lee (hless -at- sfchronicle.com) and Tanya Schevitz (tschevitz -at – sfchronicle.com).

Categories
Political Weblogging

And so much for journalism

Meryl Yourish and Glenn Reynolds responded to my email and article link yesterday.

So much for weblogging as journalism. And the truth shall set you free, right?