I really appreciate someone standing up and saying that american people need to stand up for the constitution.
Since soldiers need to follow orders until the day they die, it is even more important that the citizens do this. We signed our voices away in the name of some of the concepts you mention above. We don't speak out. We put our heads down and get it done, because we've been told it is in the best interest of the citizens. It's our job and it sucks, but I guarantee we sleep better at night.
When someone decides to almost arbitrarily throw our lives away in the name of a phony ideology, we need the support of the citizens more than any other time. No one should sign up for the military thinking they'll never see combat, that's the nature of the beast, but no soldier, marine, sailor or airman should ever feel like the president doesn't care.
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution 'a goddamned piece of paper.'"
I have one question: Who are these three people?
I am posting anonimously to illustrate my point. Many people believe that maintaining my anonimity is cowardly and that because of it, anything I say can be discounted and/or ignored. If we do not know who these three people are how can we take them seriously?
You cannot take them seriously without taking me seriously and you cannot dismiss my comments without dismissing their comments. Not if you are a rational intelligent human being -- which I hope you are.
There's a difference, though it's one of degree rather than dichotomy.
An anonymous poster is not revealing his or her identity to anyone.
The three people who claimed to be in the room did reveal their identities to the editor who wrote the story, who in turn vouches for them non-anonymusly. He knows who they are, and we know who he is. So there's someone identifiable who has stepped up to risk his credibility on behalf of three people who wish to remain out of the light, and we can attempt to judge his ability to judge his sources' trustworthiness, by his known reputation.
This is not perfect. This is not as good as knowing who those three people are and being able to judge their reputations ourselves. But neither is it a complete vapour like an anonymous-to-all posting -- such as these last two comments here. So I give it less weight than a fully identified source, and more weight than a random anonymous or pseudonymous Usenet article, LiveJournal comment, or graffito. I do not dismiss your comments outright (though that has more to do with your reasonable tone and thoughtful argument than anything else); neither do I swallow the report of Bush's remark without reservation (I am inclined, based on the writer's record, to believe the report, but I don't count this as 'proof' of an event that 'all reasonable people' have to concede happened -- that is, I believe it but acknowledge the uncertainty due to the anonymity and lack of supporting documentation).
Please note that although the President's alleged outburst was the trigger for writing my essay then as opposed to later (and provided a useful rhetorical hook), the meat of my essay -- the actual message and what I worry about -- concerns what is being done more than what he (probably) said. And I'd had those concerns and was looking for a way to start such an essay for quite some time before the report of Bush's outburst goaded me to finally get around to writing it. As I've said, whether he said those words that day or not is secondary: his actions speak louder than even those words could.
(Tangentially ... it's also interesting that the author of the news story later said that what he considered newsworthy about it was that it was evidence of Bush's temper, rather than the idea of a president saying such a thing being shocking.)
But you've sparked an interesting train of thought about the continuum of anonymity-and-credibility that I'll try to sort into coherence and post to see whether my other readers find it as interesting. I expect to get a fair bit of commentary designed to sharpen my thinking on the matter once I get around to writing up the thoughts I'm chewing on.
On subject: My biggest concern is that the public at large will villify a group of people (conservitives, republicans or whichever group they associate with the President) based on the comment/actions of one (or a few) but do not apply the same standard to other groups such as Liberals, Democrats or even reporters/comentors. Many many of each group I mention have done/said extremely questionable things yet their entire group does not pay the price as which ever groups people link the Persident to have/will.
The blood of heroes
Since soldiers need to follow orders until the day they die, it is even more important that the citizens do this. We signed our voices away in the name of some of the concepts you mention above. We don't speak out. We put our heads down and get it done, because we've been told it is in the best interest of the citizens. It's our job and it sucks, but I guarantee we sleep better at night.
When someone decides to almost arbitrarily throw our lives away in the name of a phony ideology, we need the support of the citizens more than any other time. No one should sign up for the military thinking they'll never see combat, that's the nature of the beast, but no soldier, marine, sailor or airman should ever feel like the president doesn't care.
Re: Truth: what's yer 20?
I have one question: Who are these three people?
I am posting anonimously to illustrate my point. Many people believe that maintaining my anonimity is cowardly and that because of it, anything I say can be discounted and/or ignored. If we do not know who these three people are how can we take them seriously?
You cannot take them seriously without taking me seriously and you cannot dismiss my comments without dismissing their comments. Not if you are a rational intelligent human being -- which I hope you are.
Re: Truth: what's yer 20?
An anonymous poster is not revealing his or her identity to anyone.
The three people who claimed to be in the room did reveal their identities to the editor who wrote the story, who in turn vouches for them non-anonymusly. He knows who they are, and we know who he is. So there's someone identifiable who has stepped up to risk his credibility on behalf of three people who wish to remain out of the light, and we can attempt to judge his ability to judge his sources' trustworthiness, by his known reputation.
This is not perfect. This is not as good as knowing who those three people are and being able to judge their reputations ourselves. But neither is it a complete vapour like an anonymous-to-all posting -- such as these last two comments here. So I give it less weight than a fully identified source, and more weight than a random anonymous or pseudonymous Usenet article, LiveJournal comment, or graffito. I do not dismiss your comments outright (though that has more to do with your reasonable tone and thoughtful argument than anything else); neither do I swallow the report of Bush's remark without reservation (I am inclined, based on the writer's record, to believe the report, but I don't count this as 'proof' of an event that 'all reasonable people' have to concede happened -- that is, I believe it but acknowledge the uncertainty due to the anonymity and lack of supporting documentation).
Please note that although the President's alleged outburst was the trigger for writing my essay then as opposed to later (and provided a useful rhetorical hook), the meat of my essay -- the actual message and what I worry about -- concerns what is being done more than what he (probably) said. And I'd had those concerns and was looking for a way to start such an essay for quite some time before the report of Bush's outburst goaded me to finally get around to writing it. As I've said, whether he said those words that day or not is secondary: his actions speak louder than even those words could.
(Tangentially ... it's also interesting that the author of the news story later said that what he considered newsworthy about it was that it was evidence of Bush's temper, rather than the idea of a president saying such a thing being shocking.)
But you've sparked an interesting train of thought about the continuum of anonymity-and-credibility that I'll try to sort into coherence and post to see whether my other readers find it as interesting. I expect to get a fair bit of commentary designed to sharpen my thinking on the matter once I get around to writing up the thoughts I'm chewing on.
Re: Truth: what's yer 20?
Re: Truth: what's yer 20?
On subject: My biggest concern is that the public at large will villify a group of people (conservitives, republicans or whichever group they associate with the President) based on the comment/actions of one (or a few) but do not apply the same standard to other groups such as Liberals, Democrats or even reporters/comentors. Many many of each group I mention have done/said extremely questionable things yet their entire group does not pay the price as which ever groups people link the Persident to have/will.
Hardly seems fair to me.