Terrorism Re: Corporate transparency

S. Alexander Jacobson alex@shop.com
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 23:01:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Here is a short version of Bush's speech:
They are evil; we are good.  They are weak; we are
strong.  They are cowards; we are brave.  We are
going to war against them and we will win.

The purpose of this speech was obviously
rhetorical not informational.  Its purpose was to
rally the people to support the war and our
troops and to demonstrate our resolve to allies
and enemies.

Disputing the factual content of this speech is
a. stupid (because there is no factual content)
b. intended to limit the rallying effect --
   because one is either opposed to the war or our
   troops, or
c. intended to score political/ratings points
   against Bush even at the cost of limiting the
   effectiveness of the speech (and potentially
   our effectiveness in war)

Any of these justified the anger at Bill Maher, by
people concerned with winning.

Note, I am not saying that it is inappropriate to
criticize Bush.  One could talk about the fact
that the war will be hard and that we as a people
will have to be ready to accept casualties.  One
could talk about the prior lack of preparation for
war.  One could talk about things we should be
doing in addition to fighting the Taliban.  But,
once we are going to war, it is inappropriate to
hurt the war effort without some strong
countervailing good reason.  Most people don't
think the semantics of cowardice fall into that

Regarding timeliness, this is common sense.  If
you were on a football team and about to play in
the superbowl and the coach was giving a speech
screaming "They suck!  We're goin' to CRUSH
Do you think that would be the time to say "uhm,
well they don't actually suck otherwise they
wouldn't be in the superbown with us and by
the way, I think we only need to win but we don't
need to crush them." ? If you did say that, how
would you expect your teammates and your fans to


PS You should really calm down.
S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jeff Bone wrote:

> "S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:
> > Re cowardice, Bill Maher chose to oppose Bush's
> > spin campaign.  He may have done it out of
> > anti-Bush or anti-US sentiment, rather than
> > pro-terrorist sentiment, but either of those
> > justifies anger.
> Anti-Bush sentiment justifies anger?  Perhaps --- among brainless pro-Bush clones
> who mindlessly accept all things Bush (or any other president, in time of crisis)
> does / says.  There are still some (though apparently dwindling!) number among us
> who can both grant kudos *and* call bullshit on the same person, each in its
> appropriate time.
> > If he were scoring some
> > anti-Bush points that was not the time to do so,
> Oh, well, apparently Bill (and I, and countless others) either (a) missed that
> "appropriate time for criticism" clause in the textbook on political commentary or
> (b) don't have a direct hotline to God's Own Appropriateness Hotline.
> > The notion that he just prefers "to live in the
> > real world, rather than in the world of spin" is
> > just laughable given that title and content of his
> > show.
> Methinks you need to have your sense of irony in for maintenance.
> jb