I strongly agree with regard to rejecting the use of PR tactics to further progressive causes. If progressive social change is to be accomplished by 'understanding and manipulating the group mind' and thus controlling the 'bewildered herd', as two of PR's progenitors put it, we ought to view it no differently than when Republicans, or anyone else, use these methods to further their agendas- that is, an exercise in hypocrisy and deceit.
Of course, we have to be careful what we call 'progressive' in the first place- seems a lot of it consists of folks whose message is basically, "George Bush is a bad, bad man (with the implicit postscript: so go vote for a Democrat instead, because they oppose his policies)." That's a gross misuse of the term progressive as far as I'm concerned, and I'd be very skeptical of any meeting of so-called progressives asking the question "do progressives suck at PR?" and not very quickly reaching the conclusion "yes, intentionally so, because progressives ought not be focused on how to better propagandize the public."
None of the sources given in this article
for "long war" are correct. Please see
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/02/pnac-rebuilding-americas-defenses.html
in which I discuss this very term, "long war," in relation to PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses - A Biopsy on Imperialism, Part I: Operation Imperialism: The Enduring Mission.
People need to have a longer 'attention span' and larger awareness of historical documents? Thank you, Sarah Meyer, Researcher, Sussex, UK
Myself, I think the situation is hilarious. Both the results of the study and the reaction to it. When a study supports a popular paradigm, no one questions it, no matter how poorly designed. But when a study adds a new dimensions to the puzzle, those who don't agree with it cry wolf. Lots of us have been saying that the studies done on obesity have missed some amazingly
obvious confounding variables; yet we like obesity as a villian, so we ignore them. We also favor a few simplistic dietary guidelines to serve as a talisman so we can live forever. When the later is questioned, we cry fowl. How about fair play and critical thinking across the board on studies. Lets try the scientific method for a change. Then again if we as a society didn't make so many Faustian bargains, we would not be so afraid of where we are going.
As a world class nitpicker, I tend to notice how people clean up their messes and keep others informed about what they're doing. It is good to see how carefully Bob does this. When he goes after Anxious Al, he also gives the guy a chance to comment, AND he fixes up prior remarks which needed some clarification. Kudos!
Dick
Veterans lobby for, and sick workers against, Sen. Arlen Specter's bill "to [http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34945/story.htm halt asbestos lawsuits and create a $140 billion fund] for compensating asbestos victims":
Representatives of veterans' groups told reporters that they cannot sue their former employer - the federal government - over asbestos exposure that happened in military facilities. This, they said, was why they in particular needed a compensation fund. ...
Elsewhere in the Capitol, victims of asbestos-related diseases said they had collected 150,000 signatures, including those of many veterans, against the bill. At a news conference organized by plaintiffs' lawyers, these victims said the fund was designed to write down the liabilities of big companies while discouraging victims from filing claims with complicated exposure requirements.
None of the sources given in this article
for "long war" are correct. Please see
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/02/pnac-rebuilding-americas-defenses.html
in which I discuss this very term, "long war," in relation to PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses - A Biopsy on Imperialism, Part I: Operation Imperialism: The Enduring Mission.
People need to have a longer 'attention span' and larger awareness of historical documents? Thank you, Sarah Meyer, Researcher, Sussex, UK
Myself, I think the situation is hilarious. Both the results of the study and the reaction to it. When a study supports a popular paradigm, no one questions it, no matter how poorly designed. But when a study adds a new dimensions to the puzzle, those who don't agree with it cry wolf. Lots of us have been saying that the studies done on obesity have missed some amazingly
obvious confounding variables; yet we like obesity as a villian, so we ignore them. We also favor a few simplistic dietary guidelines to serve as a talisman so we can live forever. When the later is questioned, we cry fowl. How about fair play and critical thinking across the board on studies. Lets try the scientific method for a change. Then again if we as a society didn't make so many Faustian bargains, we would not be so afraid of where we are going.
Veterans lobby for, and sick workers against, Sen. Arlen Specter's bill "to [http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34945/story.htm halt asbestos lawsuits and create a $140 billion fund] for compensating asbestos victims":
Pages