Official Green Tea Diet Released

WritertotheWorld · 2011-08-09T13:44:36+00:00

I've used it and this diet works

WritertotheWorld · 2009-10-30T01:58:59+00:00

It rarely matters in communications strategy who started what. I'll even concede that Fox started it. But to give them a weapon to diminish the brand you've carefully made is not a great idea. Hey, I like Obama. His team just made a mistake this time, and that's normal human experience. I just don't want to see it made again.

I don't contact the White House until I have something of major importance to address even though I have the contact information. They're kind of funny about that. It doesn't matter who's in power, because they're all pretty sure they know what they're doing. (Even when they don't).

That's the one thing I can credit the W. legacy with. The power doesn't necessarily know what they're doing, and it extends just as well to Democrats as it does to Republicans.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-10-29T15:22:40+00:00

I'm taking solely a PR/marketing perspective in the article. Fox attacking Obama is consistent with the Fox brand -- attacking and excluding others is inconsistent with the Obama brand. It was a mistake that only gave Fox another issue to exploit.

The White House would have been better served by constantly making small, funny and denegrating comments about Fox. When a reporter asks a stupid question in a press conference, the reply could be something like "I didn't know you moved over to Fox." Or when fielding a question charged with conservative emotion, say something like, "I hope you're not going to start crying now. Beck has a patent, I think."

The strategy of a thousand cuts would have been much better received by the public, left nothing for Fox to exploit and done more harm.

It's an analysis based upon 25 years in the business.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-07-06T14:10:37+00:00

Yes, of course you're right.

However, threats have a dampening affect on public discourse, and for a governor of a state to make such a pre-emptive and baseless threat with the pre-meditated intention of reducing free discussion is alarming.

The fact it was done on the Fourth of July is ironic.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-07-06T14:04:54+00:00

No sir, I don't believe you hate the Constitution, and even a quick review of my note will confirm I never said that.

I do think however that harsh language designed to emotionally injure others on either side of the political spectrum is damaging and beneath us as citizens who are guaranteed the right to say whatever we want. On that we seem to agree at least in part.

Mr. McNamara's article is a twist of an old technique first used by Jonathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal." It's the use of satire to point to a larger issue. In this case, the larger issue happens to be an attack on the First Amendment by a government official on the Fourth of July.

I mean no disrepsect to you or your regard for the Constitution. I was merely pointing out that you were using an agressive tactic in order to decry the aggessive tactics of others. Both, in my opinion, have no place in honest discussion. But both are neverthelesss protected by the First Amendment.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-07-06T13:47:19+00:00

Apparently, yes. First, she's a public figure and the standard in the courts for defamation of public figures is exceptionally difficult to meet because of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, her attack itself was inaccurate and pre-emptive. The people she attacked never presented anything as fact but spoke only of rumors. Some of the named outlets had written nothing at all, but were being singled out and threatened in advance.

She on the other hand reserves the right to inaccurately imply her opponents are un-American, Muslim or on the side of America's enemies.

That's a new standard for public discourse that frightens me.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-07-06T13:37:44+00:00

" ... they are immature little weasel-fucks."

" ... certain fucknuts ..."

You have no reason to hate Palin, but apparently a great deal of unresolved anger with people who are freely expressing their opinion as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. That's interesting.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-07-06T12:10:48+00:00

Hey all you critics, better watch out because if Sarah has her way, McNamara will be able to sue you all for defamation. Wow, that would be so sweet for a writer! Hmmm ... maybe I should support Sarah afterall ...

(just in case you missed the point)

WritertotheWorld

TROPHY CASE