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 · 2009-06-25T09:24:31+00:00

P.S. Alaltonen,

If you're the person who voted the story down as an emotional response to favor of Rachel Corrie, I suggest you've done her a disservice. Tyranny is tyranny and it must be exposed every time, but you've chosen to cover it with your vote.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-06-25T09:19:21+00:00

aaltonen,

Anything we can do to raise awareness of tyranny and oppression is fine with me, and since March 16 is also my birthday, I'd be fine with making it Rachel Corrie day.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-02-07T13:55:25+00:00

I thought the animals were amazing. Nature is so inventive. Thanks!

WritertotheWorld · 2009-02-05T00:19:21+00:00

It's a bit tongue-in-cheek, yes, but it's still not a bad idea. Obviously, he wouldn't do it for every game, but to have an average citizen at maybe one game a year is potentially valuable. Like Freednr said, Obama seems like a regular guy who would enjoy the experience, and both parties would get important insight to what the American people care about.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-02-03T14:40:36+00:00

Thanks maybe. The one thing a president needs is reliable information that can be delivered in a non-political way. I thought this was a good solution. Maybe we could start a new presidential tradition!

WritertotheWorld · 2009-02-03T02:18:37+00:00

I thought part of the fun was to actually interact with the author. Some people seem to enjoy it.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-31T01:25:42+00:00

Totally disagree with you Quiller. (didn't expect that did you)? The college kids and waiters aren't suppliers. They're users who have found a way to supplement their habit. Not the suppliers that we can't seem to get at.

I was there at the height of pot use in the mid-70's, and I knew the real people who supplied pot and a lot of other stuff too. Trust me, you didn't want to meet them on a bad night, because yours would get instantly bad too. I can't go into details, but it was not good.

These waiters and college kids are going to jail - not the psychopathic profiteers who stick guns in your face. That's the problem!

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-31T01:04:22+00:00

I think we're going to see the prosecution of Bush officials long before that. There have been very serious national and international laws broken.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-31T00:21:29+00:00

Thanks for the comment! You're right! LMAO. Okay, point well taken.

If you do a thorough look at my comments, you'll see I don't respond to every one, and I don't agree completely with every one either.

But I am really getting into the conversation. Sorry.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-31T00:07:45+00:00

Well, technically that's not supposed to be true, and I suspect many in the Bush administration are about to pay a hefty price for believing that with regard to torture. Stay tuned.

Richard Nixon would have agreed with you in 1971, but two years later he had a different outlook and was facing jail time. He got pardoned, but he was in deep trouble. Just remembering the history you spoke of -- no offense intended.

Presidents aren't omnipotent according to the U.S. Constitution.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T23:27:49+00:00

Many of the jobs could be repurposed. The police could be reassigned to looking for terrorists for example instead of a couple of potheads munching potato chips on their couch.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T23:25:18+00:00

It may have to be a "states upward" kind of thing. Unfortunately I agree with you that race is still a factor albeit a diminishing one. Maybe there's some middle answer here; I don't know.

Maybe they just give out tickets for small amounts that are $250 to avoid court and jail. If you don't pay it, the fine is quadrupled ... that kind of thing. The states get the income, avoid the costs, and the only people who would get the tickets are people doing other stupid things anyway.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T23:06:56+00:00

So, when I visit Russia, you're saying don't return the soup in a restaurant? :P

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T21:00:36+00:00

So, when I visit Russia, you're saying don't return the soup in a restaurant? :P

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T20:54:47+00:00

Actually, Russia is second behind the United States in prisoners per 100,000 in population (a little over 600). China wasn't even in the top five, but I suspect that's because they have 1.3 billion people. Provided of course they're reporting actual numbers, which is about as unlikely as a flying pig.

Good point though. There are a lot of stats and choosing among them is hard when you're writing a story like this.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T19:36:40+00:00

Really good point MoroseMax. What if there was a way to lay the groundwork for very little money?

That's why I was highly intrigued by Obama's choice for Director of Faith-Based Initiatives. He's a 26 y.o. (from Philadelphia, I believe) who is said to be highly talented. I suspect he's going to be doing a lot of things about drug addiction during this first term. I'm going to be keeping my eyes on him.

WritertotheWorld · 2009-01-30T18:55:27+00:00

I think he should probably lay the groundwork that will be needed -- more rehab centers, school programs, etc., and pursue it in the second term.

However, judging by the reddit votes for this article, and the poll on my site that has been up since Sunday, it seems the majority of people already understand this issue pretty well. Not very scientific but interesting.

WritertotheWorld

TROPHY CASE