There is no such thing as an "accidental 'self-inflicted wound'"

[markses]

One dawn, our wire patrol
Carried him. This time, Death had not missed.
We could do nothing but wipe his bleeding cough.
Could it be accident? - Rifles go off...
Not sniped? No. (Later they found the English ball.)
-Wilfred Owen, S.I.W.

In military parlance, the term "self-inflicted wound" has always contained within its definition purposive action. That is to say, it has always been used to refer to a wound purposely inflicted on oneself - usually with the end in view of avoiding further action, or suicide. Since its real emergence in the British trenches during the First World War - where the practice was so common that even the great war poet Wilfred Owen has a poem entitled S.I.W. - the term meant only this: A wound purposely inflicted on oneself with the end in view of avoiding front-line service.

One cannot contemplate an "accidental" self-inflicted wound any more than one could contemplate an "accidental" suicide. If it is classed a suicide, it is by definition purposive. We may not have other words for accidental deaths caused by oneself (by bad luck, chance, or foolishness - i.e., all those accidental asphyxiations as parts of sexual acts are NOT suicides), but they are certainly not called suicides. The term "suicide" - BY DEFINITION - means purposive action: it means you did it on purpose. The same goes for "self-inflicted wound." A wound that happens by accident (rifles go off), even if you caused the accident, is not technically a "self-inflicted wound," since the term "self-influcted wound" does not include accidental wounds, and never has. Purposiveness is an essential (which is to say, necessary) element of the term.

Needless to say, Ms. Malkin is perfectly aware of this fact, so trying to imply that a 'self-inflicted wound" doesn't necessarily mean purposive action is even more of her dishonest mealy-mouthedness.

[SoFlaJet]

1. you see her

on Washington Journal this morning,whining about unfair treatment from Chris Matthews on last nights' Hardball?SHE WORKS FOR FOX for God's sake,the station of O'Reilly who told a 9/11 family member shut up and if it weren't for respect for your father I'd slap you shut up get off the show.Malkin took the SBliars claims to a new level of outrageousness with here assertion that Kerry shot himself for political purposes 30 years ago.Unbelievable

[olddem43]

7. She didn't really say that he "shot himself." she said that his

wounds were self inflicted, repeating the lie in the swift boat liars' book that Kerry's injuries were caused by a grenade that he threw and it exploded too close to him, thereby causing his injuries. She continued to repeat the phrase, "self inflicted" and Matthews asked her if she was saying that "He shot himself." She refused to say that but insisted that the wounds were self inflicted. He finally kicked her off the show.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. I'm surprised she didn't pull a "David Drier" and stomp off the show

in a hissy fit (like Drier recently did on Bill Maher's show).

[olddem43]

8. Dupe - sorry

[robcon]

2. A self-inflicted wound can't be accidental?

What if a person stabs him/herself accidentally? I've done that more than once (never life threatening.) Isn't that an accidental self-inflicted wound?

[RivetJoint]

5. Yes, it is

But I think the original poster correctly points out that in the military parlance, a SIW, by definition, means a wound that was given to oneself purposely.

[markses]

9. No, that's the point

In military parlance, "self-inflicted wound" is a term of art: it has a very specific meaning that departs from natural language. In natural language, you may consider accidentally cutting yourself while slicing tomatoes a "self-inflicted wound," but in military parlance you cannot call that a "self-inflicted wound," since by definition the term includes purposive action. The slippage is between what we would generally consider the meaning (I kicked the damn box and broke my toe! - self-inflicted wound!), and the precise meaning in a military context. So, let's take a scene from the film Thin Red Line. Woody Harrelson's character - meaning to throw a grenade - grabs it by its pin, and cannot get the grenade out in time. He falls on it to prevent the rest of his unit from being affected by the shrapnel. Self-inflicted wound? No, even though his own rashness caused it. He keeps saying "That was a damn recruit mistake!" (right before he dies). That is NOT, in a military context, to be referred to as a self-inflicted wound, even though he was the one who inflicted it. Why? Because he did not mean to injure himself. It was an accident.

[demon67]

3. Is there a military term for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound?

For example, I was reading about how Bob Dole was injured when he accidentally failed to throw a grenade a sufficient distance and it resulted in him being hit with shrapnel. What is that called in military parlance?

[BlueEyedSon]

4. "friendly fire"

[demon67]

13. Is that right?

I always thought friendly-fire was from your own troops. I didn't realize you could friendly-fire at yourself. You learn something new every day.

[RivetJoint]

6. Tough luck?

[TahitiNut]

16. "accidental"

What must be emphasized is the incredible abundance of "dangerous stuff"™ in a combat zone. You've got thousands of young grunts constantly handling, sleeping near, walking past, and carrying "things that can kill you."™ Every day. Every hour. Constantly. Even while you're sleeping.

Sharp things.
Dirty things
Things that go bang.
Things that go boom.

It's relatively impossible for anyone without the personal experience to comprehend the hundreds of ways that a grunt can die each and every day that have nothing directly to do with the 'enemy.'

[olddem43]

10. I have read that, In most military services, during wartime

the penalty for a self inflicted wound is death. Said to be true almost world-wide.

[RivetJoint]

11. Rarely enforced if that

is indeed true.

[markses]

15. Some background (SIWs in the British Army, First World War)

In an attempt to determine guilt military authorities would strive to determine the type and nature of bullet which caused a given wound - if the bullet was 'home grown', i.e. not fired from an enemy weapon, then the outlook was dark indeed in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary: if found guilty of a self-inflicted wound in the British Army the ultimate penalty was capital, i.e. death by firing squad.

In the British Army some 3,894 men were found guilty of SIW; in practice none were executed but instead sent to prison for lengthy periods.

-----SNIP----

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/siw.htm

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

46. WTF

Sent to prison for surviving friendly fire?

[markses]

48. UH, no...sent to prison for intentionally inflicting their own wounds

That's the point. "Self-inflicted wound" necessarily means "intentionally inflicted."

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

50. I realize their intent

But from what you quoted it makes it sound like if they are hit by friendly fire then they are guilty of self-inflicted wounds until proven innocent. If they can't prove themselves innocent then they get shipped off to prison.

if the bullet was 'home grown', i.e. not fired from an enemy weapon, then the outlook was dark indeed in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary

[Ravy]

12. It wasn't intentional, but it may have been self inflicted, like Dole's.

As published in The Nation (Aug12/19, 1996).

"Dole's first wound. It was in the first of these night patrols that Dole received the wound for which he was awarded his first Purple Heart. He ruefully confesses in his 1988 autobiography that his wound was self-inflicted: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg -- the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart." The wound was so minor that he led another patrol two nights later. He does not mention that others were also injured by his misguided throw -- which Woodruff's account attributes to an enemy machine gun. "
http://www.tedellis.net/dole-article.htm

Matthews handled it correctly last night. We won't win this argument unless we make them distinguish between a purposeful act and a friendly-fire incident.

THEY are giving it the negative connotation, we shouldn't fall into the trap of accepting it.

[markses]

14. If it is not intentional, it cannot be called a "self-inflicted wound"

That's the point. If a wound is called "self-inflicted" in a military context, that wound is thought to be purposely inflicted, because of the precise meaning of "self-inflicted" in military parlance. The confusion is one between the military parlance and common language. Any use of "self-inflicted" in a military context at the least implies purposive action, and more likely outright claims purposive action by definition. It is a severe confusion of terms and should not be tolerated, given the implication. People should use precise language if they set out to be honest.

You wouldn't call somebody who got drunk and accidentally crashed into a tree and died a "suicide," although you may take the act of drinking and driving to be "suicidal" in a non-precise sense. In the same way, you wouldn't call a military wound "self-inflicted" unless you meant to include purposive action. The definition simply excludes accidental or non-purposive actions.

[TahitiNut]

17. Even in ordinary English, the word 'inflict' connotes purposeful.

in·flict tr.v. in·flict·ed, in·flict·ing, in·flicts

1. To deal or mete out (something punishing or burdensome); impose: inflicted heavy losses on the enemy; a storm that inflicted widespread damage.
2. To afflict.


inflict

\In*flict"\, v. t. To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; to apply forcibly; to lay or impose; to send; to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal.

What heart could wish, what hand inflict, this dire disgrace? --Drygen.

The persecution and the pain That man inflicts on infero-ior kinds. --Cowper



inflict

v : impose something unpleasant; "The principal visited his rage on the students"


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inflict

---

Note that every example and every parallelism infers a conscious, intentional act. The word itself, as a transitive verb, emphasizes the source of the behavior (as the subject in any sentence) above the object. When speaking more of the object of such behavior, we'd use the word 'suffer' as in "He suffered under the punishment."

[markses]

20. Yes, of course, but usage often departs

I agree that in technically precise ordinary English "inflict" connotes conscious intention. I do want to allow, however, that common usage often departs from even this kind of technical precision, and so common meaning may exclude that connotation. But you are, of course, correct here. I'm just trying to draw a distinction between common usage and precise terminology in military parlance - in order to show that the right wing is playing on the slippage between the different uses in order to insinuate without having to say. A dishonest venture at its core, and one that needs to be dealt with analytically. ;-)

[Ravy]

23. Oh! No doubt

I agree with you that they are choosing their words carefully to INSINUATE that he did it on purpose. Some even go further than insinuate, and get promptly smacked down.

I am just saying that the response we need to take to win the argument is to force them to be more specific. Was it intentional or not? We can make them remove their own connotation, as Matthew's did with Malken.

I just don't think we should be arguing that their use of the term is wrong, when they can simply produce a dictionary and demonstrate that they are right.

[markses]

24. No, they are not right

Dictionary included. The point of this exercise is to make them admit intention, since intention is part of the definition in a military context, and they damn well know it. If we don't make that careful distinction, then they can say "Oh, it was an accidental self-inflicted wound," which brings us back to square one, since the implication of "self-inflicted wound" continues to operate. The point is to get them to stop using "self-inflicted" altogether, or to show that whenever they use it, they are being thoroughly dishonest. We're in the same boat here, Ravy, so I don't really get all the bravado and nastiness of your posts. I mean, "Pfft"? That seems over-the-top and unnecessary.

[Ravy]

27. The more we decry the use of the word, the more they will use it.

You have it right, we just need to make them state what they believe Kerry's intent was.

The Pfft was because the poster mischaracterized what was include in his post to prove his point, which was worthy of a Pfft in my book.

I don't mean to be nasty or demonstrate bravado. I just think we need to confront the rethugs head on and pin them down rather than criticize them about their choice of words.

[markses]

28. I think my appraoch is one way of confronting them head on

And use of words is important as all git out, and so shouldn't be considered a sideaays approach. That said, I also think your approach is head on, and would not critique it on that basis. I don't really like the implication that my way is not head on, but I suppose you're looking for some conflict or other.

[Ravy]

42. No, I am trying to separate real issues from side issues...

The real issue is that Kerry deserved the purple heart, and that he is a war hero.

The side issue is that their attack is disingenuous. You will never get them to stop using disingenuous attacks. It is what they are paid to do.

I know you would accomplish winning the major point in an argument with a rethug. Facts are overwhelmingly on our side. I just don't see the point of dragging down the argument after that to complain about their use of the term "self-inflicted", at least directly.

I am not here to argue so much as to gather information and to learn effective techniques towards accomplishing our goals of regime change. So, please do not look on my comments as trying to pick a fight with you. While I am reading your posts and composing my own, I am mentally having an argument with countless rethugs I will be talking to in the coming months, and rehashing countless arguments from the past months. I just want to be VERY EFFECTIVE about it, so I apologize if some of the commentary seemed overly sharp to you.

And I have been thinking about it overnight as well (preparation never stops :-) ). You may be right that their use of the language can be used against them, but I still remain skeptical that you will ever get them to admit (or change) it, since they can always say they never meant that the "self-inflicted" wound was intentional.

BUT... if after you got them to admit that Kerry deserved the purple heart (as Dole did), you could throw out that this is the same kind of wordsmithing attack that they used against John McCain in South Carolina, it would further make your point that this is a tactic that the * camp repeatedly uses to smear opponents.

I saw some pundit on TV do that the other day, and it was beautiful. The Rethug was obviously a * tool, and he replied something to the order of "Well, John McCain *WAS* the only POW to gain weight during his captivity."

Wow, talk about turning off the independents who were watching. I was in awe at the way the the repug was forced into that. I want to do that too!

[markses]

43. Right, but I'm not trying to convince the GOPers to change their language

I'm trying to portray their use of language as disingenuous precisely for those independents who are watching or listening (and well, maybe a bit for those borderline republicans who merely mimic the tralking points without thinking through their own usage). In other words, I want to make the use of such terms more dangerous, because their very credibility is at stake. That's the point. What I am talking about is not an ethical operation, or nitpicking on terminology. I'm trying to devise rhetorically effective responses. And if we can continue to affect the credibility of the speaker after they've already conceded a major point, that doesn't seem to me to be beside the point, or a side issue. It is, rather, an effective rhetorical strategy that makes using such language dangerous or risky in the future. Point is: We pound them everywhere, unceasingly, cede the ground nowhere, not even on usage.

[Ravy]

21. Pfft...every example?

The storm purposefully inflicted widespread damage?

People's ingratitude is to purposefully inflict severe pain?

[TahitiNut]

36. "Pfft"?? Sounds like a leak to me.

Losing something? Focus? Relevance? :shrug:

[Ravy]

40. Nope...

just pointing out that you mischaracterized your own post when you said that all the examples in it showed intention.

[Ravy]

18. Of course you can.

It is YOU (and many, many others) accepting the negative connotation that you say "self-inflicted" means purposely inflicted.

I am just saying that that connotation is bunk. Either Dole used it, or progressives used it in describing Dole. That wasn't taken in a negative connotation.

We will lose ANY ARGUMENT where we say Kerry's wound wasn't self-inflicted, unless of course the shrapnel did not come from his own grenade.

They can say "self-inflicted" all they want, we need to pin them down on whether they are accusing Kerry of an intentional wounding of himself.

But debunking Thurlow's assertion that Purple Hearts are only given out for hostile fire is easy to do. He lied, they are given out for friendly fire too, and even if it was caused by a grenade that the person shot or threw themselves (as Dole verified).

We need to correct the negative connotation of the event, not haggle over whether throwing a grenade and wounding yourself is properly called "self-inflicted". They intend for it to have a negative connotation. We don't have to concede that connotation to them.

[markses]

22. I am not applying the negative connotation

I am accepting that the term of art in the military has a negative connotation, and so it should not be used, and if it is used, it is used incorrectly. If any of John Kerry's wounds were caused by his own action accidentally(and nothing has demonstrated this assertion to me as a fact in any way, shape or form), they cannot correctly be called "self-inflcited" - by definition. This is not a question of "interpretation." The term has a very precise meaning in the military, and that meaning necessarily has a negative connotation. Which is why it is an incorrect word to use for Kerry, or Dole, or anyone else who may have accidentally caused their own wound. If Kerry or Dole thought "I'll wound myself to get out of here," and put a bullet in his foot for that purpose, that would be a self-inflicted wound. Any use of the term for accidental wounds is simply incorrect - and because incorrect, a dishonest smear. And the right is using the term precisely to insinuate without having to make the claim. That's the problem, and the one that should be dealt with.

[Ravy]

25. We agree on what they are doing...

My point is that we will not be able to get them to stop using the term, because it is effective. If you say it means that in the military, they can say "I wasn't using it in the military sense".

We just need to pin down every person that says it as to whether they are accusing Kerry of intentionally wounding himself. To those that would say that he did intentionally wound himself, I would ask if they think Kerry is incredibly stupid for wounding himself with a grenade, or incredibly brilliant by being able to mathematically calcualte the trajectory of the shrapnel so it didn't kill him.

[markses]

26. I think the admission that they are not using it in a military sense

Is a first step in calling it a dishonest usage, and then the accusation of a dishonest usage would become effective. That's the point here. Whenever they say "self-inflicted wound," we say - as you suggest - "Do you mean it was intentional?" They say "No." We say "So you are not using it in the military sense, because that implies intention." "No, not in the military sense." "Then why use the term at all? Aren't you being dishonest by using a term that could be taken in a military sense, etc..." And pound on that until its inherent dishonesty becomes the argument, shifting the ground, and reducing the credibility of the speaker. Needless to say, anyone who claims it was intentional would come in for the kind of arguments you make here. They're good arguments, so thanks. But I am arguing that even if they say "non-intentional," we have even more ammo against them "i.e., "If non-intentional, isn't it dishonest to use that term, etc."). So these arguments are completely compatible. We have arguments ready if they say intentional, and we have further beatdowns at the ready if they say "non-intentional." We are not contradicting each other at all here.

[Ravy]

30. We aren't contradicting each other on ideas, only on strategy...

Once I got a rethug to admit that it was unintentional and that Kerry deserved the purple heart just like Dole did I would move on to their next lie.

Why they chose to use the inflammitory term will be self-evident but also immaterial at that point. Take the win! :-)

[markses]

31. Disagree

1) That it would be self-evident and 2) That it should be a place to stop.

In this game, you don't just win, you destroy.

[Ravy]

19. Of course you can.

It is YOU (and many, many others) accepting the negative connotation that you say "self-inflicted" means purposely inflicted.

I am just saying that that connotation is bunk. Either Dole used it, or progressives used it in describing Dole. That wasn't taken in a negative connotation.

We will lose ANY ARGUMENT where we say Kerry's wound wasn't self-inflicted, unless of course the shrapnel did not come from his own grenade.

They can say "self-inflicted" all they want, we need to pin them down on whether they are accusing Kerry of an intentional wounding of himself.

But debunking Thurlow's assertion that Purple Hearts are only given out for hostile fire is easy to do. He lied, they are given out for friendly fire too, and even if it was caused by a grenade that the person shot or threw themselves (as Dole verified).

We need to correct the negative connotation of the event, not haggle over whether throwing a grenade and wounding yourself is properly called "self-inflicted". They intend for it to have a negative connotation. We don't have to concede that connotation to them.

[linazelle]

39. "If it is not intentional, it cannot be called a "self-inflicted wound"...

says who? :shrug:

[markses]

41. Oh for God's sake....

Let me be more explicit: It cannot legitimately be called a 'self-inflicted wound,' or it cannot be called a 'self-inflicted wound' without confusion or deception. Says who? Says the fucking definition.:eyes:

To go back to the example. If a person is cleaning a rifle, and that rifle accidentally goes off, and kills that person, CAN you call that death a suicide? Well, I suppose you CAN call it a suicide, but you'd be either wrong or lying. "Says who?" you ask. Who says I CAN'T call it a suicide? Well, nobody. But you'd be either incorrect or lying, because you'd be violating an essential element of the definition of suicide. You CAN'T legitimately call the accidental death a 'suicide,' or you CANNOT call it a 'suicide' without confusion or deception. Says who? Says the fucking definition.

[linazelle]

45. Your analogy is lacking--

While a suicide IS clearly intentional, a self-inflicted wound may or may not be intentional. The old adage of shooting oneself in the foot points to the accidental nature of self-inflicted wounds. I don't agree that EVERY self inflicted wound is intentional and I'm sure those working in emergency rooms around the country wouldn't either. Your definition is not the be-all/end-all interpretation for self inflicted wounds.

[markses]

47. Ay yay yay yay yay yay yay

Once again, since you seemed to have missed the main point of this thread completely, the definition is not mine. It is the only definition accepted in a military context and in military parlance. In military parlance, the term "self-inflicted wound" NECESSARILY means intentionally inflicted. Now, you say some "self-inflicted wounds" are accidental, and emergency room employees would agree. I agree. You seem to think I am so stupid that I don't know that sometimes people hurt themselves by accident. Huh! I readily acept that people hurt themselves by accident, in the military and outside the military. What I do not accept is that such "hurting oneself by accident" would be labelled a "self-inflicted wound" in the military context or in military parlance, since in that speech community, the term "self-incflicted wound," historically and to this day, means "intentionally inflicted." Period. It is not "my" definition. It is the definition that stood at the origin of the term and the definition that continues to operate with intentionality as its essential differencia from wounds that occurred by accident, even if the accident had the wounded person him or herself as an efficient cause.

The analogy holds perfectly because just as suicide contains intentionality BY DEFINITION, "self-inflicted wound," in military parlance (and we shouldn't forget that the term itself originated in the military context with this precise definition) contains intentionality BY DEFINITION.

If you disagree that the term "self-inflicted wound" in military parlance contains intentionality BY DEFINITION, then show me. But don't come up with these examples of ordinary usage which I explicitly exclude numerous times in this thread (and which are corrupted derivatives of the original military use in any case), pretending to believe that I don't know people accidentally wound themselves. I know that, and it is immaterial. What people call such wounds outside a military parlance is completely irrelevant.

[SeekingTruth]

29. This shows what they know how to use language better...

The debate over "self-inflicted" is a perfect example of how conservatives know how to use language better than democrats and it ticks me off to no end that the dems just don't get it - still.

For example, if pressed, anyone who uses this "self-inflicted" phrase can deflect an opponents criticism by saying, "I mean 'accidental' and didn't mean to infer that the person intentionally injured himself." When all along that is the exact inferrence the person is trying to make and what people automatically think when hearing "self-inflicted" - that Kerry went behind a hut and injured himself for his own gain.

Dems need to get off the bench and start using lanquage better....

[Ravy]

32. Yep. EXACTLY the same trick they used against Gore..

by characterizing his remarks as saying "He said he invented the Internet"

[markses]

33. Correct

Although others seem to think we shouldn't challenge their use of language. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

34. Since when is intentional miscommunication regarded as "better"?

In my view, an intentional miscommunication is called a LIE.

[snowFLAKE]

35. Yes the Conservatives are Miles Ahead in their Use of Language

And yes, Chimps can also Use Tools (so we shouldn't be so dismissive).

But, back to the topic at hand:

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

snip snip snip

You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[SeekingTruth]

37. Exactly...

I can't recall which book it was - it might have been Joe Conason's "Big Lies" - but there is a great explanation of what the conservatives have learned when it comes to the concept of "compassionate conservative."

In the study of lanquage and concept, it was discovered (not by the Bushies) that when people heard the word "conservative" they thought of mean, ridgid, firm and other like words, but when "compassionate" was thrown in front, the meaning turned to more of a nurturing, fatherly type of concept.

Democrats are far behind in their thinking when it comes to political framing. Just look at their use of images and symbols.

I'm not saying we need to stoop to the lows of conservatives, but we need to understand the terms of the battle better and act accordingly.

For example, males respond to visual images more so than women. Therefore, is it any wonder why the repugs have more success with white males than we do?

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[skygazer]

44. Off topic but

I love Wilfred Owen's stuff. I think Dulce Et Decorum Est is one of the most powerful poems ever written.


"If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."

(Loosely translated as 'it is glorious to die for one's country')

[recidivist]

51. Chris Matthews was uninformed and rude. Malkin was inarticulate.

Chris Matthews was out of line. He had obviously not read the book or even bothered to get adequately briefed. That would have been ok had he been planning to have a civil discussion and draw out the information from his guest. A good host can learn as he goes, and the audience can learn with him; that can make a pretty good show. But ignorance is dangerous if the plan is to go ballistic, and that's what happened. Without knowing what he was talking about, Matthews seized on the "self-inflicted wound" and went on a tirade that anyone would suggest that John Kerry "shot himself." That, of course, is not what the Swifties are suggesting. Shabby performance by Chris.

Michelle Malkin was caught flat-footed and did not handle it well. I suppose that can happen when you are getting run over by Matthews, who is notorious for interrupting and, not infrequently, shouting down his guests. Having had some experience discussing political issues with ranters, I understand the problem.

How do you respond to someone like Chris Matthews when he comes unhinged? First, you have to accurately diagnose the rant, which can be tough to do on the fly. Malkin, who had read the book and thus understood the issue, seemingly failed to understand that Matthews was hung up on two words: "shot himself" -- i.e, the made-up-in-his-own-mind scenario of John Kerry grabbing a gun and deliberately giving himself a flesh wound. This, of course, is very different from accidentally wounding oneself by being careless with an explosive. I feel a little sorry for Malkin on this point. She wasn't quick enough on the uptake to recognize immediately that Matthews was howling about a straw man of his own imagining.

With 20/20 hindsight one can script any number of snappy responses that might have derailed Matthews' rant. Malkin might have turned it back on Matthews by saying, "Chris, you obviously haven't read the book and shouldn't be misleading your viewers." Or, "No Chris, he didn't shoot himself; he almost blew himself up. By accident." Or shorten it up to: "Not shoot, Chris, blow himself up." Or even, if she was in a really daring mood: "He did a Cleland, Chris; a mini-Max."

The point is, in dealing with a ranter, you have to first throw him off stride long enough to get a word in. An unexpected counterattack is often a good way of doing that.