There are circumstances when neutrality is wise; neutrality in the face of outrageous human rights violations can be unwise.
Corporations, in my view, have one basic obligation, and it is to those who invested money in them. That obligation, in most circumstances, is to make money for their investors — not to promote freedom and not to ensure the well being and comfort of corporate employees, except as doing so increases their earnings. It is for those who invested in the corporation to decide whether and how to use their own resources to support worthy causes. A business corporation has no mandate to diminish the gains of its investors by using what should be their money to support what its officers and directors consider to be worthy causes.…
Article comments
126 - Cindy
I will answer that later Dan(Miller) there are things anyone can do. Even you, maybe.
127 - roger nowosielski
"The only 'solutions' I can come up with are those addressed in the article and in my earlier comments."
That's utter BS. Unless I missed some pearls of wisdom, none of the things you proposed - and I can think of nothing other than nudging the administration to assume a more critical and biting tone - would have averted the present crisis and the possible retaliation that the protesters are now facing at the hand of the fanatical regime.
It's almost obscene to be congratulating yourself so. Borders on egomania.
There you go: I gave you a free diagnosis.
128 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
I've got to ask - why the quotation marks when you said Obama "won"?
129 - roger nowosielski
Because he's a sore loser, that's why!
If he had couched his argument on behalf of "stronger show of support for Iran's resistance" aside from criticizing the administration, in a neutral context, I would have supported the idea (because we all believe in human rights and hate to see human rights violations). But he didn't!
Consequently, I can't divorce his self-proclaimed "high-mindedness" from down and dirty partisanship. And even if he ain't aware he's doing it, that's no fucking excuse.
Become aware, or forever be stained!
130 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, I put "won" in quotes because President Obama seems to feel a need to remind everyone of the obvious fact that he did.
Roger, I shall continue to write the way I want to, and I assume that you will continue to write the way you want to. As to your suggestions as to how I should write, I continue to be modestly amused but shall hereafter ignore them. So, for that matter, are and and shall my horses referenced in your comment #117. Should you attempt to speak to the substance of my articles or comments, I shall consider responding. Response to your most recent comment and to such as your comment #117 is a silly waste of time, and I shall not do it again.
Dan(Miller)
131 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
You say it's a mistake to blame the past administration, so I have to ask, when Bush referred to Iran as part of the 'Axis of Evil', not only comparing them with atheist North Korea and with (rabidly anti-Shi'a) Iraq (with whom they'd fought the worst war in the Middle East's modern history less than a generation ago)...
...AND on top of Bush's assertion that they were somehow allied with these other nations which the everyday Iranian would despise more than almost any other, Bush also used the word 'Axis', obviously likening them to the Axis of WWII...
EXACTLY HOW DO YOU THINK that made the Iranian everyman-on-the-street feel? Do you think it made him feel, "Gee, I should oppose my government!"?
Or would he have had a sentiment similar to that of Stephen Decatur (and you DO know of him, sir) who once made a famous toast: ""Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"
You draw a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, Dan...but Bush threw a whole truckload of really bad vinegar when he made that statement, and that vinegar, like the preservative it is, takes a long time to dissipate.
So yes, the blame DOES rest with Bush, with "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain, with all those on the right whose bile only embittered future efforts to spread democracy without using the sword.
132 - roger nowosielski
Dan(Miller)
Well, I am going to remain as up-your-face as necessary, because it's people like you who are the most dangerous in this battle of ideas.
You're no Archie and no H&C whose prejudices and biases they were on their sleeve. You're a sophisticated thinker, a clever one, which makes you all the more dangerous. In fact, I do regard you as a sophist, capable thus of corrupting the youth and the innocent. It was against sophists that Socrates launched his campaign, and quite rightly, he regarded them as the greatest menace to, and scourge of, society.
So I am going to fight you tooth and nail - and you, in particular, more than anyone else, for the very reasons I stated.
As to the last part of your remark, concerning substance, yes - that is well taken. But I can only respond to and address matters of substance once I have no reason to suspect a conflation of motives. For if and when I do, matters of substance must take second seat - for reasons, I'm certain, you understand.
I'm not necessarily accusing you of bad faith. But perhaps, just perhaps, you should take a closer look at how you present your ideas so at to eliminate even the possibility of being unfairly charged. You certainly have the language skills and the acumen to be able to do so. In fact, it should be any intelligent and well-meaning person's objective to be able to present a well-balanced and thought-through piece which goes beyond polemics.
Which isn't to say that polemics doesn't have its proper role and function. But it also comes with the territory that essentially polemical pieces deserve a polemical kind of response and repayment in kind. Consequently, I did respond to your article on that very level, because there were elements in it which, were you to use you better judgment, could well have been omitted.
Roger
133 - roger nowosielski
"they wear on their sleeves ..."
134 - zingzing
you know, there's something i've been wondering about for a while... whenever anyone both living outside of america and leaning towards the left pipes up, there's some right wing nut (like archie, et al) who screams "if you don't live in america, then shut the hell up," etc. but dan, who may or may not be a citizen of the united states, seems to escape this. is it because the archies, etc, agree with him? where are the "shut up foreigner" cries? not that i'm saying that should happen, but i'm just curious. (and, in all fairness, it's been a while since i noticed the phenomenon. maybe archie grew up or something. ew, archie growing up... it's like a mogwai to gremlin kind of image.)
135 - Clavos
How amusing.
A diatribe and lecture about how to write addressed to arguably one of the best writers on the site. Forget ideology, Dan(Miller) strings words together better than most, and this is something about which I know a fair bit.
up-your-face
uh uh.
In your face.
Up your ass.
136 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I heard somewhere that vinegar is good for removing stains caused by unawareness.
(p.s. just don't use balsamic--learned the hard way)
137 - zingzing
clavos... you walk a fine line. your grammar nanny days MUST come to an end. it's like watching your ocd friend clean the kitchen after making toast. just sad, but you usually restrain yourself from saying anything. not today! i stand up for all of us! and i stand up for you! look at yourself!
and even if "up your face" isn't part of the popular lexicon, i think it makes the point in a fairly poetic, hilarious fashion. (although it's quite possible he meant "up IN your face.")
and even if dan is a good writer, ideology put aside, he's also smart and cunning enough to leave big old holes where he's obviously ignoring the big old elephant in the room. so i find some of his writing a bit disingenuous, which, i think, is what roger was getting at.
138 - roger nowosielski
Thank you, zing. Exactemundo.
It's precisely that he's a good - read: extremely clever and sophisticated writer - that he's got to be watched, and yes, censured if need be.
Clavos again seems to be displaying his favoritism in a more or less cunning way, obscuring the point of his remarks under the veneer of grammar or some other esoteric notion (he's so famous for) of linguistic propriety. Or perhaps just hiding the fact that he ain't got the balls to confront the likes of the highly-esteemed Dan Miller.
Be that as it may, thank you trying to see what I regard as the larger point.
139 - roger nowosielski
To add:
"A diatribe and lecture about how to write addressed to arguably one of the best writers on the site."
Misses the point completely, not by omission but on purpose.
To wit, "being one of the best writers on the site" is no kind of guarantee or assurance against perfidy.
Clavos of course knows better, but he's intent on doing what he does best: obfuscation.
140 - Clavos
clavos... you walk a fine line. your grammar nanny days MUST come to an end. it's like watching your ocd friend clean the kitchen after making toast. just sad, but you usually restrain yourself from saying anything. not today! i stand up for all of us! and i stand up for you! look at yourself!
Yawn. Translation: Don't hold your breath, zing.
and even if dan is a good writer, ideology put aside, he's also smart and cunning enough to leave big old holes where he's obviously ignoring the big old elephant in the room. so i find some of his writing a bit disingenuous, which, i think, is what roger was getting at.
Roger can "get at" any point he wants to -- that's the nature of the game here, but, he has no business telling others how to write and particularly not to a writer as good as Dan.
His arrogance and condescension seemingly know no bounds.
Roger's real beef here, and yours as well apparently, is not with how Dan writes so much as it is with what he writes, which is a legitimate line of discourse, but has nothing to do with the Dan's ability to communicate in writing.
141 - Clavos
Or perhaps just hiding the fact that he ain't got the balls to confront the likes of the highly-esteemed Dan Miller.
"Balls" has nothing to do with it, Roger, not that it's any of your business -- I don't need to prove anything to you.
I have seen nothing in his writings about which I find a need to confront Dan. Nothing.
142 - roger nowosielski
Well, you never have, Clavos. That's my point exactly. And what's a greater cause for concern is that I never made a mistake of underestimating you: you're as sophisticated a reader and perceptive of nuance as can be. I have no doubts whatever. Which makes it all the more puzzling to me that you haven't.
By the way, I have never noticed in your own writings the kind of obvious slant that I see in his. And this tells me you have better judgment, or at least control when it comes to putting things down in writing (not by way of comments but articles).
PS: I apologize for using the term "balls." It was used for evocative, not descriptive purposes.
143 - Cindy
fuck manipulation
(sorry couldn't resist)
144 - zingzing
roger: "It's precisely that he's a good - read: extremely clever and sophisticated writer - that he's got to be watched, and yes, censured if need be."
watched, yes; censured, nah.
clavos: "Yawn. Translation: Don't hold your breath, zing."
oh, i'm not. i know it's impossible for you to stop. that said, whenever i catch your grammar-ocd-nightmares, i'll make fun of them.
"I have seen nothing in his writings about which I find a need to confront Dan. Nothing."
come on. never? that's pathetic. are you in 100% agreement with everything he writes, all of the time? you can't be. no one is EVER totally of the same mind as another person. you'll eat those words, and soon, i'd wager. either that, or you're just a dan groupie, and i know better than that.
"Roger's real beef here, and yours as well apparently, is not with how Dan writes so much as it is with what he writes, which is a legitimate line of discourse, but has nothing to do with the Dan's ability to communicate in writing."
i think dan's a very good writer. but, like i said above... which somehow seems to have escaped you... i also think he knows exactly what he's doing when he dances around the gaping holes in his arguments as if they didn't exist. i'm not saying i have a problem with him saying whatever he wants to--that's the name of the game around here, isn't it?--but he isn't above reproach or criticism.
145 - roger nowosielski
Sorry. I'm gung-ho when it comes to false prophets, sophists, and deliberate purveyors of untruths. Their kind of evil work has got to be nipped in the bud. There are just too many minds out there that are liable to fall captive to these soothsayers and their sugarcoated message. They've got to be exposed for the potential harm they might cause.
It is a battle for the minds first and foremost, whether we're talking BC or the world at large.
146 - zingzing
to conclude my last thought...
he isn't above reproach or criticism, and i think you'd be the first to WANT that to be true. otherwise, you're treating him just like you accuse dems/libs or treating obama.
seriously, if you read a sentence such as "I have seen nothing in his writings about which I find a need to confront obama, Nothing," wouldn't you be a bit up on your high horse?
147 - roger nowosielski
Correct, zing. Censure is a wrong word because it implies censorship and I meant nothing of the kind. What I should have said is "exposed" or "challenged."
148 - Cindy
censure v. 'to criticize strongly'
censor v. 'to ban or expurgate'
149 - roger nowosielski
So perhaps my use of the word wasn't all off.
150 - Cindy
Breaking News:
Battle for Iran shifts from the streets to the heart of power
Ayatollah Khamenei's support for President Ahmadinejad has led both moderates and hard-liners to start plotting against him
151 - roger nowosielski
The following is even more encouraging.
152 - Tony
Yeah more forgien intervention is exactly what we need, especially in the Arab world. Is the Shah still alive? Can we put him back in power?
This is joke. First of all we have no business meddling in another countries affairs. If any country tried to do that with our elections we would drop a nuke on them.
Second of all the kind of support you're purposing would cost money. It is repulsive to think that, at a time when American families are being booted out into the streets, uninsured, unemployed, and homeless, any American would purpose spending money on anything but the American people.
153 - Tony
Yeah more forgien intervention is exactly what we need, especially in the Arab world. Is the Shah still alive? Can we put him back in power?
This is joke. First of all we have no business meddling in another countries affairs. If any country tried to do that with our elections we would drop a nuke on them.
Second of all the kind of support you're purposing would cost money. It is repulsive to think that, at a time when American families are being booted out into the streets, uninsured, unemployed, and homeless, any American would purpose spending money on anything but the American people.
154 - roger nowosielski
But that's the conservative mindset, Tony: screw your own people while appearing noble-minded to the world at large.
Your point about the Shah is well taken. There was also a great deal of brutality and human rights violations in Iran during that regime - though against the Islamist then, so what did we care. We very readily overlook human rights violations when it's in our national interests, don't we?
Which is why I find all this talk of nation-building and of spreading freedom and democracy to the rest of the world the height of hypocrisy.
Which isn't to say we should turn our blind eye to what's going on there, especially as regards the crackdown against the protesters. We should try to do all we can, but in conjunction with other major powers and human-relief organizations. But to try to foment or instigate civil unrest in Iran is not only immoral (because too closely related to our ambitions in the Middle East) but impractical as well - especially in light of America's loss of credibility as a true leader.
155 - roger nowosielski
Another eye-opening article, Unveiling the Revolution.
156 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I'm too tired to think of anything witty. This is for you. And now I am sure you will have a nice day. :-)
157 - Dan(Miller)
Although the mass protests in Iran may have run their course, a substantial group of important clerics has broken with the Government and, calling the Government "illegitimate," has demanded new elections.
"This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic," said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. "Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei."
Dan(Miller)