This is mostly about kook letter writing, which I've never really tried before (I've written emails to a couple of personalities telling them I loved their shows/columns and they should keep up the good work, but that's about it).
Basically, I'm thinking of writing to various people and telling them about my great plan to deploy militia groups to combat areas as part of the U.S. forces under something of a "freedom fighters" model. Now a couple of things come to mind.
First off, I've explained the concept behind this idea in outline, but never gone into great detail because I feel that the main strength of the program would be it's flexibility. So...would it be a good idea for me to use some kind of blog to "brainstorm" the issues involved and present a variety of more detailed alternatives, or should I just start writing?
A related point, my more subtle efforts to start this ball rolling have all come to naught. Should I definitely aim for an organized publicity campaign model, even though that kind of thing makes my teeth hurt? Would it be unreasonable to hope that someone with the necessary organization/promotional skills would "just show up"? Or should I plan to assume most of the burden of actually doing this? I guess that depends on whether my ideas gain any currency, which is a hard thing to predict.
A third point...while I have experience with serving in the U.S. military, I don't have any experience being part of a militia or even something like ARMA or SCA. I mean, I've never even played laser tag/paintball (excluding certain training exercises in the Army, which I don't count because...I was in the Army, you know). I don't even belong to any FPS clans or anything (I like multiplayer FPS, but I'm not up to the social commitment of being part of a clan).
Does that make me seem more or less credible as a proponent of deploying homegrown militia as freedom fighters? I think that it cuts both ways, frankly. And certainly I would like to join a militia group if we could actually deploy. But...seriously speaking, this BBS is the closest I've come to joining a militia.
Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to join my kook campaign, but if you have any ideas about how such a thing out to be carried out, I'm open to ideas. Remember, this is a non-fiction oriented discussion, so no telling me to recruit Evil Zombie Robot Monkeys or anything like that This is mostly about kook letter writing, which I've never really tried before (I've written emails to a couple of personalities telling them I loved their shows/columns and they should keep up the good work, but that's about it).
What?
Really, though, I'm more interested in figuring out how I should start a kook letter writing campaign. The particular issue doesn't matter except to give you all an idea of just how far outside the mainstream this particular idea currently falls. I mean, right now I don't know of anyone other than myself who is advocating this kind of thing. There are more people trying to get registered vendetta killings encoded into U.S. law, so far as I can tell. Not that I have any problem with the registered vendetta idea, I'm just making a comparison.
Remember, thirty years ago many "smart" people thought that having a draft was a good idea because an all volunteer army would only be composed of merciless thugs who only wanted to satiate their mindless bloodlust. I know that plenty of those people still think that's the only reason anyone would join the military, but by and large most reasonable people now think that point of view has been proven incorrect. So please don't pan my idea. I just want to know how to be an effective kook, not whether I should be one in the first place.
So how do you go about starting a campaign of this sort? I mean, these things gotta start somewhere, right? Do I have to become famous and expound my views at an awards ceremony, or is there some more proletarian means of putting a concept on the radar? I've already tried just letting nature take its course (my usual approach), and nothing seems to be happening.
In this case, that probably means militia members; I am not sure who else would be interested in advocating your proposal. I'm not in touch with the militia circuit and it's been years since I paid much attention to them, but if I wanted to hook up with them, I'd start with freerepublic.com and look for pointers to militia organizations.
I'd also contact the Southern Poverty Law Center; they do a lot of work tracking and monitoring militias. They would have absolutely no interest in supporting your crackpot scheme, but should be a good resource for identifying militias to contact to enlist in your scheme.
Probably some sort of web page or blog would be useful for the cause.
You should also look for militia gatherings in your area; meeting people in person can be very effective.
But yes, I suppose contacting militias would be a good idea. Maybe the NRA too? This kinda seems to fit in with the whole right to bear arms thing, in a way. On the other hand, I believe that the NRA holds to the interpretation that...well, I'll check it out.
The NRA itself may not be willing to support you, but I suspect networking with its members would be useful.
Now in practice since most people don't want to hassle with the money needed to house, feed, train and arm a standing army or even say a citizen-army no one does this anymore.
Further more even in the five wars (Rev, 1812, Mexican, both sides of the Civil War and Spanish), America used "volunteer" forces rather that just draftees/standing armies those volunteers were still subject to a regular army command. This doesn't include the various Indian battles/Wars fought over the years that won Jackson, Harrison and Lincoln among others some of their respective fame Take the Civil War or the Spanish American war as some of your best examples of this volunteer concept working.
T Roosevelt put together a 1000 men or so and got made Col. So you could put together say 500 people, call your self a Major or some such notify the state and ATF of your intention to set up an armory and depot for your militia.
Then go from there.
Edit i hate my format mistakes
[This message has been edited by Matt Lust (edited January 28, 2006).]
step one: connect with the other kooks. If even they think it's a bad idea, you're certainly not going to get anywhere with Congress.
Duh.
Also, I'm not looking to start a new Guard unit or anything like that. I'd like to fundamentally change the way we raise an army, and...accelerate certain changes in the model used to command a modern army in the field.
So far I'm contacting the SPLC to see if they're really as myopically opposed to this idea as Beth seems to think they'll be. I mean, anything that stops people from feeling like it's okay to join anti-American militia's has to be good, right?
I'm also contacting their "intelligence" program to see if they keep tabs on paramilitary groups that are more interested in defending democracy than killing other Americans.
Because if it's about doing this for real, it feels really off-topic to me. I have very strong feelings about what's going on in the middle east, and if this BBS turns into a pro-war hoorah for killing, I'm outta here....
quote:
Posted by Elan:
Um... is this about writing a story?
Who says every post has to be about writing a story? This forum is titled 'Open Discussions About Writing'...and we don't merely discuss fiction writing (although such talk is the majority). I've seen many other posts concerning things like recommendation letters, research projects, news items, etc.
I think Survivor is asking for feedback on writing and sending a proposal (in essence, a letter) to recognized bodies that have the power to support or deny his concept.
As long as he doesn't turn this thread into the aforementioned blog on how he plans to actually lay out the concept, there is no reason to get upset. Or hasty, for that matter.
Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous
[This message has been edited by Inkwell (edited January 29, 2006).]
For further reference, if you want to help me research the actual issue, I wouldn't mind being contacted through the options available at my blog on the subject. You could also get in touch with me through my email posted here, but I generally only use that address for Hatrack related stuff.
As for pro-war hoorah's for killing, Elan, now how long have you known me? When have I ever written anything that wasn't a pro-war hoorah for killing? My major beef with the current war is that not enough Americans are getting killed for the rest of the world to take us seriously, I believe I've mentioned that several times. This is certainly no more pro-war/killing/etc. than anything else I've ever posted.
So don't worry. Nothing has changed here, except that I'm asking for advice on writing rather than dispensing it
Of course, Spaceman's notion of Card pulling the plug on the site just because it's gone south is probably based on something other than a close look at Card's other sites...but don't worry. I'll pull out of the forum if it stops being a writer's forum. Not that doing so would help in any way....
[This message has been edited by Clove (edited December 18, 2009).]
Obviously I know what the word means, but what the heck are you talking about?
Dictionary says:
n 1: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army [syn: reserves] 2: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution
Are you talking about reservists? A 'casual' arm of the military paid by the Department of Defence?
To the topic: I think kook letters work best if you pretend you are someone else, then you can let your kooklomania have free rein.
As part of your question refers to a 'campaign' it indicates a strategy of some type. Aloow the receiver of the letter see that a strategy is being employed without letting know what the strategy is.
Allinaces with other kook-minded folk is not a stratgey but can be part of one. The question is, once the alliances are in place what then? What do you want them to achieve toward your end?
In addition you will need to devise a series of contingencies based on what you think the likely responses will be: If I get response 'A' then I will do employ tactic 1. If I receive repsonse 'B' I will employ tactic 2... that sort of thing, you especially need to have a contingency for the 'What tactic will I employ if I get no response at all.'
Genuine kooks will also make claims about what they are doing and what they think their particular value to the government may be. ie I have developed a weapons training program for second graders that is currently used in four local school to great effect and is under consideration in three more. I know I can adapt this program for second graders federally. (or in other words, Tell them why they need you.)
Whether the claims are baseless or not is another question.
Make it read like a public service document and scare the pants off 'em.
I had to deal with situation X, my theory was that we should do Y, so I did Y and found that Z occurred. As a result we had a Q% increase in capable second grade marksmen.
That sort of thing.
PS: I would not overtly state any political or philosophical standpoint. Allow them to infer what they will, ie get them to argue over whether you are really a harmless kook or something more...
heh heh that was fun.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 29, 2006).]
I should really have put up the message I sent to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it would have made an interesting contrast, I think. Like, all concentrating on how to find nurturing and non-judgemental ways of channeling the natural enthusiasim of youth yadda yadda. I'm really bummed that I lost it in the process of copying it to file.
Anyway, info on seeming less kooky and more persuasive, that's what I'm looking for here.
However, as my continued use of the term "militia" implies, this is indeed not a new idea. It's been used sucessfully thousands of times in recorded history.
Kook is a good word to describe your idea. I think it stands no chance to the mind of any "discerning reader." The use of militia is highly... dangerous?... They aren't the most reliable of troops, and can easily start doing stupid stuff.
Personally, I don't know if your blog will get the best viewership and input, but I guess you never know. I personally have never visited any blog other than my friend's.
Militia has been used in history, successfully, but at what cost? And who will agree to it? It's one thing for units of milita to form here in America, and quite another to send them overseas to the Middle East. nyrr... I can see why this has gotten so off-topic...
Anyway, you say you want to seem less kooky. Well, besides changing your idea entirely, I would suggest providing some more concrete evidence, for example, how you have personally gone out and spoken with X people about their ideas and Y of these X people have agreed. With the help of these Y people, we have come up with measures A, B, and C to properly prepare this militia, which would cost $Q, but would save the military $P in exchange, which leaves a profit of $R. [insert waffle about nurturing and non-judgemental ways of channeling natural enthusiasm, etc... but not too much waffle!] Try to look at it from all standpoints- Administratively, legally, morally, economically, and from the standpoint of the militia.
Which means you're actually going to have to do things. The "subtle efforts" aren't going to get you much consideration, since a man can have bold words, but if he does not act, he will not be taken seriously.
Toodles.
Also, a concealed carry permit goes a long way for making a statement to the government. They like to keep track of that stuff you know. The greater the amount of the populous that is armed, sure makes the various government entities sit up and take notice. It is like signing up on a roster. Look at me, I'm packin' heat! No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.
How's that, kooky enough for ya?
Then again, my experience in these lines consists of voyeurish reading about it. I've never been in the military. I've never done paintballing or lasertagging, either. Having enough stress in my life, I never felt the need to go out and do something that would add more to it. As for somebody drawing a bead on me with a gun...well, I work for the US Postal Service, and, thus, I have to face that every time I go to work.
[edited for bad spelling]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited January 31, 2006).]
quote:
No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.
Another kool kook statement.
To answer your question the best way I can Survivor, I think you have to avoid ALL philosophical, political or emotive statements and treat the subject with cold objectivity. It cannot help your campaign to appear to get your blood up in the writing. Loaded phrases smack of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought and will only harm how the letter is perceived. They may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market but they are no good if you want your letter taken seriously by some grey middle management type.
It sounds like a whole lot of fun. I would be really interested in any responses you might get.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 31, 2006).]
Another question: what are the connotations of the word kook. Here, it tends to means 'crazy' far more than 'eccentric'.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 02, 2006).]
Look, I'm aware of the difficulties here. But I'm not here to argue over my idea (KDW would reprimand me for beating up on you on a subject that has nothing to do with writing). I'm just asking for practical advice on the whole advocacy thing.
Right now, I'm thinking that I'll have to develop an inside contact. Man, that's annoying. We'll see.
I don't know if you need an inside contact but you might want to look around for other militias. I believe there are several out there but none with the same citzen-solider model that you do.
As to advocating without a lobbyist. Create a creed, code of ethics by-laws, a code of justice etc. Nothing makes people less afraid of someone than if they wrap themselves in bureaucracy and other such formalized garbage
I mean, pursuading people to join my cause is the problem, obviously if I had enough people interested in my cause to start a militia that would need by-laws and crap, I would've already solved the problem of getting people to think it's a good idea.
Take a look at the minuteman project's website (the url escapes me right now)
Its not an active militia but it is a group of like minded individuals
Your last posts are clear and direct.
quote:
I'm just asking for practical advice on the whole advocacy thing.
Now we know what you want.
If you were beating up on me it was the the gentlest beat-up I've ever had.
PS: Scour your letters for typos. Remember, clarity and credibility. Yes, I am suggesting that typos and spelling errors will negatively influence how people see your ideas and make it so much easier to ignore them.
Edit:to remove irrelevant comments
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 02, 2006).]
On the plus side, their activities are contraversial enough that sometimes the more prominent members get attacked by angry mobs at public events. Something like that would be cool. But I still need to get to the point where enough people even know about me for there to be an angry mob.
quote:
No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.
quote:
I think you have to avoid ALL philosophical, political or emotive statements and treat the subject with cold objectivity. It cannot help your campaign to appear to get your blood up in the writing. Loaded phrases smack of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought and will only harm how the letter is perceived. They may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market but they are no good if you want your letter taken seriously by some grey middle management type.
The point in True Hero’s quote is a legitimate supportive argument that can be presented with cold objectivity. Simply toning down the emotive portion -- the exclamation mark, for instance -- and undergirding it with facts, statistics, and/or sources, of which there are many, the phrase can emerge neither loaded nor parroted, and appropriate for even FOX News’ clear target market of people seeking relief from the liberal bias of ABC, NBC, CBS.
quote:
Simply toning down the emotive portion -- the exclamation mark, for instance -- and undergirding it with facts, statistics, and/or sources, the phrase can emerge neither loaded nor parroted.
I have removed the emotive portions. You're right -- it is much more convincing this way.
Edit: clarity
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 03, 2006).]
Contrast these two quotes:
quote:
Loaded phrases smack[ing] of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought....may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market
quote:
facts, statistics, and/or sources...are...appropriate for even FOX News’ clear target market of people seeking relief from the liberal bias of ABC, NBC, CBS
Your point in the top quote was to insult the Fox audience. My point was to redeem them. To prove my point, by using facts, sources and statistics , let me quote Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek (hardly a conservative rag), from a July, 2004 Inside Washington, “a weekend discussion show taped at and run by the Gannett-owned CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, WUSA-TV, and carried by many PBS stations across the country." (Note the liberal pedigree here.)
“Thomas pointed out the boost to the Kerry/Edwards ticket provided by the press corps: “There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040712.asp
So, yes. Unlike most of the media, Survivor needs objectivity to present his project. Facts, statistics and sources. No emotive kookiness.
that statement doesn't prove Fox watchers are not idiots. Nor does it prove that Fox is not a biased network.
it just proves that Fox was not biased for Kerry and therefore would not bend over backward to make kerry look good.
Mark twain was right.
There are lie, Damned lies and statistics.
How often in these statistics do you actually ask for the r2 value (ie correlation value)? you'd be surprised at how many people actually try to pass off bad statistics as the truth.
Meanwhile...I read that there was some talk after 9 / 11 of trying to get the government to issue "letters of marque and reprisal," along the lines of putting a big bounty on the heads of the terrorists and letting private citizens bring them in dead or alive. Survivor, If you could talk the government into doing that, it might be right up your alley.
Let’s see, Matt. Certain networks are liberally biased, so people get fed up and switch to Fox. Then there are people who, even in the face of that bias, either continue to deny the bias, or accept it as Mr. Thomas does, and don’t join the exodus to Fox. I know which group I think is wiser, and it’s not the liberal network viewers.
A statistician. Cool. But trust me, after trying to sift through news reports, I’m not at all surprised that people try to pass off bad statistics.
Correlation value – that sounds interesting. I wonder if that’s the key I need for something I was working on. Rather than use up thread space on something wholly off the writing mark (yeah, like it’s not what we’ve already been doing ), may I e-mail you? If you so loathe any statistician-linked exercises and would rather not bother, I’ll understand.
Yes, back to your dilemma, Survivor. If you’re looking to develop legitimate supportive arguments for your proposed project that can be presented objectively, then accurate information properly presented is critical. If citing the results of Canada and Australia’s anti-gun policies are germane to your proposal, although I don’t imagine they are, go for it. Some people will ignore the truth of certain issues no matter how it’s presented, so you’re right to be prepared for the “kook” label.
However, the seriousness of this must start with you. If you label yourself as a kook,
quote:
I'm not asking anyone to join my kook campaign
quote:
You'll want to network with the other kooks.
quote:
Would it be unreasonable to hope that someone with the necessary organization/promotional skills would "just show up"? Or should I plan to assume most of the burden of actually doing this?
A plan is always better than a hope.
In light of Robert’s suggestion, you might contact Ron Paul, U. S representative from Texas, who introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
I loathe statistics because they're too "easy" to manipulate throw the right regressions and comparisons together with some careful blending of the answers you get and walla! you've got a strong correlation to something.
the r2 value is a key figure in statistics.
The higher the r2 number the "better" the comparison between two sets of numbers.
Also I don't doubt there is liberal bias in media. I all I mean to say is Fox is different but not better.
Now I have to research a couple of proposals introduced to Congress back in 2001. Ah, well, it's not like I wasn't just spinning my wheels on this one anyway. If anyone wants to take a crack at my actual writing on the subject, I have a short concept draft of an essay posted.
My first post was designed to be very emotive, and I regretted it immediately, so I changed it. I apologise if it threw you out. The change was not meant to undermine the value of anything you wrote. Again, I am sorry.
By the way I am glad that you called me out on that one.
Fox viewers value powerfully emotive language. If they didn't then Fox wouldn't use it. Fox is smarter than that.
TO support both Kolona and MattLust, here in Oz, the 'liberal media' are just as emotive as the conservative, they push all the 'Politically Correct' buttons they can in order to get the 'liberals'' blood up.
I have little time for either liberal or conservative emotive language.
Why I referred to Fox news specifically is because Survivor's idea would probably appeal to the same sort of target market as Fox appeals to and because of this 'instinct'says 'be emotive.'
However, in the first instance Survivor's letters to government departments etc are most likely to be read by some grey, emotion-disdaining, middle-management type who is probably a very different target market and who will find the emotion good reason to dismiss the letter.
The campaign must initially ride a fine line. That is also why I think Survivor needs a 'poster boy', someone with credibility/popularity/profile enough to make the letters so much harder to ignore.
Kolona, I know that we agree in the essentials, just thought it was funny that you should assume I was a rabid liberal. Things are genuinely different here.
(PS I have changed this post too, so I hope it doesn't wreck any subsequent posts.)
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 04, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 04, 2006).]
Just to clarify something here, I'm not pulling out lists of "grey, emotion-disdaining, middle-management" types in government departments. I don't know how they do things in Australia, but around here we like to convince the electorate (or their representatives) that something is a good idea. That's why I'm primarily writing things to various citizen's/advocacy groups.
Eventually I'll have to produce something for public consumption, but I'd like to get a handle on how the various advocacy groups respond first, see if this has room on anyone's agenda.
I think that it's a lot less wacky than suggesting that we try to use SETI to hire alien mercenaries who'll work for the tasty flesh of our enemies, but I don't know. Perhaps I should try that proposal next...except that I don't think something like that could possibly be practical
So you will have a two-phased strategy.
First: A well-aimed 'motivating' letter campaign designed to appeal to and gain support from the sort of people who constitute the community organisations you've mentioned and who would be stakeholders in the sort of enterprise you propose. This will take 'market' research. Or, more specifically, investing research time and resources into as formal and thorough research as you see as appropriate to the ambitions of the campaign.
In my opinion, the primary goal of the initial phase would to elicit referrals for 'profile-agents' to act on your behalf.
There are two ways of obtaining 'profile-agents'. The first (chronologically) would be to include some sort of 'response mechanism' into your letter. A website, a blog, a telephone number or something of that kind with a 'for more information contact ...' It is impersonal and gives them a sense of anonymity but allows you to gather some kind of contact details of people who are more promising contacts.
A 'members area and forum' where people have to leave at least some details (email address, how did you hear about this site, what groups are you affiliated with etc) to join would be good. Vow to assure them privacy and allow them to speak freely. Monitor it for undesirable kooks and fill the 'SWMBO' role yourself.
Second: Create a dialogue with some more active or opinonated respondees and promote a 'buddy' campaign to draw in more likeminded people. One way to do this would be to do a liberty hall style 'Master/ Journey Man' etc level thing. You could do this by getting them to say which 'member' invited them to join up and increase that members status as a reward or reward them for their participation.
The second kind of 'profile agent' -- leading to the second phase of your campaign -- are those with broader community profile. Small business owners and employers are good ones. (The only problem with them would be the niggling idea they may have that at some point they may lose employees to active duty. This is easy enough to counter but would take a carefully worded and thought through communication strategy.)
These 'secondary profile-agents' will be valuable when you start wanting to elicit support from local political figures (the second phase of your letter campaign). They will act as intermediaries between your phases - in touch with both target groups. Again, the level of 'profile' you want will depend on the ambition of the campaign AND what phase of the strategy you are at. It is possible too that they can feed you information about what public/political figures are sympathetic to the idea and likely to support/promote it.
Think of 'secondary profile agents' as strategically valuable high ground.
In all this, the worst thing you could do would be to start a campaign without substantial and motivating follow-up literature / resources. For instance a potential supporter begins to 'drill-down' into you web-resource and find a dozen pages 'under construction'. It is essential to realise that EVERY contact they have with you and your campaign WILL produce an effect. Their opinion of the value of the campaign will be a result of the sum total of experiences they have with it. Ensure that every thing the campaign touches reflects the values you wish to promote. In that way you extend your influence and the 'aura' of your ideas, in the minds of your target audience, to include everything they think is good without you having to know or ask for their opinions about it first. You appropriate their sense of good and right to promote your aims.
Just random thoughts but ones I thought worth mentioning.
Edit: PS: The third phase of your two-phase strategy is the whole SETI thing you suggest. Flesh eating aliens are powerful motivators and probably have a high level of credibilty.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 05, 2006).]
The thing is, I believe that this idea has its own legs. And I don't want to sell people something based on my percieved credibility, manufactured by various phony documents and drills under a business model. I'd like people to simply recognize that this is a good idea.
That's probably too much to ask of humans, though.
I got the message about phony credentials.
I don't advocate it now. I suggested it back before I realised that this was a genuine project and not just some sort of literary mischief.
Believe it or not, I am trying to help. But I'll just slip out stage left now.
quote:
It's been used sucessfully thousands of times in recorded history.
So what percentage success vs failure does that equate to?
Without that data (or a study of why failures occurred) the statement means almost nothing.
BTW: Good Ideas are a dime a dozen.
Edit: Exit dexter.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 06, 2006).]
i.e. Armies with enameled filgree on their weapons tend to win more than anyone else. That doesn't mean that filgree weapons actually help you win.
How do you define it?
As you say:
quote:
If you mean actually winning, then the success rate is no better than anything else that you do mainly because you're worried about actually losing.
But is it worse?
1: If your proposal offers no improvement to the chance of winning compared to the the current model then why implement it?
2: If your proposal possibly decreases the chance of winning compared to the the current model then why do it?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 08, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 08, 2006).]
By the way, you misquoted me. Just thought I'd mention that.
Look, I'm not here to debate the idea. I'm talking about how to run a certain type of literary campaign.
All campaigns have to give them a reason to listen.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 09, 2006).]
I believe that anyone serious about strengthening the U.S. military is part of my natural audience. Does that count as a reason to listen?
I say that because of the 'militia can back out half way through a campaign' aspect. Certainly the commander they have 'chosen' to serve under would not want that to occur so, to facilitate it, the militia would have to have a separate way to 'trump' the commander when the commander says, 'no, you can't go.'
Then of course the commander can say, 'well, we won't pay for you to get home.'
If both the militia and the regular forces are subject to a single, centralised co-ordinating body then the 'militia' really only have an illusion of choice. They will be 'locked-in' like everyone else.
As to markets for the letters. What about letters to editors of small unaffilliated newspapers?
You could get a really wide spread on the idea with little effort on your part and, with a follow-up letter to chosen organisations, the idea will not seem so new or ludicrous when they receive it. It would be a second exposure.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 09, 2006).]
As for the discussion of any particulars about how such a militia might work, I'm seriously leaving that whole thing on the blog I linked earlier. The specific questions you've asked (including the question of who pays for the ticket home if the militia decide to quit) are addressed (though not always answered definitively) there.
Lots of readers there, too!
[This message has been edited by Aldous Huxley (edited February 11, 2006).]
As for towns of about 2500 people...I'm not sure what to say to that. Maybe later.
quote:
Just to clarify something here, I'm not pulling out lists of "grey, emotion-disdaining, middle-management" types in government departments. I don't know how they do things in Australia, but around here we like to convince the electorate (or their representatives) that something is a good idea. That's why I'm primarily writing things to various citizen's/advocacy groups.
Interesting. My understanding is that if you want legislation to be passed in the US, you'd do a far better job of getting lobbyists involved (which usually means finding some way in which your idea would be profitable for some major, usually corporate, interest). It may well be that there are electoral representatives who are particularly vulnerable to public outcry lobbying, but those surely tend to be more about locally relevant issues. In your instance, you appear to be propounding a scheme that has only a very indirect impact on most social groups in the US (particularly because, as you correctly note, there are no controlled experiments in history, and no-one can go "if we don't do thiis than x will happen/if we do this then y will happen" and be absolutely sure of their ground).
My exposure to militias is pretty much zero, and the whole concept is fairly hard for an outsider to grasp in the modern world, where the rule of law is generally regarded as paramount and where militias tend to be very much equated with vigilantes.
In what way is what you're suggesting significantly different from mercenary groups, who are still common in war zones (particularly in Africa) around the world?
[This message has been edited by tchernabyelo (edited February 14, 2006).]
If you want more specifics, you'll have to go to my blog, I'm not here to expound my idea, only to get feedback on how to run a letter writing campaign.
The point about lobbyists is both apt and naive. Lobbyists do their job because they get paid. It really doesn't matter what the idea is (okay, it matters, but not in the way you seem to think), as long as someone is willing to back it financially. There are quite a few long running "public interest" lobbies, these run using a combination of private and corporate donations, as well as public monies in some cases (which is kind of a short circuit, if you think about it). These are the ones that would eventually be responding (or forming in response) to a popular push. Anyway, I'm not looking for information on how to get a lobbyist's attention, I already know the only way that actually works, and it doesn't serve my purposes here.
Closing the circle, if I'm going to be hiring mercenaries to get this legalized, why not just cut out the middleman and make it legal?
So, if you please, helpful suggestions on how to run a letter writing campaign. That's all I'm asking for here.