NaNo Updates – Worse than Lawyers

Reporters. Augh.

…Well, just one reporter. But he’s being very tricky to write. You see, I’m trying to do him as an honest reporter, with real doubts about the situation, trying to do actual investigative journalism and get the facts before he makes up his own mind who’s right.

…I know, I know, such an implausible character! It’s worse than a unicorn!

Anyway. Writing this bit is going slowly, and I wish I could legitimately throw a monster right into the middle of this… talk. But that would kind of blow the chances for reasoned argument.

Though honestly, sometimes, who needs reasoned argument….

Well. Will see how this interview goes, and if Aidan sets the jerk’s hair on fire!

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “NaNo Updates – Worse than Lawyers

  1. If said reporter is being skeptical, then reasoned argument might simply not be enough. Because he might believe they are telling the truth as they know it does not make that truth correct. A lot of people are entirely truthful and entirely wrong about things coming out of their mouths.

    And sometimes you just have experience something (possibly more than once) to believe it.

    And sometimes people have a limit on how much change they are willing to handle. And the parts of the Masquerade that have already revealed themselves might be some people’s limits. They don’t want to believe worse exists.

    Many people probably don’t want to know the part everyone has had a couple of years to get used exists. Heck, some people have probably convinced themselves that none of it is real. There is no such thing as X. I don’t believe in X. It’s a hoax with actors, sets, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Deep breaths. Check out Pajamas Media and Instapundit. You’ll feel better.

      In the meantime, just try to laugh at how they really don’t get that half the country got tired of being called evil just for existing. Especially those of us who are classic American Mutts, worked our tails off from… let’s just say, very poor… and get told to our face we couldn’t possibly Understand, because we’re so Privileged.

      Stand by me mixing cement in weather that gives you frostbite. Then tell me I’m privileged.

      Like

      1. Yeah, anyone who is homeless or has to do backbreaking and soul crushing labor just to put food on the table, knows that ‘white privilege’ is worth absolutely nothing if you are not rich.

        Like

      2. The problem, as usual, is that the people who understand what’s going on, and the people who are loud enough to be heard, are rarely the same people. Most people I know on the liberal side don’t think that conservatives are evil. A certain, small but very loud subset? Sure. (On both sides.) But evil for existing? No. That’s true of exactly nobody. Evil is what you *do*, not what you are.

        Of course, it’s also quite depressing that slightly less than half of the population decided that they didn’t care enough to vote…

        As far as honest reporters go? Try newspapers. Especially ones which haven’t become extensions of online media companies. Seems to me that they have much more of a chance to actually try to get news, rather than manufacturing a story which will attract attention. Only problem is, you need to be a Name (and probably have blackmail, too) in order to get an interview with a politician where they actually allow the follow-up questions needed to get something true out of them.

        Heh. Get a college newspaper reporter, too naive to realize how messed up the system is, and toss them into the mix at the back of a reporter-scrum. Poor kid, having all their illusions shattered.

        Like

      3. The problem I see is that not enough politicians understand what compromise actually means. It does not mean one side completely gets their way and the other side has to shut up and deal with it. It does not mean both sides hmm and haw and nothing gets done. It does not mean you are weak.

        Because you aren’t making the rules for one party or one group. You are making rules for everyone. And we should at least be able to agree that the process is fair even if we don’t like the results.

        We need progressives AND conservatives. Because you need a gas pedal but you also a need a brake. One without the other is dangerous and bad for everyone.

        Now it might just be the fact they are loudest ones (and therefore the ones getting the most attention) but seems that both sides are trying to floor their respective pedals simultaneously – the result is we aren’t really getting anything done and messing up the transmission of the metaphorical car.

        Balance. Too much of anything is almost always bad for you.

        Like

      4. Actually, constitutionally, we’re supposed to have gridlock when the majority of the population can’t agree on something. What we’re not supposed to have is bunches of regulations being made by agencies, instead of by laws, so the average citizen can’t even affect them by voting in a new congressman.

        …If we could have 4 years of just no new regulations, I think the whole country could calm down a bit.

        Like

      5. Classical antiquity gives us and gave the founders results of an awful lot of experiments in self rule. Despite common definitions, republics and democracies (note not capitalized) are not the same things.

        The most freedom for nose counts right now is in democracy, and the most protection for political minorities is in a republic. ‘We want it now’ is democracy; republics involve promises to refrain from certain choices.

        Greek democracy let Athens lynch Socrates for being an asshole who wouldn’t shut up and leave people in peace. The Roman Republic failed because the stakes of political contests grew too high, so that those raised to the bloody power politics could no longer afford to lose.

        The founders set out a contract that if adhered to would limit stakes by limiting power. It was never intended to be compatible with the ambitions of technocratic government meaning to alter the nature of society.

        There’s a choice between minimizing internal bloodshed, and trying to change the world on a deadline.

        Like

  2. And no judges making up law. Pretty please, could we have a few years where neither regulations nor new law are invented?

    (deep breath. Stops impulse to rant. backs away from keyboard slowly.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s