4 ms·

> then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress it was a simple matter of bad apples who would be punished, not a systematic problem with new U.S. mi

> then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress it was a simple matter of bad apples who would be punished, not a systematic problem with new U.S. military policy. Rumsfeld's story is symptomatic of how the US treats powerful people: once you arrive you will be among friends, your voice will be amplified by the press, with an infinitely wide safety net and no ability of any group to hold you accountable or even make a dent in your bottom line. For all of the hoo ha about American democracy, powerful individuals are sacrosanct and checks on power are devalued: in the courts, in government, in the workplace, and in culture. ** Seems to me that we both are rankly speculating outside the bounds of the given evidence, no?

FridayoLeary 5y ago
As JFK said about the Berlin Wall "Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in -- to prevent them from leaving us." The American democracy doesn't need to be perfect. The problem is it's been idealised way to much. The reason America is the greatest country in the world (i say that from the UK) is because nowhere else do individuals enjoy such freedom and liberty to pursue happiness . Don't blame democracy, understand it's limitations.
- jancsika 5y ago
  Your last sentence is on point. I bitflipped OPs statement, with the idea that if the opposing rhetoric sounds equally appealing then there's a strong possibility that neither of them are nutritious. :) Edit: clarification
rectang 5y ago
Whistleblowing is an essential theme of this article; by stripping it out of my rhetoric, we go spinning off into a generic tangent. While there are broader themes at work here as with anywhere, we're more likely to have an edifying discussion if we focus on the particulars: whistleblowing, the VA, mental health, and what Ian Fishback's case reveals about them.
- jancsika 5y ago
  All I did was bitflip your original statement and then change "individualism" to the equally general term "democracy." In both cases the final statement is way too broad to be anything but a non-sequitur. A government intent on silencing whistleblowers is indeed a type of organization, but it does not follow that the behavior of all or even most organizations are beyond reproach. Similarly, while Donald Rumsfeld played a role in the Bush administration, his role was one small part of our entire representative form of government. To make the argument for either conclusion, there need to be more ideas connecting our final sentences to the ones that preceded them.
  - rectang 5y ago
    The "bitflipped" version expanded the theme from whistleblowers to "powerful people" — that's where I think it fell down. In both cases there are broad generalizations being made, but in my version I was careful to circle back to the smaller theme. I try to do this consistently because avoiding "generic tangents" is in the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. In retrospect, rather than relying on context, I could have explicitly qualified the final sentence to clarify that I was speaking of the relative weight of individuals and organizations in US society specifically with regards to the outcome of whistleblowing. I'd like to think there's something I could have done to have earned a more generous reading from you so we don't end up in a rhetorical gotcha game.
vkou 5y ago
Have you noticed the utterly laughable political pardons and ass-covering that surrounded the worst failures of that war? In any meritocratic society, the political careers of the people responsible would have been over, and a few of them should have at least stood trial for crimes against peace. Even if they were ultimately found not guilty, this is the kind of sword of Damocles that whistleblowers tend to face. Instead, the only person of import whose career was truly destroyed was Collin Powell.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

As JFK said about the Berlin Wall "Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in -- to prevent them from leaving us." The American democracy doesn't need to be perfect. The problem is it's been idealised way to much. The reason America is the greatest country in the world (i say that from the UK) is because nowhere else do individuals enjoy such freedom and liberty to pursue happiness . Don't blame democracy, understand it's limitations.

jancsika 5y ago
Your last sentence is on point. I bitflipped OPs statement, with the idea that if the opposing rhetoric sounds equally appealing then there's a strong possibility that neither of them are nutritious. :) Edit: clarification

rectang 5y ago

Whistleblowing is an essential theme of this article; by stripping it out of my rhetoric, we go spinning off into a generic tangent. While there are broader themes at work here as with anywhere, we're more likely to have an edifying discussion if we focus on the particulars: whistleblowing, the VA, mental health, and what Ian Fishback's case reveals about them.

jancsika 5y ago
All I did was bitflip your original statement and then change "individualism" to the equally general term "democracy." In both cases the final statement is way too broad to be anything but a non-sequitur. A government intent on silencing whistleblowers is indeed a type of organization, but it does not follow that the behavior of all or even most organizations are beyond reproach. Similarly, while Donald Rumsfeld played a role in the Bush administration, his role was one small part of our entire representative form of government. To make the argument for either conclusion, there need to be more ideas connecting our final sentences to the ones that preceded them.
- rectang 5y ago
  The "bitflipped" version expanded the theme from whistleblowers to "powerful people" — that's where I think it fell down. In both cases there are broad generalizations being made, but in my version I was careful to circle back to the smaller theme. I try to do this consistently because avoiding "generic tangents" is in the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. In retrospect, rather than relying on context, I could have explicitly qualified the final sentence to clarify that I was speaking of the relative weight of individuals and organizations in US society specifically with regards to the outcome of whistleblowing. I'd like to think there's something I could have done to have earned a more generous reading from you so we don't end up in a rhetorical gotcha game.

vkou 5y ago

Have you noticed the utterly laughable political pardons and ass-covering that surrounded the worst failures of that war? In any meritocratic society, the political careers of the people responsible would have been over, and a few of them should have at least stood trial for crimes against peace. Even if they were ultimately found not guilty, this is the kind of sword of Damocles that whistleblowers tend to face. Instead, the only person of import whose career was truly destroyed was Collin Powell.