Open Thread (6/11/2007)

Thanks, Young Righty. 

I was a little slow in getting the Open Thread posted this morning.

"if you are doing what you are paid to do, doing what you've willing agreed to do for material compensation, what makes you a hero?"

What makes them heroes is the fact that they are willing to do it at all.  Most people aren't willing to do these things, so the ones who do are doing it for the rest of us.  The fact that they're paid is irrelevant, in that light.

The two of you are right on the money: to me, a hero is someone who has the balls to do something that I wouldn't.

Maybe "people doing potentially dangerous things for the rest of us?"

"So are garbagemen heroes? How about the guy that cleans out the PortaPotty?"

To the extent that their personal well-being would be put at risk, then yes.  Under normal, sensible circumstances, their risk is relatively slight; therefore, so is their heroism.  The important part of this equation is not necessarily the fact that most don't want to be firefighters or police officers, but rather the reason why most don't want to do it, i.e., the obvious and continual risk of serious bodily injury or death.

On the other hand, for completely different reasons, the PortaPotty guy is my personal hero, which is an entirely different sort of designation....

George Will hit piece on Fred Thompson - final paragraph.

Well, Reagan, too, had his rhetorical pratfalls, and Thompson, a former prosecutor, must know how to sift evidence and formulate arguments. But as Thompson ambles toward running, he is burdened by a reputation for a less-than-strenuous approach to public life, and that opaque thought he voiced about immigration looks suspiciously symptomatic of a mind undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities. If so, a sound you may soon hear from the Thompson campaign may be the soft "pop" of a bursting bubble.

"A mind undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities" - wow!  That is harsh. 

"A reputation for a less than strenuous approach to public life" - ouch!  I have been hearing this one over and over.

I don't know but I think going to Normandy or Iwo-Jima knowing they would be meat grinders would make most a hero's, I know they had no choice, but. 

I have seen candidates’s work themselves into exhaustion, not able to really finish a race. I have seen well run Campaigns were the candidate seems to be everywhere but isn't really breathing hard. I can tell you that working for the later is much better because you usually win.

I think that McCain is out for a lot more than campaign finance reform.  I am much more upset about the gang of 14 deal than campaign finance.  But those who want to oppose thompson on mccain feingold are certainly reasonable.

Wrong three letters but I will read it.

It was always so amazing to me that such a soft spoken man with such a baby face like Audie Murphy could face such adversity with such honor and determination. Personally, anyone who is heroic has qualities far beyond my compreshension and I truly admire them.

We read posts on this site from individuals who's intentions are certainly honorable, but their experience belies the content of their thoughts. I have a very close friend who was in the infantry and was among those who discovered the concentration camps. He always says he wished he had never been there but glad he was. He was a hero to all the prisoners, they did not care if he was being paid, or it was his duty. He saved their lives and was their hero.

For his dignity and honor, he is also my hero.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

hero
noun ( pl. heroes)
a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities : a war hero.

Seems like everyone is dancing on the same stage, although the "typically a man" is sure to take some heat.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

There are people who are not afraid to stand up to police injustice and corruption in our town.  The African American kid who was attacked by the Champaign police in March near Douglas Park won't just take the trumped up charges of the police and the State's Attorney - because he knows that what the police did - attacking him for no good reason -- was wrong.  They bloodied him up, sent him to the hospital, and charged him.  Most people would just slink away and let the cops keep on attacking blacks and especially black youths -- because the cops know the can get away with it when no one stands up to them.

Now I'm curious - I know that the kid turned down an offer of diversion from the State's Attorney's office, and I suspected that some other people encouraged him to do this.  So was the selling point telling the kid that he'd be a "hero" if he risked a conviction and jail time?

I'm still unclear on exactly the kid was "beat" as opposed to just pepper sprayed and arrested.

I was in the area and witnessed the tail end of the arrest, and did not see any officers beating the kid, and I'm not convinced that the officers did any more than pepper-spray and arrest him.

You can't lose what you didn't have to begin with.

Does it strike anyone else, besides me, as indicating a lack of ability (or maybe a very poor application of one's ability) to immediately come out and say something you oppose is racist?  I mean, where can an opponent go from there?  If you defend by saying "No, we're not racist", then you're playing into the critic's hands, and moved the debate from the actual topic, to "Who's a racist"...If you refuse to answer the question, the critic can say "See, they're racist, they refuse to talk about it!"...

Yeah, that tactic seems to get used again and again, and it doesn't reflect well on them.  I was also struck by the sheer number of posts that were hidden on the thread about Dolinar being ejected from the press conference.  (http://www.ucimc.org/node/1361&hidden=1) .  Some of them did not seem unreasonable, and it looked like accusing people of being trolls was another way of shutting down debate.