Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (213684)	7/28/2007 9:59:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794261

I read the key point as urging that all officials not pass on any opportunity to arouse and incite the mob lest it be lulled by official professionalism. That's the somewhat overstated <g> gist of what I read. I agree that your point was subsumed in there somewhere. And I agree with that point. I subscribe to his notions two and three. 2: "the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently." And 3: "citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally." At least I don't. Emotionalism other than in times of sudden and enormous personal stress, like your kid just got hit by a car, comes across to me as a lack of self-control and judgment. Officials are supposed to keep their wits about them. The occasional, well-timed emotive speech from the big guy can be compelling and necessary but all officials emoting all the time makes the whole lot seem deranged. And, on the practical side, when you whip people up day and night it makes it harder to keep them calm at times of crisis when we really need to be calm. If there were a biological attack here, for example, calm would be invaluable. We can't have it both ways.