Tuesday, December 21, 2010
NM Blogger buys Bully Pulpit
Heath Hausamen refused to publish a reply to his latest diatribe related to politicians' role in violence related to black-market activities. Read his rehashed opinion that could've as easily been the work of Nancy Reagan here: http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2010/12/cartels-are-as-big-a-threat-in-u-s-as-terrorism/
Here's the comment he refused to print:
Your readers might be interested to know that the primary method direct marketers use to herd readers into a conversion funnel is to provide only enough information to lure them into the next stage of the conversion funnel.
The promise does hold some allure that a former Las Cruces newspaper reporter will offer some advice on "what to do" about the drug war in his next opinion column, squeezed between his next political news report and when he gets some spare time from selling advertisements to politicians. In the mean time, we can stew on his conclusion that black-market cartels are as big a threat as terrorism while we try to comprehend the mental gymnastics that lets the writer conclude "I never equated the war on drugs with the war on terror."
Today's opinion column gives us another clue on the fancy rhetorical footwork by which the writer denies equating the "War on Drugs" with the "War on Terror" while he advances his opinion that the "enemies" in each war are equally dangerous. Today's opinion includes a hint that the nation hasn't spent nearly as much in the "war" on "drugs" in one nation as it has spent collectively in the "war" on "terror" hence, the various "wars" are not equal?
Unless Heath begins to seriously investigate the widely discussed hypothesis that the so-called drug war primarily perpetuates authoritarian institutions that in turn recruit more canon fodder for both sides of a campaign against users of substances less harmful than the actions of both those who promote and discourage their use, we can conclude as Heath has previously denied that he is catering to his sources, which comprise his sole source of advertising revenue -- those politicians who make their living by promoting ever more spending on a constructed war against their very constituents based on constructed concepts that have nothing to do with honest actuarial analysis of risk, threat and harm in our society.
----------------------------------
Here's Hausamen's reply:
Here's the comment he refused to print:
Your readers might be interested to know that the primary method direct marketers use to herd readers into a conversion funnel is to provide only enough information to lure them into the next stage of the conversion funnel.
The promise does hold some allure that a former Las Cruces newspaper reporter will offer some advice on "what to do" about the drug war in his next opinion column, squeezed between his next political news report and when he gets some spare time from selling advertisements to politicians. In the mean time, we can stew on his conclusion that black-market cartels are as big a threat as terrorism while we try to comprehend the mental gymnastics that lets the writer conclude "I never equated the war on drugs with the war on terror."
Today's opinion column gives us another clue on the fancy rhetorical footwork by which the writer denies equating the "War on Drugs" with the "War on Terror" while he advances his opinion that the "enemies" in each war are equally dangerous. Today's opinion includes a hint that the nation hasn't spent nearly as much in the "war" on "drugs" in one nation as it has spent collectively in the "war" on "terror" hence, the various "wars" are not equal?
Unless Heath begins to seriously investigate the widely discussed hypothesis that the so-called drug war primarily perpetuates authoritarian institutions that in turn recruit more canon fodder for both sides of a campaign against users of substances less harmful than the actions of both those who promote and discourage their use, we can conclude as Heath has previously denied that he is catering to his sources, which comprise his sole source of advertising revenue -- those politicians who make their living by promoting ever more spending on a constructed war against their very constituents based on constructed concepts that have nothing to do with honest actuarial analysis of risk, threat and harm in our society.
----------------------------------
Here's Hausamen's reply:
Your most recent comment is not factual, therefore I'm not publishing it. You quote me as giving the opinion that the "enemies" in each war are equally dangerous, while I never used such language. And you state that this site's "sole source of advertising revenue -- those politicians who make their living by promoting ever more spending on a constructed war against their very constituents based on constructed concepts that have nothing to do with honest actuarial analysis of risk, threat and harm in our society."
That's simply not true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)