Jan 31 2013: I am in no way interfering with Ms di Giovanni's speech nor your ability to read anything you wish. I do however reserve the right to point out when a journalist fails to properly and timely do their job.
Ms di Giovanni's bardic arts are of the highest order. In Western Democracies we Citizens must, must, must know what is going on in the world to make reasoned and rational decisions based on the latest information. Journalism is failing to do it's job instead reporting on Lindsey Lohan's latest brush with the law, not the important things.
Jan 30 2013: I have no problem with her facts, they are correct but totally irrelevant, and Ms di Giovanni's story telling is wonderful. However, as an American Soldier who ended up fighting in both Yugoslavia and Iraq I can't help but think that accurate and timely reporting would have prevented the former or perhaps both of these wars.
The fact that she starts her narrative 5 years into the story and uses passive voice is more than disconnected it is journalistic malpractice. It is touchy-feely but not informative which is my point. While I love her narrative it is the lack of context that makes it useless.
Jan 30 2013: What is wrong with Janine in Sarajevo? She starts with “This is how a war starts...” April 1992, no phones, no TV, and goes into a story that happened to a friend of her's about walking to work in Sarajevo while wearing a mini skirt and high heals and describes hiding behind a garbage can when a tank came “ambling down the road knocking everything out of it's path.”
Well this is wrong on about three hundred different levels so let me start with the beginning the Yugoslav Civil war, it started when Slobodan Milošević promised to defend the Serbs in Pristina, Kosovo in May 1987. Her account is all passive voice, this is typically used by bureaucrats who wish to shift the blame. Phrases like “The decision was made.” rather than “I decided to have the death squads kill the children.” Got it? “The tank ambled down the road.” Not true. Evil men decided to come down that road, that day, they were in and on an M-84A tank.
We see this from the point of a bewildered twenty one year old mother of a baby boy who we are told liked to party and worked as a bank teller. Rather than point out evil, rather than blame the guilty all of this just happened. This did not just happen, this was allowed to happen.
Where was this bewildered twenty one year old's husband? Where was her Father? Where was her brother? Where were the police? Where was the Army? This war had been going on for five years. Five stinking years! I do not give a rat's ass about what kind of shoes she was wearing, I do not care how short her skirt was. I do not give a damn about what she was hiding behind. I am not interested in her age. I have zero interest in her employ. Janine is a wonderful story teller but you know what? She is not very good at relating the important facts. Things like who, where, why, what, and how. Information that could be used to punish the guilty and prevent this from ever happening again.
Jan 30 2013: Well considering that us American Civilians did in fact go to Europe in WWII and did in fact defeat Hitler and his adherents.
To call what was in fact done "silly" is disconnect from reality.
No in America being drafted into the Army does not make one a professional Soldier. We do our bit and we go home, the correct phrase is Citizen Soldier.
For that matter the Armed Soviet Partisans was a major contributing factor to Hitlers defeat as were the French Resistance, which more than proves my point.
Jan 29 2013: The weapons available to evil men are more powerful today as well, the good guys need the state of the art even more today than at any point in the past.
As for "evil Semi-Automatics" these are the compromise, a real assault rifle is Fully-Automatic and were outlawed in the USA in 1986. Your argument shows little understanding of firearms, history, law (Constitutional or otherwise). We Americans have compromised as much as we can, no more.
Undermining the bill of rights voids the Constitution as adding the Rill of Rights was required to ratify the Constitution and create the USA Government. We Americans see gun control as treason.
Jan 29 2013: Why General Peter van Uhm is Wrong. He speaks of why he personally to choose carrying the gun as a career even though he is uncomfortable with firearms. His experiences in Lebanon and Sarajevo taught him about brute force, only the gun can protect the weak. Thus he determines that there must be a State monopoly on the use of violence and that democratic governments with independent judiciaries and constitutions somehow support human rights. Now I think that he intended for this statement to back up his thesis. There are some problems with this thinking. Contrast the German invasion of the Netherlands with the Japanese invasion of California or the Italian invasion of Switzerland. Well wait those last two never happened did they? No, why not? Armed Citizens is why not. The Japanese had an invasion fleet at sea just after Pearl Harbor and was more than capable of taking any USA city on the US West coast, they turned North and took an uninhabited part of Alaska and held it for years. Italy instead invaded Greece. As for democratic governments, well do remember that Hitler and Mussolini were both elected. It is guns in the hands of the State that is the problem.
Jan 29 2013: Gun control is always followed by genocide, every time, every time, every time, So if you advocate for gun control, you are the moral equal of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a host of other evil men. An armed Citizenry is the only way to prevent evil.
People often say: "It is a weak argument when you play the Hitler card." Yet this is in fact the most perfect place to make the comparison. Historically the comparison is accurate.
The US Constitution was written the way is was written for a good and cogent reason but it was immediately seen as dangerous, Too dangerous in fact to be ratified without a bill of rights. Thus any attack on the Bill of Rights undermines the legitimacy of the USA Government as a whole and sows the seeds for a civil war.
TEDCred score: +0.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Janine di Giovanni: What I saw in the war
Ms di Giovanni's bardic arts are of the highest order. In Western Democracies we Citizens must, must, must know what is going on in the world to make reasoned and rational decisions based on the latest information. Journalism is failing to do it's job instead reporting on Lindsey Lohan's latest brush with the law, not the important things.
A reply on Talk: Janine di Giovanni: What I saw in the war
The fact that she starts her narrative 5 years into the story and uses passive voice is more than disconnected it is journalistic malpractice. It is touchy-feely but not informative which is my point. While I love her narrative it is the lack of context that makes it useless.
A comment on Talk: Janine di Giovanni: What I saw in the war
Well this is wrong on about three hundred different levels so let me start with the beginning the Yugoslav Civil war, it started when Slobodan Milošević promised to defend the Serbs in Pristina, Kosovo in May 1987. Her account is all passive voice, this is typically used by bureaucrats who wish to shift the blame. Phrases like “The decision was made.” rather than “I decided to have the death squads kill the children.” Got it? “The tank ambled down the road.” Not true. Evil men decided to come down that road, that day, they were in and on an M-84A tank.
We see this from the point of a bewildered twenty one year old mother of a baby boy who we are told liked to party and worked as a bank teller. Rather than point out evil, rather than blame the guilty all of this just happened. This did not just happen, this was allowed to happen.
Where was this bewildered twenty one year old's husband? Where was her Father? Where was her brother? Where were the police? Where was the Army? This war had been going on for five years. Five stinking years! I do not give a rat's ass about what kind of shoes she was wearing, I do not care how short her skirt was. I do not give a damn about what she was hiding behind. I am not interested in her age. I have zero interest in her employ. Janine is a wonderful story teller but you know what? She is not very good at relating the important facts. Things like who, where, why, what, and how. Information that could be used to punish the guilty and prevent this from ever happening again.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
To call what was in fact done "silly" is disconnect from reality.
No in America being drafted into the Army does not make one a professional Soldier. We do our bit and we go home, the correct phrase is Citizen Soldier.
For that matter the Armed Soviet Partisans was a major contributing factor to Hitlers defeat as were the French Resistance, which more than proves my point.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
As for "evil Semi-Automatics" these are the compromise, a real assault rifle is Fully-Automatic and were outlawed in the USA in 1986. Your argument shows little understanding of firearms, history, law (Constitutional or otherwise). We Americans have compromised as much as we can, no more.
Undermining the bill of rights voids the Constitution as adding the Rill of Rights was required to ratify the Constitution and create the USA Government. We Americans see gun control as treason.
A comment on Talk: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun
A comment on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
People often say: "It is a weak argument when you play the Hitler card." Yet this is in fact the most perfect place to make the comparison. Historically the comparison is accurate.
The US Constitution was written the way is was written for a good and cogent reason but it was immediately seen as dangerous, Too dangerous in fact to be ratified without a bill of rights. Thus any attack on the Bill of Rights undermines the legitimacy of the USA Government as a whole and sows the seeds for a civil war.