Basically, I'm thinking of writing to various people and telling them about my great plan to deploy militia groups to combat areas as part of the U.S. forces under something of a "freedom fighters" model. Now a couple of things come to mind.

First off, I've explained the concept behind this idea in outline, but never gone into great detail because I feel that the main strength of the program would be it's flexibility. So...would it be a good idea for me to use some kind of blog to "brainstorm" the issues involved and present a variety of more detailed alternatives, or should I just start writing?

A related point, my more subtle efforts to start this ball rolling have all come to naught. Should I definitely aim for an organized publicity campaign model, even though that kind of thing makes my teeth hurt? Would it be unreasonable to hope that someone with the necessary organization/promotional skills would "just show up"? Or should I plan to assume most of the burden of actually doing this? I guess that depends on whether my ideas gain any currency, which is a hard thing to predict.

A third point...while I have experience with serving in the U.S. military, I don't have any experience being part of a militia or even something like ARMA or SCA. I mean, I've never even played laser tag/paintball (excluding certain training exercises in the Army, which I don't count because...I was in the Army, you know). I don't even belong to any FPS clans or anything (I like multiplayer FPS, but I'm not up to the social commitment of being part of a clan).

Does that make me seem more or less credible as a proponent of deploying homegrown militia as freedom fighters? I think that it cuts both ways, frankly. And certainly I would like to join a militia group if we could actually deploy. But...seriously speaking, this BBS is the closest I've come to joining a militia.

Really, though, I'm more interested in figuring out how I should start a kook letter writing campaign. The particular issue doesn't matter except to give you all an idea of just how far outside the mainstream this particular idea currently falls. I mean, right now I don't know of anyone other than myself who is advocating this kind of thing. There are more people trying to get registered vendetta killings encoded into U.S. law, so far as I can tell. Not that I have any problem with the registered vendetta idea, I'm just making a comparison.

Remember, thirty years ago many "smart" people thought that having a draft was a good idea because an all volunteer army would only be composed of merciless thugs who only wanted to satiate their mindless bloodlust. I know that plenty of those people still think that's the only reason anyone would join the military, but by and large most reasonable people now think that point of view has been proven incorrect. So please don't pan my idea. I just want to know how to be an effective kook, not whether I should be one in the first place.

In this case, that probably means militia members; I am not sure who else would be interested in advocating your proposal. I'm not in touch with the militia circuit and it's been years since I paid much attention to them, but if I wanted to hook up with them, I'd start with freerepublic.com and look for pointers to militia organizations.

I'd also contact the Southern Poverty Law Center; they do a lot of work tracking and monitoring militias. They would have absolutely no interest in supporting your crackpot scheme, but should be a good resource for identifying militias to contact to enlist in your scheme.

Probably some sort of web page or blog would be useful for the cause.

You should also look for militia gatherings in your area; meeting people in person can be very effective.

The NRA itself may not be willing to support you, but I suspect networking with its members would be useful.

Now in practice since most people don't want to hassle with the money needed to house, feed, train and arm a standing army or even say a citizen-army no one does this anymore.

Further more even in the five wars (Rev, 1812, Mexican, both sides of the Civil War and Spanish), America used "volunteer" forces rather that just draftees/standing armies those volunteers were still subject to a regular army command. This doesn't include the various Indian battles/Wars fought over the years that won Jackson, Harrison and Lincoln among others some of their respective fame Take the Civil War or the Spanish American war as some of your best examples of this volunteer concept working.

T Roosevelt put together a 1000 men or so and got made Col. So you could put together say 500 people, call your self a Major or some such notify the state and ATF of your intention to set up an armory and depot for your militia.

Then go from there.

Edit i hate my format mistakes

step one: connect with the other kooks. If even they think it's a bad idea, you're certainly not going to get anywhere with Congress.

Duh.

Also, I'm not looking to start a new Guard unit or anything like that. I'd like to fundamentally change the way we raise an army, and...accelerate certain changes in the model used to command a modern army in the field.

So far I'm contacting the SPLC to see if they're really as myopically opposed to this idea as Beth seems to think they'll be. I mean, anything that stops people from feeling like it's okay to join anti-American militia's has to be good, right?

quote:

---

Posted by Elan:
Um... is this about writing a story?

---

Who says every post has to be about writing a story? This forum is titled 'Open Discussions About Writing'...and we don't merely discuss fiction writing (although such talk is the majority). I've seen many other posts concerning things like recommendation letters, research projects, news items, etc.

I think Survivor is asking for feedback on writing and sending a proposal (in essence, a letter) to recognized bodies that have the power to support or deny his concept.

As long as he doesn't turn this thread into the aforementioned blog on how he plans to actually lay out the concept, there is no reason to get upset. Or hasty, for that matter.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

For further reference, if you want to help me research the actual issue, I wouldn't mind being contacted through the options available at my blog on the subject. You could also get in touch with me through my email posted here, but I generally only use that address for Hatrack related stuff.

As for pro-war hoorah's for killing, Elan, now how long have you known me? When have I ever written anything that wasn't a pro-war hoorah for killing? My major beef with the current war is that not enough Americans are getting killed for the rest of the world to take us seriously, I believe I've mentioned that several times. This is certainly no more pro-war/killing/etc. than anything else I've ever posted.

So don't worry. Nothing has changed here, except that I'm asking for advice on writing rather than dispensing it

Obviously I know what the word means, but what the heck are you talking about?

Dictionary says:

n 1: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army [syn: reserves] 2: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

Are you talking about reservists? A 'casual' arm of the military paid by the Department of Defence?

To the topic: I think kook letters work best if you pretend you are someone else, then you can let your kooklomania have free rein.

As part of your question refers to a 'campaign' it indicates a strategy of some type. Aloow the receiver of the letter see that a strategy is being employed without letting know what the strategy is.

Allinaces with other kook-minded folk is not a stratgey but can be part of one. The question is, once the alliances are in place what then? What do you want them to achieve toward your end?

In addition you will need to devise a series of contingencies based on what you think the likely responses will be: If I get response 'A' then I will do employ tactic 1. If I receive repsonse 'B' I will employ tactic 2... that sort of thing, you especially need to have a contingency for the 'What tactic will I employ if I get no response at all.'

Genuine kooks will also make claims about what they are doing and what they think their particular value to the government may be. ie I have developed a weapons training program for second graders that is currently used in four local school to great effect and is under consideration in three more. I know I can adapt this program for second graders federally. (or in other words, Tell them why they need you.)

Whether the claims are baseless or not is another question.

Make it read like a public service document and scare the pants off 'em.

I had to deal with situation X, my theory was that we should do Y, so I did Y and found that Z occurred. As a result we had a Q% increase in capable second grade marksmen.

That sort of thing.

PS: I would not overtly state any political or philosophical standpoint. Allow them to infer what they will, ie get them to argue over whether you are really a harmless kook or something more...

heh heh that was fun.

I should really have put up the message I sent to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it would have made an interesting contrast, I think. Like, all concentrating on how to find nurturing and non-judgemental ways of channeling the natural enthusiasim of youth yadda yadda. I'm really bummed that I lost it in the process of copying it to file.

Kook is a good word to describe your idea. I think it stands no chance to the mind of any "discerning reader." The use of militia is highly... dangerous?... They aren't the most reliable of troops, and can easily start doing stupid stuff.

Personally, I don't know if your blog will get the best viewership and input, but I guess you never know. I personally have never visited any blog other than my friend's.

Militia has been used in history, successfully, but at what cost? And who will agree to it? It's one thing for units of milita to form here in America, and quite another to send them overseas to the Middle East. nyrr... I can see why this has gotten so off-topic...

Anyway, you say you want to seem less kooky. Well, besides changing your idea entirely, I would suggest providing some more concrete evidence, for example, how you have personally gone out and spoken with X people about their ideas and Y of these X people have agreed. With the help of these Y people, we have come up with measures A, B, and C to properly prepare this militia, which would cost $Q, but would save the military $P in exchange, which leaves a profit of $R. [insert waffle about nurturing and non-judgemental ways of channeling natural enthusiasm, etc... but not too much waffle!] Try to look at it from all standpoints- Administratively, legally, morally, economically, and from the standpoint of the militia.

Which means you're actually going to have to do things. The "subtle efforts" aren't going to get you much consideration, since a man can have bold words, but if he does not act, he will not be taken seriously.

Also, a concealed carry permit goes a long way for making a statement to the government. They like to keep track of that stuff you know. The greater the amount of the populous that is armed, sure makes the various government entities sit up and take notice. It is like signing up on a roster. Look at me, I'm packin' heat! No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.

Then again, my experience in these lines consists of voyeurish reading about it. I've never been in the military. I've never done paintballing or lasertagging, either. Having enough stress in my life, I never felt the need to go out and do something that would add more to it. As for somebody drawing a bead on me with a gun...well, I work for the US Postal Service, and, thus, I have to face that every time I go to work.

[edited for bad spelling]

quote:

---

No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.

---

Another kool kook statement.

To answer your question the best way I can Survivor, I think you have to avoid ALL philosophical, political or emotive statements and treat the subject with cold objectivity. It cannot help your campaign to appear to get your blood up in the writing. Loaded phrases smack of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought and will only harm how the letter is perceived. They may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market but they are no good if you want your letter taken seriously by some grey middle management type.

It sounds like a whole lot of fun. I would be really interested in any responses you might get.

Another question: what are the connotations of the word kook. Here, it tends to means 'crazy' far more than 'eccentric'.

Look, I'm aware of the difficulties here. But I'm not here to argue over my idea (KDW would reprimand me for beating up on you on a subject that has nothing to do with writing). I'm just asking for practical advice on the whole advocacy thing.

I don't know if you need an inside contact but you might want to look around for other militias. I believe there are several out there but none with the same citzen-solider model that you do.

Take a look at the minuteman project's website (the url escapes me right now)

Your last posts are clear and direct.

quote:

---

I'm just asking for practical advice on the whole advocacy thing.

---

Now we know what you want.

If you were beating up on me it was the the gentlest beat-up I've ever had.

PS: Scour your letters for typos. Remember, clarity and credibility. Yes, I am suggesting that typos and spelling errors will negatively influence how people see your ideas and make it so much easier to ignore them.

Edit:to remove irrelevant comments

quote:

---

No, but seriously, it beats gun control! Take a look at Canada and Australia. We don't want to lose out like they did.

---

quote:

---

I think you have to avoid ALL philosophical, political or emotive statements and treat the subject with cold objectivity. It cannot help your campaign to appear to get your blood up in the writing. Loaded phrases smack of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought and will only harm how the letter is perceived. They may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market but they are no good if you want your letter taken seriously by some grey middle management type.

---

quote:

---

Simply toning down the emotive portion -- the exclamation mark, for instance -- and undergirding it with facts, statistics, and/or sources, the phrase can emerge neither loaded nor parroted.

---

I have removed the emotive portions. You're right -- it is much more convincing this way.

Edit: clarity

Contrast these two quotes:

quote:

---

Loaded phrases smack[ing] of parroted rhetoric rather than serious objective thought....may be alright for FOX News that caters for a clear target market

---

quote:

---

facts, statistics, and/or sources...are...appropriate for even FOX News’ clear target market of people seeking relief from the liberal bias of ABC, NBC, CBS

---

Your point in the top quote was to insult the Fox audience. My point was to redeem them. To prove my point, by using facts, sources and statistics , let me quote Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek (hardly a conservative rag), from a July, 2004 Inside Washington, “a weekend discussion show taped at and run by the Gannett-owned CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, WUSA-TV, and carried by many PBS stations across the country." (Note the liberal pedigree here.)
“Thomas pointed out the boost to the Kerry/Edwards ticket provided by the press corps: “There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040712.asp

that statement doesn't prove Fox watchers are not idiots. Nor does it prove that Fox is not a biased network.

it just proves that Fox was not biased for Kerry and therefore would not bend over backward to make kerry look good.

Mark twain was right.

There are lie, Damned lies and statistics.

How often in these statistics do you actually ask for the r2 value (ie correlation value)? you'd be surprised at how many people actually try to pass off bad statistics as the truth.

Let’s see, Matt. Certain networks are liberally biased, so people get fed up and switch to Fox. Then there are people who, even in the face of that bias, either continue to deny the bias, or accept it as Mr. Thomas does, and don’t join the exodus to Fox. I know which group I think is wiser, and it’s not the liberal network viewers.

A statistician. Cool. But trust me, after trying to sift through news reports, I’m not at all surprised that people try to pass off bad statistics.

Correlation value – that sounds interesting. I wonder if that’s the key I need for something I was working on. Rather than use up thread space on something wholly off the writing mark (yeah, like it’s not what we’ve already been doing ), may I e-mail you? If you so loathe any statistician-linked exercises and would rather not bother, I’ll understand.

Yes, back to your dilemma, Survivor. If you’re looking to develop legitimate supportive arguments for your proposed project that can be presented objectively, then accurate information properly presented is critical. If citing the results of Canada and Australia’s anti-gun policies are germane to your proposal, although I don’t imagine they are, go for it. Some people will ignore the truth of certain issues no matter how it’s presented, so you’re right to be prepared for the “kook” label.

However, the seriousness of this must start with you. If you label yourself as a kook,

quote:

---

I'm not asking anyone to join my kook campaign

---

quote:

---

You'll want to network with the other kooks.

---

quote:

---

Would it be unreasonable to hope that someone with the necessary organization/promotional skills would "just show up"? Or should I plan to assume most of the burden of actually doing this?

---

A plan is always better than a hope.

I loathe statistics because they're too "easy" to manipulate throw the right regressions and comparisons together with some careful blending of the answers you get and walla! you've got a strong correlation to something.

the r2 value is a key figure in statistics.

The higher the r2 number the "better" the comparison between two sets of numbers.

Also I don't doubt there is liberal bias in media. I all I mean to say is Fox is different but not better.