Is Martial Law a possibility?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Please by all means believe in America and the American people after all a little over half voted for this, not knowing what "this" is. You mean to believe the same DEMs that have allowed a 3 trilion debt and still want to give more will stop what? Gun control, You do know better. The part about moving too fast too soon is correct but for the wrong reason. Obama didn't expect to move this fast and much of the timing of his distruction of America has been noticed by too many and honestly scares many. The MSM folks will always try to denigrate the Right. As I said the Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE document, a recipe for a great stew, which will be saurered by changing the recipe. Obama is no Chef, at least not enough to rival the founding fathers.
Blitzzz

I do believe in America and Americans. Every day I talk to people who have families, just like I do, who have the same worries I do, who get up in the morning and work their butts off, just like I do. The only difference between us is that they may be of a different political party than I support. Gee, let me stop being friends with them because they are "enemies of the state". They voted for Obama, so that means they do not care about this country as much as I do.

If my brother in law, who is the end all be all left wing liberal, who at one point believed Obama is the savior, can sit down and talk to me this past week about how he deplores the recent decisions of the current administration; then there is hope for us all. Yes there is a lot of buyers remorse out there. If the republicans can harness it in a way that does not rub their faces, and say "I told you so", so as to alienate them, then maybe we will be able to bring them a little closer to a different way of thinking.

If you don't believe the looming mid-term elections has anything to do with the President's time line, there is nothing I can do to change you mind. But having been in the legislative world for a short bit of time, I can tell you through experience it has a huge impact. Much the same as it did after the 2004 election, when President Bush knew he would have a huge fight after the 2006midterm elections.


As for me, I have never been, and never will be and Us vs. Them type of person when it comes to politics. Just because someone does not sign themselves up to the same political philosophy I espouse does not make them any less American than I am, and in the end, if I can be a good steward of my political philosophy, then maybe, just maybe I can get them to stand in my shoes some of the time and see things my way. They can expect the same of me. Bashing them in the nose only alienates them, and drives them further away, and thereby ending any kind of discussion before it starts.

JMHO.

[Team Sergeant]

Is Martial Law a possibility?

In my personal and professional opinion, no.

It would not be tolerated by that 10% of Americans that have actually defended this country and it's Constitution.

I too will sit patiently and keep the faith as long as I keep my guns.

Team Sergeant

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

All that thinking and so little thought. As usual, displaying the verboseness of one so highly educated. All the studies and Names aside, what have "You" actually said.
You make the best statement youcan come up with: "My conclusion from this study is that inasmuch as America is contested terrain and that although these contests have been the cause and consequence of great turmoil, even civil war, our present day trials do not activate fears of totalitarian rule or the rise of socialism through creeping incrementalism."
This statement tell me that you either do not feel concerned at the obvious "incrementalism" being propogated by the present administration or appear pro leftest. Pro leftest being a major side of higher education as demonstrated by the many, many leftist Proffesors in that realm.
Many compare the Left and the Right as being related to the constitution, but fail to realize that the constitution is not a mid line document. It is a "Right" sided document. That makes those who feel to be middle of the roaders, to actually be left of the constitution. Guageing the present administrations moves in reguades to the constitution there should be great fear "activated". Yes, you are certianly a product of your education.

That's what I see, Blitzzz

Blitzzz--

I understand that you take exception to my posts in this thread and, perhaps, my line of argument more generally.

I've been labeled many things by many people: fascist (by at least one professor), hard line right winger (by colleagues and friends), right wing apologist, militarist (in fact I'm a navalist), revisionist, intellectual elitist, post-structuralist, post-modernist, racist, redneck, libertarian, lefty, social democrat, and socialist.

Yet, to my knowledge, you are the only one who has suggested that I'm not thoughtful. On the contrary, on many occasions, I've been asked and told to not speak my views so that I'd not make colleagues, bosses, and clients feel stupid.

What I've actually said is that I do not see contemporaneous events unfolding in patterns similar to historical reference points including the Great Depression, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the many events of labor and social unrest between 1865 and 1970, or, for that matter, the first or second Red Scare, or the Vietnam War.

Do these views make me a leftist? Or, as you suggest, does my reading of the past make me an unthinking advocate of decades of peer reviewed historical scholarship tainted by political bias. In regards to the former, I'll leave it to interested parties to draw their own conclusions as to where I fit in their political spectrum.

As for the latter, I am confident that I've been clear and consistent in my criticisms of the profession of academic history <<LINK>>. If there's a doubt as to where I fit in with that cohort, I'll share this. Several weeks ago, I had a long talk with an established professor. As we sipped our caffeinated drinks, he started laughing. He looked at me and said "If you'd been born ten years earlier you might have been able to get a job [as an academic historian]...maybe."

Bluntly, and with respect, I disagree with your analysis of the Constitution based upon a political left, middle as left, and right schema. As an undergraduate, I had to sit through a mind numbingly boring class in which Charles Sellers, no friend to the political right, read from a manuscript, parts of which became The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 and made essentially that same argument. At the end of each lecture, we'd cap our pens, shut our notebooks, and file out of the classroom, some of us sharing conspiratorial eye rolls that asked alternatively "How is it possible for one guy to make both Jeffersonian AND Jacksonian America so boring?", "Hasn't anyone told this guy that the sixties are over and that diatribes centered around dialectical materialism against capitalism are soooo played?"

Moreover, as ratified, the Constitution codified the disenfranchisement of significant numbers of Americans. Over time, that, and other, defects have been 'patched' and 'upgraded.' It is difficult to support the contention that some of the beneficiaries of those changes, including Gov. Sarah Palin, Jackie Robinson, and Condoleezza Rice as leftists by any definition of that term in American political discourse.

[The Reaper]

Sigaba:

I find your comments polite, respectful, well-reasoned, well-documented, and well-presented.

Continue to post them, I find the reading of merit and intellectually stimulating. Dissention is not a crime here.

I look forward to professional discussions and disagreements with you in the future.

TR

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Sigaba, Reaper's right without a darkside there would be no light, so conyinue your swell posts. I shant ingage your mentate again as I am obviously unarmed. It has been suggested to me by a Harvard Historian the "Sigba should read more history..."

Afchic, what are you spouting about not liking any other people in other parties? NOT what I said.
I'm not a Republican. I am a Constitutionalist, and it is a way of life, not a party.
I can only vote for those who will hurt the constitution least. Very rarely are they Dems. As for you, cunmbahyah and hope all will work out for you and what I fear never happens.
I in no way ask you or anyone else to Hate any party, that is some assumption of yours. not a good way to make an arguement. Beware of the enemys of the Constitution, Party regardless.
By all means enjoy America, someone has always paid for it. BLITZZZ

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Sigaba, Reaper's right without a darkside there would be no light, so conyinue your swell posts. I shant ingage your mentate again as I am obviously unarmed. It has been suggested to me by a Harvard Historian the "Sigba should read more history..."

Afchic, what are you spouting about not liking any other people in other parties? NOT what I said.
I'm not a Republican. I am a Constitutionalist, and it is a way of life, not a party.
I can only vote for those who will hurt the constitution least. Very rarely are they Dems. As for you, cunmbahyah and hope all will work out for you and what I fear never happens.
I in no way ask you or anyone else to Hate any party, that is some assumption of yours. not a good way to make an arguement. Beware of the enemys of the Constitution, Party regardless.
By all means enjoy America, someone has always paid for it. BLITZZZ

There are a lot of us that have paid for it. Thank you for your service.

[nmap]

Sigaba, I wonder if I might ask two questions. I lack your background in history, so the questions may be poorly crafted.

1) You mentioned "E.P. Thompson, the Frankfurt School, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci". It's my understanding that they were notably socialist, if not true Marxists. And, it's also my understanding that they specifically and intentionally set out to transform America through the higher education system. Supposedly, over the decades, they have succeeded.

So - is this true? Have they shifted the political orientation of the American population over the past 60 years or so?

2) You mention (if I may attempt to summarize) that conditions are not right for a shift toward totalitarianism, if we consider events in past societies. As you may recall, one central premise I consider is a rapid, substantial, wide-spread, and enduring decline in living standards, both globally and domestically. In recollection, German society changed substantially after hyperinflation and the subsequent crash. Of course, one reason for the hyperinflation was an attempt to offset WWI reparations payments. I note in passing that the U.S. may have debt issues to.

Therefore - would your views change if the U.S. economy were to degrade a lot?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Sigaba, Reaper's right without a darkside there would be no light, so conyinue your swell posts. I shant ingage your mentate again as I am obviously unarmed. It has been suggested to me by a Harvard Historian the "Sigaba should read more history..."

Blitzzz--

I understand that my posts do not strike you as thoughtful or well reasoned. Although you're clearly being ironic, I want there to be no mistake or misunderstanding. I hold your intellect in high regard. I find your thought subtle. Your humor is infectious. Your courage is inspirational. I have profited from reading your posts and I shall continue to do so regardless of what ever differences we may appear to have.

I think we do agree that the current president wants to take the country in a direction that has the potential to be catastrophic. I think we differ on the direction. I think we differ on how we should engage the issues and our political opponents.

In regards to the unnamed Harvard professor, his view may center around the fact that he may sense that I'm drawing on the scholarship of some of his colleagues (Charles S. Meier, David Blackbourn, Nancy F. Cott, Lizabeth Cohen, Drew Gilpin Faust, and the legendary Akira Iriye) with whom he may have some disagreements with of his own.

If this unnamed professor is the venerable Ernest May, I would say, with all due respect to his contributions to our understanding of how an understanding of domestic politics can inform the study of foreign policy, to his service to at least one government agency, and his to guidance on 'thinking in time,' I have some feedback on how he trained and professionalized one of his graduate students.

If this unnamed professor is Niall Ferguson, I would point to B.H. Liddell Hart and A.T. Mahan as cautionary tales of what happens to the professional reputation of historians who endeavor to be celebrities and prognosticators. We serve Klio, not Urania.

In any case, I welcome this unnamed individual's recommendations provided the person disclose to me an email address and his (or her) name, especially if it is Peter Gordon and he wants me to read works by Martin Jay.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I would point to B.H. Liddell Hart and A.T. Mahan as cautionary tales of what happens to the professional reputation of historians who endeavor to be celebrities and prognosticators. We serve Klio, not Urania.

And yet the services still use their works as solid historical references.

Are you referring to their professional rep among their peers, their critics, or their students?

TR

[Richard]

Although these questions weren't directed at me, I would like to offer the following for consideration here:

1) You mentioned "E.P. Thompson, the Frankfurt School, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci". It's my understanding that they were notably socialist, if not true Marxists. And, it's also my understanding that they specifically and intentionally set out to transform America through the higher education system. Supposedly, over the decades, they have succeeded.

Minding the Campus

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/

University Diaries

http://www.margaretsoltan.com/

Students for Academic Freedom

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

One-Party Classroom
David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine our Democracy.

Indoctrination U. The Left's War Against Academic Freedom
David Horowitz

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
David Horowitz (e.g., Angela Davis is a professor at UC-Santa Cruz)

2) You mention (if I may attempt to summarize) that conditions are not right for a shift toward totalitarianism, if we consider events in past societies. As you may recall, one central premise I consider is a rapid, substantial, wide-spread, and enduring decline in living standards, both globally and domestically. In recollection, German society changed substantially after hyperinflation and the subsequent crash. Of course, one reason for the hyperinflation was an attempt to offset WWI reparations payments. I note in passing that the U.S. may have debt issues to.

Therefore - would your views change if the U.S. economy were to degrade a lot?

IMO - the fact that America has known several centuries of successful democratic republicanism and is not a post-war and post-empirical ad hoc republic (e.g., Weimar) are KEY facts bearing on any supposition we posit in regards to this debate.

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

Although these questions weren't directed at me, I would like to offer the following for consideration here:

IMO - the fact that America has known several centuries of successful democratic republicanism and is not a post-war and post-empirical ad hoc republic (e.g., Weimar) are KEY facts bearing on any supposition we posit in regards to this debate.

Richard's $.02

Thank you, Sir. I always value your perspectives.

It appears that there is a pro-socialist orientation on campuses, although there is also some resistance. And the U.S., unlike the Weimar Republic, has strong traditions that oppose authoritarian rule.

Therefore, if I understand correctly, your perception is that we will drift toward socialism, but not totalitarianism. It that right?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by nmap

Therefore, if I understand correctly, your perception is that we will drift toward socialism, but not totalitarianism. It that right?

Or maybe we won't drift too far towards either, but towards a compromise we just can't imagine yet.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

And yet the services still use their works as solid historical references.

Are you referring to their professional rep among their peers, their critics, or their students?

TR

TR--

This post answers your question in relation to Mahan.

Mahan's reputation among historians has gone through three overlapping phases. The first phase went from roughly 1901 to about 9 May 1969. The second phase, began in 1963 and continues to this day. A third phase, overlapping the second phase, began around 1980 and continues to the present day. (References available on request.)

In phase one, in no small part thanks to his own efforts at self-promotion, Mahan was viewed as an intellectual giant and a prophet of sea power. In 1943, Margaret T. Sprout titled her panegyric essay, “Mahan: Evangelist of Sea Power” for the original version of Makers of Modern Strategy. The essay argues (on page 436) "[f]ew persons leave so deep an imprint on world events as left by Mahan, and fewer still live to see so full a realization of their life's work. When Mahan died...the impact of his writings had been felt in every admiralty; his views had profoundly affected civilian thinking and public policy in America, in Europe, and even in the Far East."

From there, the man's reputation had no where else to go but down. During the second phase, historians have taken a sustained critical look at the influence of Mahan on sea power and on naval affairs. Some of these works, best represented by Walter LaFeber's The New Empire (1963) situates Mahanian theory at the foundation of America's predatory imperialism.*

Others works published in this second phase explore the historical basis of Mahanian theory; point out that Mahan was not the only navalist advocating an ocean going fleet; that he had limited influence on the development of foreign navies; and demonstrate that his views were often at variance with those whom he allegedly influenced. Some of these works were produced by former armed service officers and were published under the auspices of the Naval War College or the U.S. Naval Institute. These works are part of larger debates over the efficacy of Mahanian theory as a basis for naval strategy during World War II and a potential general war against the Soviet Union. The most accessible of these works are Ronald Spector's Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan (1985) and Kenneth Hagan's This People's Navy: The Making of American Sea Power (1991). The most important piece of scholarship from this phase is Robert Seager, Jr.'s, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (1977) and the three volume collection of Mahan's letters that Seager edited. My own two cents are that Mark Shulman's Navalism and the Emergence of American Sea Power, 1882-1893 (1995) is under appreciated.

Works produced in the third phase incorporate the findings of works produced in the second phase but are close to the works of the first phase in their appreciation of Mahan and Mahanian theory. This is to say, they accept the findings presented in Seager's warts and all biography but demonstrate that Mahan and his theories of sea power were relevant and remain a sound foundation for American naval power. The crown jewel of this phase is Edward Miller's War Plan ORANGE: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945 (1991). In my estimation, the most intriguing example of this phase is Michael Vlahos, The Blue Sword: The Naval War College and the American Mission, 1919-1941 (1980)

The ongoing debate over Mahan and Mahanian theory illustrate the difficulties that can arise from the tensions between the sensibilities of professional historical scholarship where definitive answers to big picture questions are far and few between (we still don't know the answer to the question "Was the American Civil War the first modern war?") and using history as the basis for policy and strategy (where there's a 'need it yesterday' desire for the 'lessons of history').

If the navy argues that it needs a 600-ship fleet so it can have enough carrier battle groups to sail into the Soviet Union's home waters to attack their ballistic missile submarines, the question "Will the Maritime Strategy work?" can quickly become complicated by the ongoing historical discussions about Mahan (the man had some gruesome 'warts'--his views on racial difference have not aged well), his theory of sea power, the influence of Jomini, the alleged elitism of the naval officer corps, the lessons of the Battle of Guadalcanal, and a whole range of issues. These issues can merge with the 'here and now' debate over ships, nuclear propulsion, stand off weapons, range of air craft, reliability of Aegis cruisers and destroyers, just how much is all of this going to cost, and what happens if the captain of a ship or a submarine that is about to get sunk decides to go 'to hell with it' and use nuclear weapons?

Thankfully, the question "will it work" is, for now, mostly a matter of interest to historians. Unless you're one of those historians trying to answer that question...in which case, you're learning to embrace the joy that comes from trying to figure out the influence of Mahan the person, the cultural legacies of navalism, and his theories on the maritime strategy debate.


____________________________
* It is worth noting that LaFeber's interpretation was taken to task. Paul S. Holbo, “A View of The New Empire” (paper presented at a meeting of the Organization of American Historians, New Orleans, LA, 16 April 1971), 1-13; William H. Becker, “Overseas Markets for Textiles and Steel, 1893-1920” (paper presented at a meeting of the Organization of American Historians, 19 April 1974), 1-19. FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with James A. Field, "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book," American Historical Review 83 (June 1978): 644-668.

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

AMEN.
I believe there will come a time within our own armed forces when a choice will have to be made. To defend the Constitution, or to set it afire.

I honestly believe no American soldier will not defend our Constitution.
I also believe that the vast majority of our military have a sense of honor and duty to this country that will require them to not take or obey orders that would have them harm fellow Americans on the soil they are oath bound to defend. I just refuse to believe otherwise.

You know times are tough though when you have 90 yr old women stockpiling ammo and buying thier dtrs glocks for birthday presents.
When you see people like me who are not againts guns, just have not recently needed to have them around.. are looking at figuring out how to get in a tactical gun course only open to military and LEO's... because we do not want to be a liability to our other half if anything does go down.









The rapidity of the ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED spending of the taxpayers money will burden my children, grandchildren, and perhaps even an additional generation. There will be no "standard of living" for the American people. Simply survival. When the Armed Forces of the United States are turned against it's own citizens in order to support an agenda from the Executive Branch - true Patriotism will be tested.
The question was posed "what happens when those services run out?" You need look only to Katrina -
The masses: looting, robbery, preying upon the weak, mob mentality
The few: defensive measures, personal and family protection, survival
The government: remove the ability for the few to survive against the masses, take away their guns, raid their stockpiles, remove them from their personal shelters, perpetuate fraud, waste what little dollars we have on people who refused to listen in the first place.

The Jihad is again on American soil. The word "Patriot" is now more important than ever.

Eagle[/QUOTE]

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

Sigaba, I wonder if I might ask two questions. I lack your background in history, so the questions may be poorly crafted.

1) You mentioned "E.P. Thompson, the Frankfurt School, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci". It's my understanding that they were notably socialist, if not true Marxists. And, it's also my understanding that they specifically and intentionally set out to transform America through the higher education system. Supposedly, over the decades, they have succeeded.

So - is this true? Have they shifted the political orientation of the American population over the past 60 years or so?

Your questions are always well phrased and intricate.

I would argue that they have not significantly impacted the trajectory of American politics. Between 1968 and 2008, how many genuinely liberal presidents have we had? By my tally, just Carter.*

What they have accomplished is to alter fundamentally the way many scholars view history. I don't know if scholars have been able to translate these new methods and practices into a coherent, workable agenda for political change even in their own departments. At its heart, 'publish or perish', the guiding principle of all academics who want to achieve tenure, is a validation of market capitalism. It says "You want a raise, buddy, earn it." It is my observation that the mandate to publish**, combined with the insecurities endemic to the craft, and other professional demands, really limit a scholar's ability to advance a political agenda among undergraduates.

Graduate students, and undergraduates majoring in history are a different story. Yet, even when a professor has the opportunity to shape the intellectual and professional development of a student, what are you going to get but yet another overspecialized intellectual who has spent so much time at the "cutting edge" of the field that she (or he) is going to have a very difficult time communicating even with her (or his) colleagues to say nothing of social peers, friends, and family. (When undergraduates would ask me about getting really serious about history, e.g., going to graduate school, I'd let them know they needed to prepare themselves for the possibility that every relationship in their lives would irrevocably change--and rarely for the better.)

Where they've made the most advances (or done the most damage) is in how we look at culture. Yet here their success is also limited. In laying siege to our understanding of traditional American mores, by questioning the legitimacy of all forms of cultural practice, they have helped to broaden some horizons and help to improve some of these practices. Woman on top is not necessarily a bad thing.

But they also let open Pandora's box and haven't figured out how to shut it. Along with their discussion of the culture industry, of base and superstructure, and of cultural hegemony, they altered the arena as they pushed out traditional-minded historians. Into the resulting void have rushed who are proving to be their scourge. Namely, cultural historians who speak of post-structrualism, post-modernism, deconstruction, the linguistic turn, intertextuality, intersubjectivity, and a whole host of associated terms in books that are often very badly written. (Some are brilliant and ignored at one's own peril.)

Now, you have job talks in which the faculty members who are going to make the decision to hire a prospective professor can not understand what the applicants are talking about. Flip a coin and hope for the best--resistance is futile.

And if you really want to see how radical professors are, how eager they are to stick it to the man and give power to the people? Suggest that they should not have parking that is both free and reserved. Suggest that such a change in policy can help a school save hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of dollars that can be used to serve better the needs of the student body. Empty your inbox; you're about to get some hate mail, maybe a death threat. I am not kidding. Nor am I bitter.

2) You mention (if I may attempt to summarize) that conditions are not right for a shift toward totalitarianism, if we consider events in past societies. As you may recall, one central premise I consider is a rapid, substantial, wide-spread, and enduring decline in living standards, both globally and domestically. In recollection, German society changed substantially after hyperinflation and the subsequent crash. Of course, one reason for the hyperinflation was an attempt to offset WWI reparations payments. I note in passing that the U.S. may have debt issues to.

Therefore - would your views change if the U.S. economy were to degrade a lot?

The key difference in our outlooks is where we place economics in our matrices of causal factors. For me, economic factors are subordinate to other factors. This is one of the reasons why I read your posts so intently (though rarely with as much comprehension as I'd like).

IMHO, we're living in an age where culture is the dominant force for historical change. I think that the strength of American culture is what the jihadists both fear and desire. At the core of this strength is an enduring faith in the power that comes from our diversity. Right now, we've got some cultural issues that keep me up at night, not the least are:

• a deepening infatuation with mediocrity,
• the appropriation and corruption of the concept of 'strategy' from the armed forces. This appropriation began during the closing stages of the Second World War, intensified throughout the Cold War, took another turn to the south after Vietnam, and is absolutely running amok today.***
• the re-emergence of America's long standing anti-intellectualism,
• a misplaced faith in an intellectually bankrupt interpretation of what it means to be 'enlightened'
• uncritical acceptance of vacuous buzzwords (change, transformation, historical crossroads)
• what Richard Hofstadter termed the 'paranoid style'
• really crappy television (reality television is going to destroy the entertainment industry, which is going to piss off the most charismatic people in the world, if this anger turns to political radicalism, I will be really worried. The face of Helen launched a thousand ships, I dread to think what Ms. Jolie and Ms. Roberts can start up if they hold up signs saying "UNION, NOW!")

Moreover, at this moment, we have an appreciation for those among us who protect us from our enemies. If some citizens were to despair utterly and raise up in rebellion, I don't know they'd find it in themselves to press or if they'll unball their fists and go home. Not every civilian has forgotten that we are guarded by men and by women from wolves and jackals that walk on their hind legs disguised as human beings.
____________________________________
* Lewis L. Gould once sent a room full of graduate students into a funk after someone spoke of the rise of American liberalism in the 20th century. He had us go, president by president, from McKinley to Bush the Elder, to answer the question "liberal or not?" When the usual suspects were mentioned, he patiently through each year of their presidencies, pointing out this piece of legislation or that executive decision. Faces got longer and longer--at least for some--as out of ninety two odd years of modern American political history we could point to ten--twelve on the outside--years that were truly liberal in terms of what actually got done. The heartbreak in that room at that moment was, at least for one grad student, hilarious.

**If you ever want to jerk an academic's chain really hard, ask repeatedly "How's that manuscript coming?" If you want to see acts of contrition, read the dedications and acknowledgments in scholarly works. Sometimes, these apologies aren't enough--a copy editor for the previous book sometimes becomes the spouse named in a subsequent work.

***For god's sake, you're a four person IT department. You don't have a 'strategy'. You have a list of bugs to fix (many of which are widespread if you just cross referenced the trouble tickets) and a restrictive security policy that treats your coworkers [including the folks who are making the product that puts food on your table] as if they were threats. Oh, but let's not lay any of these guys off.