I don't believe anyone was forced to house their child in that center.
It doesn't require force
X (official/officer/etc in position of power) decides that a childcare facility would make an excellent 'human sheild' in place Y. X then makes arrangements for decent child care facility, tells parents who work at Y 'Look. Your children can be near you, you can visit them at lunch time, you can drop them off and pick them up on your way in and out of the office respectively, and if something happens [in the normal sense -- kid falls off monkey bars and breaks arm sort of things] you'll be right there'
No force necessary. Parents think they have a good deal. X thinks he has a good deal. Kids are up shit creek if anything actually goes down.
And no, I'm not arguing this did, has or is happening. I'm not in a position to have data on that. I'm arguing that, contrary to what you said, it *is* a viable possibility.
No it's not a viable possibility except for those who see conspiratorial agents around every corner. Try running a large organization some time and you will see just what kind of stupid shit you have to deal with. You may well turn into one of those evil union-busting executives. There are a lot of incentive issues to deal with as well as contractual issues if you are working with unioned employees. Are you suggesting that the unions may have been complicit in putting a daycare there? This is total horse shit, and it is definitely NOT viable. This sort of suggestion really makes this list look like it's inhabitted by a bunch of loonies. It's your right to suggest any shit you want, but it's way out in left field. Ern
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Ernest Hua wrote:
No it's not a viable possibility except for those who see conspiratorial agents around every corner. Try running a large organization some time and you will see just what kind of stupid shit you have to deal with.
Hrm. Perhaps I should rephrase -- it's not not-viable because people aren't so cold blooded that they'd use their own children as a sheild, because the people in question can use other people's children, instead. And thanks, running a 7 sysadmin department was quite enough for me. I already know humans are stupid. I'm not completely sure, however, that the difficulties of getting things done in large organizations kills the possibility of putting child care centers in places that are likely terrorist targets as human sheilds. It strikes me as a rather hard thing to argue either way -- organizations vary as much as individuals do, in my experience.
if you are working with unioned employees. Are you suggesting that the unions may have been complicit in putting a daycare there?
Well, I suppose if a bunch of unionized employees there wanted a daycare, this could be the case -- I think it would be doubtful that the union would want a daycare for human shield purposes...maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though...
This sort of suggestion really makes this list look like it's inhabitted by a bunch of loonies. It's your right to suggest any shit you want, but it's way out in left field.
You mean, you haven't noticed that this list *is* inhabited by a bunch of loonies. Largely because insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane world, I suspect. You know, other than a somewhat vague 'try running a large organization sometime' you never did explain why it wasn't viable. Ph.(still not saying it is or was going on, just arguing the possibility..hmmph, I need [another] hobby or something)
participants (2)
-
Ernest Hua -
Phaedrus