top down vs bottom up?
more recent comments have tried to differentiate between associations that are conscripted "top down" vs those that are joined "bottom up". one example given was the catholic church, (top down), and an excuse was being mooted for joinees of the "tea party" movement, suggesting the "bottom up" nature of the group offered reduced responsibility for association since its membership is primarily formed without required adherence to dictated dogma or ideology or politics.
well, you know there's always a web wise guy who sends the rhetoric straight to hitler whenever you're having a discussion on the web, but i figure i'll be lazy and keep it closer to today's headlines, and i'll crassly point out that al quaida has been going to a "bottom up" recruitment and organization strategy these days, ostensibly because it's harder to track and control or to assess or enforce specific responsibility, and that's something to think about. personally, i can't wait until one of 'em stands up in court and says "THOSE guys blew up that building--I didn't blow up that building--we're "bottom up" around here, and i can't be responsible for that".
yeah, inexcusable hyperbole, but it's exactly my point, and that's all the responsibility i'm willing to take on this one, since i've always been a "bottom up" kind of organizational guy.
my opinion? if you take the name, whether for convenience, glory, infamy or ease of club/chapter/cell recruitment, you're taking on a responsibility that is shirked if you don't address both your similarities and differences from others who take that same name. i should hope a judge would see it that way in court, and i should hope local "bottoms uppers" would see it that way too, and take some time to pay back the benefits of their association with the "tea party" designation, by making an effort to clarify whether they're with the fox news sound byters, or distancing themselves from them with substantial expressions of policy and position.
can't have it both ways.