Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Derrick Van Orden, Real-Life “Act of Valor” Navy SEAL, Running for Congress in Wisconsin
Derrick Van Orden Photo from vanordenforcongress.com
To do this, real-world, you gotta be a special kind of psycho (no disparagement meant, here).
Note:
- Van Orden reads the subject perfectly and intuits on the most basic level the guys motivational buttons; what to push for effect and what to stay away from.
- VO never lets the subject have any measure of control over the situation. Coupla times, VO dangles the opportunity for control in front of Christo, even letting him think he has seized the initiative, before whisking it effortlessly away. Christo is never able to gain or maintain–not only control, but any kind of balance.
- Notice VO’s accent through the interview. It shifts as required to convey the most empathy as possible. Sentence to sentence, some time word to word. There are few accents in the English language that have as much of the bonhomie “you can trust me” vibe as the American midwestern. VO deploys it at will.
- “I would never touch your family. I would not.” The avoidance of a contraction here is key. “I wouldn’t” would have ruined the interview. Also, it is a subtle message that “I am not the bad guy here.” Christo is the bad guy, and he signed up for that role eyes wide open.
- VO has zero ego investment throughout the interview. He’ll be whomever he needs to be to get a successful interview–i.e., gain mission-critical information.
You’ve got to be a special kind of cat to be able to conduct this sort of interview. Psycho? Maybe, in a “day-um, wish I was that good” kind of way.
Were I in Wisconsin, he’d get my vote.
Published in General
And he starts it off by saying his name wrong, an old WASP technique haha. Puts the person in his place right off the bat. “You are so insignificant that I can’t even remember your name.” Think Endora in “Bewitched,” calling him Durwood or Darwin or anything but Darrin.
Excellent movie.
I read an interview after seeing the movie. The scene wasn’t entirely scripted. Alex Veadov, the actor playing Christo, is Jewish. He didn’t know that Van Orden knew that. Van Orden revealed that he knew something about his subject that the subject had no idea that he knew as a means of putting him on his back foot. And it worked. Veadov had an idea of what he was going to say and suddenly — poof — it was gone. That is exactly the effect Van Orden was looking for.
I wish I remembered where I read that.
Good news, He’s running in my district. Bad news, this district has been safely gerrymandered to never swing R.
Have Christo campaign for him.
Whoa, dude is good. I would never have thought he wasn’t another actor and the lines were scripted. Then to read your points there, that he did this from his training and instinct, that’s a chilling performance.
How is it that I live in this district and have never heard of the guy? 3rd District Republican Party, you’re falling down on the job! (Again.)
Hey, man, buck them brothers up and get them pointed in the right direction.
Will he win with this plank in his campaign?
Over the past four years I have made the mistake of presenting my concern in the following manner: “Majority Rule violates the free speech clause of the US Constitution.” Until just last week when an FBI agent acting as a private citizen provided me a paper by Professor Luis Fuentes-Rohwer in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law, Volume 1, 1996 titled The Empitness of Majority Rule, I did not see the need to modify how I presented this abridgment of speech by members of Congress.
Therefore let me begin with my support of the need of majority rule in Congress and that in and of itself it does not violate the Constitution’s free speech clause. However, the provision in the process of majority rule that permits the chair of every committee the power to silence the speech of representatives in committee does in fact violate the free speech clause. The fact that one political party is given the chair to every committee seals the fate of half the citizens having their speech silenced by a rule of the Congress.
Speech in committee must be defined to include the ability to impact the proposed written legislation to include the ideas spoken to the representative by their constituents as negotiated by their representatives. This is in keeping with Dr. Fuentes-Rohwe’s paper on the best suited idea of American representation today as viewed by Professor Hanna Pitkin.
“A final view of representation centers on “representation as an acting for others, an activity in behalf of, in the interest of, as the agent of, someone else.” A vast array of analogies have been suggested for the representational role: The representative has been variously likened to or defined as an actor, an agent, an ambassador, an attorney, a commissioner, a delegate, a deputy, an emissary, an envoy, a factor, a guardian, a lieutenant, a proctor, a prosecutor, a proxy, a steward, a substitute, a trustee, a tutor, and a vicar.’
I offer one possible solution is to share committee chairs based on the percentage of actual seated members in the chamber. If the Democrats have 53% of the seats they get first pick of the approximate 127 committees in the House. The second pick would go to the minority party as part of their 47%. An adjustment is made if there is an independent member and they would get a pick based on statistics likely around a pick in the 90’s. This would provide political power for each party to secure their constituents right to speech where and when it is most valued and needed, when legislation is being drafted in committees. The result is negotiation and compromise to secure the best rule of law for the whole nation and the successful achievement of the goals and promises in the Preamble. Additionally it protects against unilateral partisan actions like impeachment.
Uh. Okay. Got it.
Hypothetically, how does the presence of a fully corrupt and tyrannical Speaker impact your dissertation?
Great news Boss. VO was my favorite character in the movie even though he didn’t get to do some of the super cool physical stuff that everyone wishes they could do (grabbing a baddie and slipping him under the water without a sound, etc). Maybe in this unusual year he can break through. Oh and I would not want to be his opponent. The debates might be interesting shall we say.
I loved that scene. It was the best part of the movie. It really made me hungry for more scenes with VO. Thanks.
Ron Kind has the Democrat Machine behind him. He doesn’t have to do anything (and typically doesn’t) and he’ll still win. I have yet to see him ever be anything but a rubber-stamp for whatever the Dem leadership wants.
It’s going to take a real barn-burner of a campaign to unseat him. I hope Van Orden is up to the task.
Someone might need to, you know, actually go to the party meetings and local conventions. That someone might even volunteer for Van Orden’s campaign….
… Oh never mind. The 3rd District Republican Party can certainly fall down on the job without any help.
Mr Boss, a few questions: Was VO trained in those techniques? What was VO’s position exactly? An operator? Was he an NCO or officer? Thanks.
If I recall correctly, he retired as a Senior Chief Petty Officer (E8). He was a full-up, Trident wearing SEAL. I have no idea what his training regimen (other than the pipeline stuff) was.
I thought they called him Chief in the movie but maybe that’s just what he would be called in the unit?
Boss, you inspired me to watch Act of Valor again last night. You’re right, that was a great scene and I’d vote for him. My coworkers know I often like to give SEALs a good ribbing but I have to say that’s probably my favorite movie of its type. The book was great, too.
I’m close friends with Eric Maddox, who’s the interrogator who tracked down Saddam and then when on to become the first interrogator dedicated to DIA. We went to Ranger School together and later the Chinese course at DLI. Incredibly interesting talking with him about the nuances of this kind of stuff. He mostly does the speaking tour thing nowadays. If you or anyone gets a chance to go see him and chat, I’d take it. He’s a great guy!