Deceiving Image: The Science of Manipulation
Category: News and Politics
George Orwell described political speech as consisting "largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." Some six decades later, many symptoms of manipulation and propaganda diagnosed by Orwell persist on the American political landscape, along with new disinformation techniques enabled by modern technology.
I've already posted a blog mentioning George Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Frank Luntz, a corporate slime, political consultant and pollster who has worked most with the Fox News Channel running focus groups after presidential debates. They both participate in this discussion along with Drew Weston, professor of psychology.
Nov 7th, 2007
Chapters
01. NYPL Welcome 02. Conference Overview 03. Moderator Introduction 04. FDR's Fireside Chat 1935 05. George Lakoff: Framing and the Use of Metaphor 06. What is Reason? 07. Different World Views: Conservatives and Liberals 08. Framing and Balance 09. Frank Luntz: Looking to Election 2008 10. Why Hillary Clinton is a Good Communicator (the cackle killed her campaign) 11. How Obama Benefited from Hillary's Mistake 12. Going Forward 13. Drew Weston: Psychology Experiment (this experiment worked on me, think of a brand before he gives the answer) 14. Activating Unconscious 15. Reagan's Morning in America 16. Unethical Activation of Networks (Sold! Drew Weston for President!) 17. How Did Bush Win Not Being A Good Communicator? 18. Evolution of Political Language 19. Using Plain Speech 20. Modern Language Analysis (Lakoff on target defining what"victory in Iraq" means) 21. Advising Democrats 22. Democrats Reframing Slogans 23. Deliberate Deception (A demonstration of Frank "knowing his audience")
I Want To Get Married
Current mood: romantic
Category: Life
I was listening to a Nellie McKay song that was aired on the show 'The View'. It's obvious from the beginning interview, they'd never even listened to the song before.
Watch their facial expressions change after the lines...
I wanna partake in bake sales for the classroom I wanna hear the sweet tune Of Sally's little vroom-vroom As she zooms around my broom As I exhume the gloom Of my shallow life I wanna be simple and honest and dimpled 'cause I am your wife I will never tarry I'm not even torn I wanna get married That's why I was born
The song is a 'joke' about the traditional roles of marriage. They had no idea...lol. What's really great about her is the truth behind her sense of humor and her perceived 'jokes' in both her interviews and lyrics.
Currently
listening
:
Get Away from Me
By
Nellie McKay
Release date: 2004-02-10
The sailor at the entrance to Camp Echo peers through the gate as Peter and I hold up our laminated blue cards. "HC," for habeas counsel, they read. "Escort Required." He waves us through, searches our bags for recording devices, then issues safety instructions -- dial 2431 on the wall phone in the room -- in case anything should happen in our meeting with prisoner No. 1154.
The gravel crunches beneath our shoes as we follow a soldier across a dusty courtyard to a painted brown door. Before we go in, I drape the shawl I'm carrying over my head and arms. This is my first meeting with a Guantanamo Bay detainee, and I'm feeling nervous about sitting down with a man who may be a terrorist.
Ali Shah Mousovi is standing at attention at the far end of the room, his leg chained to the floor. His expression is wary, but when he sees me in my traditional embroidered shawl from Peshawar, he breaks into a smile. Later, he'll tell me that I resemble his younger sister, and that for a split second he mistook me for her.
I introduce myself and Peter Ryan, a Philadelphia lawyer for whom I'm interpreting. I hand Mousovi a Starbucks chai, the closest thing to Afghan tea I've been able to find on the base. Then I open up boxes of pizza, cookies and baklava, but he doesn't reach for anything. Instead, in true Afghan fashion, he urges us to share the food we have brought for him.
Mousovi is a physician from the Afghan city of Gardez, where he was arrested by U.S. troops. He tells us that he had returned to Afghanistan in August 2003, after 12 years of exile in Iran, to help rebuild his wathan , his homeland. He believes that someone turned him in to U.S. forces just to collect up to $25,000 being offered to anyone who gave up a Talib or al-Qaeda member.
Ali Shah Mousovi, aka detainee No. 1154, with his family before his arrest.
Mahvish Rukhsana Khan is an American lawyer, born to immigrant Pashtun parents. With her fluency in Pashto and a familiarity with Afghan cultures and customs that no other habeas lawyer with security clearance had, she was quickly taken on as an interpreter for Afghan detainees. Six months later, in January 2006, Khan was on her way to Guantanamo Bay. She began providing supervised legal counsel, represented an Afghan detainee, and traveled to Afghanistan to find exonerating evidence for prisoners. Regardless of each prisoner's innocence or guilt, she was determined to preserve their most fundamental right, the right to a fair trial.
For Mahvish Rukhsana Khan, the experience was a validation of her Afghan heritage—as well as her American Freedoms, which allowed her to intervene at Guantanamo purely out of her sense that it was the right thing to do. The work that lawyers like Mahvish have done to advocate on behalf of these detainees contributed to the Supreme Court Ruling to grant habeas corpus to all Guantanamo prisoners.
While it often seems like a fruitless and ongoing legal battle to restore habeas corpus, lawyers who represent Gitmo detainees play a pivotal role. They are the lifeline for Gitmo prisoners. Without lawyers, the detainees would have been cut off entirely from the public—buried within the confines of the U.S. military's detention facility. While the military purports to have transparency in its operations by allowing journalists on the base, these journalists are only given silly tours of mock cells and are sent home with an earful of propaganda. Furthermore, the lawyers are the only positive face of America that the prisoners will perhaps ever see. It is immensely therapeutic for detainees to know that someone is working for their freedom and that someone cares about them, will call their families and let their wives and children know they're in good health and not to worry.
I met a man named Mohammed who readily admitted he worked for the Taliban as a check post guard. Here's what he said:
"The American government under President Bush has committed horrible atrocities, but that doesn't mean that all people working for the U.S. government support Bush's ideologies or support his actions. Similarly, the Taliban ran the government of Afghanistan for seven years. Some people were weak minded and led to do things that were not right. There were others who disagreed with the politicies of their government. I cannot speak for all of them, but I can say that I am not a political figure. I worked under their government [merely] as a checkpoint guard."
Both Candidates Shift on Offshore Drilling: UPDATE -Clarity!
Category: News and Politics
This video cleared up my confusion on Obama's position change, it's all starting to make much more sense now. Thanks to Misha for sharing this with me!
LANSING, Michigan (Reuters) - Barack Obama proposed tapping the strategic oil reserve on Monday to help lower gas prices, reversing an earlier stance, and called rival John McCain a tool of big oil companies as rising energy costs took center stage in the U.S. presidential campaign. Obama, celebrating his 47th birthday, unveiled a package of steps designed to end U.S. reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, including tax credits for buyers of fuel-efficient hybrid cars.
In a speech in Michigan, a battleground in November's White House election and home to the struggling U.S. auto industry, he proposed releasing 70 million barrels of light oil, easier to refine into gasoline, from the emergency U.S. stockpile.
The Democratic senator from Illinois said the light oil could be replaced later with heavier crude in a swap designed to bring quick relief from high gasoline prices.
"We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away," Obama said in Lansing, Michigan.
McCain fired back in Pennsylvania, criticizing Obama's opposition to nuclear power and offshore drilling and calling on Congress and Obama to return to Washington from their summer break to try to solve the country's growing energy challenges.
"Anybody who says that we can achieve energy independence without using and increasing these existing energy resources either doesn't have the experience to meet the challenges we face or isn't giving the American people straight talk," McCain said in Lafayette Hill, a suburb of Philadelphia.
Two daily tracking polls show McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, has wiped out Obama's narrow national lead in the past week and essentially pulled even in the November 4 election race as the two candidates wage an increasingly acrimonious campaign for the White House.
The faltering U.S. economy, including rising gas prices, rank as the top issue for American voters in most polls.
In a broad speech assessing the country's energy future, Obama called for a $7,000 tax credit to help consumers buy fuel-efficient cars, set a goal of 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on U.S. roads by 2015 and proposed a requirement that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term.
AD SAYS MCCAIN 'IN OIL'S POCKET'
Obama's new television advertisement noted McCain was "in the pocket" of oil companies. The ad pictured McCain standing with President George W. Bush. "After one president in the pocket of big oil -- we can't afford another," it says.
The McCain camp said the ad failed to mention McCain opposed a 2005 energy bill that provided billions in tax breaks for energy producers, including oil companies. Obama voted for the bill, which was backed by Bush.
The McCain campaign also blasted Obama's proposal on the strategic oil reserve, noting he said just weeks ago that it should be used only for genuine emergencies.
"Tapping the strategic oil reserve is not a substitute for a real plan to increase supply through additional drilling and nuclear power," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
"The last release of oil from the strategic reserve came in response to Hurricane Katrina, but the only crisis that has developed since Barack Obama last rejected this idea two months ago is a slide in his poll numbers," he said.
Obama's reversal on tapping the emergency oil stockpile is his second shift on energy issues in recent days.
On Friday he dropped his blanket opposition to offshore oil drilling and signaled he would be open to limited drilling as part of a compromise energy package in Congress aimed at reining in prices.
But Obama said in Michigan that oil companies should first focus on drilling on 68 million acres to which they have access but have not touched, and explore other more viable options.
"We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions," Obama said.
McCain has called for opening new areas of U.S. coastline to offshore oil drilling, which polls show is supported by a majority of Americans, and nuclear power. McCain plans a visit to a nuclear power plant on Tuesday.
In Michigan, Obama also pushed his proposal for a windfall tax on the soaring profits of big oil firms, which will pay for a $1,000 tax rebate for low- and middle-income families to help them cope with high energy prices.
Naomi Klein on Democracy Now talking about offshore drilling.
Mythmakers, Ghostwriters, & the Bully Pulpit
Category: News and Politics
What matters most in politics is personality. It's not issues; it's not image. ... My job as a pollster is to understand what really matters. Those levers of importance -- sometimes they're called levers; sometimes they're called triggers. What causes people to buy a product? What causes someone to pull a lever and get them to vote? I need to know the specifics of that. And in politics, more often than not, it's about the personality and the character of the individual rather than where they stand, and that's exactly the opposite of what your viewers will think.-Frank Luntz
Frank Lutz is a corporate and political consultant and pollster who has worked most recently with the FOX News Channel running focus groups after presidential debates. Luntz's specialty is "testing language and "finding words" that will help his clients sell their product or "turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. What does any of this have to do with the issues? Nothing. In America, we're all just consumers in the eyes of politicians. And sadly, that's what works to win presidencies.
Words such as "persuade", "manipulate" and "influence" have in common that each conveys (with differing degrees of positive and negative feeling) the sense that one person is affecting another person, either openly or covertly. Most forms of intervention have the potential to influence; it is inherent in any method by which people interact and influence each other.
For example, Newt Gingrich worked with Republican leaders and "conservatives" in the media to frame the word "liberal" as something akin to "traitor," an effort that ultimately led to his infamous "secret" memo to GOP leaders titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." "Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Apply these [words] to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party:"
On the other hand, Newt suggested that Republicans should also "memorize as many as possible" of the following "Positive Governing Words" to apply to any reference to Republicans or GOP efforts:
The result a decade of politicians and talk show hosts memorizing and parroting Newt's word list is that, in much of the public's mind, morality and patriotism are associated with right while the left are thought of in the terms described above.
This is just an example, this technique is also employed against "the right", and even those within the same party in disagreement. Source:FAIR Link
IN THE MEDIA
Political persuasion is harder to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see and hear bits and pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news- incomplete, not sequential, and usually edited by others. And as recievers, we are also biased: everyone comes with their own set of attitudes and ideas, emotions and opinions.
A good analysis of political language is a complex, rational activity. As such, it's in sharp contrast to emotional rantings by demagogues- including talk-show commentators, with their partisan views, attacks, sneers slurs, and slogans.
A good reasoned analysis is also in contrast to the little sound bites of TV news which are the source of most people's information and opinions.
As citizens, we are better served during the heat of an ongoing election campaign by skilled journalists and other writers who are well informed (about politics, history, language, and media techniques), who seek to present a fair assessment.
POLITICAL CANDIDATES
Candidates don't start from zero, thinking up ideas by themselves. They hire PR (public relations) companies with experienced people using the same kind of techniques as advertising agencies do for commercial products.
During the election campaign of 1935, the city of Allentown, Pennsylvania, was divided for experimental purposes. What residents did not know was that they were part of an experiment in political persuasion- seperated into three types of wards:
(1) an "emotional" area in which all the resident adults received leaflets written in vigorous advertising style urging the support of the Socialist ticket.
(2) a "rational" region, in which a more academic type of persuasion was used.
(3) a control district where nothing was distributed.
The increase in the minority party vote was greatest in the emotional wards, next largest in the rational wards, and lowest in the control wards.
The researchers looked at how many voters in the two sections they could persuade to vote for the Socialist Party, rather than the Republicans or Democrats. (The Socialist Party was chosen because it had no chance of winning the elections.)
What the researchers wanted to study was the contrast between rational and emotional appeals in political persuasion. The questionnaire's appeal was rational. It asked people who wanted a more egalitarian society to vote their views on policy matters. The letter's appeal was emotional: "We beg you in the name of those early memories and spring-time hopes to support the Socialist ticket in the coming elections!" it said. When the election was over, the Socialist vote increased by 35 percent over the previous election in the sections of the city that received the rational appeal. In the sections that received the emotional appeal, the Socialist vote increased by 50 percent.
Given the enormous proliferation of policy questions today, surfing the emotional wave nowadays may be even more important than it was in 1935. George E. Marcus, president of the International Society of Political Psychology, said modern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don't have much effect. Voters, he explained, need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention.
The research is of importance to politicians for obvious reasons -- and partly explains the enduring attraction of negative advertising -- but it is also important to voters, because it suggests that the reason candidates seem appealing often has little to do with their ideas. Political campaigns are won and lost at a more emotional and subtle level.
Teddy Roosevelt (US President 1901-09) famously coined the term "bully pulpit"- referring to the White House, the presidency, as a great platform or a great place to advocate and to persuade. (At that time, the word "bully" meant excellent, superb, or great.) When TR said this, it was literally true: an audience had to be near the platform, within actual hearing distance of the spoken voice. Since then, the bully pulpit has been extended by new inventions- loudspeakers, radio, TV, internet and worldwide satellite systems. Today, national leaders have instant, direct access to millions of people -- most without any training analyzing sophisticated persuasion techniques -- an imbalance in concentration of power relatively new in human history.
What all citizens should know about the persuasion power of a President:
♠ A Presidents speech is written by someone trained in linguistics and persuasion called ghostwriters.
♠ Presidents often use teleprompters (one way glass, invisible to onlookers) to give the illusion they are speaking effortlessly and intelligently without notes (not simply reading lines written by others).
♠ Presidents have a huge staff and budget for PR including not only for the White House, but also for every subdivision within the Executive Branch. For example: whitehouse.gov, usa.gov, fedword.gov, defenselink.mil, dvidshub.net.
♠ Presidents often identify their ownplans and their own Administration with the nation. Thus, any criticism, dissent, or disagreement with the President --or the current Administration's policy -- is often attacked as being "unpatriotic", as being disloyal to the country.
♠ Presidents are in control of the interviews, the Q & A sessions, and of granting access to the press.
The White House Press Corps is a very small group of approved reporters, with limited access time. Reporters who ask tough questions are unlikely to be called often; friendly reporters often ask easy questions which allow the President to talk about policies favored. Presidents often use the press simply as "message multipiers" - to repeat PR versions from the White House writers.
Cause Groups are those which seekcommitted collective action. The persuasion ofany cause group can be analyzed with this predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk," a useful structural framework to identify and to sort out parts of complex, emotional controversies. If you know this pattern, then it helps you to see or to infer the rest of the overall picture whenever you encounter bits and fragments of this kind of emotional argument.
1. The Threat Persuaders are problem-makerswho intensify a threat by using words (warnings, name-calling, horror stories) and images (atrocities pictures) to intensify the threat to the group and the evil of the leader of the Other. Persuaders know that people have predictable fears, summed up here in one sentence: "We fear that someone stronger (DOMINANCE) will take away our life (DEATH), our possessions (DESTRUCTION), our territory (INVASION), our freedom (RESTRICTION); or that someone else has more (INJUSTICE); or that a human system will break down (CHAOS).
2. Bonding No matter what threats or causes are involved, the three basic themes in bonding actions are the same, involving: Unity ("united we stand"), Loyalty ("be true to your . . . "), and Pride("we're number one . . ."). Bonding activites, relating to both the present and the past, involves many kinds of organized group activities(teams, parades, picketing, chanting, singing, wearing uniforms).Such activities are important not only for gathering the grouptogether, but also for keeping it together, ready for action. Once a group is bonded, a structure and organization comes into being. Individuals often gain self-esteem from joining such groups. People, especially leaders, have roles to play and jobsto protect. So, bonded groups need a sense of movement and progress, often obtained by introducingnew threats and new causes.
3. The Causes A cause involves a sense of duty to defend someone from a threat and gain a benefit.People working for a cause often increase their own self-mage and have a sense of moral superiority, self-righteousness. ("We are informed and good; they are ignorant and evil.") Causes often conflict, sometimes directly, more often indirectly. Opponents often disagree on what is the main issue. Dominance, or power, is sometimes the "hidden agenda." Related causes often cluster, so group-bonding attempts often overlap. Cause rhetoric can sometimes be controlled, like a thermostat, by organized groups, but sometimes gets out of control, like awildfire, because individuals may internalize a strange mix of messages and respond in violent ways.
4. The Response Effective cause group rhetoric usually identifies specific actions to be taken by the receptive audience. Often, anurgencyplea is used, together with some common triggering words.
Analysis of these patterns of persuasion has limited value: it doesn't tell us which side is "right," what charges are true, what supporting evidence is reliable, or what to do.
But, such analysis does help us to sort out some very complex emotional arguments, to identify the examples, and to define the key issues.
As average citizens, neither you nor I will ever have access to the inner circles of power in politics, governments, or among the professional persuaders of the many organized cause groups which target us as receivers of the messages. But, we can prepare ourselves by learning some of the basics used by all.
Our understanding of predictable patterns may help us defend ourselves from being deceivedor exploited by others, or frombeing self-righteous or narrow-minded ourselves. From our understanding of how others also see their roles, we may gain tolerance, perhaps compassion.
Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression(1966), on the need to recognize the pattern of "militant enthusiasm": "The first prerequisite for rational control of an instinctive behavior pattern is the knowledge of the stimulus situation which releases it. Militant enthusiasm can be elicited with the predictability of a reflex when the following environmental situations arise.
First of all, a social unit with which the subject identifies himself must appear to be threatened by some danger from the outside.... A second key stimulus which contributes enormously to the releasing of intense militant enthusiasm is the presence of ahated enemyfrom whom the threat to the above "values" emanates.... A third factor contributing to the environmental situation eliciting the response is an inspiring leaderfigure.... A fourth, and perhaps the most important, prerequisite for the full eliciting of militant enthusiasm is the presence of many other individuals, all agitated by the same emotion...." (Italics mine. I treat his first two points in "Threat"; the second two in "Bonding.")
Expect people (e.g Left and Right) to have very different worldviews and assumptions. In conflicts, expect persuaders to attack, and to emphasize their differences in kind, degree, and focus.
Expect the basic content of negative chargesabout the other candidates to be:"They are incompetent and untrustworthy; from them you'll get more "bad" and less "good."
Expect some political persuasiontargetedat one's own group ("under the radar" - using very selected computer address lists, etc.) seeking collective committed action (join, donate, vote) to use the pattern of a "pep talk". Persuaders use words to resolve the will, to stir the feelings (often fear and anger), and to trigger action: basically, what to believe, to feel, to do.
Expect people often to act, not only in their own self-interest but also to have "Righteous anger" against the Other, as being harmful, unjust, unfair, or unreasonable: intentionally evil or unintentionally duped.
Expect the frequent repetition of negatives, sometimes by direct, explicit charges, but more often a single image or phrase to be used as shorthand, as a "condensation" symbol, to suggest a cluster of negative associations linked with "bad" things which peoplealready feared or disliked.
Expect verbal aggression to stir the emotions: fear, anger, resentment, disgust. Expect name-calling(attack words, explicit charges); "horror stories" (narratives - including rumors) and "atrocity pictures" (nonverbal images) todemonizethe Other.
Expect everyone to have predictable fears(e.g. about death, destruction, loss of possessions, freedom, territory; humiliation and injustice). Expect persuaders to know this and how to use it in stirring up "hot button" and "wedge" issues.
Expect warnings about theurgency and danger to be intensified byusing the language ofextremes -- if the Other wins. The greater the problem, the greater the need for a solution.
Expect persuaders to be problem makers, intensifying existing fears in order to excite, bond, and direct their own group to an action response (save, defend, fight, stop, change).
Expect omission to be the primary way people downplay their own "bad." People can suppress, conceal, hide, cover-up their "bad" (errors, crimes, problems, weaknesses, any unfavorable information) by means of secrecy. Governments, administrations often can use censorship, controls to ban the press or internal critics; silencing, eliminating, or "disappearing" the opposition.
Expect denials ("saying it isn't so") to include deliberate lying to others and self deception. For example, denying that something is, or is bad, or is not that bad, or denying responsibility("I didn't do it") or intent ("I didn't mean it"). Wishful thinking, alibis, excuses, and "plausible deniability" are also common ways people deny reality, deceive themselves, downplay their own "bad."
Expect euphemisms to downplay one's own "bad" by using softer words to minimize, understate, sweeten, blur or obscure the "bad."
Expect diversions as a very common defense, to distract focus away from main issues, to focus on side-issues, to counter-attack others. Traditional names include diversionary attacks against the person (ad hominem); stirring up people's emotions or fears (ad populum); sympathy appeals (ad misericordium); "attacking a straw man"; "red herrings"; "bread and circuses"; "pointing to another wrong"; dismissals ("it's all politics"): "poisoning the well" (the media is biased); or any evasions, or stalling to avoid substantive issues.
Expect confusion to mask or hide problems, a "smokescreen" effect. Confusion can be accidental (carelessness, errors); but, language can also deliberately be used to create confusion by means of ambiguity, vagueness, unfamiliar words, jargon, contradictions, circumlocutions, circular definitions. In a wider context, confusion can be caused by frequent changes or variations, or anything to overload the audience.
Expect neglectto bethe primary way people downplay others' "good." Such neglect is passive aggression. Many people are egocentric and ethnocentric: they simply disregard, ignore, or lack concern for other groups, strangers, or foreigners. In war, for example, people often know very little about their opponents' culture, history, customs, beliefs, family life, or any favorable aspect of opponents.
Expect intolerance. People often deny (block out, won't listen to) any contrary ideas, opinions, or beliefs. Often people "frame an issue" in one way, then later reject anyfacts which contradict their pre-conceptions.People often won't consider the possible "rightness" of their opponents' Cause, of their opponents' legitimate needs and wants, of their opponents' genuine fears and grievances.
Expect disrepect Words and attitudes are often used which are patronizing, or condescending toward others, humiliating others, treating others as less than equal, or less than human. Humor (mockery, sarcasm, satire) is used to belittle, degrade, insult, or ridicule others.
Expect the more that language is abstract and general (including labels, numbers, statistics, charts, polls, body counts), the less that people are able to "see" ( to comprehend) thespecific individuals of the Other. In domestic politics, for example,it's easier to hate someone who is abstractly labeled a "Liberal" or "Conservative" than it is to understand a real person -- a friend or a neighbor -- whose worldviews and assumptions are different.
In war, it's easier to kill "things" than to kill human beings (mothers, fathers, children). We often do need to generalize, but remember abstract language dehumanizes.
Since ignorance and apathy are dangerous to a democratic society, citizens need to give more attention to a greater understanding of political rhetoric. They need to become more aware of the significant changes recently in persuasion, and the growing imbalance between the professional persuader and the average person.
Every government, every political party, every religious group, and every "cause" group now has this ability to combine sophisticated techniques, psychological insights, and the new technology to target people untrained in persuasion.
The party in power will say "Keep the Good" | The party seeking power will say "Change the Bad".
Two common reactions to political lies are vague indignation ("something ought to be done") and cynical resignation ("nothing can be done").
Both extremes can be avoided. Deception, like violence, has always been a part of the human history. To recognize this does not endorse deception, nor justify inaction. We do take action to control violence, to reduce the degree, to limit the kinds, to reduce the causes and ameliorate the effects.
VIDEOS
Frontline: The Persuaders<-----DON'T MISS THE CHAPTERS: GIVING US WHAT WE WANT and THE NARROWCASTING FUTURE!!!
Back to sock puppets and music, I'm taking another break from political blogs.
This is the Drive-by Truckers-
Puttin' People on the Moon
Another Joker in the White House, said a change was comin' round But I'm still workin' at The Wal Mart and Mary Alice, in the ground And all them politicians, they all lyin' sacks of shit They say better days upon us but I'm sucking left hind tit And the preacher on the TV says it ain't too late for me But I bet he drives a Cadillac and I'm broke with some hungry mouths to feed I wish I'z still an outlaw, was a better way of life I could clothe and feed my family still have time to love my pretty wife And if you say I'm being punished. Ain't he got better things to do? Turnin' mountains into oceans Puttin' people on the moon
The President's Penis
Them outer space people would laugh if they'd seen us all this talk about stains and oral coitus meanwhile the whole world suffers from hunger and meanness but we're more concerned with the President's penis
I think the boys were a bit on the tipsy side in this one...
Decoration Day
A Ghost To Most
Saving everybody takes a man on a mission with a swagger that can set the world at ease Some believe it's God's own hand on the trigger and the other dumping water in the streets Talking tough is easy when it's other people's evil and you're judging what they do or don't believe It seems to me you'd have to have a hole you're own to point a finger at somebody else's sheet
Currently
listening
:
Gangstabilly
By
Drive-By Truckers
Release date: 2005-01-25
No "Permanent" Military Bases in Iraq? Really??
Category: News and Politics
From Obama's campaign website:
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Obama vowed Monday not to seek permanent US military bases in Iraq and reiterated his pledge to pull the bulk of US forces by mid-2010. He promised that he also "would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea."
Obama insisted the United States could safely redeploy its combat brigades inside Iraq at a pace that would remove them from the country in 16 months after his taking office.
"That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began," he promised.
"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
He would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government as his strategy is being implemented -- and make unspecified "tactical adjustments" if needed.
He did not specify that nature of these adjustments, but said US troops would be redeployed from secure areas of Iraq first and volatile regions later.
In recent weeks, Republicans and some Democratic-leaning military experts have said conditions have changed so dramatically that Obama would have to rethink that goal. His own advisers have sent mixed messages. Sen. Claire C. McCaskill (D-Mo.), a strong Obama supporter ( I regretfully voted for her), has firmly maintained he has not shifted on Iraq at all. But foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, in recent days, appeared to take a more flexible approach,for instance, told reporters in February that Obama's plan to end the war in 2009 is not absolute, and that he reserves the right to revisit troop levels in Iraq upon taking the oath of office.
Former Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Power told the BBC, "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me. It's a best-case scenario."
Obama has been trying to draw a line between himself and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who has made staunch support for the US troop "surge" strategy a centerpiece of his campaign.
With Obama's national numbers building strength against his rival, John McCain has realized the need to take a new direction. As a result, McCain has decided to break with his own precedent, and to claim that, unlike all of his previous statements, he expects an end to the Iraq war by the end of his first term. In a major address, McCain stated that, by January 2013, we will be welcoming most of our troops home.
...and no, I'm not trying to say Obama has "flip-flopped":
When Obama delivered his first major speech calling for withdrawal, in November 2006, he hedged:
I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid. ... The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and offers us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining current troop levels. ... In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time.
There are already in place 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts.
My question is what will be done with the bases already existing in Iraq if Obama is elected? During a USA Today interview a year ago Obama was asked:
Q. What would you do with the huge embassy that we've built?
A. Well, that raises a whole other set of questions.
Q. And the (military) bases.
A. I've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq.
Q. Would you leave the embassy?
A. We have to have an embassy, absolutely. Now the fact that we built this Xanadu in the middle of Baghdad, I would question the wisdom of that.
The embassy, a high-tech complex, with "15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles" for protection as well as bunkers to guard against air attacks. It will, according to Chris Hughes, security correspondent for the British Daily Mirror, include "as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials" and a "large-scale barracks" for Marines. The "compound" will be a cluster of at least 21 buildings, assumedly nearly self-sufficient, including "a gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food court and a commissary. Water, electricity and sewage treatment plants will all be independent from Baghdad's city utilities."
Obama is not the only one who has said we are not seeking "permanent" bases in Iraq. The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Speaking at the State Department, Crocker called published reports that the United States is trying to set up permanent bases "flatly untrue."
"There clearly is going to be a need" for a U.S. and coalition military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year, Crocker said. But the status of forces agreement, when adopted, "is not going to be forever, particularly as it related to the status and authority of coalition forces in Iraq," he said.
"So I'm very comfortable saying to you - to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks - that no, indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly, by just intending to stay there indefinitely," he said.
Some Iraqi lawmakers are looking to model the US/Iraq arrangement on the one the US has with Turkey.
The Iraqi side posed a number of demands, including "disussions with the Iraqi government as a sovereign government, and the denial of any privileges to the American side without the agreement of the Iraqi government; the establishment of temporary American bases, whose existence would be reviewed each year, as is the case with the American bases in Turkey; the denial of movement of the Americans outside of their temporary bases without the knowledge and agreement of the Iraqi government; that financing in- and outflows for the American forces be subject to the Iraqi Central Bank; and that the American forces conduct no military operations without the written authorization of the Iraqi government". [emphasis added]
So, now permanent bases are the big difference between the Obama and McCain?
If Obama "is opposed to long term military occupation with permanent bases" then will he push to remove us from our military occupation of Japan, Korea or Germany? They've got to be awfully pissed we have occupied their countries for so long. It doesn't make any sense from a politicians standpoint, he's only offering a public pacifier to both Iraqis and Americans.
08/07/2008 17:48 TEHRAN, July 8 (RIA Novosti) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that the U.S. was currently incapable of launching an attack on the Islamic Republic, Iranian national media reported.
He made the remark in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, during a Developing Eight summit. It came amid growing speculation over a possible Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Israeli Air Force conducted military exercises involving over 100 Israeli fighters in early June. The exercises were widely seen as a 'dress rehearsal' for an attack on Iran. George Bush has refused to rule out the "military option" in the long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad said however that there were no signs of an imminent armed conflict, and labeled the rumors "propaganda."
The Iranian leader also said there were "many clever people in the U.S. and they will not allow President Bush to commit political suicide."
Iran is currently under three sets of relatively mild UN Security Council sanctions for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment, which it says it needs purely for electricity generation. The U.S. and other Western states have claimed that the program is geared toward the creation of nuclear weapons.
The Developing Eight is an economic development alliance also involving Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey.
Rice: U.S. Wants Peaceful End To Iran Nuclear Standoff
July 08, 2008 By RFE/RL
PRAGUE -- In an exclusive interview with RFE/RL's Radio Farda, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the nuclear standoff with Iran can be resolved diplomatically.
But the top U.S. diplomat did not deny media reports that Washington is secretly funding activities inside Iran aimed at inciting ethnic unrest.
Rice's interview at RFE/RL's headquarters in Prague with Radio Farda came amid rising international tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear program.
Earlier today, an aide to Iran's supreme leader was quoted as saying that Tehran would attack Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping and interests around the world if Iranian nuclear sites are attacked.
Asked whether Washington or Israel might launch such an attack, Rice told Radio Farda that President George W. Bush has made it clear that the United States wants to peacefully resolve the issue of Tehran's nuclear enrichment program.
"We believe very strongly and President Bush has made very clear that this problem with Iran, about its nuclear technology, can be resolved diplomatically. That is what we're working on," Rice said.
Rice added that nuclear enrichment, which brings with it the ability to produce nuclear weapons, is the key problem with Iran's nuclear program and that it must be suspended. She said that Iran has a right to civilian nuclear technology -- and that the international community has proposed to assist Iran in developing it.
"We want very much for the Iranian people to be able to have good relations with the United States. There's no reason that this great civilization with a great history and a great culture, should be isolated from international politics," Rice said.
"And so there is a diplomatic way to do this. And that's why the United States is a part of the group -- that is, Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and China -- has made a proposal to the Iranian government that we hope they will accept."
Reports Of Covert Funding
However, Rice offered no denial when asked about a report in "The New Yorker" magazine that the United States is spending $400 million on covert activities inside Iran aimed at inciting ethnic unrest. Rice said Washington does not seek regime change in Iran but wants to positively change the Iranian government's behavior.
"The United States has made very clear that we are prepared to deal with the Iranian regime if it is prepared to change its policies. I have said many times that I am willing to meet my [Iranian] counterpart anytime, anyplace, anywhere to talk about anything," Rice said.
Addressing recent media reports that the United States might open a U.S. interests section in Tehran, Rice said no decision has been made. But she added that the United States is looking at ways to give Iranians easier access to visit the United States. She added that recent U.S. cultural exchanges with Iranians -- such as athletes and young artists -- have proved very fruitful.
She blamed the Iranian government for isolating its own people from the rest of the world.
Missile Agreement
Earlier in Prague, Rice signed a controversial missile-defense pact with the Czech government. The United States says the defense program, which has sparked angry reactions from Moscow, is aimed at defending Europe from missiles from rogue states, including Iran.
Rice's remarks came as international attention on Iran's nuclear program surged today.
At a summit of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized countries in Japan, the leaders issued a statement once again urging Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activities. The United States and others fear Iran wants that technology to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier that world powers have decided to send European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran for talks on an incentives package they offered last month for Tehran to change its nuclear policy and defuse tensions. Sarkozy did not say when Solana would travel to Tehran.
On July 4, Iran replied to the offer by the United States, France, Britain, China, Russia, and Germany. France said Iran's response had ignored the group's demand to suspend enrichment before talks on implementing the package. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has rejected that precondition as "illegitimate."
Tensions were further stoked today when Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying: "The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe."
Radio Farda correspondents Golnaz Esfandiari and Mosaddegh Katouzian conducted the interview with Secretary Rice
Copyright (c) 2008. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org
Obama calls Iran a 'great threat'
US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has said Iran is a "great threat" and has called for tighter sanctions after it test-fired nine missiles.
Mr Obama said on a US TV show: "Iran is a great threat. We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran."
Iran said it fired the missiles as a warning to the US and Israel that it was ready to retaliate if they attacked over its disputed nuclear projects.
Mr Obama has said that if he were president, he would combine more direct diplomacy with the threat of much tougher economic sanctions.
He said: "I think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior, and frankly we just have not been able to do that over the last several years."
The Ilinois senator cited reports that US exports to Iran have increased under President George W Bush even as the administration has toughened its rhetoric.
News of Iran's missile test came as the G8 expressed "serious concern" over Iran's failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions calling for Tehran to suspend all enrichment-related activities.
Last month, six major world powers offered a package of economic incentives to Iran if it halted nuclear activities. Tehran's formal response
romantic
vibrant
angry
