Archive for the ‘GOP lies’ Category

Ronald Reagan is Still Dead!

February 9, 2008

The GOP must be terribly disappointed in the way things are going so far. Mitt Romney, for example, built his campaign around two words: ‘Ronald’ and ‘Reagan’ just as Giuliani built his around ‘nine’ and ‘eleven’. The party would make of Ronald Reagan a “savior”. Failing live leadership, they would settle for dead heroes and in the end, a political rapture, a “second-coming” of Ronald Reagan! It didn’t work. Reagan is still dead!

At another level, rank and file GOP understand that if deified Reagan should fall out of the Pantheon, the party itself is finished. Reagan was all they had left. In the blogosphere, Reagan defenders themselves are resurrected and more vehement than ever. To wit:

The lies of the left about Ronald Reagan stink up the blogosphere worse than a rest room at a Greyhound bus depot.

The GOP, of late, is most certainly expert in assessing the stalls at Greyhound or, for that matter, any place in which stalls and booths of some sort are frequented for various purposes. Therefore, I leave it to Larry Craig to write up that review.

The left, meanwhile, has been entirely too polite, too timid. If it were not for the blogosphere, the MSM would still be treating Bush as if he were a real and/or credible President. It depends upon what your definition of the word “is” is! If Bush is a real President, then he is the very worst President in American history. If he is not the President then he has dared to stink up the White House like Larry Craig’s rest room stall!

It is not only the conduct of Larry Craig in a seedy stall or Bush’s malfeasance in the Oval Office that shapes my opinion of the GOP. Although it is true that in both cases the place had been “stunk up”. More worrisome is the party’s adulation of Ronald Reagan. Until Ronald Reagan, I was tolerant of acquaintances who espoused the cult of gopperism. I owe a debt of gratitude to the ghost of Reagan. It was his Presidency that confirmed my opinion of the GOP. It is not a political party, it is, rather, a crime syndicate, a criminal conspiracy, a kooky cult! Reagan was precisely what the GOP needed at the time. A former movie star, he was a practiced Spellbinder.

In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a “camouflage society,” a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being “cool,” manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued. With respect to the topic of this article, it is easy to see how both psychopaths and those with ASPD could blend in readily with groups holding antisocial or criminal values. It is more difficult to envisage how those with ASPD could hide out among more prosocial segments of society. Yet psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of business, politics, law enforcement, government, academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who blend into all aspects of society and have such devastating impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines of law enforcement officers.

[Hare, Robert D., Ph.D., Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion, Psychiatric Times, February 1996: Vol. XIII Issue 2]

The Role of the Psychopath in the Generation of Global Evil

There is enough probable cause in the public record alone to indict the leadership of the GOP for violations of various US Criminal Codes having to do with “criminal conspiracy“. Now we know why the GOP is eager not only to keep Reagan alive, but to disprove the existence of conspiracies. If conspiracies did not exist, Ronald Reagan himself need not have worried about the opinion of Iran/Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh who believed Reagan guilty of conspiring to arm an avowed enemy of the US while funneling money to a right-wing terrorist organization.

To the spellbinder, everything becomes subordinated to their conviction that they are exceptional, sometimes even messianic. An ideology can emerge from such individuals that is certainly partly true, and the value of which is claimed to be superior to all other ideologies. They believe they will find many converts to their ideology and when they discover that this is not the case, they are shocked and fume with �paramoral indignation.� The attitude of most normal people to such spellbinders is generally critical, pained and disturbed.

The spellbinder places on a high moral plane anyone who succumbs to his influence, and he will shower such people with attention and property and perks of all kinds. Critics are met with �moral� outrage and it will be claimed by the spellbinder that the compliant minority is actually a majority.

Such activity is always characterized by the inability to foresee its final results, something obvious from the psychological point of view, because its substratum contains pathological phenomena, and both spellbinding and self-charming make it impossible to perceive reality accurately enough to foresee results logically.

In a healthy society, the activities of spellbinders meet with criticism effective enough to stifle them quickly. However, when they are preceded by conditions operating destructively on common sense and social order – such as social injustice, cultural backwardness, or intellectually limited rulers manifesting pathological traits – spellbinders activities have led entire societies into large-scale human tragedy.

Such an individual fishes an environment or society for people amenable to his influence, deepening their psychological weaknesses until they finally become a ponerogenic union.

The Role of the Psychopath in the Generation of Global Evil

Reagan apologists often attack Jimmy Carter because, like the predators they are, they smell weakness. It is a mistake. Carter, is in fact among the best Presidents in job creation and he is the only US President to have brokered a Middle East peace –the Camp David Accords. In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Carter acted quickly. He replaced Kissenger’s incremental, shuttle diplomacy with a comprehensive, multilateral approach that included reconvening the 1973 Geneva Conference to include a Palestinian delegation. The GOP feared to duplicate that approac. It might have succeeded. Democrats, meanwhile, should stop running away from what it means to be a Democrat. Get a spine! Stand up and be counted! You have nothing to fear from a gang of lying perverts, bigots and war mongers.

Reagan�s election in November 1980 also was welcomed in other quarters. His victory set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America. After four years of Jimmy Carter’s human rights nagging, the region’s anti-communist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.

In the late 1970s, when Carter’s human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its “dirty war” — tens of thousands of “disappearances,” tortures and murders — then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should “walk a mile in the moccasins� of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [Martin Edwin Andersen’s Dossier Secreto.]

Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anti-communist action justified, no matter how brutal.

From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering — an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political “disappearances” in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating from Ronald Reagan’s White House.

–Robert Parry, Obama’s Dubious Praise for Reagan

Hoping to deflect attention from the new �ugustus, Reagan worshipers claim that
Carter was responsible for “horrible inflation” and 20% interest rates. So what? Interest rates would be expected to decline under Reagan’s depression as interest rates, in fact, decline in every recession or depression. During Reagan’s depression, the GDP declined at a rate of 2.2 percent, quite possibly the biggest such decline since the Great Depression, most certainly it was the biggest decline in the more than twenty years between 1973 to the assumption of the White House by Bush. Millions lost jobs and homes. In any case, it was the Federal Reserve Board that slashed interest rates and expanded the money supply, thus reducing prices. Ronald Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with it! It was the Fed –not Reagan –who was responsible for the following but short-lived recovery.

Under Carter, people were at work and productive. They were buying homes –not leaving them under the threat of imminent foreclosure as many, perhaps, millions are doing now.

That was not the case under Reagan who destroyed the trade unions, exported jobs and technology, and plunged the nation into a depression of two years —the very worst since Herbert Hoover’s Great Depression!

Before Reagan, America had a steel industry. After Reagan, it didn’t. Before Reagan, America has a viable automotive industry. After Reagan, the US was buying its cars from Japan. Before Reagan, small retailers still existed. After Reagan, small stores had all but disappeared, giving way to huge corporate chains, and, in time, WalMart –an economic Kudzu vine that chokes out every flower in the garden.

Typically, Reagan would take credit for reforms begun under Carter. It was Carter who gave the rich a capital gains tax cut, even as he deregulated key industries like trucking and airlines. Carter also increased defense spending. I happen to think Carter ought not have done that! But, to his credit, he didn’t muck it up nearly as much as did Reagan who sold his soul for the elite GOP base of robber barons and other vote buyers! The moral of the story is this: don’t sell your soul to the GOP robber barons. They don’t appreciate it and will support a card-carrying “seed pod” like Reagan or Bush anyway.

The era was largely characterized by the undo influence of corporate PACs which forced Congress to pass pro-business/anti-individual, anti-family legislation. Supply siders believed it would trickle down. Like Bush’s war on Iraq, it didn’t work out as planned. The nation was plunged into the worst depression since WWII.

The GOP would love to fight another cold war. The “commies” were shooting back like the misnamed “insurgents”, “terrorists” or whatever they are called this week. Much is made of the demoralized military. What had they to be demoralized about? They were no longer slogging through the swamps in Viet Nam and they had to yet been sent to Lebanon by Ronald Reagan. All in all, the enlisted person, under Carter, had it a helluva lot better than do soldiers under either Ronald Reagan who dispatched them to Lebanon to be blown up in a Marine Barracks or under Bush who has them mired and dehumanized in Iraq. Has anyone bothered to check out the suicide rates of returning servicemen.

(CBS) Some of America’s 25 million veterans face their biggest fight when they return home from the battlefield — when they take on mental illness.

And, a CBS News analysis reveals they lose that battle, and take their own lives, at a clip described by various experts as “stunning” and “alarming,” according to Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian. One called it a “hidden epidemic.”

He says no one had ever counted just how many suicides there are nationwide among those who had served in the military — until now.

The five-month CBS News probe, based upon a detailed analysis of data obtained from death records from 2004 and 2005, found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 as non-vets.

A recent Veteran Affairs Department estimate says some 5,000 ex-servicemen and women will commit suicide this year, largely as a result of mental health issues, and Keteyian says, “Our numbers are much higher than that, overall.”

CBS News: Vets’ Suicide Rate “Stunning”

Goppers have been known to opine: …cleaning up after Carter’s utter incompetence was messy. In fact, there was nothing to clean up. There was, in fact, nothing for Reagan to do but screw up and screw up he did! See my article: Reagan was no hero but he played one in a movie

Let’s set the record straight about another pernicious myth. Ronald reagan had nothing to do with the fall of communism. A great statesman– Mikhail Gorbachev deserves the credit for withdrawing nuclear weapons from Eastern Europe which he did entirely upon his own initiative. Gorbachev was the architect of Perestroika and, later, Glasnost. Reagan merely followed the leader. And, as I have pointed out: Ronald Reagan Blew the World’s Last Chance for Peace! Rank and file goppers will find reasons not to believe anything unflattering about Reagan but that’s not the same thing as refuting anything that I have ever written in my admittedly Quixotic quest to set the record straight. That’s because, under Reagan, the GOP became not merely a crime syndicate, it became a kooky cult.

The methods that cults use can be used by anyone in any group setting and can be thought of as a “Management system” or a technique of motivation. Thus there is a benefit to applying this knowledge in other areas.

ISOLATION

An obvious way a cult does this is through isolation from other social networks. The extreme of a cult does not have to be applied. If this is applied to a work setting then the stated rule is “This is work. Leave the other parts of life at the door.” Likewise the person can go home and leave work at work. The result is a “work personality” and a “home personality”.

ENLIST THEM IN A CAUSE

Nothing is quite so motivating than to be involved in a glorious cause. To do this make the success of the group linked to the individuals success. Make the cause lofty and ideal and progressive always on the wave of the future.

DESCRIBE FOR THEM THE QUALITIES OF A “GOOD SOLDIER”

Once you’ve enlisted them in a cause you can now tell them how best to serve the cause. By describing the qualities of “good soldier” you create an ideal of behavior. On the one hand it’s important to point out qualities that they already have to affirm their part in the cause. But it’s also important to describe qualities that they will have to work to develop. These qualities can be actual behaviors or they can values that you wish to impose on them. Either way you are holding them to an ideal and letting them know that they play a vital role in the cause.

DRILL THE “GOOD SOLDIER” INTO EXISTENCE

A cult may do this process with intense drills and exercises that emphasize the qualities and values of a good soldier. They will create scenarios and situations where these qualities can be tested and followed up with feedback and correction when needed. You can do this in a management setting much the same way. The goal is to make them WANT to bring on this new personality and do it without prompting. This is done mostly by creating a high standard and through a subtle application of rewards and punishment.

CREATE A GROUP MYTH

Nothing will solidify the new personality than getting a group of “good soldiers” together and having them work with some great purpose in mind. By getting your employee, staff, cult member involved in a group and putting them into action as a group you help create an “esprit de corp” that unifies them and helps solidify the newly created personality. Thus, find tasks that your group can do together. It could be a project, a field trip or anything where they have to work together as a group.

Every one of these tactics can be used and applied in your business and social settings.

If your response to this is to recoil at the idea of using cult strategies then stop it. These strategies are used all the time in many different setting and situations. A good manager is a person who would make a good cult leader if they choose to do it.

The benefits of this strategy include highly motivated people who support the team and, when needed, can put work on hold to develop a personal life.

How cults create an artificial personality in their followers

Having been brainwashed by a kooky cult, goppers will never hold the GOP to the standard that is applied to Democrats. The GOP does not merely lie about Reagan, its members lie to themselves. It makes them feel better about themselves.

  <!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

Add to Technorati Favorites

  , , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:

—>

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Advertisements

Hoover’s plan to abolish Habeas Corpus linked to his ‘closet’ lifestyle

January 18, 2008

An Administration of Lies, BS, and Bunkum

January 6, 2008

The Probable Cause to charge George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in connection with 911

Bush expects the American people to believe an assortment of absurdities, official conspiracy theories, and bald-faced lies. Americans are expected to swallow codswallop for which there is not a shred of evidence. Trickle-down or supply side economics is one. Bush’s official conspiracy theory of 911 is another. Bush loves conspiracy theories. He just doesn’t like yours; he doesn’t like facts and he especially doesn’t like dissent or criticism.

The GOP doesn’t really not believe in conspiracy theories. Goppers love those conspiracies they can exploit, like wedge issues used to divide a “conspiratorial” opposition. Like Bush, the GOP loves conspiracy theories and have bought into every absurd theory Bush has managed to excrete and publicize.

What is Al Qaeda if not a “conspiracy”?

What is the “Axis of Evil” if not a conspiracy?

What was Hani Hanjour and Atta doing if not conspiring? Conspire is about all they could do. They most certainly could not have crashed airliners with uncanny precision. They most certainly could not have gotten on board an airliner without showing up on a flight manifest. In fact, they didn’t. The implications are enormous.

They most certainly could not have subdued the crew and passengers with box cutters and/or pen knives. I’ve always found it interesting the conspiracists inside the venerable BBC and the Guardian turned up several “Islamic conspirators” who somehow survived the said crashes to give interviews. It’s amazing what dead conspirators are capable of doing. Did the America media touch this. Not a chance. Fox as well as the so-called “legitimate”, mainstream media simply walked away from what should have been front-page, second coming headlines exposing the biggest government fraud ever perpetrated in the US.

Curious about how our esteemed system of justice feels about “conspiracy theories”, I did a cursory net search. On Findlaw, I found well over 200 SCOTUS decisions having to do with “conspiracies” of one sort or another. Would some bright and informed right-winger, please inform the justices of the Supreme Court that conspiracies don’t exist? It would save the aging justices a lot of work.

Go to Findlaw! You will find thousands of US Codes having to do with conspiracies. I also found hundreds, possibly thousands (I did not count) of articles by legal scholars having to do with conspiracies. I find it appalling that Congress would spend so much time passing laws having to do with things that do not exist!

Right wing idiots spent the better part of the 1950’s warning us of a great world wide communist conspiracy. Now the same ilk, the same mentality is trying to convince us that conspiracies don’t exist. You have a right to be confused. The right wing certainly is. The right wing has surely been drinking lead laced kool-aid, a practice known to kill brain cells. It was the same mentality that in the fifties tried to convince us that there was a nationwide, liberal conspiracy to lace municipal water supplies with flouride. There was –and it was a good thing, too. Otherwise, a lot of young, spiffy, buttoned-down conservatives would be toothless by now.

In the 50’s right wing nuts and other idiots found a commie under every sofa when all the commies really wanted was a sofa under every commie. What was that if not a world-wide communist conspiracy? Today –the right wing is reduced to trying to convince us that there is a conspiracy of conspiracists to spread conspiracies.

But, in the meantime, we are expected to believe every conspiracy about al Qaeda, bin Laden, the mis-named “insurgency”, or Michael Moore.

Asking the question: why did Bush block several investigations of 911 does not posit a theory of any sort. But daring to ask that question will get you labeled: conspiracist !

Asking the question: why were the jets not scrambled until after the events were all over does not posit any theory whatsoever. But daring to ask the question will get you branded. Supporters of GWB get to indulge insane conspiracy and other types of cockamamie claptrap. Those who don’t support Bush are supposed to just shut up, bend over, get screwed, and shut the fnck up! There is a dangerous conspiracy among Americans to speak the truth. In the past, speaking the truth was enough to get you murdered and/or assassinated. It still is!

The truly skeptical position is one of challenging anything put forward not only by the Bush administration but the party with which he has conspired to steal at least two elections, block investigations into 911, and, in other ways, facilitate Bush’s incompetent and dictatorial regime.

If Bush and the GOP have a theory about how the now deceased bin Laden, Atta et all pulled it all off on 911, then let them back it all up with a truly independent investigation empowered to collect and examine all the hard evidence and prosecute the “conspirators”. I would start with those who ordered most of it destroyed within hours of the commission of this crime. Last time I checked, the destruction of evidence of a felony is a felony. But I’m a “conspiracy theorists” for having dared read the law with regard to the obstruction of justice, seditious treason, and perjury. In fact, I would support a “conspiracy” of federal grand jurors issuing subpoenas, giving the real conspirators their chance to lie their assess off about the conspiracy of which they were a part.

Bush asked us to believe that Saddam had WMD, possibly a nuke. Condo raised the specter of a mushroom cloud. Saddam, we were led to believe, was conspiring with Bin Laden to wage war on Americans. It was bullshit! But Bush was not held to critical standards. It was not only because the nation was in a state of shock, Americans, it would seem, are conditioned from birth to give greater weight to right wing theories of all sorts –economic, judicial, and conspiracy. In the GOP bizzarro world, only liberals and Democrats may put forward a “theory”. The GOP takes a crap and it is considered sacred text.

At last, some 184 un-identified remains were buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery � the nation’s most prestigious burial ground � holding the unidentified remains.[emphasis mine, LH]

–Arlington National Cemetery

Of the 184, sixty-four were said to have been passengers of Flight 77, the flight which is said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons. This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers. On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the �hijackers� of Flight 77.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identifies nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were �passengers� on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell �victims� bodies from �hijacker� bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

–Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

The numbers will never add up. Arlington National Cemetary says it interred 184. But AFIP says there were a total of 189 bodies –125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were �passengers� on flight 77. Arlington claims that the unidentified remains of 184 victims share a grave at Arlington National Cemetery.

A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery � the nation’s most prestigious burial ground � holding the unidentified remains.

Arlington National Cemetary

I interpret that to mean that this “shared grave” is the final resting place for unidentified victims from both the Pentagon and Flight 77.

Five are unaccounted for –presumably the “terrorist” hijackers. But that does not account for the discrepancy for several reasons. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers. AFIP provided a list of 56 passengers of Flight 77. That”s only 120! If you exclude 5 terrorists from the AFIP’s total of 189, you are still left with 64 “people” completely unaccounted for. Who the hell are they?

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American [Airlines] the opportunity to �revise� their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only �passenger� body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

–Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

These are just a tiny few of the myriad of facts that Bush loyalists cannot explain away or rationalize with the official conspiracy theory. The silver bullet is this: there were no arabs on the flight manifests when “officialdom” maintains that all the said hijackers were Arab.

Johnny Cochran won a famous murder trial with a single phrase which summed up his defense: “If it does not fit, you must acquit!” I rather think that a guilty party might be indicted just as simply: “No arabs on flight! You must indict!”

If there was no hijacking, then Bush and minions are murderous liars! Even if Bush did not order the strikes, his administration is –at the very least –complicit. An accessory to a crime –in this case a capital crime –must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. There is enough verifiable evidence in the public record to establish probable cause that Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and several others in the corrupt Bush administration knew that such a crime had been planned –and did absolutely nothing! Well, almost nothing. Condoleeza Rice most certainly warned the mayor of San Francisco not to fly. It is, likewise, Bush’s own version of his activities that day that should be considered by a jury whose task it will be to decide his fate. At the very least, the case against them will say, they let it happen. They allowed allowed and planned to exploit the deaths of some 3000 American citizens whose only crime was showing up for work that day.

Who, then, is responsible for the events of 911? As I wrote in a previous article: if you want to find a cultprit, look first among those who lie about the crime. Bush!

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

, , , ,

<!—
Spread the word:

—>
yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine


How the GOP Abuses Language to Cloak its Criminal Political Agenda

December 14, 2007

Let’s make a few things clear at the start. “Water boarding” is not “harsh interrogation” nor is it an “enhanced interrogation technique”. It’s bloody torture. “Water boarding” was invented by the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition –expert in such matters –called it what is: tortura del aqua. In English: Water Torture! I suggest that GOPPERS persisting in playing stupid word games submit themselves to tortura del aqua. Afterward, I will be happy to debate the issue with them.

My comments are in response to the latest GOP absurdity from GOP Senator Kit Bond who likened Water Boarding to “swimming the backstroke”:

GWEN IFILL: I just would like to — but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?

SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It’s like swimming, freestyle, backstroke.

GOP Senator Says Waterboarding Is “Like Swimming, Freestyle, the backstroke.

The fact of the matter is the GOP deliberately masks its real and heinous intentions with euphemisms and code words –techniques designed to simply change the subject, like “re-framing“, itself a “euphemism” designed to hide GOP intentions to deceive.

That’s why I wrote a “A New American Lexicon” for my business and political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it raised a storm among Democrats in Washington, DC, and in the blogosphere, who accused me of the worst kind of spin. They say I’m manipulating the debate in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a pro-business, pro-freedom agenda.

–Frank I. Luntz, The Lexicon of Political Clout

I have news for Luntz. Indeed, he is complicit in GOP intentions to deceive the American people. This is a subject about which I have some personal experience. For a brief period of time, as a result of my fairly extensive experience as a major market broadcast journalist, I “hired out” to big corporations to include Shell Oil, Exxon-Mobil, DuPont, HCA and Humana. My job was to teach their top executives how to “bridge” from unpleasant topics to company “lines”, a process called “staying on message”. I quit doing this for reasons of conscience. “Bridging” itself is a euphemism for changing the subject; staying on message a euphemism for avoiding the issue. I wrote manuals about this. And later burned them.

The GOP will not debate because it dare not debate. It dare not deal in fact. The GOP, like the corporate flacks who support and inspire them, dare not deal with issues because the issues are against them. When corporate/GOP flacks are not lying outright, they lie by spinning. The GOP conducts “campaign schools” where “campaign manuals” instruct potential candidates with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It is disastrous for the nation that the GOP has made more malevolent use of those techniques than have the people’s radicals for whom it was all intended. It was Alinsky who advised: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Torture is among the most pernicious issues obscured by the Bush administration’s application of deceptive, right wing techniques. Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq is another. Never the war on terrorism that it was called, it is rather, a war of naked aggression, a war crime, a violation of Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Convention.

The Bush administration and the GOP generate euphemisms by the dozens to help shield the American people from the harsh realities of their foreign and domestic policies. Euphemisms like �collateral civilian casualties,� are some the most disgusting examples of using words to remove the life from something and turn it into a non-issue. Most Americans who would hear, �We regret any collateral civilian casualties,� would probably not think about what that statement really means. �Collateral civilian casualties� is of course a nice way to say �killing innocent people.�

Propaganda Machine tools: Euphemisms

Social Security is another. Luntz, a self-described practitioner of these new psycho-socio linguistic techniques employs them himself in defense of Bush’s attempt to dismantle the only governmental program that is an unqualified success: Social Security.

I have encouraged supporters of Social Security reform to counter such inaccuracies by talking about how the president’s plan “personalizes” Social Security. When you personalize something, whether monogrammed towels or Social Security, you enhance ownership by allowing the owner to leave his or her mark on it. In this case, personalizing Social Security means partial ownership of our retirement. Instead of Washington making all the decisions, we will personally determine how a portion of our retirement savings should be invested.

–Frank I. Luntz, The Lexicon of Political Clout

Let’s take this bit of re-framing apart. First of all, he even puts into quotes a new label, in fact, a new “frame”. He wants you to believe that Bush’s plan would “personalize” Social Security. How does giving your money to a Wall Street insider who gives you a worthless piece of paper in exchange “personalizing” Social Security? It isn’t. Who would you trust –the only government program that “turns a profit” or a Wall Street insider whose only interest is the money to be made from it? What Luntz does not tell you is that it’s your money already. It’s already “personalized”.

We don’t need the government to “personalize” or, in any other way, put its stamp of approval upon our right to the money that we have earned. It has been GOP regimes primarilythat have raided the Social Security trust fund since 1980. It was the profligate regimes of Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr and now Bush Jr that have manufactured the crisis by routinely raiding the “Social Security Trust Fund” to gloss over GOP deficits. Ronald Reagan alone doubled the size of the federal bureaucracy and tripled the national debt. But for that fact, Social Security might not be in trouble.

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere�either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

–Sheldon L. Richman, The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Or –the government just raids the Social Security trust fund. The GOP philosophy is this: break Social Security so that the party can justify abolishing it or worse “fixing” by using it’s “failures” as excuse to enrich their Wall Street cronies. The GOP war on Social Security endangers not only the “security” of millions of Americans, it endangers to their lives, health, and well-being.

“Broken” is another term with which the right wing hopes to “frame” the Social Security debate. Social Security might have been running a surplus were it not for GOP greed and incompetence. At last, turning Social Security over to Wall Street is not “personalizing” your retirement. That’s the frame. What it is, in fact, is a payoff to Wall Street for its support of the GOP. The GOP/Wall Street insiders will make a killing off your money. Facts from the “no frame zone”.

The practice of journalism has succumbed to the right wing onslaught not only because most media has been bought out by the ideologues. Working journalists, who should know better, will write about “true facts” when writing about Bush.

He cited more facts (true or not, no reason to start believing anything he says now) than he has ever used in a speech. Second he remained particularly defiant.

Radio Left

Facts are, by definition, true. Secondly, I am hard pressed to name an instance in which Bush has uttered a “fact” –true or otherwise described, if that’s possible.

What Democratic strategists can learn from Luntz is to pay closer attention to crafting the language of political discourse, a pivotal factor in GOP victories of recent years. If we keep our language clear and straight, the GOP will be regarded as the party of equivocation.

Ruy Teixeira’s Donkey Rising

But will they? Issue framing is now practiced by armchair consultants and both parties are tarred. Focus groups are, in fact, consulted by both parties. Key words and phrases are tested for their effect. The holy grail is the sound byte distributed via various media. The media may be blamed for having conditioned the public, but our educational institutions must be held responsible for not having encouraged critical attitudes, for having failed to provide the cognitive skills necessary to cut through the crap. In summary, “water boarding” is not harsh or enhanced interrogation, it’s torture, a war crime, as is the war of aggression against the people of Iraq. Privitizing Social Security is not “personalizing” it; it’s another way the GOP pays off its base.


100 Examples of GOP Corruption, Lies, and Ignorance

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Cowboy’s Shared News Items



Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

How Bush is Different From Every Other Worst President Ever!

December 10, 2007

Since 1948, historians and lay folk have ranked US Presidents. At various times, Nixon and Andrew Johnson have topped the list. Now, the game is over. The decision is in. The very worst President in American history is George W. Bush. Alone among “worst” Presidents, Bush has tried to overthrow and subvert the government of our Constitution and replace it with a dictatorship in which both courts and legislature –if either are to exist at all –are expected merely to kowtow to his wishes.

At the same time, the rights of habeas corpus and due process so carefully crafted by James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, are wiped away with an imperious decision. If because you oppose Bush, you are declared either a traitor or a terrorist, you may be imprisoned without trial, denied the right of counsel, a phone call, or the right to defend yourself against the charges. You may be tortured. You may be held indefinitely. You may be executed! Who would know? For centuries, this kind of high-handed rule by decree has been called tyranny. I call it tyranny now and I accuse Bush of high treason, capital crimes and subversion.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration’s “pursuit of disastrous policies.” In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton — a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

No previous president appears to have squandered the public’s trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, “a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man” and denounced the war as “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” But the swift American victory in the war, Polk’s decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush’s second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush’s reputation will probably have no such reprieve..

The Worst President in History?, One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush, Sean Wilentz, Rolling Stone

Nixon is remembered for abuses of executive power and his outright disdain for the Constitutional “separation of powers”. Like Bush, Nixon equated dissent with treason and considered critics to be threats to national security. He spied on US citizens, pried into income tax returns and considered himself above the law: “if the President does it, it is not illegal“. Nevertheless, his assaults on the Constitution pale beside those of Bush. If Bush’s various treasons are allowed to stand, he will have rendered the Constitution moot and the United States of its creation destroyed, perhaps forever. Nixon never came close, primarily because Nixon was courageously opposed by the media, the Congress and the courts. Where are those real “patriots” now? Where is courage? Where is outrage?

That he lied about Iraq�s �threat� to the United States is no unsubstantiated allegation. The recently revealed �Downing Street Memo� is the report of Britain�s� intelligence chief made to Prime Minister Blair about his trip to the United States eight months before the war in Iraq began, long before it was publicly considered.

The memo makes clear that deception and the fitting of facts to serve a military agenda was a high priority for the Bush administration. (�C� in the following is Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain�s foreign intelligence service � MI 6 � who had just returned from meetings in Washington.) �C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.�

Let us be blunt. Basing a war on �fixed� evidence is a high crime, a betrayal of the trust of the nation�s citizens. In the United States, it is grounds for impeaching the president and removing him from office.

–Huck Gutman, The Worst US President Ever?

It is interesting that “worst” Presidents always seem connected in some way with the lingering consequences of slavery. Bush’s base of support is not merely the south; demographically, it’s base is found in the “disaffected” south, the south that felt persecuted by an admittedly harsh and reactionary re-construction. But it is also the “south” that would never have abolished slavery short of Civil War.

Nixon, for example, is remembered for his “Southern Strategy”, an exploitation of bigotry if not an outright appeal to it. What had been a Democratic south (the south had hated Lincoln) has been solid “red” since the sixties. There is even some credence given the opinion that the rest of the US would have been better off if the south had gone its own way. That position, however, does not wash Northern hands of the crime of slavery, a crime against humanity if there ever was one.

The American political system has long used different groups and issues to divide people into an “us” and a “them.” The reason America remains, and has always been, a two-political-party country is that we prefer our beliefs as simple duality�black white, good bad, us them. On every issue from slavery to communism to abortion, Americans have preferred to fight rather than to compromise. Sometimes, as with slavery, this is the correct choice. Sometimes, as with the issue of abortion, the American political path makes it too easy to tear each other apart and never resolve anything.

The truth about Wallace using race as a dividing tool is that he was simply being true to the nature of the American political system.

Being on the receiving end of school-yard politics is shit. I, along with every other recipient of a bully’s pain, take a certain joy when the bully finally gets theirs. I heard a friend talking about Frank the other day�Frank is now even fatter, along with being divorced and stuck in a dead-end job. I won’t lie and say I didn’t smile at that.

When Wallace was shot, how many people saw that as just payment for his sins?

But there is also something sad about Wallace. The other virulent race-baiters from those days, like Senator Strom Thurmond, have been rehabilitated and accepted. Not George Wallace. Even though he spoke at black churches and NAACP meetings in the two decades leading up to his death, seeking to bury his past with Christian atonement, people still saw him as he had been during the Civil Rights era. The fact that Wallace said he didn’t want to meet his maker with his sins unforgiven just didn’t matter to most people.

–Jason Sanford, Weeping for Wallace: George Wallace, school-yard bullies, and how we’re all living with the politics of the new south

Bush has taken his disdain for law much further than Nixon. The Washington Post wrote recently that Bush sought “…to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta“. Bush, in fact, arrogated unto himself the right to declare anyone opposing him an “enemy combatant — two words which deprive you of the right to be told what you have been charged with, the right to retain defense counsel, the right to a “speedy trial” by an impartial jury of one’s peers.

Bush’s treatment of prisoners of war have disgraced the US and alienated the world which now sees the US as a rogue nation, a banana republic, a fascist dictatorship. As Bush is owned by large corporate support and those corporate interests that make up the Military/Industrial complex, the charge is absolutely, irrefutably true. The US, under Bush, has become a fascist dictatorship. Live with it or change it!

It was not Nixon who blazed the trail for Bush. It was Ronald Reagan, who managed to sugar coat tyranny and make incipient goppers feel good about being jingos, narrow mindeded bigots, fascists and/or militarists. Ronald Reagan put an elderly, kindly smiley face on government incompetence and criminality. The reality was worse. Perverts ran a child prostitution ring right out of the White House. A program of endemic treason, Iran/Contra armed avowed enemies as well as right wing terrorists. Not surprisingly, terrorism was worse under Reagan than under any Democratic administration since WWII. Terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes.

Ronald Reagan clearly has become the sort of polarizing figure that Franklin Roosevelt was for an earlier generation�or, perhaps a better way to understand the phenomenon is that Reagan has become the personification of the pole opposite to Roosevelt. That polarization is evident in historians� evaluations of George W. Bush�s presidency. �If one believes Bush is a �good� president (or great),� one poll respondent noted, he or she �would necessarily also believe Reagan to be a pretty good president.� They also tend to despise Roosevelt. �There is no indication,� one historian said of Bush, �that he has advisors who are closet communist traitors as FDR had. Based on his record to date, history is likely to judge him as one of America�s greatest presidents, in the tradition of Washington and Lincoln.�

–History News Network, Historians vs. George W. Bush

Bush claims the right to ignore those parts of the law with which he disagrees. He rules by decree. He exploits the fatal flaw in the US political system. The Supreme Court has typically given “Presidents” a free hand in the conduct of national defense, particularly in times of “war”, a flaw merely waiting to be exploited by a demagogue, a would-be Buzz Windrip!

Bush would manufacture a phony war on terrorism and, in the period of panic that followed, the would ram through the Congress his own “enabling act”, given the Orwellian monicker: Patriot Act. In rare cases, the court’s have, at last, rebuked Bush’s policies with regard to the treatment of “detainees” –another Orwellian euphemism for “Bush kidnap victims”. The court has, at least, indicated how far the criminal Bush administration has subverted the very rule of law. Among numerous “worst Presidents”, Bush alone tried to destroy the United States of America and succeeded.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Cowboy’s Shared News Items





Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Five flagrant, fallacies Bush exploits to wage illegal war, demonize his critics, and subvert the rule of law

October 28, 2007

All the "Conspiracy Theories" About George W. Bush have come true

October 13, 2007

The Emerging US World Police State

October 11, 2007

While Petraeus Read Bush’s Lies, Iraq Burned and Terrorism Grew Worse

September 13, 2007

The war on Iraq threatens the US Economy as mass murder ceases to be profitable

August 19, 2007