Over the last four years, I've had a growing concern about the increase of über nationalism in our country. Especially concerning is the current attitude of unquestionable loyalty to the people in power at the cost of the rest of the nation.
A friend sent me a link to a Web site that highlights the following 14 points common to past fascist regimes (i.e. Hitler, Mussolini, etc.):
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the miliary
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government are intertwined
9. Corporate power is protected
10. Labor power is suppressed
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections
Do yourself a favor and go to the site. It has a great explanation of each of those points, including links to information backing up how the Bush administration falls in line with them. If you care about the future of our nation, you need to read this and realize where we're headed - before it's too late. We have the benefit of hindsight here people!
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
George Lakoff's book is worth a read
Another interesting article for you: Winning Words on the Sierra Club Web site. I've been reading George Lakoff's new book, Don't Think of an Elephant and I'm really enjoying it. I've been coming up with all kinds of new ways to frame issues based on the stuff I learned. The article I've linked to is just a sampling of the information he covers in the book. Below I give you a little summary of what he talks about, but do yourself a favor and read it.
Lakoff asserts that conservatives are brilliant with the way they frame issues, which is why so many people end up supporting them even if the politicians and policies they are supporting end up only helping big business and the wealthy in the end. It isn't that people are stupid (well some are, but that's another subject - my opinion, not Lakoff's)); it's that they make associations based on the framing of what they hear.
A few decades ago, the republican party started putting a lot of money into figuring out how to frame their issues. Progressives need to learn a lesson and start figuring out how to frame issues in ways that people can understand, because obviously our pointing to facts and figures isn't changing the average American mind (as evidenced by the fact that approximately 1/2 the nation is still supporting Bush as the election nears).
Lakoff explains that people relate to politics in two ways, which he calls the strict father and the nurturant parent. He explains a bit about both of these things in the article, and they are helpful to understanding how people use frames to understand issues.
Take taxes for example. Republicans throw around the term "tax relief" all the time. By using the word "relief" in relation to taxes, they are creating an idea of taxes as a burden and something that people need to be protected from paying. Automatically there is a relationship built between those two words and suddenly taxes become a bad thing, even though we know that we need taxes to pay for things like roads and schools. Some other stupid things that republicans have framed well are No Child Left Behind, Clean Skies, Healthy Forests, etc. - these are all horrible in reality, but they sound good and most people don't have the time or want to delve any deeper than the name. "Clean skies - why that sounds great!" despite the fact that Clean Skies has actually led to more pollution.
So there you have it - a very brief description of Lakoff and framing.
Lakoff asserts that conservatives are brilliant with the way they frame issues, which is why so many people end up supporting them even if the politicians and policies they are supporting end up only helping big business and the wealthy in the end. It isn't that people are stupid (well some are, but that's another subject - my opinion, not Lakoff's)); it's that they make associations based on the framing of what they hear.
A few decades ago, the republican party started putting a lot of money into figuring out how to frame their issues. Progressives need to learn a lesson and start figuring out how to frame issues in ways that people can understand, because obviously our pointing to facts and figures isn't changing the average American mind (as evidenced by the fact that approximately 1/2 the nation is still supporting Bush as the election nears).
Lakoff explains that people relate to politics in two ways, which he calls the strict father and the nurturant parent. He explains a bit about both of these things in the article, and they are helpful to understanding how people use frames to understand issues.
Take taxes for example. Republicans throw around the term "tax relief" all the time. By using the word "relief" in relation to taxes, they are creating an idea of taxes as a burden and something that people need to be protected from paying. Automatically there is a relationship built between those two words and suddenly taxes become a bad thing, even though we know that we need taxes to pay for things like roads and schools. Some other stupid things that republicans have framed well are No Child Left Behind, Clean Skies, Healthy Forests, etc. - these are all horrible in reality, but they sound good and most people don't have the time or want to delve any deeper than the name. "Clean skies - why that sounds great!" despite the fact that Clean Skies has actually led to more pollution.
So there you have it - a very brief description of Lakoff and framing.
Awesome opinion piece about the state of the nation
While reading this piece, We're Being Gaslighted, I found myself saying, "EXACTLY!", "RIGHT ON SISTER!", and so on. Oddly enough, this is written by an actual sister; Joan Chittister is a nun and best selling author. This particular opinion piece is just what we need to think about as we near election time. On a side note - check out some of the other stuff they have on their site - very interesting and timely.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Jon Stewart is awesome on Crossfire
I just have to say that I love Jon Stewart! Take a look at the clip of him confronting the hosts of Crossfire about their shoddy coverage - it's great! I especially love that the hosts completely missed the whole friggin point he had - that they should do a better job of giving us the information that we need. The kept telling him that he's more funny on his show, etc. Well, duh! Of course he is. He wasn't trying to be funny on Crossfire; he was trying to make a point. Someone needs to give those guys a pink slip if they're that dumb.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Political ads
I just watched a great program called Up Front with Robert Mak. The program reviewed several political ads making a rotation over the last few weeks, and gave information about whether the claims made in the ads were plausable.
The one that interested me most was one from George Nethercutt. He has been showing an ad of one of our current senators, Patty Murray, giving a speech at a school. In the ad, he shows a short clip of her explaining that Osama bin Laden has built roads, schools, hospitals, etc. and has made people's lives better. I was immediately suspicious about the context from which the clip came. Patty Murray is a wonderful senator and I knew that she couldn't possibly be making a statement that she liked Osama bin Laden. I had a feeling that it must have come from a larger analysis of why people follow bin Laden, which is something we desperately need to do to understand how to combat the problem at the source.
In the program, they asked Nethercutt whether he had taken her content out of context, and he said that he had watched the whole tape of her appearance at the school and did not take that clip out of context. Thankfully, Up Front showed over a minute of Patty Murray's speech from that day and I found out that my intuition was right. The statements that Nethercutt shows in the ad is just a short section from which Murray was talking about how to deal with situations such as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The full context of what she was saying about bin Laden specifically, was why people follow him. She pointed out that he has done certain things to make their lives better, and in areas that are so poor, a little bit goes a long way. She compared the cost of the war in those areas to the cost of building infrastructure there - both of which are very expensive tasks, but one of which would help to win the people (by giving them things that they desperately need) and that wouldn't cost lives. She admits that it's not a simple question to answer, but asks the students to think about alternatives and consequences to our current path.
I'm glad that Up Front showed a larger clip of her talk because I think it's important to know what these politicians are trying to pull over on us. All of the ads they showed had some questionable facts or statements to them, so it's just a good reminder to ignore the spin and look at the people and what they do when you're making a decision.
The one that interested me most was one from George Nethercutt. He has been showing an ad of one of our current senators, Patty Murray, giving a speech at a school. In the ad, he shows a short clip of her explaining that Osama bin Laden has built roads, schools, hospitals, etc. and has made people's lives better. I was immediately suspicious about the context from which the clip came. Patty Murray is a wonderful senator and I knew that she couldn't possibly be making a statement that she liked Osama bin Laden. I had a feeling that it must have come from a larger analysis of why people follow bin Laden, which is something we desperately need to do to understand how to combat the problem at the source.
In the program, they asked Nethercutt whether he had taken her content out of context, and he said that he had watched the whole tape of her appearance at the school and did not take that clip out of context. Thankfully, Up Front showed over a minute of Patty Murray's speech from that day and I found out that my intuition was right. The statements that Nethercutt shows in the ad is just a short section from which Murray was talking about how to deal with situations such as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The full context of what she was saying about bin Laden specifically, was why people follow him. She pointed out that he has done certain things to make their lives better, and in areas that are so poor, a little bit goes a long way. She compared the cost of the war in those areas to the cost of building infrastructure there - both of which are very expensive tasks, but one of which would help to win the people (by giving them things that they desperately need) and that wouldn't cost lives. She admits that it's not a simple question to answer, but asks the students to think about alternatives and consequences to our current path.
I'm glad that Up Front showed a larger clip of her talk because I think it's important to know what these politicians are trying to pull over on us. All of the ads they showed had some questionable facts or statements to them, so it's just a good reminder to ignore the spin and look at the people and what they do when you're making a decision.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Little black dress
I have two late fall/early winter weddings to go to this year. It's a bit odd, since I think I've only been to two weddings at this time of year in my entire life, and suddenly I have two in the same year. Go figure.
Anyway, the problem that I have is that my lovely summer dress that I wore to numerous occasions (including a wedding and a 25th wedding anniversary party) won't really cut it for this time of year. If I wore it, I'd be likely to freeze my buns off.
I've looked online at all of the wonderful dresses out there, and of course the ones that I like are all several hundred dollars. I happen to be a big fan of Laundry by Shelli Segal dresses, but I really can't afford one right now.
Aside from the cost, I really need to just go to the mall and try some dresses on. I've found that some dresses that look lovely in theory are actually terrible when I put them on. It all has to do with body shape and finding the right style for you - not the stick thin models they use to show off the dresses.
It's times like these when I think men have it easier. Mind you, I love being a woman and being able to dress up all girly, but men have a pretty straight forward choice for weddings, no matter what time of year. Usually, the standard choice is a nice suit or pair of slacks and a nice button up shirt. And you can usually figure out which one of the two to go with depending on the time of day that the wedding is going to be held.
But with dresses, there are so many more to chose from, so many different colors, lengths, fabrics, etc.; and not all of them are suitable for various times of the day. Ugh. My head is spinning, how about yours? Well, it looks like I'm going to need to look for a new little black dress. I had one awhile back, but lost a lot of weight and now need to get something that fits properly. But certainly, the little black dress is the answer to my problem this time around.
Anyway, the problem that I have is that my lovely summer dress that I wore to numerous occasions (including a wedding and a 25th wedding anniversary party) won't really cut it for this time of year. If I wore it, I'd be likely to freeze my buns off.
I've looked online at all of the wonderful dresses out there, and of course the ones that I like are all several hundred dollars. I happen to be a big fan of Laundry by Shelli Segal dresses, but I really can't afford one right now.
Aside from the cost, I really need to just go to the mall and try some dresses on. I've found that some dresses that look lovely in theory are actually terrible when I put them on. It all has to do with body shape and finding the right style for you - not the stick thin models they use to show off the dresses.
It's times like these when I think men have it easier. Mind you, I love being a woman and being able to dress up all girly, but men have a pretty straight forward choice for weddings, no matter what time of year. Usually, the standard choice is a nice suit or pair of slacks and a nice button up shirt. And you can usually figure out which one of the two to go with depending on the time of day that the wedding is going to be held.
But with dresses, there are so many more to chose from, so many different colors, lengths, fabrics, etc.; and not all of them are suitable for various times of the day. Ugh. My head is spinning, how about yours? Well, it looks like I'm going to need to look for a new little black dress. I had one awhile back, but lost a lot of weight and now need to get something that fits properly. But certainly, the little black dress is the answer to my problem this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
