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.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Happenstance
I watched an interesting movie this past weekend. It was called Happenstance (known in French as Le Battement d'ailes du papillon), and it starred Audrey Tautou, the same French actress of Amelie fame. The movie was similar to Sliding Doors, a movie starring Gwyneth Paltrow from the late 90s.
Both explore the idea of how the smallest, most insignificant things can have a huge affect on the outcome of our lives. It's an interesting idea, and one that has always intriged me. What if one moment in your life was timed just a bit differently? Would you be the same person that you are today, and if not, how would your life be different? It's an interesting question to ponder.
The two movies, while similar, explore the idea of fate a bit differently. In Sliding Doors, everything depends on whether or not Gwyneth Paltrow's character makes a particular train, and the movie shows how her life ends up in both situations. Happenstance, on the other hand, shows a series of connected events among several seemingly unrelated characters, all culminating in a final meeting of Audrey Tautou's character and her soul mate.
I'd definitely recommend seeing both of them. However, if you don't know French, or at least don't want to read subtitles, you may not really enjoy Happenstance.
Both explore the idea of how the smallest, most insignificant things can have a huge affect on the outcome of our lives. It's an interesting idea, and one that has always intriged me. What if one moment in your life was timed just a bit differently? Would you be the same person that you are today, and if not, how would your life be different? It's an interesting question to ponder.
The two movies, while similar, explore the idea of fate a bit differently. In Sliding Doors, everything depends on whether or not Gwyneth Paltrow's character makes a particular train, and the movie shows how her life ends up in both situations. Happenstance, on the other hand, shows a series of connected events among several seemingly unrelated characters, all culminating in a final meeting of Audrey Tautou's character and her soul mate.
I'd definitely recommend seeing both of them. However, if you don't know French, or at least don't want to read subtitles, you may not really enjoy Happenstance.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Liberals want to ban the bible?
I heard something disturbing the other day. Apparently the republican national committee (RNC) has circulated ads in Arkansas and West Virgina promoting the idea that if liberals are elected (read between the lines: Kerry and Edwards are elected), the bible will be banned. They get this message across by showing an image of the bible with the word "banned" across it as well as showing two men in a marriage ceremony with the word "allowed" across it. Can I just ask one question - when the hell did the RNC start being run by second graders? It's like the return of cooties or something. "Ooooh, run away - they're k-i-s-s-i-n-g! Cooties for you!"
I feel like the world suddenly flipped upside down and normally rational people suddenly believe that the world is flat. Or in this case, that they at the very least believe that the world is black and white. Let me break it to you - the world ain't black and white, and if you think it is you have some serious growing up to do.
I'm extremely tired of the republican party trying to draw liberals as Godless souls from whom the country must be safeguarded by Christian crusaiders. I happen to be Christian and liberal - true story. Here's the thing - I believe in what I believe; however, I don't force my beliefs on anyone else because we have a little thing in this country called freedom of religion. That basically means that no one religion trumps any other, and that those who do not believe in anything are free to do so.
If someone is curious and asks me about being a Lutheran, I'll share with them. But I don't take out an ad and send it to everyone with what I believe. I let my actions speak by being a considerate person, treating other people with respect, caring for my family and friends, not judging people who are different from me, and being a good citizen. I'm not perfect, but God knows that doesn't expect perfection because I am human.
Encarta says, "the function of government is to secure the common welfare of the members of the social aggregate over which it exercises control." I tend to agree with that assessment, so I guess I just don't understand why our constitution has to be backed by conservative Christian beliefs. Why not Buddhist beliefs? Or how about Muslim beliefs? I hear that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - so by democratic standards, wouldn't that make a majority?
The fact is that we have a large and diverse population in this country, and it isn't fair to impose one group's standards on every other group. I can go on living my life with my husband without fearing that a same sex couple next door is somehow going to derail existence as I know it. Likewise, although I couldn't go through with an abortion, I would never make that call for another woman because that's not my decision to make. Until that baby is developed enough to exist on it's own outside of the mother, it's none of my business - end of story.
I just wish people could get past moral issues like that and realize that those issues can't be governed by public policy. We have an ideal of separation of religion and state in this country, and that is a wonderful thing. We need to work to preserve that separation so that we don't end up with a theocracy - a fate which would put us in a government similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under Khomeini. Um - no thanks - I think I'll stick with democracy. Oh, and I'll ask those people who tout their pride in America while trying to rule with religion to grow up and make the distinction that liberals aren't anti religion or anti American, or anything of the sort. We're just here trying to make this country a wonderful place for all Americans, regardless of age, race, religious affiliation, economic standing, gender, sexual preference, and so on.
I feel like the world suddenly flipped upside down and normally rational people suddenly believe that the world is flat. Or in this case, that they at the very least believe that the world is black and white. Let me break it to you - the world ain't black and white, and if you think it is you have some serious growing up to do.
I'm extremely tired of the republican party trying to draw liberals as Godless souls from whom the country must be safeguarded by Christian crusaiders. I happen to be Christian and liberal - true story. Here's the thing - I believe in what I believe; however, I don't force my beliefs on anyone else because we have a little thing in this country called freedom of religion. That basically means that no one religion trumps any other, and that those who do not believe in anything are free to do so.
If someone is curious and asks me about being a Lutheran, I'll share with them. But I don't take out an ad and send it to everyone with what I believe. I let my actions speak by being a considerate person, treating other people with respect, caring for my family and friends, not judging people who are different from me, and being a good citizen. I'm not perfect, but God knows that doesn't expect perfection because I am human.
Encarta says, "the function of government is to secure the common welfare of the members of the social aggregate over which it exercises control." I tend to agree with that assessment, so I guess I just don't understand why our constitution has to be backed by conservative Christian beliefs. Why not Buddhist beliefs? Or how about Muslim beliefs? I hear that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - so by democratic standards, wouldn't that make a majority?
The fact is that we have a large and diverse population in this country, and it isn't fair to impose one group's standards on every other group. I can go on living my life with my husband without fearing that a same sex couple next door is somehow going to derail existence as I know it. Likewise, although I couldn't go through with an abortion, I would never make that call for another woman because that's not my decision to make. Until that baby is developed enough to exist on it's own outside of the mother, it's none of my business - end of story.
I just wish people could get past moral issues like that and realize that those issues can't be governed by public policy. We have an ideal of separation of religion and state in this country, and that is a wonderful thing. We need to work to preserve that separation so that we don't end up with a theocracy - a fate which would put us in a government similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under Khomeini. Um - no thanks - I think I'll stick with democracy. Oh, and I'll ask those people who tout their pride in America while trying to rule with religion to grow up and make the distinction that liberals aren't anti religion or anti American, or anything of the sort. We're just here trying to make this country a wonderful place for all Americans, regardless of age, race, religious affiliation, economic standing, gender, sexual preference, and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
