A Level Gaze

A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg

Monday, October 27, 2003

One More Voice

I usually don't post items that are sure to see a lot of exposure on the very popular blogs, but after following the link at this post over at Eschaton, I just wanna go to the rooftop and join in.

George Lakoff is the shit. Yes, "this guy gets it." From even a brief reading it's very apparent that he "gets" just about everything:

You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

So what should they be calling it?

It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues — you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.

So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism.

It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country — the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.

Every single democrat needs to read this guy. You're gonna get hit; you should know why and how. Maybe we could start giving the right's garbage the respect it deserves.

Seriously, go.

posted by David at 10/27/2003 10:31:00 PM ::

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Rumsfeld: We Are Unprepared To Fight Terror

In an October 16 memo to top Department of Defense officials, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a shocking revelation:

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

(emphasis mine)

To recap: the Department of Defense is not capable of successfully fighting terrorism.

Among many, many others, this statement raises the rather obvious question: Why are we using a very expensive tool for a job that it is incapable of doing?

Does this mean we can contemptuously ignore any and all administration statements that tell us how well the war on terror is going? I think so.

posted by David at 10/22/2003 09:49:00 AM ::

Monday, October 20, 2003

I don't get it

So all we needed to do was tell the North Koreans we wouldn't attack them? That's it? If we were going to do so, say, to derail their nuclear or missile programs, would we tell them ahead of time?

Our actions in Iraq seem to have seriously ruffled Kim Jong-Il's feathers. I don't think this is going to be enough for him. Look for more noise from that quadrant soon.

All our impotent chest-thumping has accomplished is to underscore yet again the benefits of having nuclear weapons.

posted by David at 10/20/2003 08:02:00 AM ::

Sunday, October 19, 2003

Mark Driver

Tbogg's mention of Mark Driver prompts me to say something I've been meaning to say for a long time. Mark Driver is one of the best writers on the web. If you don't know him, and click on the link, I'm really jealous of your next several hours.

It helps if you read them in order.

posted by David at 10/19/2003 10:31:00 PM ::

Saturday, October 11, 2003

Like a bad penny

Nearly a year ago, following the midterm elections, I made a crack about how democrats need to show some leadership if they're ever going to get the public behind them, to wit:

Giddyap Horse!

I'm deeply grateful to Media Whores Online for all the long hours of sleuthing they(?) put in, and for their valiant efforts to push the other side back, even if it's just a bit.

They had some items today that have me scratching my head though:

But do not adopt the media whore/Naderite narrative: Democrats lost because they don't stand for anything, and Tuesday proved they must move to the left in order to energize their base.
That sounds like exactly what we need to be doing. If we don't move left, we're in the mushy center, which is practically the definition of not standing for anything.

The problem for Democrats was not that more would have been motivated to vote if only Democrats had opposed war with Iraq more strongly or proposed repealing the disastrous Bush tax cuts, the consequences of which are not yet clear to most. While most Americans are uncertain about war with Iraq, it was not an exploitable issue by itself. The truth is, Tuesday's characteristically pathetic voter turnout supports the point that most Americans don't care at the moment whether it happens or not, and they couldn't be made to care in time. As for proposing a repeal of tax cuts - vigorously opposing them before they take place is a winning position, repealing them isn't.
Repealing that god-awful insult of a tax cut isn't a winning position? I beg your pardon? It wasn't all that long ago we could energize people by saying something like 'they're gonna take your money and give it to, of all people the rich! America, is that what you want?' With repetition and coordination, it would have sunk in and won us a lot of races.

Yes, this debacle of an election is the media's fault. But it's our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it.

Otherwise, let's just give up and leave the fray to Nader.

This prompted Armed Liberal to comment. A few days ago, my referral log started hopping with it again, in the context of, as he put it, liberals' "underlying position of obnoxious superiority."

Dave Yaseen, of the usually smart blog A Level Gaze, posts what I pray to Woodie Guthrie is a slip of the liberal tongue. His post concludes:
Yes, this debacle of an election is the media's fault. But it's our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it.

(emphasis mine)

Well, damn. That's the way to reach the poor uneducated voter and get them onto your side...

Comments like mine are taken to be one of the Big Things wrong with the left--we supposedly think we're smarter than everyone else and aren't too shy to say so. Well, I stand by the sentiment, even if the phrasing was heavy-handed, and a bit off. What was I trying to say there? Does anybody to the left of Limbaugh really believe I meant to round up all the stupid "little people" and forcefully indoctrinate them in the ways of proper thinking? What was I referring to?

It was, and still is, about leadership. It was about getting out from under the calculatedly stupid tutelage of DLC-minded types who urge us to swing towards the center and co-opt the less egregious positions of our opponents as a winning strategy. I'll admit such tactics occasionally work, but then we wind up holding our noses while our leadership does things like vote to give Dubyah the authority to invade Iraq.

Besides, where did the other side get their positions in the first place? Did they go to the public and hear an outcry for lower taxes for the rich? Did the majority of American people tell republican pollsters they wanted a return to massive defecits that would gravely imperil the future of Social Security and Medicare? Did the electorate tell them they were sick and tired of the onerous burden of environmental stewardship? It's at least somewhat plausible they did, because that's what a lot of them voted for. But it isn't true; republicans listened to the special interests that pay their bills, formulated a platform, and sold it to the public. They led.

And how do we respond? We make tentative policy proposals, and back down the second the other side starts wailing about it. Then we slap together some not-quite-as-bad-as-the-other-guy platform and wonder why there's no voter loyalty behind us, no passion. What Clinton tried to do back in his first term with health care, that's what I want to see more of. Sure the right cranked up the Mighty Wurlitzer and screamed it down. But at least he did something. Does anybody think it's "arrogant" to make an initiative to bring free health care to the people, as is the case in every other industrialized country in the world?

There's a reason we call them leaders. It's because they lead. We choose one person to represent a whole bunch of others. I'd like to presume that at least some of the basis of the choice of representatives has to do with the person's knowledge of the interests of his/her constituents, and his/her having some idea of how to address them. It's plain that voters can be manipulated, and that there are powerful vested interests that work very hard to move policy in a direction contrary to the interests of the majority. Over time, this propaganda gets into people's heads, and takes on a life of its own.

Most people are too busy living their lives to examine the whole spectrum of thought about every issue and formulate the policies that they know will bring them the best results. Ask a lot of people in this country what they want out of their leadership, and they'll regurgitate right wing talking points to you, because that's what they hear. From the left, they've heard nothing coherent or concrete. When we try to put something together, we're shouted down as elitists. It's a double standard, and it's crap. Maybe we need to change our tone (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), but we need to do our own thinking and communicate the results of it forcefully.

There's nothing "arrogant" about the people whose job it is to come up with policy initiatives actually doing so. This isn't about "dragging" the voters somewhere bad for them; it's about holding up our end of the tug-of-war against the machinery of the right.

UPDATE: Changed above. Avedon didn't comment on liberals' "underlying position of obnoxious superiority," Armed Liberal did. My bad (again).

posted by David at 10/11/2003 01:00:00 PM ::

Friday, October 10, 2003

Russia to price oil in euros in snub to US

Can anybody out there tell me how big a deal this is?

Russia is to start pricing its huge oil and gas exports in euros instead of dollars as part of a stragetic shift to forge closer ties with the European Union.

The Russian central bank has been amassing euros since early 2002, increasing the euro share of its $65 billion (£40 billion) foreign reserves from 10pc to more than 25pc, according to the finance ministry.

***

Oil is seen as so central to the global power structure that the choice of currency used for pricing has acquired almost totemic significance. The switch from pounds to dollars after the Second World War has come to symbolise sterling's demise as a world reserve currency.

If the dollar were ever displaced by the euro, it would lose the enormous freedom it now enjoys in running macro-economic policy. Washington would also forfeit the privilege of exchanging dollar notes for imports, worth an estimated 0.5pc of GDP.

Also, diplomatically speaking, how big a slap to the U.S. is it?

posted by David at 10/10/2003 02:53:00 PM ::

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

Get me rewrite!

Does anybody out there ever recall hearing anything like this?

Q Mr. Mayor, how confident are you the investigation will find the multiple-reckless-endangerment perpetrator in your administration?

THE MAYOR: Randy, you tell me, how many people have you seen who've recklessly endangered the lives of others that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to recklessly endanger the lives of others. And I don't know if we're going to find out the reckless endangerer in my administration. Now, this is a large city, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the felon is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the perpetrators of felony reckless endangerment. But we'll find out.

Yes, I know the crime of the leaker isn't specifically reckless endangerment, but it amounts to the same thing to a city without its own CIA.

posted by David at 10/08/2003 12:19:00 PM ::

Thursday, October 02, 2003

Lest We Forget

I'd meant to repost this on 9/11/2003, and it completely slipped my mind. It's nearly two months'-worth more a propos now:

Wednesday, September 11, 2002

I live in New York. In 1995, I worked on the 74th floor of WTC Tower #2 for six months. Like everyone else in the country and much of the world, I was stunned, shocked, shaken and angered by the events of a year ago today. All but the last of these emotions have faded by now.

I'm still angry.

Regular readers know I'm generally anti-war. I have been all my life. I always made one exception, though. I'd pick up a gun and jump right in if someone attacked the U.S. Nobody takes a shot at my country and gets away with it. The one glimmer of respect I ever had for George W. Bush came when I watched his first speech after the attacks. We were going to get those sons of bitches. We were going to hunt them down and kill them, and I couldn't have agreed more. God help me, I cheered the bastard with tears in my eyes.

But we didn't do it. One unequivocally justified course of action presented itself after 9/11, and we didn't take it. We toppled the Taliban, dropped some bombs from a safe distance, and let nearly all the Al Qaeda escape.

As we bend all of our energy and attention to effecting "regime change" in Iraq, somewhere there are people who got away with planning, staging, financing, and facilitating the attacks. Bin Laden 'isn't a priority' for us anymore. 'Maybe he's dead,' they say. We hear endless variations on the threat Iraq supposedly poses to America and its interests, and nothing about those who've already attacked us, and who have vowed to do so again. We've even seen fit to squelch any meaningful investigation of the circumstances that allowed the attack to succeed. In short, we've done next to nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice or to protect ourselves from further attacks.

It's a disgrace.

Well, at least we got Iraq taken care of.

posted by David at 10/02/2003 10:30:00 PM ::

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Spilling Perrier on the Yacht Isn't a Leak

Bush's talk about there being too many leaks in Washington really got me chuckling. All of his top officials are privacy fanatics.

W. hides his Texas gubernatorial papers and his father's vice- and presidential papers. His vice-president had big meetings to decide energy policy, and he won't even say who was in attendance. The most banal details of procedings are kept confidential for "reasons of national security." His attorney general gravely weakens the Freedom of Information Act and holds prisoners incommunicado from their lawyers in the name of the Security of the Homeland. His people suppress environmental reports and selectively cite economic data.

If you assume they're honest, they're calculating the possible damage to US public interest caused by too much information in the public sphere. If you don't assume they're honest, they're knowingly up to illegal things and trying to hide them. In either case, they're very private people.

Nondisclosure in their bones. (Plame was no accident.)

posted by David at 10/01/2003 09:48:00 PM ::

Plame Made Simple

I'd like to add a bit more flesh to the Plame case, as it seems the story is beginning to get bogged down into technical culpabilities and niggling distinctions. Which is not to say that there's any merit to any of the arguments being put forward by the administration's would-be defenders: if Novak and the Washington Post stories that broke the story are correct, at least 6 felonies have been committed by "senior administration officials." But, as the media and their adoring fans are often sidetracked away from the main point of a story by shiny (or dull) objects, I thought it might be beneficial to bring up the context in which it occurred.

You see, boys and girls, the reason the administration got mad at Joe Wilson was because he didn't like them saying the opposite of what was contained in the report they asked him to write.

Wilson saw they didn't have any worthwhile evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa, and he had just found out that the little bit of evidence they did have, which prompted them to send him to Africa in the first place, was laughably bogus. Then, in the most important speech of the year, the president puts in the part about yellowcake, implying that because of it, Iraq was an even bigger threat to us than we realized before. Wilson writes a rebuttal that was printed in the New York Times, and the White House outs his wife in retaliation.

Let's review what happened here, shall we?

1) The administration lied about the threat of Iraq and the African yellowcake business...

2) In the interest of getting us to

a) get over 300 US citizens killed and
b) kill thousands more Iraqis and
c) spend hundreds of billions of our dollars, and
d) ruin our international reputation...

in a war for which there was no justification whatsoever.

3) And when someone, the good Joe Wilson, came forward and told the truth to the best of his knowledge about the subject, they destroyed his wife's career and put possibly dozens of lives overseas at risk, not to mention committing one or more very serious crimes along the way.

The administration (certainly people within it, at least) wanted this war bad, so bad that they bent every piece of evidence they used to talk us into it. In the case of the yellowcake allegations, they bent it until it said the opposite of what Wilson's and other evidence did, until it broke and became a lie.

There is nothing remotely defensible about these leaks. People in the administration fucked Wilson because he wouldn't let them use his name to support their murderous lie. Is that simple enough for everybody?

[Edit: changed from "over 1,000" US citizens killed. That's just the number with limbs missing or other life-changing injuries.]

posted by David at 10/01/2003 05:04:00 PM ::

HOME

Links

Wednesday, September 11, 2002