[KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
wessr at onid.orst.edu
wessr at onid.orst.edu
Fri Sep 19 20:06:50 EDT 2014
Ed, thanks. I also like the idea of a narrative. The left needs a good
one. Even though the right has dominated political discourse in the
country for a generation, they seem to have a narrative built around
"big government" as antagonist in which the problem is always failing
to go far enough to the right. It seems to work better than anything
from the left.
BURKE says all questions are leading questions (PLF 67). The point is
to pose questions that shape the agenda. The right seems much better
at this. The key is to be strategic, as in a chess game, make a move
now that pays off later. For decades, the right has made the debt a
focal point. The payoff is coming now, with the argument to cut
entitlements, not because they are bad but because we can't afford them.
The Democrats have drifted to the right by accepting the right's
premises but by trying to proceed to kinder, gentler conclusions. For
example: Clinton's line, "the era of big government is over." By going
along with the right's premises for short-term election gains, the
Democrats have in the long-term become a party that doesn't seem to
have a real political project, at least when compared to the right.
Even when the Democrats are in power (as in recent years), the right
controls what gets talked about. The rhetorical ineptness of the
Democrats is at least partly responsible.
Bob
Quoting Clarke Rountree <rountrj at uah.edu>:
> Ed,
>
> You should open a political consulting firm for progressives! They could
> use your advice, not for a short-term win, but for a long-term change.
>
> Clarke
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob and All,
>>
>> Thanks to Professor Soetaert for his follow-up on my post about
>> Terrence Deacon?s ?Symbol Concept? and Deacon?s research and thought in
>> general. As I indicated, I want to get back later with more on Deacon?s
>> relevance to Burke studies. I?ll forward that post to Professor Deacon.
>>
>> Here, I?m responding more directly to Bob Wess?s query about what
>> political points I?d want to see emphasized via ?trivial [or maybe not so
>> trivial] repetition and dull, daily reinforcement.? I?ll keep in mind Chip
>> and Dan Heath?s book, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
>> (New York: Random House, 2007), as I go. The Heath?s recommend that we aim
>> for SUCCESS, that is, a message that?s simple, unexpected, concrete,
>> credible, emotional, and story-containing. Forget about the extra ?S.?
>>
>> Here?s the simple mnemonically-memorable (I would hope) summary of
>> salient points I think we need to repeat again and again and again:
>>
>> ?Corporate control and exploitation for themselves of World trade;
>> Wages, taxes, and debt; Wars of choice; and the Warming of our planet are
>> destroying the American Dream and a liveable future for ?The People.??
>>
>> The mnemonic repetition of the ?W? in ?World trade,? ?Wages,?
>> ?Wars,? and ?Warming planet? invests the statement with a sermon-like
>> catchiness that can serve to reinforce, make easy-to-recall, this summary
>> of the dire problems the ?bad guys,? the counteragents, the ?Corporate
>> Interests,? are foisting on ?The People? of USAmerica. I choose Ralph
>> Nader?s pejorative ?Corporate? for the dislogistic pole in the dialectic
>> because it insulates considerably against the counter-charge of ?class
>> warfare? that something like the ?1 percent? would invite. We would not be
>> inveighing against the financial incentive per se that capitalist orthodoxy
>> says fuels our economic engine, just its current grossly unfair and
>> unbalanced operations.
>>
>> I choose ?The People? as the eulogistic pole in this dramatic
>> opposition for the reasons Our Hero argued for it in his 1935 speech to the
>> American Writers Congress (Simons and Melia, The Legacy of Kenneth Burke,
>> 1989, pp. 267-273). In summary, ?The People? is inclusive, untied to any
>> given type of employment, and un-class warfareish.
>>
>> Now, what about a storyline? Here?s a shortened version:
>>
>> ?Once upon a time, in the post-World War II, post-Roosevelt U.S.,
>> an American---call him Joe Assembly Line---could graduate from high school,
>> get a factory job, marry, and raise a family on one income.
>>
>> ?Why not today? Because so-call ?American? corporations have
>> bribed our politicians to fix the system in their favor; sold Joe out to
>> cheap foreign labor; pledged allegiance to the one-world marketplace, with
>> its bloated profits and offshore tax havens; thumbed their nose at shared
>> sacrifice and equal taxation, to the tune of an immense national debt; and
>> said to the planet that?s dying under their greed, ?Go stick it!??
>>
>> Is that emotional enough? Can it be made concrete and credible?
>> Easily available documentation, ad infinitum and searingly specific, awaits.
>>
>> The ?unexpected?? Not sure about that. But there is a sharp
>> turnaround in Joe Assembly Line?s fortunes in this scenario, and it did not
>> take long. I dare say HE wasn?t expecting it.
>>
>> Greg Desilet and I suggested a modification of Burke?s call for
>> ?comedy? in symbolic action and human relations (RSQ, 2011, Number 4). In
>> time of war, or a credible threat of war on our nation, adopt the form of
>> an arpeggio (first, part-chord or discord, then chord, in succession, not
>> simultaneously). Mobilize with rhetorical tragedy, then shift to
>> rhetorical comedy when conditions appear propitious. And, following
>> Burke?s prescription in ?The Rhetoric of Hitler?s ?Battle,?? ultimately
>> scapegoat the opponent?s scapegoating itself, not adversaries per se.
>>
>> Here, I?m enjoining employment of hard-nosed melodrama at the
>> start, before an ultimate shift back to the Burkean comedy of inclusion.
>> (No death or banishment for all time in melodrama, only sharp political
>> defeat.) An awareness of our own complicit part in much of these global,
>> economic, political, and social dislocations is required as background,
>> even if not initially put front and center. An attitude of charity, though
>> sublimated at first, can at least temper our discursive fury. As Burke
>> said, we can use any dramatic framing, as long as we internally, at least,
>> ?discount for language? and its extravagant incentives.
>>
>> That?s my counsel, you nationally significant ?leftists?---both of
>> you!
>>
>> Have a nice weekend.
>>
>> ,
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> P.S. Do you think what?s happening now is something of a reprise
>> of 2003, not with the same level of duplicity necessarily, but with
>> corporate interests, focused in Middle Eastern oil, still pulling the
>> strings?
>>
>> I ask.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Thu, 9/18/14, Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com> wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
>> To: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>, "HERBERT W. SIMONS" <
>> hsimons at temple.edu>
>> Cc: kb at kbjournal.org
>> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014, 11:41 AM
>>
>> Carrol,, Herb, and All,
>>
>> Carrol, I may be guilty of underplaying
>> Democratic malfeasance in all this, but I think you are
>> overplaying the matter with the ?Democrats are the more
>> effective evil? theme. Thomas Frank may be near to
>> your view, and substantially correct, if he?s suggesting
>> that Democrats are only ?MARGINALLY better? than
>> Republicans. But I would caution that the Dems are
>> still ?marginally BETTER.?
>>
>> Take the Iraq war. (As Henny
>> Youngman might say, PLEASE!) I have a hard time
>> believing, if the judicial coup of 2000 had not occurred,
>> and he had been awarded the presidency, that Al Gore would
>> have taken us into that disastrous conflict. The
>> Afghanistan fiasco might have transpired, but Iraq?
>> Not likely. (We had to do something in
>> Afghanistan. The scapegoat motive was just too
>> intense. I think a Burkean ought to realize
>> that. Air strikes and covert/commando raids should
>> have been the MO, not all out warfare and nation
>> building. But, sadly, the requisite temperament for
>> such restraint is not usually inherent in viable, ambitious,
>> presidential aspirants.)
>>
>> You?re right to condemn Carter on
>> deregulation and Clinton on NAFTA (and CAFTA), and you could
>> add Clinton?s signing off on the gutting of Roosevelt?s
>> reform of investment banking. But Clinton and the Dems
>> did raise taxes in 1993 (without one Republican vote), which
>> brought budget surpluses and a temporary halt to our
>> downward slide into horrendous debt. Can we call that
>> successful effort just another facet of the ?more
>> effective evil? of these sly Democrats?
>>
>> And remember, too, the historic pressure
>> on Democrats to take on something of the coloration of
>> conservatism, as the 60-or-so-year political pendulum swing
>> began to turn rightward after the upheavals of the
>> 1960s. Just as Dewey, Eisenhower, and even Nixon
>> weren?t all that conservative by today?s standards (they
>> had to go a bit with the zeitgeist, as well), a turn toward
>> the center was perhaps inevitable for a Democrat to get
>> elected president in the 1990s. Let?s shift some of
>> the blame to global trends and conditions, while we?re at
>> it. (Doesn?t that make me a respectable, orthodox
>> postmodernist?)
>>
>> As for making Elizabeth Warren part of
>> this ?axis of political evil? you reference, give me a
>> break. Talk about pressure to wink at Israel?s
>> ?crimes? in Gaza: It?s far stronger even than not
>> treating Iraq as a wasteful, mendacious misadventure in
>> which our troops died ?in vain.? I don?t think I
>> need to go into all the reasons why. The word
>> ?Holocaust? serves as a good start.
>>
>> Let?s pull this discussion back toward
>> Burke before we invoke a reprimand. I spoke of the
>> power of the scapegoat mechanism that even a Burkean
>> ?comedian? can?t totally ignore. Let me add that
>> my initial post on ?trivial repetition? and ?dull,
>> daily reinforcement? points in the direction of a
>> rhetorical dilemma I have not yet explored: How can a
>> political leader without a death wish repeat and repeat and
>> repeat again a position on the issues I think need to be
>> highlighted, when those accusations will indict virtually
>> everybody, all the usual suspects having dirty hands to one
>> degree or another? We may need something along the
>> lines of, ?Choosing a Rhetoric of the Enemy: Kenneth
>> Burke?s Comic Frame, Warrantable Outrage, and the Problem
>> of Scapegoating, Part II.?
>> Herb?s ?Requirements, Problems, and
>> Strategies? quandary comes to mind.
>>
>> As tightwad Jack Benny, when confronted
>> with the challenge, ?your money or your life,? after a
>> long pause, would say: ?I?m thinking, I?m
>> thinking.?
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Thu, 9/18/14, HERBERT W. SIMONS <hsimons at temple.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily
>> Reenforcement"
>> To: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> Cc: kb at kbjournal.org
>> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014, 7:55 AM
>>
>> very
>> perceptive. YES, there's a pattern here.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at
>> 4:13 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> At 84
>> I've given up out-living the Age of Neoliberalism. One
>> of my reasons for this glum conclusion is the
>> preponderance among men and women of good will of the
>> views
>> expressed by Ed Appel below, which he nicely summarizes in
>> the following words: ". . . what?s happen, by
>> DELIBERATE policy on one side of the aisle, and culpable
>> acquiescence on the other, to USAmerican jobs, USAmerican
>> taxation, and USAmerican debt. . . ."
>>
>>
>>
>> This is, I fear, the standard liberal understanding of the
>> Democratic Party: They see that party as
>> "opportunist," "cowardly," even
>> "stupid." They fail to see that the DP is, as Glen
>> Ford of Black Agenda puts it, "The More Effective
>> Evil." It is the DP, primarily, that has determined
>> U.S. policy over the last half century. (Consider the
>> analogy to "Good Cop / Bad Cop." It is the Good
>> Cop (the DP) who does the real damage. Three acts by the
>> Carter Administration marked the all-out assault on the
>> working people of the U.S.:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Carter's virtual signing of of Bishop Romero's
>> Death Sentence
>>
>> 2) The Deregulation of Air lines and trucking
>>
>> 3) The appointment of Volcker as Fed Chairman
>>
>>
>>
>> Subsequent administrations have but filled in the dots.
>> Some
>> of the high poits:
>>
>>
>>
>> Reagan's crushing of PATCO
>>
>> Clinton's pushing through of NAFTA
>>
>> Clinton's Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism
>> Act
>>
>> Unanimous Congressional Approval of Afghanistan and Iraq
>> aggressions
>>
>> Senator Warren's aggressive support of Israel War
>> Crimes
>>
>>
>>
>> As to Obama, he richly exemplifies Noam Chomsky's
>> observation that "War Criminal" is part of the job
>> description of U.S. presidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed is certainly correct that no Left exists in the U.S.
>> Earmarks of a hypothetical Left:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Liquidate the Prison System
>>
>> 2. Withdraw all U.S. troops from the world
>>
>> 3. No U.S. Foreign Aid (it is all open or disguised
>> military
>> aid to tyrannies)
>>
>> 4. Open Borders. No human is Illegal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: kb-bounces at kbjournal.org
>> [mailto:kb-bounces at kbjournal.org]
>> On Behalf Of Edward C Appel
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:58 PM
>>
>> To: wessr at onid.orst.edu
>>
>> Cc: kb at kbjournal.org
>>
>> Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition,"
>> "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob and All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your list for ?trivial repetition and dull,
>> daily reinforcement? by the left would be as good as
>> mine. Maybe we could start by taking a cue from Teddy
>> Roosevelt, much on the agenda at PBS the last three
>> nights. TR comes across as a ridiculous,
>> I?m-altogether-right-and-you?re-altogether-wrong,
>> heroism-obsessed blowhard in some ways, but as also a
>> great
>> man, great leader, and great egalitarian spirit, as
>> well.
>> (Not perfectly egalitarian, for sure, but wondrously so
>> for
>> his time.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Roosevelt?s mantra about the Constitution
>> being for the good of the people as a whole, rather than
>> vice versa, a strait jacket into whose supposedly tight
>> 18th-century constraints all contemporary common sense has
>> to be bound, should be our guiding principle, too (see
>> Burke
>> on the ?Dialectic of Constitutions,? GM).
>>
>>
>>
>> The first question I?d ask, though, is,
>> where
>> do we find the USAmerican political ?left? I know one
>> place I can find the left-wing US commentariat. See the
>> amalgam of voices gathered together on CommonDreams.org,
>> for
>> instance. But among our political leaders? Maybe
>> Warren
>> and Sanders, but even Sanders echoes Obama on the taxation
>> question: The wealthy ought to be paying ?a little bit
>> more.? A LITTLE bit more? When their contribution to
>> the commonweal has gone from 51 percent of earnings 60
>> years
>> ago to about 16 percent today, less than the average
>> middle-class earner? When average CEO pay has burgeoned
>> from 40 to 1 to 400 to 1 in respect to average salaries in
>> a
>> given industry in the past three to four decades? When a
>> candidate for the presidency can get away with disclosing
>> one, and only one, tax return, at 13 percent (!), and
>> still
>> run for that highest and supposedly exemplary office, and
>> get away with it?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don?t see much of a ?political left?
>> in
>> our nation, or much of a sense of what a ?political
>> left? should look like, among our citizenry. (See
>> Donald
>> Barlett and James Steele, The Betrayal of the American
>> Dream, for requisite numbers; see Thomas Frank, What?s
>> the
>> Matter with Kansas, on how Democrats have become only
>> ?marginally better? than Republicans; see a study by
>> Martin Gilens [Princeton] and Benjamin Page [Northwestern]
>> on how ??the preferences of the average American
>> appear
>> to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically
>> non-significant impact upon public policy,??
>> [?Disease
>> of American Democracy,? Robert Reich, 8/21/14], as the
>> result of the takeover of political outcomes by
>> Congress?s
>> and the executive?s corporate paymasters.)
>>
>>
>>
>> But, if we had a ?political left? of some
>> dimensions (let?s fantasize!), what would be the three
>> most salient issue-positions I?d recommend a strong,
>> repetitive, dull, daily emphasis upon? It would be the
>> two
>> I recommended in ?Democratic Narrative? and in my post
>> on the nefarious Iraq War, to wit:
>>
>>
>>
>> Drum home ?agaaaiiinnn and aggaaaiiinnn and
>> agaaaiiinnn? (I can hear FDR exclaiming it!) what?s
>> happen, by DELIBERATE policy on one side of the aisle, and
>> culpable acquiescence on the other, to USAmerican jobs,
>> USAmerican taxation, and USAmerican debt, over the last
>> three and a half decades. American jobs have been
>> exported
>> to low-wage sweat shops in Asia, Indonesia, Mexico, and
>> beyond, to the economic benefit of the entrepreneurial
>> class, who can then sell their products to consumers
>> worldwide. They don?t need Americans to make their
>> goods, nor do they need them as much to buy their goods.
>> Manufacture cheap and sell across the globe. You lose
>> your
>> high-paying factory job as a result? Go work for
>> McDonalds!
>>
>>
>>
>> And while we?re at it, let?s cut taxes to
>> the bone. ?Starve the beast!? As Reagan insiders
>> Donald Stockman and Bruce Bartlett have revealed, the idea
>> was to cut taxes to such an extent, and run up deficits so
>> onerous, Congress and some future administration would be
>> forced to dismantle the ?welfare state.? George W.
>> Bush admirably followed suit, at the outset of his dubious
>> war, no less!---and there?s reported evidence on things
>> that Bush privately said that indicate he was just as
>> deliberate. (See Venomous Speech: Problems with American
>> Political Discourse on the Right and Left, pp. 109-116,
>> for
>> ample documentation.)
>>
>> Democrats left fingerprints over all of this
>> chicanery, as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Who?s got clean-enough hands to pound home
>> this narrative, repeatedly, in our day, and the political
>> courage to boot?
>>
>>
>>
>> More, later, on the other two mantras, and how
>> Heath and Heath might simplify the tale---and on the
>> "identification" angle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Mon, 9/15/14, wessr at onid.orst.edu
>> <wessr at onid.orst.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition,"
>> "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
>>
>> To: "Edward C Appel" <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
>>
>> Cc: kb at kbjournal.org
>>
>> Date: Monday, September 15, 2014, 9:58 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed, Burke is surely right
>>
>> about the power of repetition. The
>>
>> advertising industry leaves no room for doubt about
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> What
>>
>> identifications might the left try to repeat ad
>> nauseam?
>>
>>
>>
>> What might Burke advise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Burkophiles,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I asked in a
>>
>> chapter in Praeger?s Venomous Speech last year,
>> ?Where
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is the Democratic Narrative, FDR
>>
>> Style?? That piece had mainly to
>>
>> >
>>
>> do with the polemical malfeasance of the Dems in
>> dealing
>> with, > rhetorically pretty much ignoring, what
>> globalization has done to > aggravate the income gap
>> in
>> USAmerica the past three and a half > decades.
>> (Tax
>> policies are culpable, too, we know, in multiple >
>> ways.) Senator Warren appeared on Moyers on PBS last
>> Sunday. She > listed four Democratic proposals
>> she
>> thinks are winning issues going > into the Fall
>> elections. Moyers asked her why, then, aren?t we
>> >
>> hearing more about them from Democratic candidates and
>> their > spokespersons? Warren really had no good
>> answer.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Burke says in
>>
>> the Rhetoric (p. 26), ?Often we must think of >
>> rhetoric not in terms of one particular address, but as
>> a
>> general > BODY OF IDENTIFICATIONS that owe their
>> convincingness much more to
>>
>>
>>
>> > trivial repetition and dull daily
>>
>> reenforcement than to exceptional
>>
>> >
>>
>> rhetorical skill? (emphasis in original).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I monitor Fox
>>
>> News daily. That propaganda network masquerading as
>> > a news channel (I know, we can say the same thing
>> about MSNBC) is > near-fanatically repetitive in
>> promoting its conservative,
>>
>>
>>
>> > anti-Obama agenda. Fox is
>>
>> relentless. Case in point: Bill O?Reilly > has
>> invidiously targeted the President in his opening
>> ?memo? for as > many nights as I can
>> remember.
>> Another: Wish I had even one dollar > for every
>> time
>> I?ve watched our consulate in Benghazi burn on my
>> > Channel 48. They don?t let up.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Add this mantra to the list: Bush 2
>> ?won? our righteous ?War on > Terror? with
>> the surge in Iraq. Obama came into office, took our
>> > troops out of that country, and now has ?lost?
>> a
>> war that Bush, > Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz
>> had
>> brought a U.S. victory and peace > to!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The
>>
>> rhetorically inept, more accurately altogether missing,
>>
>>
>>
>> > response by Obama in his ?leading
>>
>> from behind? speech on Wednesday,
>>
>> >
>>
>> and in his fumbling precursors to that address, are
>> dispiriting.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> First and foremost, Obama was and is uniquely
>> situated to > characterize the Iraq War for what it
>> plainly was: A mendacious > military adventure,
>> foisted
>> on USAmerica by subterfuge and > deception, a
>> cynical exploitation of the shock of 9/11, not merely a
>>
>>
>>
>> > ?dumb war.? Fifteen Saudis and
>>
>> four Egyptians, under the leadership
>>
>> >
>>
>> of a wealthy Saudi, trained in Afghanistan, highjacked
>> four > commercial jetliners and perpetrated the
>> mayhem of that frightful > day. Saddam, we knew
>> even
>> then, had nothing to do with it. Nor did > his
>> chemical weapons, if they even had existed and they
>> didn?t, nor > did his so-called ?mushroom
>> cloud? potential, pose any real threat > to this
>> nation. Again, we knew even then that Iraq?s
>> nuclear
>> > ambitions, even if real, were as yet no more than
>> hope, if not > fantasy. And, for anyone paying
>> attention, the Bush-Cheney > fear-mongering had
>> already been shot down in an op-ed in the NYTimes >
>> by Ambassador Wilson, and by clear-headed reporting
>> > by the McClatchy News Service.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > So, what happened after waste of a
>> trillion
>> dollars (it will be > three trillion or more after
>> medical expenditures are exhausted a > half-century
>> from now), loss of thousands of American lives, tens
>> of
>> > thousands of maimings and woundings, and
>> destruction
>> and shattering > of this jerry-built nation of
>> warring sects that only a tyrant like > Saddam could
>> hold together?what happened after the candidate who
>> > promised to end the Iraq War came to power? He
>> stopped calling the
>>
>>
>>
>> > war what it really was and started
>>
>> treating it pretty much like a
>>
>> >
>>
>> somewhat legitimate enterprise we had to bring to an
>> end
>>
>>
>>
>> > ?responsibly.? Obama was even
>>
>> planning to keep fifty thousand (or
>>
>> >
>>
>> was it eighty thousand?) troops in Iraq in perpetuity,
>> before > al-Maliki said ?no way?
>>
>> to our insistence on military immunity. > (And
>> Obama
>> doesn?t even defend himself on that issue.) >
>> >
>>
>> You may object that Obama had to metamorphose into
>> a ?war > president,? since he was then
>> Commander-in-Chief. Can?t in any way > imply that
>> our soldiers died in vain in a conflict subversively
>> > motivated by oil, Israel, Bush family
>> score-settling,
>> or plans for > victorious re-election in 2004 by a
>> flight-jacketed president after > ?Mission
>> Accomplished.?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Upshot: There exists a corrupt
>>
>> context to what Obama and USAmerica
>>
>> >
>>
>> face in the current chaos of the Middle East. It is
>> a
>> context that > requires repetition and more
>> repetition still by leadership that has > some
>> semblance of the near-self -destructive insanity of
>> America?s > vaunted ?War on Terror.? As he
>> takes us into yet another phase of > this
>> resource-draining, quick-sand tugging, tar-baby of a
>> conflict, > someone with a megaphone has to stand
>> up
>> and shout down the McCains > and Foxies who current
>> occupy the rhetorical terrain uncontestred.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I have no hope that Obama?s the
>>
>> one.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Ed
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> > KB mailing list
>>
>> > KB at kbjournal.org
>>
>> > http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> KB mailing list
>>
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>>
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> KB mailing list
>>
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>>
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Herbert W.
>> Simons, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of
>> Communication
>> Dep't of Strategic
>> Communication, Weiss Hall 215
>> Temple
>> University, Philadelphia 19122
>> Home phone:
>> 215 844 5969
>> http://astro.temple.edu/~hsimons
>> Academic Fellow, Center for Transformative
>> Strategic Initiatives (CTSI)
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Clarke Rountree
> Chair and Professor of Communication Arts
> 342 Morton Hall
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Huntsville, AL 35899
> 256-824-6646
> clarke.rountree at uah.edu
>
More information about the KB
mailing list