[KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
Edward C Appel
edwardcappel at frontier.com
Sat Sep 20 15:45:57 EDT 2014
Clarke,
So, I should open, or should have opened, a "political consulting firm"? If I listed in a post on kb all the things I "should have done" in life, it would bring me to tears.
Bob,
Great post! You're right on the money on the debt thing. Strategically, this debt impasse is exactly what Reagan insiders say was the goal of that purposively destructive regime from the start. I hear zero Democratic voices calling it out for what it plainly was and what it continues plainly to be. And no wonder! These nonentities have gone along with the scheme, or just ignored it, for three decades.
On a more "trivial," but related, note, name one Democrat who has objected, even politely, when a Republican has hurled the insult "Democrat Party" at him or her in a debate or dialogue. I can't cite one. Democrats are like the species of spider that allows a wasp to crawl all over it before killing it and laying its eggs on the spider's belly for sustenance. What incredible whimps.
I surely don't object to Obama's caution in going to "war" or whatever against ISIS. But why can't he hammer these flame-throwers on the right for their grossly unearned opportunism? McCain has no more credibility than Cheney to lecture any Democrat on war and peace. Obama's proved to be an exceedingly weak presidential polemicist.
Ed
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/19/14, wessr at onid.orst.edu <wessr at onid.orst.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
To: "Clarke Rountree" <rountrj at uah.edu>
Cc: "Edward C Appel" <edwardcappel at frontier.com>, "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2014, 8:06 PM
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