"Framing": Argument Mechanisms for Spinners

Note: Have you listened to a political argument recently that reminds you of a logical fallacy from your freshman logic class? Something along the lines of: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The dictionary suggests the word concept: 'mu', to refer to a worthy response to these kinds of arguments.

From dictionary.com comes this definition:

2. /moo/ The correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions".

For more background on the concept, see this article about "framing"

Simple Framing: George Lakoff's tutorial on framing

Carry out the following directive:
Don't think of an elephant!

It is, of course, a directive that cannot be carried out — and that is the point. In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant. There are four morals.

Moral 1. Every word evokes a frame.
A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. The word elephant evokes a frame with an image of an elephant and certain knowledge: an elephant is a large animal (a mammal) with large floppy ears, a trunk that functions like both a nose and a hand, large stump-like legs, and so on.

Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame.
The word "trunk" as in the sentence Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk evokes the Elephant Frame and suggests that "Sam" is the name of an elephant.

Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame.

Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame.
Every frame is realized in the brain by neural circuitry. Every time a neural circuit is activated, it is strengthened.

Conservatives Know about Framing.
On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started appearing in White House communiqués to the press and in official speeches and reports by conservatives. Let us look in detail at the framing evoked by this term.

The word relief evokes a frame in which there is a blameless Afflicted Person who we identify with and who has some Affliction, some pain or harm that is imposed by some external Cause-of-pain. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, and it is brought about by some Reliever-of-pain.

The Relief frame is an instance of a more general Rescue scenario, in which there a Hero (The Reliever-of-pain), a Victim (the Afflicted), a Crime (the Affliction), A Villain (the Cause-of-affliction), and a Rescue (the Pain Relief). The Hero is inherently good, the Villain is evil, and the Victim after the Rescue owes gratitude to the Hero.

The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction (the Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of Affliction (the Villains), the taxpayer is the Afflicted Victim, and the proponents of "tax relief" are the Heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude.

Every time the phrase tax relief is used and heard or read by millions of people, the more this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced.

Last week, President Bush started using the slogan "Tax relief creates jobs." Looking at the Relief Frame, we see that afflictions and pain can be quantified, and there can be more or less relief. By the logic of framing (NOT the logic of economics!), if tax relief creates jobs, then more tax relief creates more jobs. That is just how the president has been arguing for increasing tax cuts from $350 billion to $550 billion. The new frame incorporates the old Tax Relief frame into a new TaxReliefCreatesJobs frame

Now suppose that a Democratic Senator goes on one of those Fox News shows in which there is a conservative and a liberal arguing. The way these shows work is that the conservative host states an issue using a conservative framing of that issue. The conservative host says: "President Bush has observed that more tax relief creates more jobs. You have voted against increased tax relief. Why?"

The Senator is caught. Any attempt to answer the question as asked simply reinforces both the Tax Relief Frame and the TaxReliefCreatesJobs Frame. The question builds in a conservative worldview and false "facts". Even to deny that "tax relief creates jobs" accepts the Tax Relief frame and reinforces the TaxReliefCreatesJobs frame.

The only response is to reframe. But you can't do it in a soundbite unless an appropriate Democratic language has been built up in advance. With more time, one can bridge to another frame. But that frame has to be comprehensible in advance.

Long-term Reframing
Conservatives have worked for decades to establish the metaphors of taxation as a burden, an affliction, and an unfair punishment – all of which require "relief." They have also, over decades, built up the frame in which the wealthy create jobs, and giving them more wealth creates more jobs.

The power of these frames cannot be overcome immediately. Frame development takes time and work. Democrats have to start reframing now and keep at it. Democratic reframing must express fundamental Democratic values: empathy, responsibility, fairness, community, cooperation, doing our fair share.

Progressives have to articulate over and over the moral basis for progressive taxation. They have to overcome the outrageous conservative myth that wealthy people have amassed their wealth all by themselves.

The truth is that the wealthy have received more from America than most Americans — not just wealth but the infrastructure that has allowed them to amass their wealth: banks, the Federal Reserve, the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the legal system, federally-sponsored research, patents, tax supports, the military protection of foreign investments, and much much more. American taxpayers support the infrastructure of wealth accumulation. It is only fair that those who benefit most should pay their fair share.

Reframing is telling the truth as we see it – telling it forcefully, straightforwardly, articulately, with moral conviction and without hesitation. The language must fit the conceptual reframing — a reframing from the perspective of Democratic morality. It is not just a matter of words, though the right words do help evoke a Democratic frame: paying their fair share, those who have received more, the infrastructure of wealth, and so on.

Reframing requires a rewiring of the brain. That may take an investment of time, effort, and money. The conservatives have realized that. They made the investment and it is paying off. Moral: The truth alone will not set you free. It has to be framed correctly.

Taxation is not an affliction. The president's tax cuts will not create jobs. These are truths, but negating them as we just did just reinforces his frames. The right framing for the truth must be available and used for the truth be heard.

If the truth doesn't fit the existing frame, the frame will stay in place and the truth will dissipate.

It takes time and a lot of repetition for frames to become entrenched in the very synapses of people's brains. Moreover, they have to fit together in an overall coherent way for them to make sense.

Effective framing on a single issue must be both right and sensible. That is, it must fit into a system of frames (to be sensible) and must fit one's moral worldview (to be right).

Framing vs. Spin
Every word comes with one or more frames. Most frames are unconscious and have just developed naturally and haphazardly and have come into the public's mind through common use. But, over the past 40 years, conservative Republicans — using the intellectuals in their think tanks — have consciously and strategically crafted an overall conservative worldview, with a conservative moral framework. They have also invested heavily in language — in two ways:

Language that fits their worldview, and hence evokes it whenever used. "Tax relief" is a good example.
Deceptive language, that evokes frames they don't really believe but that public approves of. Saying "Tax relief creates jobs" is an example — or referring to their environmental positions as being "clean," "healthy" and "safe."

The Rockridge Institute advises against the use of deceptive language and we will not engage in it. We belief that honest framing both accords with Democratic values and is the most effective strategy overall.

An Example
There is a bill being introduced in the California legislature that will use the state's economy of scale to purchase health care relatively cheaply for workers whose employers don't provide it. Small businesses would contribute to a state fund and be able to purchase health insurance through the state at rates previously offered only to very large businesses. The state would be helping small business compete with large businesses in this way.

The question arose as to what to call it. The issue is still not settled. Names suggested were "Play or Pay," Healthy Workers," and so on. "Play or Pay" frames it as the unions strong-arming all employers into paying. "Healthy Workers" sounds like socialist realism. The issue is not settled, but I have proposed "Earned Care." The idea is simple: If you work, part of what you earn is affordable health care.

It fits our belief system as Democrats that health care is earned by people who work. Naming matters. The naming of legislation should reflect our values.

Responding to "Tort Reform" in Texas
Conservatives have been battering progressives on what they have framed as "tort reform" – legislation to cap awards in tort cases. They have been most aggressive in Texas, where they have used the following language::
Litigation Lottery, Lawsuit Abuse, Lawsuit Abuse Tax, Frivolous Lawsuits, Greedy Trial Lawyers, Out of Control Juries, Runaway Juries, Jackpot Awards

The term "reform" is defined in the Corruption Frame, "lottery" in the Gambling Frame, and so on. Opposites are defined with respect to the frame, but given opposite values, one positive, the other, negative. When you say your opponent is frivolous, it is rhetorically implied that you are the opposite, serious. If your opponent is a gambler, then you are fiscally responsible. And so on. That's how Republicans were framing Democrats.

These words evoke frames that, as they are used in context, evoke conservative values:
You alone are responsible for whatever happens to you.
You shouldn't get what you haven't earned.
You should be disciplined, prudent, orderly.

We crafted a response that allowed the trial lawyers to take the moral high ground — in a way that fit what they believe. We took out a copy of Moral Politics and listed progressive values. Then we followed a systematic procedure:

Pick out the relevant core values for this issue.
Write down how your position follows from these values.
Articulate the facts and their consequences within this moral framing.
Define us and them within this moral frame.
Here's how the issue looks from a progressive moral perspective:

Tort law is the public's last defense against irresponsible, if not downright immoral, corporate behavior that harms the public. It is only the threat of huge punitive damages that has any effect on companies that put profit ahead of public health and well-being. Without that threat — with a small cap on awards — irresponsible companies can fold the relatively low cost of potential lawsuits into the cost of doing business and go on selling dangerous products unchecked. Public safety requires keeping the courts open for juries to make awards appropriate not just to the suffering of the victims, but to the threat to the public. It is a matter of protection.

The proposal to cap awards would effectively take the power to punish away from juries, and would make it hard for those harmed to sue, since lawyers would have a financial disincentive to take such a case. This would have the practical effect of closing off the courts to those seeking redress from corporate harm. Justice requires open courts.

The fundamental progressive values are:
We are empathetic; we care about people.
Be responsible
Help, Don't Harm
Protect the powerless

These led to the following language to describe conservative Republicans and the relevant corporations in this case:
The Corporate Immunity Act;
Corporate Raid on Responsibility;
Accountability Crisis;
Closed Courts;
The New Untouchables;
Rewards Greed and Dishonesty;
Protects the guilty, punishes the innocent.

Taking this moral-based approach changes both how you think as well as talk about tort cases and open courts:
Talk about Responsibility instead of Victimhood; about Accountability instead of Grievances; about Citizens instead of Consumers; about Open Courts instead of Money.

The Texas legislature is ovewhelmingly Republican and will not be swayed by this reframing. However, Democrats in the legislature have been given a powerful tool to express their values, the major newpapers in the state have adopted this framing enthusiastically and now support the Democrats' position, and it appears that the proposed Republicans' constitutional amendment will fail.

Communicative, Conceptual, and Moral Framing
Communication itself comes with a frame. The elements of the Communication Frame include: A message, an audience, a messenger, a medium, images, a context, and especially, higher-level moral and conceptual frames. The choice of language is, of course, vital, but it is vital because language evokes frames — moral and conceptual frames.

Frames form a system. The system has to be built up over time. It takes a long-range effort. Conservative think tanks have been at it for 40 years. Most of this system development involves moral and conceptual frames, not just communicative frames. Communicative framing involves only the lowest level of framing.

Framing is an art, though cognitive linguistics can help a lot. It needs to be done systematically.

Negative campaigns should be done in the context of positive campaigns. To avoid negating the opposition's frame and thus activating it, do the following: Start with your ideal case of the issue given. Pick frames in which your ideal case is positively valued. The contrast will attribute the negatively valued opposite quality to the opposition as a nightmare case.

- posted by Richard @ 9:48 PM

 

Incredible !!

Note: It is really incredible that a significant portion of our electorate professes to know about Chaos theory, the Heisenberg Principle, the stategic logic of suicide bombers, Guerilla warfare, binomial social and political segregations, micro-economics, employee testing, management dynamics, and modern warfare and can still support George Bush as President.

From an article in the International Herald Tribune:

"Dying to kill: The strategic logic of suicide bombers
Robert A. Pape NYT Tuesday, September 23, 2003

CHICAGO Suicide terrorism has been on the rise around the world for two decades, but there is great confusion as to why. Since many such attacks - including, of course, those of Sept. 11, 2001 - have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists professing religious motives, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause. This presumption has fueled the belief that future Sept. 11's can be avoided only by a wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which in turn was a core reason for broad public support in the United States of the invasion of Iraq.
.
However, this presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is wrongheaded, and it may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies that are likely to worsen America's situation.
.
I have spent a year compiling a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001 - 188 in all. It includes any attack in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while attempting to kill others, although I excluded attacks authorized by a national government, such as those by North Korea against the South. The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).
.
Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.
.
Three general patterns in the data support my conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of organized campaigns, not as isolated or random incidents. Of the 188 separate attacks in the period I studied, 179 could have their roots traced to large, coherent political or military campaigns.
.
Second, liberal democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists. The United States, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades, and each country has been a democracy at the time of the incidents.
.
Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective. From Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign have been terrorist groups trying to establish or maintain political self-determination by compelling a democratic power to withdraw from the territories they claim. Even Al Qaeda fits this pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, the initial major objective of Osama bin Laden was the expulsion of American troops from the Gulf.
.
Most worrisome, my research shows that the raw number of suicide attacks has been climbing at an alarming rate, even while the rates of other types of terrorism actually declined. The worldwide annual total of terrorist incidents has fallen almost in half; there were 348 attacks in 2001 as opposed to 666 incidents in 1987. Yet the number of attacks in which the terrorists intend to kill themselves along with their victims has grown from an average of three per year in the 1980s, to 10 per year in the 1990s, to more than 25 in both 2000 and 2001.
.
And in terms of casualties, suicide attacks are far and way the most efficient form of terrorism. From 1980 to 2001, suicide attacks accounted for only 3 percent of terrorist incidents, but caused almost half of total deaths due to terrorism - even if one excludes as an aberration the unusually large number of fatalities on Sept. 11, 2001.
.
How should democracies respond? In the past, they have tended to react with heavy military offensives, only to find that this tends to incite more attacks and to stir public sympathy for the terrorists without hampering their networks (this has clearly been the case in the West Bank and Chechnya). In their frustration, some terrorized countries have then changed tacks, making concessions to political causes supported by terrorists.
.
Yet this doesn't work either: One likely reason suicide terrorism has been rising so rapidly in recent years is that terrorist groups have learned that the strategy pays off. Suicide terrorists were thought to compel American and French military forces to abandon Lebanon in 1983, Israeli forces to leave most of Lebanon in 1985, Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995, and the Turkish government to grant measures of autonomy to the Kurds in the late 1990s. In all but the case of Turkey, the terrorists' political cause made far greater political gains after they resorted to suicide operations.
.
When one considers the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, it becomes clear that America's war on terrorism is heading in the wrong direction. The close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements shows the folly of any strategy centering on conquering countries that sponsor terrorism or in trying to transform their political systems. At most, occupying countries will disrupt terrorist operations in the short term. But over time it will simply increase the number of terrorists coming at America.
.
Unfortunately, negotiating concessions with the terrorists is also not a solution. The current failure of that approach in Israel is an all-too-common pattern. Concessions are usually incremental and deliberately staggered - thus they fail to satisfy the nationalist aspirations of the suicide terrorists, yet encourage terrorist leaders to see their enemies as vulnerable to coercion.
.
In the end, the best approach for the states under fire is probably to focus on their own domestic security while doing what they can to see that the least militant forces on the terrorists' side build a viable state on their own. Israel, for example, would be well advised to abandon the territory it holds on the West Bank but to go ahead with building the immense wall to physically separate it from the Palestinian population. This would create real security for Israel and leave the West Bank for a true Palestinian state.
.
For the United States, especially in light of its growing occupation of the Gulf region, it is crucial to immediately step up border and immigration controls. In the medium term, Washington should abandon its visions of empire and allow the United Nations to take over the political and economic institutions in Iraq. And in the long run, America must move toward energy independence, reducing the need for troops in the Gulf. Even if U.S. intentions in Iraq are good, the presence of Americans there will continue to help terrorist groups recruit more people willing to blow themselves up in the war against America.

The above seems so patently obvious as to not require affirmation...but millions of Americans have been sold a social bill of goods from the Bush Administration that they cannot see the forest, nor the trees...all they seem to be able to see is black and white, blue skies, and cherubic images. Here's a image these folks should see.


- posted by Richard @ 8:40 AM

 

Fighting Halts Briefly in Falluja; U.S. Convoy Hit Near Baghdad
By JOHN F. BURNS
NY Times
Published: April 10, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 9 — An American cease-fire on Friday in the besieged city of Falluja lowered at least briefly the gathering drumbeat of warfare across central and southern Iraq that has created the worst crisis of the American occupation and left hundreds of Iraqis and scores of Americans dead.

One year to the day after American troops captured Baghdad, both Sunni and Shiite insurgents continued sporadic but widespread attacks, including an ambush of fuel trucks on a highway near Falluja, just as the cease-fire began.

- posted by Richard @ 10:22 PM

 

Detailed Analysis of Public Statements by the Bush Administration: Jan - Sep 2001 regarding Terrorism and al Qaeda

Detailed Timeline of Administration Statements On National Security
From January 20 to September 10, 2001, Al Qaeda Mentioned Only Once
April 5, 2004

The Center for American Progress has compiled an exhaustive, day-by-day overview of the Bush administration's public statements on national security, defense and international issues from Jan. 20 to Sept. 10, 2001. The 50-page compilation includes all official news releases, press briefings, press availabilities, news advisories, speeches, public addresses, executive orders, and proclamations posted by the White House, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice, as well as transcripts of major media appearances by top Bush administration officials, in the eight months prior to 9/11.

While the Bush administration maintains it was focused extensively on terrorism, our analysis of 557 public statements reveals only one mention of al Qaeda by the administration over the 8-month period. Notably, this single mention of al Qaeda was found in a signed notice from President Bush continuing an executive order – issued by President Clinton – prohibiting transactions with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was mentioned only 19 times during the same period, 17 of which occurred in the context of press briefings or questions from journalists.

The record clearly shows that terrorism and the threat from al Qaeda were not on the list of priorities for the Bush administration in early 2001. At a time when al Qaeda was finalizing its plans to attack America, the Bush administration was focused on Iraq and national missile defense rather than the threat from extremist terrorist groups.

This document shows that top Bush administration officials discussed Iraq and Saddam Hussein in 104 separate statements and missile defense in 101 statements. Weapons of mass destruction were discussed in 65 separate statements, [and al Qaeda mentioned once].

The document also includes a day-by-day overview of President Bush's schedule after Aug. 6, 2001 – the day the White House received a "hair raising" warning about imminent attacks from al Qaeda.

Download in PDF: Detailed Timeline of Administration Statements On National Security From Jan. 20, 2001 to Sept. 10, 2001


- posted by Richard @ 9:05 PM

 

The Empty Room
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: April 9, 2004

Condi Rice was in Washington trying to pass her oral exam before the 9/11 commission yesterday, and the president was on vacation in Texas. As usual, they were in close agreement, this time on the fact that neither they nor anyone else in this remarkably aloof and arrogant administration is responsible for the tragic mess unfolding in Iraq, and its implications for the worldwide war on terror.

The president called Ms. Rice from his pickup truck on the ranch to tell her she had done a great job before the panel. It doesn't get more surreal than that. Mr. President, there's a war on. You might consider hopping a plane to Washington.

It's hard to imagine that the news out of Iraq could be more dreadful. After the loss of at least 634 American troops and the expenditure of countless billions of dollars, we've succeeded in getting the various Iraqi factions to hate us more than they hate each other.

The administration has no real plan on how to proceed. It doesn't know how many troops are needed. It doesn't know, in the long term, where they will come from. It doesn't know whether it can meet the June 30 deadline for turning over sovereignty to the Iraqis. (It doesn't know what sovereignty in this context even means. June 30 was an arbitrary date selected with this year's presidential campaign in mind.) It doesn't have a cadre of Iraqi leaders to accept the handoff of sovereignty. And so on.

When you open the door to get a look at the Bush policy on Iraq, you find yourself staring into an empty room. Meanwhile, people are dying.

When the president challenged Iraqi militants last summer with the now-famous taunt "bring 'em on," he betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of the horror of war in general, and the incredible complexity of the situation in Iraq.

Instead of behaving as though he is responsible, as commander in chief, for the life of every man and woman who is sent into combat, Mr. Bush has behaved on more than one occasion as though he's at the controls of a video game. He does not appear to be taking this great tragedy nearly as seriously as he should.

Perhaps if he went to a few less fund-raisers and a few more funerals . . .

One of the things soldiers on the ground in Vietnam learned is that while there were many South Vietnamese who were genuinely fearful of the Communist North and were anxious to embrace the values that the U.S. stood for, it was difficult to get them to fight for their freedom with the ferocity that the Americans expected. Among other things, we underestimated the strength of the ethnic and cultural bonds that the Vietnamese felt with one another, whatever their political inclinations.

When the Americans — foreigners — with their superior technology and firepower went to work tearing up the landscape and mowing down the enemy (not to mention the so-called collateral damage of innocent South Vietnamese civilians), any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the country at large was lost.

Now we are trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis with an unprovoked war that began with a televised bombing campaign advertised to the world as "shock and awe," and that continues with the devastating firepower of Super Cobra helicopters and laser-guided missiles.

Thousands of innocent Iraqis have died, including small children, but we don't seem to give that much thought. And we've insisted, despite profound cultural and religious differences, that we are going to install an American-style democracy, whether the various elements of the Iraqi people want it or not. And we're going to do it fast.

Mr. Bush and his advisers need to regroup and rethink this fiasco. If we were dealt this hand in a poker game, we'd fold. But with 135,000 troops on the ground and no real Iraqi government in sight, that's not an option.

It's heartbreaking to think that brave American troops have once again been put into such an untenable situation. The president, who led us into this wholly unnecessary war, has an obligation to step up and level with the American people, to take full responsibility for the current disaster and to summon help from a genuine international coalition, which is the only feasible route to a resolution in Iraq.


- posted by Richard @ 8:35 PM

 

One Good Month
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: April 9, 2004

At last, a favorable surprise on jobs: estimated payroll employment rose 308,000 in March, above almost everyone's expectations. You can't blame the administration for trying to play up the good news, and for being dismayed when the sound of popping Champagne corks was drowned out by the crackle of gunfire. But has the economy, after so many false starts, finally started to deliver?

For perspective, it helps to remember what solid job growth looks like. During Bill Clinton's eight years in office, the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average: a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were 23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy added 493,000 jobs. This tells us not to make too much of one month's data; payroll numbers are, as economists say, noisy. It also tells us that by past standards, March 2004 was nothing special

- posted by Richard @ 8:17 PM

 

Networks to Air Rice Testimony Live Thursday
Tue Apr 6, 2004 06:00 PM ET
Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The three major U.S. broadcast networks said on Tuesday they will broadcast live National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 2001 attacks.

ABC, NBC and CBS said they would go live at 9 a.m. EDT on Thursday to broadcast the appearance, which comes amid controversy over whether she failed to focus on the threat posed by al Qaeda in the weeks before the Sept. 11 2001 attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagon.

- posted by Richard @ 1:20 PM

 

Privatization: A Challenge to the Common Good

The United Church of Christ has an excellent resource booklet, in PDF format, that covers many of the current threads in the arguments for and against privatization. Check it out here for more information and faith reflections on privatization.
- posted by Richard @ 10:06 PM

 

Fighting Fundamentalism
by Anne McConney (reprinted from Episcopal Life)

...The only comfort we can take, and a cold comfort it seems to be, is that we have seen it all before. We know, as a friend of mine likes to say, the holes in the riverbed. And, I think, we are beginning to suspect that the biggest and most dangerous hole - the one that could swallow us all - must be dealt with now. Its name is fundamentalism.

Not liberalism. Not conservatism. These are opinions, and those who hold them can have reasoned and insightful dialogue with one another. Such dialogue, in fact, is necessary to our integrity, for no idea should be completely trusted until it has been tried and tempered and hammered out on the anvil of debate with its opposite.

Fundamentalism is something quite different. Bart Giamatti, once president of Yale, defined it as "the true belief as propounded by the true believer" and called it "the terrorism of the mind." Fundamentalism has no use for debate and no capacity for dialogue; fundamentalism, by necessity, relies on intimidation and sometimes violence.

We see this clearly, of course, in such institutions as the Taliban. But this is all the more reason that we never should delude ourselves into believing that fundamentalism exists only in other faith traditions or that it is comfortably confined to the other side of the world. It shows its ugly face in our own society and within our own congregations. It is probably the most dangerous movement in our world today.

For the danger of fundamentalism is not its narrow world view nor its rulebook belief system nor even its grievous tendency to exclude; its danger lies in its insistence that everyone must be compelled, by law or force if necessary, to hold the "beliefs of the true believer." It destroys the creative tension of the community and sets in its place a community based on drab uniformity, where problems can not be acknowledged.

I firmly believe that when our children and grandchildren look back on our era, they will see that the world, the society and the church they inherited from us were irrevocably shaped by how well we ourselves were able to deal with fundamentalism. Will we find the courage and vision to move forward, or will we allow our own fears to drive us from one bleak landscape into another?

Fear is the taproot of fundamentalism, and no one knew this better than Jesus. The boy who at the age of 12 astounded the priests in the Temple surely was destined - or so those ancient rabbis must have thought - to find a place in the religious structure of his time. If they remembered him at all some 18 years later, it must have been with a sad shaking of heads: Such a promising lad he was, only to waste himself as an itinerant preacher! Yet that was the path Jesus chose.

It was a dangerous choice and yet - as Jesus knew, as his followers have known for 20 centuries - the only possible way. Entrenched fear, cobbling together its barricades of rules and ritualism, cannot be challenged on its own terms nor fought with its own weapons. It can only be overcome by preaching - and showing forth in our lives - a love openly available to all, a God whose hands are safe and sure, a kingdom where men and women live in justice and equality, and a vision only the free and fearless mind can attain.

- posted by Richard @ 9:48 PM

 

From Cynthia Tucker's OpEd in the AJC: April 2004

"It is disappointing to see black ministers -- several of whom are old enough to remember the lash of Jim Crow -- brandishing the Bible against gays the same way Bull Connor wielded a billy club against civil rights marchers. Of course, they adamantly resist comparisons of the crusade for gay rights to the movement for civil rights. In a statement opposing same-sex unions, several black ministers wrote: "To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement."

But U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who faced down billy clubs and firehoses, begs to differ. Supporting gay rights before a U.S. Senate committee, Lewis said, "We have been down this road before in this country. The right to liberty and happiness belongs to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation."

So does Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Speaking at a gay pride rally in Atlanta several years ago, she said, "I wanted . . . to reaffirm my wholehearted support of freedom from discrimination for lesbian and gay people. I do so because I believe that all forms of persecution are wrong.

"As my husband said, 'I have fought too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concerns. Justice is indivisible.' "


- posted by Richard @ 10:54 PM

 

Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

'Power must always be defeated'
By RICHARD HALICKS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/02/04

As he approaches his 70th birthday in July, Wole Soyinka can look back on a life of great struggle and greater accomplishment. The Nigerian intellectual is poet, playwright, novelist, memoirist, essayist, renowned university professor and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.

Wole Soyinka speaks of the "sense of absolute infallbility" of President Bush and Osama bin Laden, the idea that "I'm doing the will of God, and therefore anything goes."

But as he concludes his first seven decades, he is what he has always been: a fighter. "If a fanatic comes to kill me, I consider it my duty to try to kill him first," Soyinka tells a cheering crowd at an Emory University lecture. "I am not interested in dialoguing with the fanatic."

Soyinka, who taught at Emory until last fall, returned there last week to deliver the last in a series of five lectures commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corp. and called, collectively, "Climate of Fear." Last week's lecture — "I Am Right; You Are Dead" — discussed the lethal dangers of fanaticism.

Although his bravado delighted the crowd, his comparison of President Bush with Osama bin Laden drew wintry glares from some in the small university theater (and a few cheers, as well).

At one point during the follow-up Q&A, Soyinka hailed the bloodless disarmament of Libya and spoke of how diplomacy had won the day. Referring to photos that day of Tony Blair with Moammar Gadhafi, BBC host Sue Lawley wondered aloud: "If Blair can go into the tent with Gadhafi, can Bush go into the cave with bin Laden?"

Said Soyinka, "I think if Bush goes into the cave, he will not come out."

Earlier that day, the writer sat for an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The conversation ranged widely, going back to Soyinka's imprisonment in the 1960s for more than two years — much of it in solitary confinement — simply for proposing peace talks to end the Nigerian civil war. He spent those long months teaching himself how to make ink by grinding up plants he collected in the exercise yard, making pens from bones and other found items, hoarding toilet paper and cigarette paper to write on.

"One day a crow flew over the prison and dropped a feather. I was so grateful to that crow. I wrote a poem for him."

Soyinka also spoke of his mighty disdain for political correctness, and of the impact of Islamic law in his home country. Here are some highlights of that conversation.

Q: You've talked about the "you're with us or you're against us" mentalities of Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. In that respect, at least, you've likened the two, using the expression "the twin strain of the same fanatic spore."

A: It has always struck me very forcibly every time I listen to George Bush — including his State of the Union address in January — he dismissed the disapproval of the rest of the world by saying that the nation was serving the will of God. When people use that kind of language, you are listening to a kind of fundamentalist streak in that person. . . .

So it's that kind of strain I'm talking about, the sense of absolute infallibility. I'm doing the will of God, and therefore anything goes. No! In a society, the social order depends on consent, on debate, discussion, not from an externally derived authority. And that kind of language to me is very dangerous from anyone. And that's what I'm referring to. It is the same with bin Laden. He claims the right to liberate me — one of his speeches included Nigeria on a list of those nations to be liberated. I said, "This man is nuts!"

Q: It does seem that the "God is on our side" statement permeates so much of the dialogue today.

A: What I find is that zealotry breeds counter-zealotry. People say the only instrument I can use against this force or this position which claims external authority is by surmounting that level of conviction from the same kind of amorphous authority. I refer to people like Timothy McVeigh, to the anti-abortion activists who believe they're carrying out the will of God by shooting down abortion doctors, even patients, police guards. And they insist they are carrying out the will of God.

It is that kind of language that society should not tolerate. People should accept responsibility for themselves, in themselves. Say, "All right, this is what I believe. It's my duty to kill doctors." Go ahead. And then take your punishment. Don't try to invoke the authority of an external force which not everybody recognizes.

Q: And you're seeing the same thing in some of the northern states of Nigeria, yes?

A: Yes, absolutely. For instance, one of the politicians there has said the Quran is superior to the constitution. I say, "You're talking nonsense. . . . You say your Quran is superior. I have the right to say that the book of Ifa, which is the scripture of the Yoruba religion, is superior to the constitution and superior to your Quran and superior to your Bible. So that kind of language must be abandoned if we agree that there is to be a social order. A social order is viable only through some kind of agreement which is a secular constitution.

Q: Nigeria is about 50 percent Muslim?

A: Well, the tendency is to say that it's 50 percent Muslim and 50 percent Christian. People forget that there's a very large percentage of so-called indigenous religions — animists, Orisa worshippers, ancestor worship. Even some of those who call themselves practicing Christians or practicing Muslims take insurance by giving traditional religion its due, just in case that's where the supreme deity really is. They go to mosque on Fridays, and you see them at the festivals of the traditional deities and on to church on Sundays. So I've never accepted that 50-50 division.

Q: Can you talk about the impact of Sharia [the traditional Islamic legal code, which has been adopted by some Nigerian states] in your country?

A: [Even in] states which have declared themselves to be Sharia states, it's a contentious issue because Sharia is not supposed to apply to non-Muslims. We have a very tense situation where some states go to the extreme and insist that all those who live within the borders of that state are subject to Sharia. This is a provocation. It's an assault on the constitution, an assault on individual rights and even group rights. It leads, of course, to religious intolerance under the banner of Sharia. There's been a greater increase in assaults on churches and on Christians. And, of course, Christians will then retaliate wherever they can.

Since Sharia was introduced, the harmonious coexistence between different groups has really sunk to abysmal levels. It's always been a political ploy. The Sharia was introduced by a governor who needed something emotive to appeal to the electorate in his state. He admitted as much. He didn't have the money to match the more powerful political party, he saw this instrument which he needed to use, so he used it. And left devastating results on the psyche of the population of Nigeria.

Q: In "The Rhetoric That Binds and Blinds," the third lecture, you talk about the "ecstasy of losing oneself in the sound-cloned crowd driving the most ordinary being to jettison all moral code and commit unthinkable acts." And I thought that was a very apt description of Nazi Germany.

A: Absolutely. In fact, in the lecture I point to Nazi Germany.

Q: But also very much alive today.

A: It is. Let me give you an instance. Take Ceausescu . . . after the fall of Ceausescu, I went to Romania and spoke to some of the writers there, you know, really intelligent people. And I remember one of them saying, "You know something . . . I used to go to these nationalist rallies just to watch. I actually at one stage found myself being swept up by the fervor of the rally." Like there was something inside it that was real, that was almost palpable. He confessed that he experienced this nebulous force which can actually sweep a crowd . . . this annihilation of individuation within the crowd. In most cases, when people leave that scene of excitation, they recover themselves, analyze the event, use their heads. But for others, the chants continue to ring, and the chants become the truth in their heads, leading them to do things at which moral intelligence would recoil. . . .

Q: You've spoken out rather forcefully about the impact of political correctness.

A: Political correctness, or rather the original social, positive motivation of a new kind of conduct, a new kind of relationship between groups in society — which was a very noble endeavor — has really degenerated to the most absurd levels, especially in the United States and Canada. In Canada, where I teach occasionally, you had a situation at a university, which shall be nameless, where the head of the art department told an artist, a lecturer in the department, that he was not allowed to draw a female figure because this was sexist. Yes! This is real. This is a real instance!

Political correctness has become a kind of fascism. It has taken on fascist colors and fascistic dimensions. Language is being distorted. . . . Even in shops, nowadays people are no longer called workers. They're partners. Politically correct language. Partners, my foot! They will sack the partner without blinking an eye. Workers are workers. Bosses will always be bosses. The class struggle will continue until we all die. The fact is that there are employees and there are employers. Why are you pretending somebody is a partner? We are not partners.

The language is sanctimonious and sickening, and it's infectious. . . . I say now political correctness has become a disease. There's a kind of minute-by-minute self-censorship that destroys human spontaneity. There's a new fundamentalism sweeping Canada and the United States, and it's called political correctness.

Q: You've spent a lot of your life struggling against long odds. I'm borrowing this from an earlier interview you did at Berkeley, but I love this quotation. It's from [the memoir of your childhood] Aké. Your grandfather is advising you on how to deal with bullies: "Wherever you find yourself, don't run away from a fight. Your adversary will probably be bigger, he will trounce you the first time. Next time you meet him, challenge him again. He will beat you all over again. The third time I promise you this, you will either defeat him or he will run away. Are you listening to what I'm telling you?" Has that proven to be true?

A: Well, I haven't attempted to follow it literally!

Q: But the spirit of what he was telling you certainly seems to be the way you have lived your life.

A: Yes. Although I don't think I've counted how many times I've been trounced [laughing], or gone back, or what the ultimate result was. My conviction simply is that power must always be defeated, that the struggle must always continue to defeat power. I don't go looking for fights. People don't believe this, I'm really a very lazy person. I enjoy my peace and quiet. There's nothing I love better than just to sit quietly somewhere, you know, have a glass of wine, read a book, listen to music, that really is my ideal existence. I don't go looking for fights. I promise you.

Q: People don't believe you.

A: Nobody believes me! But it's true! (Laughing).

Q: So much of what you have done has had severe consequences for you. And I wonder where that strength of character, that courage, has come from. For example, when you stand up in public and say, "I think we should have peace talks," and you wind up in prison for more than two years. How does that happen?

A: That's a very difficult question. I usually answer, "It was something I ate as a child." I don't know. And in prison I had lots of time to ponder, "Why do I do things that get me into trouble?" I didn't find an answer. I also, to my surprise, didn't incur any internal suggestion that, when I get out of this one, I will stop. It has never occurred to me to stop.

- posted by Richard @ 10:33 PM

 

Smear Without Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: April 2, 2004

A funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.

On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.

CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.

On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."

But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)

In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?

On Tuesday, I mentioned remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer; here's a fuller quote, just to remove any ambiguity: "What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically, that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life."

Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.

Mr. Blitzer now says he was talking about remarks made on his own program by a National Security Council spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. But Mr. Wilkinson's remarks are hard to construe as raising questions about Mr. Clarke's personal life.

Instead, Mr. Wilkinson seems to have questioned Mr. Clarke's sanity, saying: "He sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden, and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of `X-Files' stuff." Really?

On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed. . . . It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush." That's not " `X-Files' stuff": it's a literary device, meant to emphasize just how ill conceived our policy is. Mr. Blitzer should be telling Mr. Wilkinson to apologize, not rerunning those comments in his own defense.

Look, I understand why major news organizations must act respectfully toward government officials. But officials shouldn't be sure — as Mr. Wilkinson obviously was — that they can make wild accusations without any fear that they will be challenged on the spot or held accountable later.

And administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. If an administration official is willing to say something on the record, that's a story, because he pays a price if his claims are false. But if unnamed "administration officials" spread rumors about administration critics, reporters have an obligation to check the facts before giving those rumors national exposure. And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.
- posted by Richard @ 10:02 PM

 

Inventory Shows an Uneven Distribution of School Computers
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
NY Times
Published: April 3, 2004

Computers are distributed among the New York City schools in a wildly uneven manner, a Department of Education inventory released yesterday found. In the Bronx alone, for example, Community School 234 has 40 computers for its 576 students, while Middle School/High School 368, which has a special emphasis on technology, has 543 computers for its 720 students.

But City Council members, who were given glimmerings of the survey at a hearing yesterday by the Education Committee, were skeptical of its chief finding: that there is one working computer for every six children in the public schools. Council members and principals said that figure seemed unrealistically rosy.

"I rarely go into a school that has more than 10 to 15 percent of its computers working," said Councilwoman Eva S. Moskowitz, chairwoman of the Education Committee. The Department of Education paid Dell, the computer company, $2 million to conduct the inventory, which was completed in February. Department officials and a Dell spokesman said they stood by the findings.

Kathleen Grimm, the education department's deputy chancellor for finance and administration, and Charles Niessner, its chief information officer, told the Education Committee that the Dell inventory identified 178,000 working computers in the city's more than 1,200 schools. The survey also identified another roughly 22,000 computers in department headquarters and regional offices, and 14,000 broken school computers.

The inventory found that there were more computers in elementary and middle schools, with one computer for every 4.98 students in kindergarten through eighth grades, but an average of 7.69 high school students sharing each computer. Those figures include computers in school offices that students do not use.

[Two Technology Administrators]. Ms. Grimm and Mr. Niessner testified that the education department spent $270.8 million on information technology during the 2003 fiscal year, about 14 percent of which went to maintenance and support.

Ms. Grimm told council members that officials were surprised by the age of the computers in city schools. "We have counted them, and that's the first step," she said. "Step 2 has to be an effort to upgrade the equipment and, of course, repair it." Ms. Moskowitz said she was also concerned with lower-tech issues, like the fact that most school computers are far from telephone lines, making it difficult to call help lines for simple problems.


- posted by Richard @ 9:35 PM

 

Stymied by Politicians, Wal-Mart Turns to Voters
By JOHN M. BRODER
NY Times
Published: April 5, 2004

INGLEWOOD, Calif., April 2 — As Wal-Mart continues its march across the American landscape, this Los Angeles suburb of 112,000 people is the latest testing ground for the company's exercise of political and marketing muscle.

Inglewood voters go to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to turn over 60 acres of barren concrete adjacent to the Hollywood Park racetrack to Wal-Mart to create a megastore and a collection of chain shops and restaurants.

The ballot initiative is sponsored by Wal-Mart, which collected more than 10,000 signatures to put the question to voters after the Inglewood City Council blocked the proposed development last year, citing environmental, traffic, labor, public safety and economic concerns.

While Wal-Mart has turned to the ballot in a number of cities and towns to win the right to build its giant emporiums, the Inglewood initiative is significantly different. The proposal would essentially exempt Wal-Mart from all of Inglewood's planning, zoning and environmental regulations, creating a city-within-a-city subject only to its own rules. Wal-Mart has hired an advertising and public relations firm to market the initiative and is spending more than $1 million to support the measure, known as initiative 04-A

- posted by Richard @ 9:24 PM

 

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable
By PHILIP SHENON
NY Times
Published: April 5, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 4 — The leaders of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks agreed Sunday that evidence gathered by their panel showed the attacks could probably have been prevented.

Their remarks drew sharp disagreement from one of President Bush's closest political advisers, who insisted that the Bush and Clinton administrations had no opportunity to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot. They also offered a preview of the difficult questions likely to confront Condoleezza Rice when she testifies before the panel at a long-awaited public hearing this week.

In a joint television interview, the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, indicated that their final report this summer would find that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable.

They also suggested that Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, would be questioned aggressively on Thursday about why the administration had not taken more action against Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, and about discrepancies between her public statements and those of Richard A. Clarke, the president's former counterterrorism chief, who has accused the administration of largely ignoring terrorist threats in 2001.

"The whole story might have been different," Mr. Kean said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," outlining a series of intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the attacks.

"There are so many threads and so many things, individual things, that happened," he said. "If we had been able to put those people on the watch list of the airlines, the two who were in the country; again, if we'd stopped some of these people at the borders; if we had acted earlier on Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda was smaller and just getting started."

Mr. Kean also cited the "lack of coordination within the F.B.I." and the bureau's failures to grapple with the implications of the August 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who was arrested while in flight school and was later linked to the terrorist cell that carried out the attacks.

Commission officials say current and former officials of the F.B.I., especially the former director Louis J. Freeh, and Attorney General John Ashcroft are expected to be harshly questioned by the 10-member panel at a hearing later this month about the Moussaoui case and other law enforcement failures before Sept. 11.

Mr. Hamilton, a former chairman of the House Intelligence and International Relations committees, said, "There are a lot of ifs; you can string together a whole bunch of ifs, and if things had broken right in all kinds of different ways, as the governor has identified, and frankly if you'd had a little luck, it probably could have been prevented." He said the panel would "make a final judgment on that, I believe, when the commission reports."

Mr. Kean has made similar remarks in the past, but commission officials said it appeared to be the first time Mr. Hamilton, the chief Democrat on the panel, had said publicly that he believed the attacks could have been prevented.

Mr. Kean and other members of the commission also agreed in interviews Sunday that the Bush administration's skepticism about the Clinton administration's national security policies might have led the Bush White House to pay too little attention to the threat of Al Qaeda.
- posted by Richard @ 9:18 PM

 

Microsoft settles with SunMicro for $2bn
By Scott Morrison in San Francisco, Paul Taylor in New York and Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Published: April 3 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: April 3 2004 5:00

Sun Microsystems and Microsoft settled a long-running legal battle over patents and unfair competition yesterday, ending more than 10 years of animosity between the two information technology giants. Microsoft will pay Sun nearly $2bn (�1.1bn), with the two rivals agreeing to make their competing technologies work together "in the interests of customers".

Sun had been due to go to court accusing Microsoft of trying to sabotage its Java software. It had also helped launch a European Union case against the company. The EU imposed a record $610m fine on Microsoft last week, ruling that the company must share more information about its software code with Sun and other computer server groups.

Yesterday's agreement ended all legal action between Sun and Microsoft. Sun said the deal fulfilled the goals it was pursuing in EU actions pending against Microsoft. However, a spokeswoman for Mario Monti, EU competition commissioner, said: "This case was never about helping particular competitors; it was about consumers and promoting competition."

The companies' agreement, coupled with restructuring and job cuts at Sun, was welcomed on Wall Street. Sun's shares closed up 21 per cent at $5.06. Meanwhile Sun announced that it would slash 3,300 jobs, about 10 per cent of its workforce. The company has reported 11 consecutive quarters of falling revenues, mainly reflecting the declining market for its proprietary systems.
- posted by Richard @ 9:12 PM