Elephant Language

by graysmoke

Title: don't think of an elephant
Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

Author: George Lakoff
Publisher: Chelsea Green

The author is a linguist and analyzes the political language trickery popularized in the neo-con rhetoric.

If you haven't percieved the coding used by the extremists then this book may be for you. Lakoff dissembles it all for you in only 119 pages. carrying this elephant-sized message in a small package.

I don't subscribe to the author's premise that the Democrats need "framing" training in order to score with the voters. Spare us an anti- or counter- , additional Orwellian dialect. Who needs code camouflaged phrases to deliver honest messages? What is needed is delivery of facts spoken in direct and plain fashion. Honesty and truth are ill served by the technique employed by the extremists.

There have been two recent remarkably effective speeches/or testimony that illustrate how refreshing it is to hear straightforward discourse. I am talking here about Bill Moyers speech regarding the efforts afoot to sabotage the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the testimony before a Senate committe by MP George Galloway.

If non-rational voters behave in the voting booth as indoctrinated slaves, what's needed is freeing them from the bondage of brain washing. Eloquence and passion and some fair representation of both sides equally in the media will provide a correction to this pendulum swing that has gone much too far to the right.

Exposure of the neo-con methodology is the main accomplishment of the book. For myself this was already distinctly apparent and blatant. But for those who can't or won't take the time and invest the effort in staying informed politically, then by all means get the book and read it. You might find it more logical to start with Chapters 9 and 10 then go to the beginning.

The audience this book needs to reach in order for them to realize how their buttons are being pushed, will never read it.

Here is a jolting fact. From page 16, Lakoff states that Eighty per cent of the talking heads on television are from the conservative think tanks. Eighty per cent. That rather defies the epithet flung so repeatedly that the media is controlled by the "libruls". And underscores the phony claim of fair and balanced used by Fox cable.

Lakoff gives the scientific explanation of how our cognitive functions are established, on page 17 and in other areas of the book he categorizes conservative vs progressive political positions as being greatly influenced by whether one is reared in a family that practices a male authoritarian style of discipline as opposed to a nurturant parenting style. While there may be some truth there, it seems too simplistic and is suggestive of some earlier popular deterministic philosophical views, negating what an adult with an inquiring mind and a persistent intellect can accomplish in molding his own ideas and affiliations in adulthood. Education and exposure to more variety of experiences after leaving the family setting have a great deal to do with how one forms political philosophy in my opinion.

The conservative authoritarian approach supposedly yields a crop of obedient unquestioning followers that produces a default operational mode that is subject to direction and manipulation externally.

The nurturant parenting is one that will produce personal responsibility and internal development of one's positions on the political spectrum. This results in more inclusivity, a "we" as opposed to "me" position.

Chapter 4 explores the Metaphors of Terror. I took a lot of this as being gender specific since my reactions to the horror of 9/11 do not correspond at all to his. Lakoff does not ascribe much importance to gender in his linguistic analysis. There are other linguists that put much stronger emphasis on this element, for instance Deborah Tannen. Therefore I cannot conclude that there is a generic reaction common to events.

On page 94 a brief table lists what the author chooses to present as his choices for a guideline to develop opposing ten word philosophies for the progressive vs conservative framing efforts. I think better proposals can be created, why don't each of your compose a table for yourself to follow.

Lakoff also doen't give sufficient weight to the reality of corporate control of the voices in the media field. It won't matter which way something is "framed" if it is ignored and deliberately scuttled.

On page 100 there is a statement that framing is normal. My objection here is that when intentionally used to twist reality, that is making it into an abnormal form. It then falls into the category of thought control. This is the intent of the right wing extremist element controlling the R message and they will continue to use the methodology as long as they can keep it effective. You can use the book to develop a course of action to deflect the abnormal usage of the method.
Lakoff slices his exposition into several sections, stating that there are three natural dimensions of variation for applying a given model. And that many apply a mixture depending on the area of life that is being discussed. Application when monetary or fiscal matters are the subject, may be turned on end when the matter is a subject as volatile as religion. Or abortion.
So if you are unaware of how the radcons jerk the chains of their followers, maybe you will want to read the book. As for adopting their methods, I say nyet. We can do better - we don't need reframing indoctrination, it won't get us any more exposure from the corporate-controlled media.

Our salvation will probably come via the internet-connected, the possibility is definitely there. And the end of this present regime may be hastened by the consequences of the total corruption of a party element that grabs and believes in absolute power.

Voice In The Wilderness

by graysmoke

Has not been silenced. I still want to exercise my freedom of speech here, even if no one ever reads or comments, I feel that such a precious right needs to be utilized, the expression that seems to get the attention is the kind attached to big bucks and that seems unfair since if an individual doesn't have the $$$$ means to finance political candidates handsomely, that their right becomes diminished, and that just denigrates what our government by and for the people is supposed to be.

It is hard sometimes to find the minutes necessary to sit at the puter keyboard and pound out the ideas and opinions formed in my head so they sort of go into mental storage.

Today I'll just make this a medley of comments.

Often the past can offer illumination for the present.

That is how I felt when Memorial Day rolled around. I had just finished reading a book that published Walt Whitman's "Memoranda" on the Civil War. I have no memory of this being emphasized in American Lit, but that was so long ago perhaps my age makes the difference. Did you know that he daily visited the wounded and made these contemporaneous notes that were later published? He devoted huge amounts of his income and his hours to this service. In the Washington D.C. area at the time there were twenty-six (yes, 26) hospitals caring for the casualties from both sides. The personal intimacy of his comments and those he repeated of the soldiers are very endearing. He often would write letters to the beloved and the family members for the wounded and for many he would be there for them until death occured. A common practice also was gifting them with items of food that they especially craved or a personal item for wear or grooming. He had a number of friends that also participated with him in meeting these needs of the military patients. A retelling of these events again emphasizes just what war really is. Nothing like we now have reported, sanitarily, removed by the remoteness of the live events and the politicizing of the reports. Perhaps I will try to obtain this book on the used book market and make a ritual of reading it each year around Memorial Day, might be a good project to sponsor being done publicly by veterans groups.

Under the present day political circumstances it galls me to have our current commander-in-chief even participating in honoring the fallen, he seems to casually abuse the power of his position, misusing the reserves and the National Guard to the point where our national domestic security is being sabotaged by his reluctance to consider a draft because of political cowardice. Doesn't want the R's "tainted" by doing it. Knows it should be done, just look at what is happening on the recruiting front. If that doesn't confirm the need for a draft, then what is it going to take.

At present I'm reading Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter". Again this book about events far in the past is so relevant to the current debate about stem cell research.

One can recognize those of narrow vision back in the seventeenth century who were totally unwilling to accept new concepts even when new capabilities like the telescopes were bringing so much new knowledge and observations that brought into question the commonly held views of the universe. It causes me to wonder if those opposed to stem cell research would identify themselves as being just as unwilling to bend to science if they read the book. I suppose they might just find themselves being as obstinate today as the oppostion was back then, anything opposing their righteous omnipotence would still be anathema. The book was published in 1999 and has been widely read and I think most will enjoy the translation of the daughter's letters, showing an elegant eloquence of expression that enriches the story. The facts of how the author came to doing this book are captivating in themselves. She devoted many years to this effort, returning to college to become fluent enough in Italian for her to personally translate into English these private missiles between father and daughter that have survived.

There is another flare on the political horizon that is gaining varied vehement responses. It is the comment by a human rights organization that the prison at Guantanamo is comparable the the operation by the Russians of the gulags. That stirred up the DOD and the WH. How could anyone ever dare question prison operations in those terms, when the USA is responsible. What a hornet's nest of comments have buzzed around the media over this. I am not that sensitive about the word usage. And I don't think the behavior of the administration regarding prisons, prisoners and rendition is something that can stand too much scrutiny. The self-investigations, the timed release of the Qu 'ran events late last Friday to defuse the issue, confuse the issue, etc.- show that more is amiss than the powers-that-be want us to know. But all that twisting of the Geneva Convention Rules of War, and the power given to the POTUS to name anyone an enemy combatant thus denying usual rights of due process, the reports by the Red Cross, the Abu Ghraib mess, - all call for examination by a neutral board. Aren't we supposed to be a model for what we want the enemy to become? But then this administration has always used the "DO AS I SAY" authoritarian approach and a pox on anyone who criticizes their actions. Is the media ever going to stop peddling the propaganda put out by Rove Incorporated?

I am waiting.