Dear Reader and Friend,

As I was about to go into the second phase of the Democrat response to the true grassroots uprising and protest against the health care plan the Democrat Party is pushing — Escalating name calling by using false accusations. Claiming it was big business, Republican Party, Libertarian party, drug companies, etc, who were providing funding to organize the protests… when clearly it was not… the Democrat party is now organizing what they are calling a grassroots movement. If it were truly a grassroots movement, there would be no need to organize it. People would show up of their own volition.

Since the Town Hall protests were so loud, and the Democrat congresspeople were overwhelmed at the anger of their constituents, they have moved to phase 4 now. But don’t worry Dear Reader and Friend, I will go into their Phase 2 and Phase 3 use of Propaganda Tactics.

And Now on to Phase 4

Create a Fake bandwagon. A Fake grassroots movement.

Let’s start with some information I found in a book called Man the Puppet: the art of controlling minds. Written in 1925 by Abram Lipsky. Page 29

Lipsky has a very enlightening quote that pretty much sums up the Propaganda Device/Tactic the Democrat party is now using.

“A minority in the political field mimics the majority by making a noise like a great multitude, with mass-meetings, much public speaking, letters to the papers, league-long petitions. It thus appears like a great host attacking simultaneously at a hundred places, which is classical strategy of weaker against stronger forces in actual warfare.”

Here is a story dated August 24 from the Politico.com

You can find it at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26409.html

I will intersperse my comments within the story.

Dems plan hundreds of reform rallies

By: Chris Frates

August 24, 2009 08:24 PM EST

Faced with a souring public mood on health care reform, Democrats and their supporters are launching a national grassroots (Editor Note: If it was truly a grassroots there would be no need for ANY organization to organize and/or push it) push Wednesday to show lawmakers that the majority of Americans still support overhauling the system. (Editor Note: The Democrat party is organizing their supporters for a “grassroots” effort to show Democrat politicians in congress that the people the Democrat party has organized want overhauling the current healthcare system).

Reform supporters are planning to hold more than 500 events between Wednesday and when lawmakers return to Washington Sept. 8, ranging from neighborhood organized phone banks (Editor Note: How can it be a grassroots effort if they are using organized phone banks? Who will those phone banks be calling? The elected representatives? The unions to come out an protest in favor of the Democrat plan?) to professionally staffed rallies with hundreds of people. (Editor Note: How can it be a grassroots effort if they are using professionally staffed rallies?)

The Democratic National Committee and its grassroots arm, Organizing for America, are helping to organize the effort along with the Health Care for America Now, a group pushing to create government-run insurance plan. (Editor note: So there we have it… The Democrat party, and thier organizations. Not concerned individuals, but party menbers.)

”In these last few weeks of recess we want to demonstrate the energy, passion and commitment that the American people have to health insurance reform so that when members return after Labor Day they know that they can turn their attention to getting this done because they have the backing of the American people,“ said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse. (Again, the Democrat National Committee, of the Democrat party is organizing Democrats to come out and contact Democrat legislators… seems kind of like incest to me… but maybe that’s just me. Actually more like — to use a Democrat party term “astroturfing”).

Supporters have their work cut out for them. Many lawmakers were thunderstruck over the August recess by the anger and outrage expressed by their constituents in town hall meetings across the country (Editors Note: Now those protests were truly grassroots. The people speaking out did not have to be organized to speak out. They did it of their own volition.). And in poll after poll, support for reform has eroded throughout the month.

But Democrats and their allies insist that the majority of Americans still support reform (Editor Note: And exactly how do thye know that?) and have organized the grassroots campaign to buck up lawmakers as they get ready to head back to Washington.

A health-insurance-reform-now bus will travel the country starting Wednesday and anchor events in 11 cities: Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Charlotte, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio.

But the talk of broad health insurance reform does not mean that progressives have backed off their push for a government-run insurance option.

“We want members of Congress to get back to work and pass reform that means something. We need affordable care. We need real insurance regulation. And we need a strong public health insurance option,” said HCAN spokeswoman Jacki Schechner. “It’s doable and we expect it to get done now.”

Editors Note: HCAN is the acronym for Health Care for America Now.

Please go to their site so you can see who they are and who they represent.
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/who_we_are/

It’ a Good Lesson on Critical Thinking.

Asking questions like:

How do you know that”s True? What proof do you have?

Who are you?

Who is behind you? What’s your motivation?

What’s in it for you?

This type of question can bring out the truth. Questioning the source of thier information,. who they are, and making them explain and prove what they say is true.

Remember the quote from the book Man the Puppet I started this post with

“A minority in the political field mimics the majority by making a noise like a great multitude, with mass-meetings, much public speaking, letters to the papers, league-long petitions. It thus appears like a great host attacking simultaneously at a hundred places, which is classical strategy of weaker against stronger forces in actual warfare.”

And to paraphrase the words of the young boy asking Shoeless Jackson about his helping to throw the World Series.

“Say it ain’t so…” Say it’s not Democrat politicians, and Democrat party controlled organizations that are leading the protests for health care. Say and prove it’s truly the will of the people being governed, that they really do want the Democrat propsed Healthcare. Unfortunately, they can not honestly say that. And they can not prove it. So unfortunately these efforts are “astroturf” — as the Democrat party would call it.

To paraphrase the words of Elmer Fudd “da da, da da, da dat‘s all for today folks!”

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Dear Reader and Friend,

Thank you for joining me today! I know it’s been quite a while since we last spoke.

Today we are going to discuss something interesting. Something current. Something that if this country keeps going the way it is and this gets posted in a few years I would end up in a gulag (or prison on a military base for civilians). Let’s hope it doesn’t get that far.

Anyway, today we are going to look at the Health Care Town Hall Meetings. How the Citizenry are rising up, and how the Democrats and their allies (AARP, the Unions, the Big Media — TV news, newspapers, news magazines, etc. who have given up objective reporting and now specialize in puff pieces, and attacking the Democrats foes) are countering.

Remember, as the New York Times itself back in the days when it was more objective — said in an editorial, September 1, 1937 said

“ What is truly vicious, is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.’

The now defunct Institute for Propaganda Analysis followed with “This monopoly is seen most clearly in totalitarian states where all channels of communication are controlled by the government. The extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.”

For a while you saw almost exclusively grey haired grandmothers and grandfathers expressing their outrage at the proposed health care changes. They &liquor;Had it up to here!” You saw well dressed business men and business women, mothers and fathers all showing up at the Town Hall Meetings making their voices heard. And their numbers felt. It was not organized protests, in the sense that a particular party or group called all their members and gave “marching orders” to go and protest. Far from it.

The Senators and Representatives home from Washington figured they would talk to some friendly audiences and then say “Well, my constituents didn’t protest much so I can feel safe about voting for the President’s Health Care Bill, and I will still be re-elected… I’ll have the excuse that since they didn’t let me know they were against it, I thought they were for it.”

A Shot Heard Round The Country

Then the first meeting took place. The representative ran out of the Town Hall meeting completely flustered at the resistance to the Health Care Plan he was holding the Town Hall meeting on. Immediately, the media friendly to the Democrats came on TV stating something about how the “Independents” and “Middle America” (both Glittering Generalities) would see these protesters as “wacko”s” (name calling), and become irritated. Editors Note… Here we see the start of a Propaganda Device. The Device is Name Calling. It also is subtlety combined with Bandwagon, and Glittering Generality, and a big dose of Card Stacking (of the name calling and glittering generalities).

You had some people who took video cameras with them and posted the videos — of the protests and the Washington politician running away — on the web. Soon people from other cities who had the same belief saw it was OK to protest. And protest loudly. Editors Note: the effect of putting the protests on the web and making them available to others is also a propaganda device of Bandwagon. As in “See, we are doing it. Everyone is doing it. Come join.” And so the common people flocked to the Town Halls.

Soon the Big Media talking heads started criticizing the people demonstrating, and speaking their minds. Shortly thereafter, the Big Media talking heads started looking for something… anything they could find to show these demonstrators at the Town Halls linked to insurance companies, the republican party, or anything else they cold intimate was controlling the protesters as if they were puppets. But alas for Big Media, they could not find anything solid to pin their claims to.

Then it came time for the embattled Democrats to start firing their propaganda weapons.

First they started with the Propaganda device and tactics of Card Stacking of Name Calling with Glittering Generalities.

Here is a sampling:

Dear Reader and Friend, these are in no particular order (Chronological or otherwise)

Let’ start with Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA)

as reported http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_protests
Sen. Arlen Specter said he thinks people who have been angrily disrupting town hall meetings on overhauling the health care system are “not necessarily representative of America,”

Angrily disrupting — what picture does that conjure up in your mind?

“representative of America” a nice glittering generality. What is representative of America? And then add the words “not necessarily“ meaning they are not.

Taken together he is saying the protesters are not American in their behavior or attitudes.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

as reported http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_protests
“Representative Claire McCaskill admonished the rowdy crowd, saying ‘I don’t understand this rudeness. I honestly don’ get it.’”

“rowdy crowd” Once again we see a good example of name calling by the press

And according to McCaskill Protesters who are voicing their complaints are now (Name Calling)“Rude”

Let’s move on to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

as he said in an MSNBC interview “Well, the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it,… At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.”

Let‘s see “last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill” Propaganda tactic/device of Transfer — Dingell is attempting to transfer the authority of the Civil Rights Bill (a glittering Generality in the sense “Civil Rights” is hard to define because it means so many things to different people). But he is attempting to transfer the authority and good feeling of Civil Rights to the Democrat proposed Health Care Bill.

“I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it” So Dingell is implying if you are against the Democrat Health Card Bill you are against Civil Rights… Looks like card stacking in one sentence, and a bit of Name Calling too

Then Dingell really get‘s into the Name Calling device “Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.”

Comparing the Town Hall protesters he represents to KKK and White Supremacists. Meaning if you are against President Obama’s and the Democrats plan you are racist because Obama happens to be Black. And you sure don’t want to be (Name Calling) Racist, or a (Name Calling) “White Supremacist” so you better go along with the plan. And not speak out.

This fits in nicely with the portrait of US Citizen protesters Speaker of the House of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) chimed in with

as reported by
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has accused attendees at health care town hall meetings of carrying swastikas – and the Democratic National Committee is now featuring photos of protesters with swastikas in its new video, claiming (Name Calling) ‘angry mobs” are (Glittering Generality) ‘seeking to destroy Obama.’”

Pelosi was asked if she thought it’s legitimate grass roots opposition
She responded, “I think they are (Name Calling)Astroturf … you be the judge,” Pelosi answered. “They’re carrying (Name Calling) swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

And amazingly enough… shortly after this quote a Georgia Representatives office was defaced with a Swastika and gleefully reported on by the Big Media. Is it possible there was some sort of Hitler trick going on. You know, when he went to far as to have his Socialist Party cronies blow up the Reichstag and blame it on Communists.

Another Elected Democrat attack on the protesters… this one by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)

As reported http://www.thenewstribune.com/callaghan/story/841056.html
Rep. Brian Baird (Tacoma WA) is the poster child, breaking with his tradition of holding frequent meetings with constituents (300 since 1999), because “it’s a lynch mob mentality out there.” He even told his hometown Vancouver Columbian that reform opponents are using “Brown Shirt tactics.”

So the people protesting have “a lynch mob mentality” — nice bit of Name Calling and Glittering Generality

And the people protesting… his constituents protesting… the people he represents… he says because they are protesting they are “Brown Shirt tactics” good bit of name calling. Referencing Hitler the Nazi‘s (the National Socialist German Worker’s Party)

Then to truly drive her name calling points home Pelosi then teamed up with Representative Steny Hoyer of MD as reported in the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-pelosi-hoyer-health11-2009aug11,0,5370363.story
By Mark Silva
5:05 AM PDT, August 10, 2009
Reporting from Washington — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, insisting at the start of a long and politically heated summer congressional recess that health-care reform can be achieved this fall, today are calling the disruption of town-hall meetings by vocal protesters “simply un-American.” (Name Calling)

“We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort (Glittering Generality) to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate,“ Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Hoyer (D-Md.) wrote in a USA Today opinion piece published today.
“However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign(Name Calling) is underway not merely to misrepresent (Name Calling) the health insurance reform (Glittering Generality) legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue (Name Calling combined with Glittering Generality and Card Stacking),” the two leaders wrote. “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid (Name Calling) not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves (Glittering Generality). Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”(Name Calling)

And we will wrap up this segment with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke up attacking the protesters in his district.

As reported http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
WASHINGTON – The Senate’s most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party’s lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the democratic process.

Here we see the combined tactics of Name calling, Card Stacking, Glittering Generality, when Senate Majority Leader Reid says “some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners.”

Dear Reader and Friend, I have to say… these tactics the Democrat politicians are using smack of the Nazi propaganda template. Take a bit of name calling, and combine that with glittering generality, than add in a big heap of card stacking to try and drown them out.

Name Calling Falls On Deaf Ears… What‘s Next Device/Tactic?

As the Democrat Elected Politicians insults of their protesting constituents started having no effect. The Democrat leadership decided to move to another method.

In the next post, we will go into some other tactics being used.

To paraphrase the words of Elmer Fudd “da da, da da, da dat‘s all for today folks!”

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Dear Reader and Friend,

What has just been announced that is going to take place this evening June 16, 2009 is simply amazing. It shows the death of independent journalism. At least ABC is being honest about their beliefs and politics. They have dropped their facade of being unbiased in reporting.

Don’t believe me?

Could this be the start of some form of Journalistic Totalitarianism and Fascism?

Read on dear reader…

The following has been excerpted from Taken from the newsletter dated May 1938 by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis the issue entitled

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES OF GERMAN FASCISM

Their newsletter starts…

“ ‘What is truly vicious,’ observed The New York Times in an editorial, September 1, 1937, ‘is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.’ This monopoly is seen most clearly in totalitarian states where all channels of communication are controlled by the government. The extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations. Political, economic, educational, and religious spokesmen are able to and actually do disseminate rival propaganda. This gives those at whom the rival propagandas are directed some freedom of choice among the alternatives offered them.”

Think about that for a minute…

“What is truly vicious,is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.”

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations.

Let’s change the word democratic to free thinking… or better yet, populations who think critically

So let’s make that read…

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations.

A few paragraphs later in the newsletter they state the fact “The power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized, as the trend to monopoly increases.”

Remember this point… it is very important to understand what is going on today.

The power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized.

The article continues…

“This process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country. A tendency toward a monopoly of wealth is accompanied by a corresponding tendency toward a monopoly of propaganda.

Contrasted with the relative freedom for the dissemination of propaganda in democracies is the complete or nearly complete elimination of this freedom in totalitarian countries. Fascist Germany illustrates how propaganda is used both to bring a dictator into power and to aid him in maintaining that power. In Germany the propaganda which helped convince the people of the efficiency of the National Socialist solution for the country’s political and economic problems was reinforced by an army of storm troops that weakened opposition through terrorism. Such methods made difficult and dangerous the promulgation of competing propagandas. The power of the Nazi propaganda was increased further by the financial support of certain business men and by the political intrigues of Colonel Franz von Papen and other officials of the Weimar Republic.

With the establishment of the National Socialist regime its monopoly of propaganda was rapidly achieved. Suppression of opposition was thorough. Every source of public information and nearly every instrument capable of affecting public opinion came under its control. Although some of the church groups were difficult to dominate, in general the National Socialist propaganda drive went forward with a thoroughness which exceeded at of World War propaganda.”

Basic Totalitarian Propaganda Control

Let’s have a quick look at what this teaches us about how a dictator, or group can gain complete control… the first basic steps.

1. Shut down the ability of opposing voices to be heard.
2. Once the ability of opposing voices can easily be heard, there is no major dissention. The party controlling the message gets their way.
3. In totalitarian states all channels of communication are controlled by the government… or at least the major ones are in sympathy with the government and have lost their objectivity in their reporting
4. The extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.
5. This process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country. A tendency toward a monopoly of wealth is accompanied by a corresponding tendency toward a monopoly of propaganda.

Chicken Little?

So am I a Chicken Little?

I invite you to consider this… In pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, the government forcefully took over the message. The broadcasters and news reporters had little choice. Get arrested, or beaten up by Storm Troopers, or Killed… or go with the government.

The government here in the USA is not threatening the big media/mainstream media. Not with violence. Not with beatings. Not with organized protests. Not with taking away their businesses should they not toe the government line, or question government authority or proposals. None of that is going on.

While the majority of the news organizations in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany had to be forcefully brought into compliance with the government leaders demands they (the independent and free news organizations) toe the government line. They did not willfully abdicate their independence. No my friends it was forced on them.

So What Is Going On Today?

News flash of today…

http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a prime time special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

ABCNEWS’ Unfair Use of Propaganda Devices

Can you see the propaganda tactics ABCNEWS is using?

Very Blatant for people who understand how to see propaganda being used.

Let’s enumerate them…

1. Transfer — Remember the Propaganda Device of Transfer carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
   Good ol Charlie Gibson is broadcasting from the Blue Room of the White House. According to Wikipedia the Blue Room is one of three state parlors on the first floor in the White House, the residence of the President of the United States. It is distinct for its oval shape. The room is used for receptions, receiving lines, and is occasionally set for small dinners.
   And the ABCNEWS Prime time special ‘Prescription for America’ originating from the East Room of the White House. The East Room is also where a lot of Presidents of the USA give press conferences, and speeches.
2. Card Stacking — this is taking place in the prime time special. Remember the Propaganda Device of Card Stacking involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
   In the case of the ABCNEWS Prime time special, they are not allowing dissenting voices to be heard to refute their “journalists, and unbiased reporters” claims in their piece.
3. Testimonial, and Plain Folks — are being used in the title of their Prime time Special… “Prescription for America”. Remember the Propaganda Device of Testimonial this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad. And the Propaganda Device of Plain Folks is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the ”plain folks“

Now, bear in mind… President Obama did not force ABC to do this. He did not force any news organization to do or report anything, or eliminate reporting on dissenting voices. Not at all, though I’m sure he appreciates the brown nosing of the news organizations. They are doing it of their own volition. Their own free will.

Something Stinks!

Quite Frankly…

It’s Disgusting!

In protest I am boycotting ABC… Every show on ABC… Until they have a change in management that is willing to present balanced viewpoints. Not engaging in propaganda techniques, and not shutting out those who believe differently than they do.

I invite you to join me. There are better things to do than to watch ABC TV.

Rather than masquerading as a News Show… Charlie Gibson should just admit it is a political speech he is giving. He could run an editorial and state it IS and editorial BEFORE giving it. If he and ABCNEWS producers and staff believe their side is right. Give the editorial from wherever they choose. But clearly state it is an editorial.

For anyone… of any belief… If you believe your side is right, then you welcome debate. Because then you can show how right your side is and how wrong the other side is. That is the worst case. The best case is both sides eyes get opened, and an even better solution comes about.

So ABCNEWS… What are you afraid of?

But with the big media (newspapers, magazines, tv) behaving the way they are now…

No wonder people turn to Fox News, the Internet, blogs, etc. to get their unbiased and clearly stated biased information that does not toe the party line.

And before you attack me over “Fox News is a right wing conservative bias network.” Have you heard the news how their main Prime time news anchor Shepard Smith had a melt down calling people who are demanding to see President Obama’s birth certificate “crazies” and are “way out there on a limb … out there in a scary place.” Have you watched the programs where they have smart thinking people who vociferously defend their side in debates on the shows. Yes they have republican AND democrat politicians, campaign managers, and party leaders.

Unfortunately they do not include the Libertarian party spokespeople as well. It would be nice to get a full well rounded debate… but that’s for another time and post.

Personally, being a critical thinker, I like to get all sides of an argument and un-skewered facts and figures BEFORE making up my mind. How ‘bout you?

As Porky Pig says Da, da, da, da, da, dat’s All Folks!

See you next time.

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

There Is A Document…

Dear Friend and Reader,

What set me off on this calling out the perpetrator of this High Handed attack on the Freedoms of citizens of the USA?

It’s an attack on one of the most precious, most dearly held concepts that has been put into a document ever.

The Constitution of The United States of America

If I remember correctly… It starts off with…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh yeah… it does. You can verify this at US Government Archives

Let’s Move To Article III of the US Constitution

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Now I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Constitutional Lawyer, or expert on the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am just a lowly citizen. I was always taught that those in elected office (and they refer to themselves as) are Public Servants. I did not think the USA was a Banana Republic until recently.

As I understand what I just copied from the Constitution of the United States of America, is even lowly citizens like me can bring a lawsuit against a “Public Servant” if I do it in the right venue (right place… right court) the one that has jurisdiction.

So What Am I Talking About?

As you may know… recently a gentleman named Phillip Berg brought suit against Barak Obama claiming he is not a Natural Born Citizen as required in the United States Constitution to be President of the United States of America.

Now I’m not going to say whether or not I agree with Mr. Berg’s premise.

That is for the Court to decide… as outlined above in Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama has made declarations stating he is Natural born, but will not release copies of his actual birth certificate, which is why Mr. Berg brought the law suit as far as I can see.

According to my reading of the Constitution of the United States of America, Mr. Berg has ever right to bring such a law suit as long as he does it in the proper venue.

A Philadelphia Judge Apparently Thinks the Rights of a Citizen Do Not Count

Here’s the story… As Associated Press reported it…

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
Oct 25, 3:37 PM (ET)

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

After expressing my Outrage at U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s inane reason for dismissing the lawsuit, We will also have a dissection of the propaganda in the AP report.

Stick around… this will get interesting.

First let’s get some definitions… shall we…

I’m a simple person. I don’t understand $1,000,000 words that such a well educated man like U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick uses. Words like “attenuated” so I had to look it up.

Webster’s defines attenuated as…

1. to make thin or slender
2. to make thin in consistency : rarefy
3. to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : weaken
4. to reduce the severity, virulence, or vitality of an attenuated virus
5. to become thin, fine, or less

Now that we have these definitions… Let’s look use these simple everyday 10 ¢ words… in place of the $1,000,000 word at the last part of U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s reason for dismissing the lawsuit.

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to make thin or slender — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidate is too vague, and too thin an argument to have any “standing on any and all voters”????

Yes We Read That Right!

How about we use another definition…

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to make thin in consistency : rarefy — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidateto make thin in consistency : rarefy an argument to have any “standing on any and all voters”????

How about we use another definition…

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : weaken — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidate is so weak as to not even have a point to argue or have any “standing on any and all voters”????

Now if such a great Constitutional Scholar… or even a Judge who is obviously well read in the Constitution of the United States of America is going to dismiss the suit. It should be because it was brought in the wrong venue. It should be brought in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Not Because The Argument That A Presidential Candidate is Not Legally Qualified To Run For the Office And If The In-Eligible Candidate Is Elected… Contrary To What The Constitution of the United States Says…

To paraphrase that leading Constitutional genius (sarcasm intended) U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick… “Having Someone Not Legally Eligible To Be President Does Not Harm Any Citizen”

What’s next U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick… Will you allow known and proven illegal aliens and proven enemies of the USA to run for President of the United States of America because Any Harm resulting from having an ineligible person serving as President of the United States of America is “too vague”??? Yeah, I guess that’s s why the Founding Fathers of the United States of America Specifically Detailed Who and who was not eligible to become President of the United States of America. Hey I bet if Hugo Chavez of Venezuela wanted to run for President of the United States of America U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick would find no problem with that either! Look at his reasoning.

And do not get this wrong… I am not saying Mr. Obama is doing anything wrong. I Am and Do have a problem with the high handedness of U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick. He should immediately be impeached, and returned to being a lowly citizen not important enough to have standing to bring a lawsuit against wanna be elected officials.

To paraphrase further “You are ONLY a private citizen… ONLY one vote… so you have no standing to vote for your leader. And You as a private citizen have no right to challenge those ‘Public Servants’ either holding or running for office. They are insulated from scum like you. I’m a high authority and I deem it so… Now go climb back to the hole from whence you came and let those brilliant minds… much more brilliant than you decide what’s best for you. Obey… Do Not Question!”

Talk About a Fascist Dictatorship

Thank you U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick for insulating those high up’s from us lowly citizens.

Propaganda Tactics in The AP Story

Let’s analyze the propaganda tactics in the AP Story Covering this Over-reaching Ruling

Second Paragraph…

(Color Maroon: Testimonial combined with Color Pink: Card Stacking “Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.(card stacking ends) His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Color Pink: Card Stacking — They are alleging something in question to be a fact.

The Third Paragraph… starts with Color Red: Name Calling

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Considering the Source AP this propaganda is really mild.

In the Word‘s of Porky Pig “Ehh… BahDa BahDa BahDat’s All Folks!

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Dear Reader and Friend,

This quote comes from Gerry Spence, in his book “How To Argue And Win Every Time”

It is Extremely Important to keep in mind… in my opinion. You my friend are free to do with it what you will. But I think it will be best to at least consider it and think about what it says, and you will see lot’s of people in authority’s motivations.

“And what is the function of the law in all this?

Even the law is not designed to deliver justice. The law is not ethical.

Instead, law becomes the means by which those in power, justly or unjustly, retain power.

Law preserves power — money power. Law will nearly always dignify a past evil as precedent rather than create justice by changing an unjust law.”

The Most Important

What I saw as most important are these thoughts…

• the law is not designed to deliver justice.
• law becomes the means by which those in power retain power.
• Law preserves power (for those in power).

Think About That

Think about that the next time you see some politician throwing money to some special interest group.

Think about that the next time you see some politician claiming they “are for the people”

Think about that the next time you see some politician calling them selves or being tagged as a “Populist”

Think about that the next time you see some politician looking for, creating, and blaming a scape goat that is in the minority (numbers wise).

Think about that the next time you see anyone in power demonizing those who are lesser in number than the group the one in power represents.

That Explains It

That explains why politicians want to “Soak the rich”… There are more who do not believe the are rich, than those who believe they are rich.

That explains why the mortgage crisis has reared it’s ugly head. Politicians appealing to those more likely to vote them into power and keep them there were the beneficiaries.

”Why it’s prejudice… prejudice I tell you! That’s the reason someone with no job, no income, who has defaulted on every single obligation is not getting a mortgage. We in congress must do something about this grave injustice… Let’s force the bankers to give the people who can not afford it a mortgage.“

And that’s what happened.

I strongly believe, if someone lives up to the three legged stool for a loan they deserve to get one.

And Just What Are The THREE Legs?

• The Ability To Pay It Back
• The Will to Pay It Back
• The Track Record of Paying It Back

In my book, meet those three criteria and you should get a loan.

But now the politicians are blaming the mortgage crisis not on policies they forced down bankers throats… not at all. They are blaming the mortgage meltdown on the “Greedy bankers” you know, the ones who forced mortgages on those unsuspecting people who could not afford them.

And why do they scape goat the bankers? There are more people who have a mortgage than there are bankers.

The Law Is NOT Designed To Deliver Justice… It’s There To Keep Those In Power… In Power. Nothing more, nothing less.

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post
                  
Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™
]]> http://propagandatactics.com/a-quote-to-remember/feed/ 0 http://propagandatactics.com/unbiased-journalism-or-propaganda/ http://propagandatactics.com/unbiased-journalism-or-propaganda/#comments Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:54:06 +0000 admin http://allenweber.com/?p=34 Unbiased Journalism? OR Climate Change Propaganda hiding as Journalism… You Decide

 

 

Dear Reader and Friend,

Here in my opinion is a blatant propaganda piece masquerading as unbiased journalism. Frankly it disgusts me how so called journalists, get away with this crap all the time. It’s time we Critical Thinkers start to challenge these crap slingers, and their opinion pieces (editorials) masquerading as solid un-biased journalistic reporting. It’s time to call the propaganda what it is, an underhanded attempt to cause the masses to be brainwashed into the propagandists (reporters) beliefs.

Let’s start with the title of the alleged un-biased piece…

With science undisputed, climate bill opponents turn to cost

Biased? or un-biased?

So I will analyze the article for it’s propaganda, and make some editorial comments as well.

But First, let’s review the SEVEN Propaganda devices…

1. Color Red: Name Calling — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means different things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examining the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

The article can be found at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/39908.html

It was dated: Posted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008

The byline is By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

[Card Stacking combined with Out and out lying]With science undisputed, [Card Stacking alone] climate bill opponents turn to cost

WASHINGTON — Opponents of [Glittering Generality]landmark legislation that would cut greenhouse gas emissions have taken a new approach this week as the Senate began debate on what could eventually be a huge reordering of how the nation gets and uses energy.

[Editors Note: The writer/propagandist of this piece is trying to imply that any “landmark” legislation must be good]

[Name Calling] Instead of challenging [transfer]scientific evidence of a warming world[transfer ends], they’ve focused on costs.[name calling ends] In the end, these opponents say, consumers would be hurt.

[Editors Note: there is a group of 31,000 + scientists right here in the USA broken down in the following professions: as of 6/6/08 there are 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. see Global Warming Petition Project

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

All signed a petition that states:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

All 31,072 scientists signed this very statement.]

[Card Stacking] ”One huge change from previous debates is that only one person has raised a question that (global warming) is a problem,“[end card stacking] [transfer]said Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, which works with large businesses.[end of transfer] ”The No. 1 thing to me is that it’s talk about how to solve it rather than whether to solve the problem.“

Under the global warming bill, or [glittering generality] Climate Security Act,[end of glittering generality] it would no longer be free for factories or power plants to emit carbon dioxide and other global warming gases into the atmosphere. Fees would be levied to curb such [name calling]pollution.[end name calling]

It’s not expected the bill will become law this year. President Bush has said he’d veto it if it passes. But with the presidential candidates supporting some version of the bill’s main ideas, it’s widely thought that emissions controls will be put in place in a year or so. For that reason, the debate now offers a hint of opposition to come.

Senators opposing the bill this week warned that the legislation could make the cost of gas go up. They’ve cited an EPA study that said that the bill could raise prices 53 cents a gallon over 22 years, or 2 cents a year, from 2008 to 2030.

[Editor's Note: What just 2 cents a year. Why we could afford that (said sarcastically)]

[Band Wagon] Several senators —Republicans Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire — said they agreed with the concept of limiting emissions and charging a fee for polluting, but wanted different ways to use the proceeds or a program on a smaller scale. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said he wants more money for nuclear power.

Republican John Warner of Virginia is a sponsor of the bill, and Republicans Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Olympia Snowe of Maine also spoke in support of it. [end of Bandwagon]

But most Republican senators echoed the remarks of the president on Monday. Bush said the bill would impose “roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the American economy” and called it a tax increase. The president rejects mandatory regulation of emissions.

[Editor's note: why is it "Bush" why not President Bush... he is the president of the USA after all. They referred to Clinton as “President Clinton”]

Bush’s $6 trillion remark referred to the estimated amount of money the bill would generate by 2050 from sales of permits to emit pollution. The overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year.

[Editor’s Note: Notice how conveniently the writer neglected to mention the money SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in additional costs, while pooh poohing that objection with the lame excuse “overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” That is NOT an answer to dispute the SIX TRILLION DOLLARS this un-necessary law would cost. If you want to dispute something, then actually dispute it. She may as well have said, in answer to the SIX TRILLIONS DOLLARS... the train stopped running past my house each day. Because that has as much bearing as “ overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” neither address the cost, or attempt to dispute it. This is good journalism?]

The legislation spells out how money from the permits would be used, including $802 billion in a [glittering generality] tax cut for those who need help with higher energy costs and $955 billion for deficit reduction. Billions also would go to help develop cleaner fuels, improve energy efficiency and help wildlife. [glittering generality ends]

The legislation would “raise taxes, raise substantially gas prices, cause worker layoffs and hurt the economy, and leave us less competitive in the world marketplace,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Wednesday. He called it a “sneaky tax” that would drive up energy costs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a sponsor of the legislation, said better fuel economy standards and alternatives to gasoline would drive down demand, end dependence on foreign oil and lower the cost of driving. She and other supporters argued that redirecting part of the proceeds from the sale of the pollution permits to renewable energy would create jobs and replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives.

[Editor’s Note: If Senator Boxer was truly concerned about lowering the cost of gas, AND reducing USA dependence on foreign oil... she would support drilling in Anwar — an area that was specifically set aside for drilling under Jimmy Carter’ presidency. She would also support drilling off the coast of Florida, in the mid-west, and Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. If this is really what Senator Boxer said. We don't know if she said the above claimed quote, as it is not quoted in quote marks by the writer.]

“The arguments they’re throwing at us are very shallow. In essence, not one of our opponents has ever even addressed the issue of global warming. They’ve just tried to get us off track on the fictitious attack on gas prices, which falls totally flat,” Boxer said at a news conference.

[Editor’s Note: notice Senator Boxer was quoted in the sentence above... with quote marks even!]

[Band Wagon] Boxer noted that The National Academies, the government’s top advisers on science, engineering and medicine, have reported that the Earth is warming and that most scientists agree [Band Wagon ends] that human actions that have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are to blame.

[Editor’s Note: except for the 31,000+ USA scientists whose backgrounds include (detailed analysis of the signers' educations follows):

1. Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmospheric Science (114)
2. Climatology (40)
3. Meteorology (341)
4. Astronomy (58)
5. Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

1. Earth Science (107)
2. Geochemistry (62)
3. Geology (1,601)
4. Geophysics (334)
5. Geoscience (23)
6. Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

1. Environmental Engineering (473)
2. Environmental Science (256)
3. Forestry (156)
4. Oceanography (86)

4. Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
1. Mathematics (575)
2. Statistics (111)

5. Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)
1. Physics (2,310)
2. Nuclear Engineering (215)
3. Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
1. Aerospace Engineering (585)

7. Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry (3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

8. Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (703)
2. Biophysics (65)

9. Biology (1,365)

1. Biology (985)
2. Ecology (72)
3. Entomology (57)
4. Zoology (145)
5. Animal Science (106)

10. Agriculture (791)

1. Agricultural Science (314)
2. Agricultural Engineering (111)
3. Plant Science (292)
4. Food Science (74)

11. Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)

12. General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)
1. Engineering (7,289)
2. Electrical Engineering (2,075)
3. Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)

But GEE... I guess those 31,000+ scientists don’t count. It’s like they don’t even exist.

“That's really why our opponents aren’t debating us on this anymore, because they've lost all traction,” Boxer said.

[Editor‘s Note: Maybe they lost all traction because the press refuses to report on a side or report information that does not agree with their individual point of view and do their best to hide facts that point out the fallacy of their beliefs? Could that be it?

[Name Calling] Shortly afterward, the debate stopped altogether Wednesday afternoon. Republicans refused to accept the usual practice of debating a bill without hearing a full reading of it, saying the reason was to pressure Democrats to get more circuit judges approved. [end of Name Calling]

[Editor‘s Note: Oh, those dastardly Republicans.]

The result was that clerks took turns reading the 500-page bill for hours.

[Editor‘s Note: Well, at least we know someone read it. After all why have a piece of “Landmark Legislation” read? “Landmark Legislation” should be a simple one or two page bill... right???

It‘s irresponsible reporters and editors in the press like the one in this example that can help you understand why we are in the shape we are. How stupidity is triumphing over clear thought and critical thinking.

###

Dear Reader, think things through. Think critically. Just because an article is in a newspaper and not on an editorial page, does that mean it‘s not an editorial? Does that mean the article is not biased?

Try and find the writer‘s motives for writing the story, and what belief they are trying to persuade you of, if any.

Then verify for yourself what you read or heard. Don‘t let opinion masquerade as fact.

 

 

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post
                  
Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™
]]> http://propagandatactics.com/unbiased-journalism-or-propaganda/feed/ 1 http://propagandatactics.com/apology_or_propaganda_08-05-12/ http://propagandatactics.com/apology_or_propaganda_08-05-12/#comments Mon, 12 May 2008 16:31:33 +0000 admin http://allenweber.com/?p=31 Bear in mind, several propaganda devices can be combined to make it even more hard hitting. Now whether or not the newspaper article was purposefully utilizing propaganda, or not is only something he knows himself. So I am not making a judgement on his reasons, I AM however... pointing out his biased propagandised piece masquerading as an apology. The Headline of the Propaganda Piece is... How letters botched the facts in sensitive Palestinian issue]]> Blatant Propaganda Masquerading As Apology

Here is a brilliant piece of propaganda masquerading as an apology by Wayne Ezell “Reader Advocate” for the Jacksonville Times-Union.

I will dissect this for it’s propaganda content. Which if you read the piece I did on Obama’s speech the propaganda devices will leap out at you.

Remember, there are SEVEN propaganda devices:

To get the most out of this post, I suggest you print off the first page and use it as a guide, so you remember what each color stands for.

I will use the colors of the devices above to show where the propaganda, and which device is being used.

1. Color Red: — Name Calling
2. Color Gold: — Glittering Generality
3. Color Blue: — Transfer
4. Color Maroon: — Testimonial
5. Color Tan: — Plain Folks
6. Color Pink: — Card Stacking
7. Color Green: — Band Wagon

The SEVEN propaganda devices used were defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis as:

1. Color Red: Name Calling
   — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means different things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examining the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon
   — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

Bear in mind, several propaganda devices can be combined to make it even more hard hitting.

Now whether or not Wayne Ezell was purposefully utilizing propaganda, or not is only something he knows himself. So I am not making a judgement on his reasons, I AM however… pointing out his biased propagandised piece masquerading as an apology.

The Headline of the Propaganda Piece is…

How letters botched the facts in sensitive Palestinian issue

(name calling) Misinformation, acrimony and a personal attack that could inspire fear for one’s safety, marked a recent exchange of letters to the editor. It was (name calling) typical of fodder for the internet, but a disappointing lapse in the Times-Union’s editing process.

Editor’s note: please notice here that Wayne Ezell rephrased a complaint from Zogby stated in the paragraph below, and another one later on. Why repeat it here?. Why try to inflame passions? Could there be some motivation on Wayne Ezell’s part he is not admitting to? Has he chosen sides?

(glittering generality, name calling, transfer, and card stacking) The exchange began with a narrowly focused op-ed piece by James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington D.C., in which he called on the U.S. to demand that Israel stop (name calling) harassing Palestinian-Americans as they try to enter Israel with U.S. passports.

(card stacking) Palestinian-Americans are (name calling) routinely forced to surrender passports and required to obtain a Palestinian travel document, Zogby wrote. Some are denied entry or (name calling) subjected to humiliating interrogations, he said, adding that (transfer) he has the support of the State Department, which has issued a travel advisory about the matter.

Editor’s note: Card Stacking ends

There followed a response letter, which Zogby claims was inaccurate, (name calling) a personal attack on him and perhaps even dangerous in that it could incite those prone to hate crimes to seek him out.

Written by Ron Pollard, the letter criticized Zogby for ignoring the fact that terrorists have used American passports to infiltrate Israel. He accused Zogby of “writing denigrating and inflammatory comments about Israel,” and much more.

Editor’s note: Why has Wayne Ezell decided to quote Ron Polland’s accusations but not quote Zogby’s? It appears to be attempting to make Zogby’s claims a matter of fact and cast doubt on Polland’s? Come on Wayne Ezell let’s be fair here. OK? Unless you really want to appear biased.

Editors Note: Card stacking starts here

“Before founding the Arab American Institute, Zogby created the Palestine Human Rights Commission as the propaganda arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group responsible for murdering thousands, including 11 Israeli athletes, at the 1972 Munich Olympics.”

(name calling) Get the picture?

Editor’s note: Is it really necessary for Wayne Ezell to start name calling, and attacking Ron Polland?

(name calling) “Shame on him,” Zogby said of Polland, a researcher at the University of North Florida (card stacking) who has written several letters critical of Muslims and Palestinians.

(name calling) “This is the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,” Zogby said, asking for an apology.

(glittering generality)“When it is in print, it has more merit and it should be viewed differently,” he said. (glittering generality) “I know you have standards. (name calling) Someone didn’t review it carefully.”

Mike Clark, editorial page editor, said he regretted the failure to more carefully screen the letter.

Editor’s Note: Screen a letter in response to an editorial for what? What failure? This is still implying ALL the content of Ron Polland’s letter was wrong, and his opinion is worth nothing. Card Stacking sequence continues…

In fact, what Polland described as the Palestine Human Rights Commission was actually known a the Palestine Human Rights Campaign.

Editor’s note While the words here are not in themselves name calling (trying to get you to reject anything Ron Polland says), the intent at name calling is obvious… “Look! Look! he made a mistake by calling it a commission instead of a campaign! He obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about so anything he says should be discounted.” Note to Wayne Ezell: Do a better job of hiding your personal bias.
Here is a question… is the word Committee the thing Mike Clark was regretful from his “failure to more carefully screen the letter”?

(transfer, testimonial) Co-founded by Zogby in 1976, its initial meeting was in a Methodist church near the United Nations headquarters. Zogby said he left the organization in 1980 and was succeeded by a Presbyterian minister.

(Card Stacking added to transfer) If the Zogby name is familiar, he is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International, for which James Zogby serves as an analyst. In addition to his advocacy work at the Arab American Institute, Zogby writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs.

Editor’s note So an organization is set up near the United Nations. Big deal. Does that mean it is legitimate? Does that mean it deserves more respect? There are a lot of deli’s near the United Nations headquarters that were set up there too. Does the location give them more credibility? Is that what Wayne Ezell is saying? If so, it makes no sense. And after Zogby claims to have left he claims according to Ezell… Zogby was succeeded by a Presbyterian minister. So? What’s the point? A religious leader took over his position? Barack Obama’s former minister is a religious person. Does that make everything he says and does good (Rev Wright)? Because Rev Wright is a recognized religious person, does that make everything he does good? During WWII there was a famous Catholic Priest who wrote a lot of articles, columns, was in the news, had a radio show. His name was Father Coughlin. Perhaps you have herd of him. If not, your parents surely have. He was a very famous Nazi sympathizer, and Nazi propagandist who was living right here in the USA. Up in Michigan I believe. So by the standards implied in the sentances above, his speechs and remarks whould not have been questioned either.

Further… “If the Zogby name us familiar, he is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International” So? Is Ezell implying by being related to someone who has fame suddenly makes everything you say and do beyond reproach, and you should have more credibility?

Regarding the implied assertion that Zogby somehow has more credibility because “Zogby writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs” Well… zip a dee do dah! John Gotti (the famed former New York mob boss, Sam Giancana, former Chicago Mob Boss) both repeatedly appeared before congress and denied there is such a thing as the Mafia. Cindy Sheehan writes columns and frequently appears on the news. So do a lot of crazy people. So writing a column, appearing on the news, and appearing before congress do not add credibility to what one says.

We are still in Card Stacking mode by Wayne Ezell

(card stacking) Polland insisted on the(name calling) veracity of the things he wrote. Asked to provide references for his assertions, Polland sent links to seven (name calling) partisan Web sites, including ones for the columnist Michelle Malkin. Those sites can be found by entering Zogby’s name on a search engine.

Editor’s note End of Card Stacking sequence

“The blogosphere is the source of truth where people can really find out what is going on,” Polland said.

Editor’s note: And after reading what Wayne Ezell wrote in attacking Ron Polland’s character and his phrasing I can completely understand why he (Polland) feels that way. Do you not?

(band wagon) In a letter supporting Zogby’s view, Jim Baglia said, “A recent letter writer suggested the Zogby and Americans of Palestinian heritage are (name calling added to bandwagon) sympathetic to terrorists.” Polland countered that he said nothing about “American of Palestinian heritage,” nor did he suggest they are sympathetic to terrorists.

(name calling) Indeed he didn’t, not in those words.

Dear Reader, I hope this helps you see and pick out propaganda that is all over the news… whether the “unbiased advocate” realized he/she is being biased and propagandizing or not. Remember… Think Critically find out the facts for yourself. Just because words come from somone of fame, or related to someone of fame, does not mean they are true, unbiased, or should not be questioned. Now days in particular… Question Everything! Take nothing for granted! Verify sources.

In the words of President Reagan “Trust but Verify”

I hope I was able to help you with this posting.

Some notes and insights.

A visit to the Highly Partisian website of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (the group Zogby co-founded) http://phrconline.org/ uncovered these quotes on their site

Under the “CAMPAIGNS:” section

Boycott Israeli Goods

“We call for mass consumer action, along the lines of the boycott of South African produce during the anti-apartheid campaign. By joining this boycott individuals and organisations can take concrete steps to stand up against the gross human rights violations by the Israeli State.”

“We therefore support:
A boycott of Israeli products
A boycott of Israeli leisure tourism
An end to Australian firms’ investment in Israel
Suspension of Australian government trade agreements with Israel”

Under their section “Human Rights News Feed”

Report: Ethnic cleansing continues in Jaffa 11 May 2008
Israeli forces kill Gaza mother in front of her children 8 May 2008
Gaza improvises under siege 7 May 2008< br />
Gaza death toll, humanitarian crisis escalates 6 May 2008
West Bank village faces slow death 4 May 2008

These along with some “Unbiased” stories like…

Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock

Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child

Israeli soldiers accused of tampering with corpses

But I guess stories like these are not partisan… or if they are I guess coming from an organization co-founded by a person who “is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International… writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs” they are unqestionably un-biased.

A side note… Ezell has through the voice of Zogby in Zogby’s accusation about how the internet is unreliable Zogby was quoted as saying “This is the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,”, Ezell himself said “typical of fodder for the internet,” Now what I do not understand is why after Ezell goes out of his way to question what is posted on teh internet, he ends his column as the Reader Advocate stating “You are invited to comment on my blog at…”

Makes me wonder if his blog is filled with “the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,”, or “typical of fodder for the internet,”?

Thank You for Reading!

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post
                  
Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™
]]> http://propagandatactics.com/apology_or_propaganda_08-05-12/feed/ 2 http://propagandatactics.com/propaganda-analysis-of-obamas-march-18-speech/ http://propagandatactics.com/propaganda-analysis-of-obamas-march-18-speech/#comments Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:23:56 +0000 admin http://allenweber.com/propaganda-analysis-of-obamas-march-18-speech/ Propaganda Analysis of Obama’s March 18 Speech

Dear Reader,

Today is a very important day. This is the day you and I have been looking forward to for a long time. I promised you I would do this.

Here it finally is, after 85 hours of work and analysis the long awaited analysis for propaganda content of Obama’s speech at first to be about the not so Rev. Right.

Obama with the help of the “mainstream press” people like Chris Matthews, et. al. who seem to believe Obama is the second coming and one who can do no wrong, successfully changed the topic from explaining why he stayed in such an anti—white, racist church for oh so long — 20 + years.

Press: “So Barak, why did stay.”

Obama: “Hey, the sun is shining through the clouds, looks like we won’t get any rain today.”

Press: “Exclusive breaking news… in a press conference today Barack Obama predicted there will be no rain.”

Remember, there are SEVEN propaganda devices:

To get the most out of this post, I suggest you print off the first page and use it as a guide, so you remember what each color stands for.

I will use the colors of the devices above to show where the propaganda, and which device is being used.

1. Color Red: — Name Calling
2. Color Gold: — Glittering Generality
3. Color Blue: — Transfer
4. Color Maroon: — Testimonial
5. Color Tan: — Plain Folks
6. Color Pink: — Card Stacking
7. Color Green: — Band Wagon

The SEVEN propaganda devices used were defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis as:

1. Color Red: Name Calling — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means differnt things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examing the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience thatt he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to giv ethe best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

Editors note: I did add one additional thought to “Glittering Generality” and that is it’s use as the opposite of a virtue word, but in a way that would not quite be name calling… yes I know it is splitting hairs “depending on what your definition of is — is”

In disecting this speech, I found and attempt to do my best (though I’m sure I missed a lot) of sections of one device with other devices mixed in..

You will also notice he combines devices a lot as well, so where there is a dominant device I will use it, and only sparingly use secondary and more devices found. Regualr plain speech will be laft as black.

So without further adoo… here is my analysis.

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008/ 10:17:53 ET

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Editors Note: 20 years? I don’t recall there being any time limit on the slavery question. Where did 20 years come from??? Could it be the 20 years Obama was a member of a racist church?

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution — a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part — through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk — to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together — unless we, perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

Editors note “continue the long march” is he insuniating Chairman Mao? Mao called his sturggle to take over China with his version of Communism as “the long march”

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

Editors note: card stacking starts here

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide—eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

Editor’s note: end of card stacking section

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters… . And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about… memories that all people might study and cherish — and with which we could start to rebuild.“

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety — the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang—banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through — a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Editor’s note: Card-stacking section starts here, combined with testimonial

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discriminationEditors Note: cardstacking sequence ahead — where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African — American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments — meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

Editor’s note: Card-stacking section, combined with testimonial ends here… Testimonial continues

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Editors Note: The paragraph below is also card stacking

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working — and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Editors note: remember, the crowd Obama is speaking to hates President Reagan Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American — and yes, conservative — notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen — is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope — the audacity to hope — for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African—American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Editors Note: This is the start of card stacking

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the OJ trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina — or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Editors Note: end of cardstacking sequence

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation — the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today — a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

Editors Note: This begins a long testimonial sequence

There is a young, twenty—three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African—American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out (Editor’s Note: bandwagon started) allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” (Editor’s note: End of testimonial) By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two—hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

END

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post
                  
Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™
]]> http://propagandatactics.com/propaganda-analysis-of-obamas-march-18-speech/feed/ 0 http://propagandatactics.com/defining-propaganda/ http://propagandatactics.com/defining-propaganda/#comments Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:24:19 +0000 admin http://allenweber.com/defining-propaganda/ Defining Propaganda

Dear Reader…

Do you know what propaganda is?

I submit to you Propaganda is simply salesmanship.

Why do I say that?…

Because the object of the propagandist is to get you to come over to his/her side. They want you to believe or at least act as if you believe what they are telling you.

The Object of Salesmanship

Isn’t That The Object of Salesmanship?

The sales person or copywriter, or good advertising person will create a belief in you and a desire for whatever they are selling… whether it is whiter teeth, fresh breath, clean dishes, a hot car that chicks dig… whatever.

The Object of The Propagandist

As a propagandist you are selling people your idea of whatever your idea is… and whatever you want them to believe or do…. Desire to have fresher breath, a hot car that chicks dig, whiter teeth…

Brief History

In 1937 according to Wikipedia a group was formed to point out and educate the public against propaganda. How to recognize it. How to deal with it. The group took the name “Institute for Propaganda Analysis.”

This brain trust of experience(this is not sarcasm, it is praise and awe of the experience of the members) came up with SEVEN propaganda devices. I will list the propaganda devices they came up with they saw propagandists using. When looking at their list I think there may be a couple of additional ones. Or at least a lot of sub-categories within the main categories.

Here is their list:

• Name Calling: Calling your opponent names, or giving an idea a bad label.
• Glittering Generalities: Either associating something with a virtue word or Speaking in generalities, using words that everyone ascribes to, but giving no specifics. We are great! We are mighty! We are Free!
• Transfer: carries the authority, sanction and prestige of something respected over to something else, or carries the authority, sanction, and disapproval to something.
• Testimonial: Generally using someone respected or hated to say something is X. Now days, it also can involve using a self testimonial of the group, or plain folks testimonials (man on the street type stuff).
• Plain Folks: The speaker, or author attempts to convince people “I’m just like you.” or I’m nothing to be scared of or concerned with, I’m from the people. Just plain folks like you.
• Card Stacking: Selection of and use of facts or falsehoods, illustrations, or distractions and logical or illogical statements to give the best or worst scenario. [note:Some people say it involves ONLY your side of the argument, and not mentioning the other side. So you would only tell one side of the story. I believe you give a minimal and weak argument for the other side. Of course your side of the argument will be much stronger.]
• Bandwagon: Everyone (at least all of us) is jumping on. Momentum is going our way, and what I am saying is inevitable, so you might just as well go along so you don’t get left out.

I believe there are additional devices that should be added:

• Assertion: A statement that may or may not be true, but it is said with enthusiasm, and/or energy… and presented with the attitude of “There is no need to doubt this… it’s true!” e.g “The experts said”, ”everyone knows“, “it’s common knowledge”
• Lesser of Two Evils: Even though you don’t agree with this you might as well go along or do it because the alternative is much worse.
• Pinpointing the Enemy: This person, or group is the cause of all our problems.
• Stereotyping:
• Minimize the Oppositions Position: Similar to card stacking, but here you give a very weak defense of the oppositions position and a super strong case for yours.
• Extrapolating the Present or Past into the Future:
• Painting the Future:
• Accusation then Apology: You accuse your opponent of doing something horrendous. After it gets reported in all the papers and media outlets and the story is shown either to be false or a gross exaggeration or mischaracterization of your opponents position and the story is dying down, then apologize for mentioning the accusation, giving it new life.

But For Now We Will Be Using the SEVEN

In order to start and build a solid foundation we will be using the seven, eventually adding more devices to our recognition list.

There is a fun exercise it will help to discern propaganda. We, you and I and all the other readers of this blog will get lots of practice in recognizing the seven basic propaganda devices.

• Name Calling:
• Glittering Generalities:
• Transfer:
• Testimonial:
• Plain Folks:
• Card Stacking:
• Bandwagon:

Our Task / Exercise

Since it’s the USA Presidential Season… Our fun will being by analyzing the candidates speeches. Every one of them we can get our hands on. So if you know of sources to get the text of their speeches for our little experiment/project, please post them.

Next will be the first one. Bear in mind, my analysis will probably suck, and in a couple of months we can all go back and laugh our asses off at it. But it’s a start. And any comments you have or corrections you see, please post them, so we can all learn.

Thanks for reading!

A Critical Thinker,



 

 

Help us advance this story. Provide relevant links or share your insights using our comment box.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post
                  
Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™
]]> http://propagandatactics.com/defining-propaganda/feed/ 0 http://propagandatactics.com/the-limited-power-of-propaganda/ http://propagandatactics.com/the-limited-power-of-propaganda/#comments Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:52:53 +0000 admin http://allenweber.com/the-limited-power-of-propaganda/ Limited Power of Propaganda

It is really important to know the limits of what propaganda can achieve. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood “A man’s got to know his limits” to that I add a propagandist and the public got to know propaganda’s limits.

In the 1950’s a very interesting book came out several actually. But one in particular I am going to reference here. It is by a man named Eric Hoffer perhaps you know the name of the book I ma talking about. The title is The True Believer. His book is a fascinating study.

Throughout his book Mr. Hoffer mentions propaganda, among other things.

He brings up the idea that

Propaganda On It’s Own is Ineffective

Propaganda on it’s own, all by itself is useless, ineffective, impotent. Here is how he explains why…

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe.

Remember, propaganda is basically salesmanship. And as in a sales situation, if you can not get the person to listen to you or pay attention to you,… you will not make the sale. If the person does not believe you… you will not make the sale. With propaganda, you can not just wave a magic wand and “Poof!” it works and people are persuaded to come to your side. In a vacuum propaganda will not work. It has to work on triggers, preparation, groundwork. And once the message (propaganda) is no longer believed, it is not believed and it (the message being delivered, or belief(s) being delivered in the propaganda) loses it’s potency.

He goes on…

It [propaganda] penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. He echoes their innermost feelings. where opinion is coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already ‘know’.

So just like with salesmanship, the prospect must be primed and ready to hear the message. The prospect must already have some even small belief in what the salesperson is saying. And must have a desire for the results promised. For instance a con man sees a persons greed. He sees their desire for easy riches. He sees they believe that others have made millions easily, without work, and the only way to do it is through “inside information”. The con man promises inside information, and dupes his victim into acting on his victims beliefs. Now if you have seen some of the commercials on TV regarding internet scams, and how they are not believable in real life, you realize how if the message is no longer believed, it is ineffective. If you have not seen these commercials, you really need to do so. They are quite funny. One of them, a man is sitting on a bus, when some guy dressed up in some African costume sits down next to him, and begins to tell him the African was related to an oil minister in his country and he trusts this complete stranger to hold the money so he (the African) can get it out of his country. Certainly you have seen spams like that. If someone came to you in person, you would never believe them. The message loses its effectiveness.

The propagandist plays on what people overtly believe, or have a little, teensy tiny belief or hope it might be true. But the belief or hope must already exist. “You are not a dumbass for not doing research into the neighborhood and house before you bought it… Not by any means. It was that crook mortgage broker who took advantage of you when you bought that million dollar house and it lost one hundred thousand dollars of value when the housing bubble burst. Not your fault at all.” Or “Anyone who is rich does not deserve to be, because the only way they got that way was because they cheated.” So a propagandist appealing to these beliefs gets a willing participant, whether what he is saying is true or not.

This is not to say propaganda is bad. It isn’t. I believe it is neither good or bad. It just depends on the use you put it to.

Hoffer continues…

Propaganda by itself succeeds mainly with the frustrated. Their throbbing fears, hopes and passions crowd at the portals of their senses and get between them and the outside world. They cannot see but what they have already imagined, and it is the music of their own souls they hear in the impassioned words of the propagandist. Indeed, it is easier for the frustrated to detect their own imaginings and hear the echo of their own musings in impassioned double-talk and sonorous refrains than in precise words joined together with faultless logic.

Propaganda by itself, however skilled, cannot keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe.

Words Are Essential In Preparing The Masses

Hoffer continues…

… words, are an essential instrument in preparing the ground for a mass movement. But once the movement is realized, words, though still useful, cease to play a decisive role. So acknowledged a master of propaganda as Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Adolph Hitler’s propagandist) admits in an unguarded moment that ‘A sharp sword must always stand behind propaganda if it is to be really effective ’ He also sounds apologetic when he claims that ‘it cannot be denied that more can be done with good propaganda than by no propaganda at all’

Hoffer explains…

Contrary to what one would expect, propaganda becomes more fervent and importunate when it operates in conjunction with coercion than when it has to rely solely on its own effectiveness.

Both they who convert and they who are converted by coercion need the fervent conviction that the faith they impose or are forced to adopt is the only true one.

Propaganda thus serves more to justify ourselves than to convince others

Hoffer sums the preceding thoughts with this…

Propaganda thus serves more to justify ourselves than to convince others; and the more reason we have to feel guilty, the more fervent our propaganda

So if we fear our innermost thoughts and beliefs, we should fear propaganda. If we do not trust ourselves to do the right thing… we should fear propaganda.

In the next post you dear reader, and I, and the others reading this blog will start to have some fun. We will learn about the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and some propaganda mechanisms they discovered. Then we will begin to dissect some political speeches. It’s going to be fun, until the “Thought Police” come a knock, knock, knockin at my door!

Thanks for reading!

 

Help us advance this story. Provide relevant links or share your insights using our comment box.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:


Powered by Bookmarkify™

]]> http://propagandatactics.com/the-limited-power-of-propaganda/feed/ 0