OT: For U.S. Citizens: Emailing the President

The Ultimate On-Line Whistle Community. If you find one more ultimater, let us know.
User avatar
mvhplank
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 12
Location: Gettysburg
Contact:

Post by mvhplank »

Here's something to stir the pot...
A Nation of Victims

By Renana Brooks, The Nation
June 22, 2003

George W Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English language. What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language – especially negatively charged emotional language – as a political tool. Take a closer look at his speeches and public utterances, and his political success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others.

President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration. While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and theologians, such as Josef Pieper. But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in political discourse, and in such "hot media" as talk radio and television.
See the full article at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16220 or http://truthout.org/docs_03/062403G.shtml

A short paragraph at the end describes the author: Renana Brooks, PhD, is a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington, DC. She heads the Sommet Institute for the Study of Power and Persuasion (www.sommetinstitute.org) and is completing a book on the virtue myth and the conservative culture of domination.

M
Marguerite
Gettysburg
Jon-M
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Holyoke, MA

Post by Jon-M »

Well, if people want to talk politics, let's talk politics. Re the "civility" of the right vs. the left: has anybody read anything by Ann(e?) Coulter lately? Or listened to Rush Limbaugh? Or been aware of what happened to the Dixie Chicks for expressing an unpopular opinion? The right wing in America is trying to shut down diversity of opinion in this country by labelling it treasonous: that's not incivil, not snobbish; it's out and out anti-democratic.
As for George Bush, all he did was to lie or, at the very least, severely bend the truth to get Americans to send their kids off to die to head off a threat that seems less and less imminent. All he did was to isolate the country diplomatically in an endeavor which requires all the help we can get. All he did was regard the tragedy on September 11 as "hitting the Trifecta" (his words, not mine). All he's done is work as hard as he can to grind down the poor while feathering the nests of the rich. And there's lots, lots more. No, he's not a dummy; he's a villain, a heartless, ruthless, self-righteous man lacking all compassion. Nothing too serious about that; not nearly as serious as Clinton's horrifying, utterly intolerable sexual misbehavior. Now THAT deserved impeachment!
Jon Michaels
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Madguy, I'm afraid you've hit the money concerning
the middle east. Weekenders, I agree with it all.

Ann Coulter strikes me as clever but obnoxious,
but I haven't read her stuff and I can't judge. I haven't listened to
Rush L in several years, but I always thought him
civil, and he was described as such even by journalists
on the left. For instance, when liberals called to argue
a point, he would treat them courteously, hold them
over station breaks, and, above all, go to the issues.

The Dixie Chicks made the mistake of blasting the
president before a foreign audience at a point where
American troops were likely to see battle. Their trouble
wasn't with the Right Wing, but with the typical patriotic
Country and Western fan.

I don't believe Bush either lied or bent the truth, though
it's possible he did the latter. The bottom line is
that it was vitually universally believed that Iraq
had WMD. Jacque Chirac put it this way: 'Iraq has
WMD.' Clinton said it too and added that there was
a serious risk that Iraq would share WMD with
terrorists. Consequently Clinton's adminstration accepted the
position that the goal of American policy
should be regime change. Al Gore said this as well.

In the weeks before the war, Iraq was working to
create the appearance of having WMD, e.g. French
arms inspectors said that Iraq was importing large
quantities of atropine.

As to going it alone, that was after all a two way street.
If, in fact, there were no WMD, it suggests all the
more strongly that the British proposal that Iraq
be given three weeks to disarm, with specific bench
marks to show itself clean, would have prevented
the war--if it hadn't been rejected by France.

Once again, Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and
obstruction of justice, not for having an affair.
Being a villain isn't grounds for impeachment,
only for not being re-elected.

But then who will be left? Best
User avatar
WyoBadger
Posts: 2708
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: "Tell us something" hits me a bit like someone asking me to tell a joke. I can always think of a hundred of them until someone asks me for one. You know how it is. Right now, I can't think of "something" to tell you. But I have to use at least 100 characters to inform you of that.
Location: Wyoming

Post by WyoBadger »

Bush is an evil tyrant who can't speak English; Clinton was a great man of the people. If only we had him back.

No, Clinton was inexcusible in his moral failings and pandering to the UN; if only we had Reagan back--what a great, courageous man.

We hated Reagan--the warmonger! Bring back the peaceful days of Jimmy Carter!

That wimp? Are you kidding? Now Nixon--THERE was a president!

And thus it has been as long as anyone can remember. Could it possibly be that all of these men are trying their best to do a nearly impossible job?

Jim makes a very, very good point. Even the best and brightest get mixed up now and then. Bush is not a brilliant public speaker, but he is a very effective leader.

But nevermind that. Bush Sr. was criticized for his delay, for not prosecuting the war with Iraq, and for failing to finish the job. Bush Jr. is criticized for being hasty, for prosecuting the war with Iraq, and for fininshing the job.

Clinton was criticized for being too smooth. Bush is criticized for not being smooth enough.

The fact is, liberals will always hate conservatives, especially those who are able to get the job done. And yes, conservatives will always hate liberals. We like to pigeonhole issues just like we pigeonhole people--it's all so neat and clean.

Thus, most of the accusations leveled against politicians by "the other side" are stated in emotional language which clouds the real issues. "Tax cuts for the wealthy" are a good example. A millionaire gets a big tax cut, and poor little old me gets a measly two hundred bucks. Nevermind that the millionaire starts out paying a whole lot more than me, so of course when it's refund time he gets more back. He's still paying a lot more than I am. Work out the percentages and it's really pretty fair, the way I understand it. If the guy made his millions honestly, more power to him.

Even this is oversimplified, but nevermind, it's TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY, which we all KNOW is a bad thing.

Party politics is a great thing for people who have not the time or inclination to really delve into the issues for what they are. It's easier just to personify evil in a person.

So, back at it. Clinton was a complete schmuck...

TW
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38240
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Post by Nanohedron »

WyoBadger wrote:The fact is, liberals will always hate conservatives, especially those who are able to get the job done. And yes, conservatives will always hate liberals. We like to pigeonhole issues just like we pigeonhole people--it's all so neat and clean.
As my world morphs further from black-and-white to ever-increasing shades of grey, I've found it more effective to just hate everybody.

It seems more egalitarian.
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

That was wonderful, TW. And yes, Nano, hating everybody
is the beginning of wisdom.

You see, they're rascals one and all--otherwise they
wouldn't be there! Nobody with a soul could
win a national election.

But it's easy to want a scapegoat, life being the dark
tunnel that it is (whistles clogging, you name it)
and anger towards Whomever feels good,
there's that surge, the warmth in one's belly.
If only They were gone, then things would be
alright.

But once you buy into the propaganda, it's
Them, the heartless boobs on the otherside,
rest assured--you will never again understand anything
that's going on. And understanding what's
going on is so much more important than
bashing the other side. Best
User avatar
Jerry Freeman
Posts: 6074
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
Contact:

Post by Jerry Freeman »

It's my understanding that the pretext for Clinton's impeachment was that he lied about an affair.

If it turns out that Bush exaggerated the threat from Iraq to secure public support for the invasion, I think it is unlikely he'll be impeached, but I believe the crime (yes, it's a crime to lie to Congress) will have been far more serious. Whatever Clinton or Gore thought of the Iraqi threat is not directly relevant to this question. Neither of them invaded Iraq. The issue is that the American public and Congress have a right to the facts when contemplating something as serious as going to war.

Of course it remains to be seen how this will play out. It may be that WMD will be discovered, that the Bush administration will present more substantial evidence on which it based its statements, etc. and this discussion will be moot.

I don't know much about Iran-Contra, but it seems to me that there was some pretty shady stuff going on there, that Reagon somehow deflected away from the Presidency.

There's also the fact that George, Sr. instructed his Ambassador to Iraq to tell Saddam Hussein that "We're not interested in your little border dispute" with Kuwait. This doesn't get mentioned much, but I wonder what Saddam would have done if he hadn't been given the impression in advance of his invasion, that we weren't going to intervene.

Of course, if you look back a little further, you find that John F. Kennedy was in cahoots with organized crime, had numerous extramarital liaisons, as did Lyndon Johnson, who also drew us deeper into the Vietnam quagmire by keeping us in the dark about what was actually happening there (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution being based on a hoax in the first place).

As I've mentioned before, I find the whole political milleu pretty discouraging.

Best wishes,
Jerry
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Well, the impeachment charge issued
not from his lying about an affair
per se, but his doing so under oath--once before a federal grand
jury. Lying under oath is perjury, a felony. The obstruction charges
involved his (allegedly) hiding evidence during
a legal suit and tampering with
witnesses, and trying to get others
to commit perjury--also a felony.
He was never charged with having an affair.
Last edited by jim stone on Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TomB
Posts: 2124
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: East Hartford, CT

Post by TomB »

jim stone wrote:Well, the impeachment charge issued
not from his lying about an affair
per se, but his doing so under oath--once before a federal grand
jury. Lying under oath is perjury, a felony. The obstruction charges
involved his (allegedly) hiding evidence and tampering with
witnesses--also a felony. He was never charged with having an affair.
Yes, you are right. Still, I would have to agree with Jerry. If Pres. Bush, lied, or misled Congress and the public about WMD in order to get the "go ahead" on Iraq, this, to my mind, is a far serious matter, and yet I wonder if we would be going down the impeachment road.

I'm not trying to lessen what Pres. Clinton did, because perjury it was, but it's still "apples to oranges."

All the Best, Tom
"Consult the Book of Armaments"
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

I agree that if a president lies to Congress
in order to get an OK for a war, it is
very serious and possibly grounds for
impeachment. The first article of
impeachment that was drawn up
against Richard Nixon was that he
had lied to the American people.
User avatar
Jerry Freeman
Posts: 6074
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
Contact:

Post by Jerry Freeman »

Hi, Jim.

We've had this conversation offline, but I might as well respond here, as well.

When stated in the terms you are using, it sounds like Clinton was impeached for serious offenses. However, he was relentlessly pursued as no other president has ever been pursued, in search of anything at all that could be used against him. If any other president had been pursued in a similar way, there's a very good chance he would have been cornered into saying or doing something that could then be used to claim he had obstructed justice, whether in regard to the way the he conducted the presidency itself or the way he conducted his personal affairs.

That doesn't excuse what Clinton did, but I think it was over-reaching and an abuse of the tools of government to impeach him for it. I believe the appropriate response would have been censure, but the opportunity to take political advantage was too tempting for his opponents to resist.

Clinton did irreparable damage to the democratic process by creating a scandal that upstaged the nation's business, and his opponents also did irreparable damage to the democratic process by pushing the matter as far as they did for partisan ends.

Best wishes,
Jerry
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Sorry, still a computer idiot. Message interspersed.

Jerry Freeman wrote:Hi, Jim.

We've had this conversation offline, but I might as well respond here, as well.

When stated in the terms you are using, it sounds like Clinton was impeached for serious offenses. However, he was relentlessly pursued as no other president has ever been pursued, in search of anything at all that could be used against him.

Don't know about that, but he was certainly being pursued.
It's a fact of democracy that presidents are pursued, but
maybe he was more pursued.

If any other president had been pursued in a similar way, there's a very good chance he would have been cornered into saying or doing something that could then be used to claim he had obstructed justice, whether in regard to the way the he conducted the presidency itself or the way he conducted his personal affairs.

No, obstruction of justice is a specific violation of the criminal
law, as is perjury. If you don't lie under oath, you can't commit perjury, etc.
I don't think they would have got Truman or Carter, etc.
But to meet your point head on, suppose you are right.
Suppose that any president who had been pursued this way might have
been cornered into saying or doing somehing that could be
used to claim whatever.

Suppose in the midst of the effort to oust Nixon someone
said "This president has been pursued as no president
has been pursued--and anybody who had been pursued
might have been cornered into saying or doing something
that could be used to impeach him.' Suppose for argument's
sake it's true--it hardly follows that Nixon shouldn't have
been impeached (if he hadn't resigned) or that what he
did didn't merit impeachment. That is determined not by
saying he was pursued and so on, but by looking at what
he did. That goes for Clinton, too. Otherwise we supply
any criminal in high office a sure out--at least if they've
been pursued as no president has been pursued. And then
what will happen to our democracy?


That doesn't excuse what Clinton did, but I think it was over-reaching and an abuse of the tools of government to impeach him for it. I believe the appropriate response would have been censure, but the opportunity to take political advantage was too tempting for his opponents to resist.

Every impeachment will be largely politically motivated.
The nature of the system is that the other side will try to
take political advantage. That somebody is brought to
an impeachment trial for political reasons, by people who
are abusing the tools of governent for partisan purposes
doesn't mean he shouldn't be kicked out of office.
If ever we have a Mussolini or a Hitler (the way that
democracy jumps the tracks when it does) they will probably be
impeached (if they are) by people who are trying to
take political advantage of the tools of government for
partisan purposes. Certainly that is what our Mussolini will say,
and he may well be right. That doesn't mean they
shouldn't go. They will do everything in their power
to make the issue the motives of the people who
brought them to trial, not what they did.

So I'm convinced that if our children's children are to
live in a democracy, we must say to all
of these people--The motives of the people who brought
you here don't matter, be they saints or demons.
All that matters is this: what did you do and does it
merit removal?

And if somebody says to us, 'Well, frankly, the president
probably violated the criminal law, committed crimes
that would send the ordinary citizen to prison for
years, but he was pursued, cornered, and so on.
Anybody would have done it. Censure him'
well, I think the future stability of the Republic
requires that we be tough on criminals in high
office--go along with it this time and we will never
hear the end of it, and then God help us.
We don't typically tolerate excuses from
people who commit crimes, and I'm especially
concerned that we not do it for people who
commit crimes in high office.

As I mentioned earlier, I wasn't terribly sorry
that Clinton wasn't kicked out. But the arguments
people gave in his behalf frighten me for our
future--I am especially concerned that we set the
precedent that in an impeachment trial the
prosecutiion doesn't get to call witnesses. Best, Jim





Clinton did irreparable damage to the democratic process by creating a scandal that upstaged the nation's business, and his opponents also did irreparable damage to the democratic process by pushing the matter as far as they did for partisan ends.

Best wishes,
Jerry
Last edited by jim stone on Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rando7
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:00 pm

Post by Rando7 »

jim stone wrote: Ann Coulter strikes me as clever but obnoxious,
but I haven't read her stuff and I can't judge. I haven't listened to
Rush L in several years, but I always thought him
civil, and he was described as such even by journalists
on the left. For instance, when liberals called to argue
a point, he would treat them courteously, hold them
over station breaks, and, above all, go to the issues.
I have to chime in as another conservative who doesn't care for Ann Coulter - she uses insults and generalizations much too often, while her arguments aren't particularly strong at times. Here books are heavily footnoted, but the conclusions she draws are not all that well supported by the footnotes.

Rush Limbaugh on the other hand is always polite to those he is talking too, even when they don't agree with him. I often don't agree with him but his opinions are almost always supported. What I think liberals fail to understand sometimes is that a lot of what Limbaugh says is something of a put-on and meant to be entertaining, and he trusts that his listeners can tell when he is joking. He is given credit by the left for possessing much more power than he really has.

As far as Clinton goes, that has been discussed ad nauseum, both sides think they are being fair while the other is being partisan. The real tragedy is that this adversarial tone has carried over into this administration's tenure, making it very difficult to have a productive dialogue on many issues. I believe much of the anti-Bush sentiment is partially rooted in wanting to even the score for the impeachment.
User avatar
Dale
The Landlord
Posts: 10293
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Chiff & Fipple's LearJet: DaleForce One
Contact:

Post by Dale »

2 things about Limbaugh, with whom I rarely agree.

1. Several years ago he appeared on David Letterman. He, Rush, was unfailingly friendly and courteous and came off great. Letterman, who I really like, was ill-mannered and came off like a jerk.

2. Limbaugh's response to the sudden loss of his hearing is nothing if not admirable.

Dale
jim stone
Posts: 17193
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

People are really surprising. Remember when
Reagan was shot. Walked into the hospital,
took off his shirt and said to the doctors: 'Tell
me you're all Republicans!'
Post Reply