<p>Pffffffffffffffffft aka the sound of a deflating windbag</p>
<p>Fundingfather:
The memo was called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” and was was distributed widely to Republicans by Newt Gingrich in the early 1990’s and has been commented on pretty extensively. The Repubs don’t talk about it but they’ve never tried to deny responsibility for it, as far as I know. I can understand your reluctance to believe that it’s legit, but I’m afraid it is.</p>
<p>It’s not only legit but used in colleges that study rethoric. Now, for the full story, it may be noted that the memo was originally sent to entering Congressmen. Knowing your audience and targeting it correctly is important. </p>
<p>Years after its “unfortunate” release, the memo still pays dividends as the suggested associations of words find plenty of ears and minds willing to adopt them. Chaim Perelman would be satisfied. </p>
<p>For instance, here’s a link from Wake Forest University. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/454/gopac.html[/url]”>http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/454/gopac.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/index.html[/url]”>http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/index.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, I just don’t like a fraud. Brit is a fraud. None of the claims about his credentials are true. He doesn’t work at a university (well, not unless he really is that security guard whose name comes up in searches). His one other publication is a vanity press book. I managed to locate one of the 5 copies that sold. It’s fiction and very bad at that.</p>
<p>His opinion on these matters is as only as valid as any student’s or parent’s on the forum. No more, no less. Citing him is a play for authoritative support that fails miserably.</p>
<p>As to this list, it is as useful as phrenology or creationism. It only proves that you can make yourself believe anything you want to believe.</p>
<p>Actually, I didn’t check his credentials because I thought the standards applicable. It’s interesting to notice the variant of the Rovian attack-the-messenger strategy: don’t deal with the points raised, attack the person they’re attributed to.</p>
<p>It doesn’t take much to be better informed, smarter, and wiser than Incurious George and the brains of the outfit, “Deadeye Dick” Cheney.</p>
<p>TheDad, aren’t you tired of being attacked for just sharing something relelvant and interesting</p>
<p>It is interesting how the CONTENT of what was posted are ignored but the writer is attacked for being a fraud, as if Rove has some real credentials as does Reilly, um, what are their credentials again</p>
<p>the label Dr. I found in none of Laurence’s own writings, but whatever he says, I agree with</p>
<p>Some cut and pasting just for Xiggi:</p>
<p><a href=“define:Fascism[/url] - Google Search”>define:Fascism - Google Search;
<p>Fascism
“A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.” (From The American Heritage Dictionary)</p>
<p>Fascism: A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.</p>
<p>FASCISM a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called “CORPORATISM”.</p>
<p>Well, based on that definition I guess we can all agree that FDR was indeed a fascist.</p>
<p>I think TD and the rest of the Peanut Gallery prove my point about the visciousness of the unrelenting slime that is being hurled by the left. I’d like to thank him for bringing this fascism thing up … once again.</p>
<p>“TheDad, aren’t you tired of being attacked for just sharing something relelvant and interesting”</p>
<p>CGM, are you talking about yourself? ROFLMAO! </p>
<p>Le ridicule ne tue pas!</p>
<p>“Actually, I didn’t check his credentials because I thought the standards applicable. It’s interesting to notice the variant of the Rovian attack-the-messenger strategy: don’t deal with the points raised, attack the person they’re attributed to.”</p>
<p>Actually, it’s the unmistakable addenda to the “good doctor” pedigree that attempted to lend credibility to the “original” piece. Oh yes, if the piece was written by a political scientist who happen to be a doctor or a professional in the field, it MUST be good. Would the piece carry the same authority if the author was an admitted lunatic who writes for an obscure rag in Rochester and contributes to a most questionable organization that hides behind a scholarly facade. Was his “research” written on the back of a vodka soaked Aeroflot napkin when waking up from the torpor of his dreams of CIA and FBI persecution? Did he happened to read the Umberto Eco book he just bought at the airport store? </p>
<p>This again demonstrates why the contributions to political blogs are not trustworthy of being called factual evidence -or anything else for that matter. They are merely a repository of collective opinions of dubious origin and unverifiable sources. So, the only yardstick for integrity is minimal: if the opinion fits the daily agenda, the source MUST be good! </p>
<p>Finally, since the gospel words of the “good doctor” are so valuable in forming your own opinion, why not leave you with a quotation culled directly from the horse’s mouth … or was it the other side of the animal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I miss the insertion of the same cautionary tale in the hundreds of blogs that blindly copied the “original” piece? Nah! The political scientist did not write about the United States. Or was he?</p>
<p>"Some cut and pasting just for Xiggi:</p>
<p>CGM, did I not write about the difference between reading and understanding the words? You really, really ought to try it sometimes. That and attempting to write a comprehensible sentence or an original thought for once. </p>
<p>You have shown the spectrum of your talent in this thread. Again … Pfffffffffffffft!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, not originally. I set out to contact “Dr.” Britt to discuss his methodology. I still have his email address somewhere if you’re interested. That list is close enough to what I do for a living that I was convinced it was bogus on its own merits. When I discovered that Britt’s credentials were misrepresented (which is a fact and not a personal attack), that cinched it.</p>
<p>The list doesn’t represent what is purported and the author is a fraud. Draw your own conclusions.</p>
<p>As I said, no different from phrenology or creationism. Pure aluminum foil hat territory, that list. Feel free to make up your own, it would be just as valid.</p>
<p>You know, even a broken clock is right twice a day, a Britt’s credentials have nothing to do with much of anything. </p>
<p>The criteria seem a good point of departure to me. But neither the criteria nor how the Bush administration measures up against them is being discussed here. </p>
<p>My clothes dryer doesn’t spin as efficiently as the Republican Noise Machine and its local adherents.</p>
<p>Xiggi, come on issue please, all you do is attack me and ignore the issues cause you have nothing else to say</p>
<p>The list was interesting, and people can see the parallels to many regimes, sorry if that scares some people</p>
<p>“The list was interesting, and people can see the parallels to many regimes, sorry if that scares some people”</p>
<p>That is precisely why this list doesn’t scare me at all. It is easy to take a list and then look at it and see whatever you want from it. Fortune tellers and those who “speak to the dead” have used this technique to fool people for centuries.</p>
<p>TheDad, I not defending Bush against anything and I don’t hold you responsible for being duped. But duped you were. </p>
<p>All I wanted to do was point out that “Dr.” Britt’s paper is worth the price of the bits it takes to store it on a harddrive.</p>
<p>And you can’t imagine how ironic it is to hear you talk about the “Republican Noice Machine” after you posted that nonsense. As if both sides weren’t spinning for all they’re worth.</p>
<p>Strick, I recently set someone back on their heels when I said that I didn’t even notice the by-line of an article that we were discussing. I don’t get my knickers in a twist over credentials: someone could be a Nobel Prize winner or the could be Driver, either way, I’ll read each article and decide what I think based on what I think the merits are. (Admittedly, if the authorship of someworks is shoved in your face beforehand, it may tilt your opinion.) The issue of credentials, doctorate or not, etc., is a paisley-patterned herring. </p>
<p>If anyone wanted to debate a criterion or my assessment of it, that would be another matter. As it is: feh.</p>
<p>Btw, you’re on very fragile ground when using the word “duped” about anything having remotely to do with the Bush administration. But increasing numbers of people are figuring it out.</p>
<p>Fair enough, TheDad. </p>
<p>The set of criteria may accurately describe some characteristics of fascism, but are so vague that they produce misleading result. I wasn’t kidding when I said that the list would “prove” that FDR was a facist. BTW, in none of the countries listed did fascists come to power through election fraud. For example, there was never any charges of election fraud against Mussolini and Hitler seized power during a trumpted up national emergency. Both supressed religion rather “entwined” with their governments.</p>
<p>Your ratings for each of the criteria are heavily biased. You give values to different items that can not be supported objectively. </p>
<p>Seriously, show what the in the world you think constitutes evidence to support any of the ratings you give. Nationalism? Really? It’s that different from any previous US Administration? </p>
<p>You can compare the current civil rights situation in the US with the Holocaust? With the general suspension of rights in fascist Germany or Italy? With children taken from their parents and given to “Arian” parents? Women forced to bear children with SS men the don’t know for the Fatherland?</p>
<p>You think that terrorists are really being used as scapegoats? That there’s no threat?</p>
<p>Are completely nuts when you claim we’re experiencing “supremacy of the military”? “Rampant Sexism”? “Controlled Mass Media”? “Obessession with National Security”? “Religion and Government Intertwined”? Oh, hell, the whole list? You can’t support any of the rankings you give, not compared with real world examples. You’re outrageous. Offer tangible evidence, not some whiney liberal claptrap.</p>
<p>But I guess that I should expect that from someone who treats this badly conceived “Cosmopolitan” kind of laundry list from someone whose credentials are a fraud published in a media outlet that has to look up to the National Enquirer on the matter of journalist integrity and FOX News for objectivity as worth discussing.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, TheDad, that was probably too broad a blast for you to respond to. Let’s take just a couple of examples and see if what I say about the list makes sense.</p>
<p>Sexism. There’s no historical evidence that facist governments were any more sexist than their contemporaries. Certainly no evidence that sexism was a primary goal, though they had lots of policies that furthered other causes that did impact women. There’s also no real evidence of any pervasive sexims in the current administration. Ask the Secretary of State or the first woman to fly a US combat mission. </p>
<p>You may argue that your assumption that recent court appointments may have had overturning Roe as an objective, but while that affects women, gender simply isn’t the issue.</p>
<p>Outside of Roe, can you offer evidence of a substantial difference between the way this Administration deals with women than any other recent one? Remember I’d argue that to rate sexim at the level you have, those things would have to be based on a specific sexist policy, not the side effect of something completely different (i.e., X disproportionally affects poor households, a majority of which are headed by women, doesn’t count as inherently sexist).</p>
<p>Scapegoating. How is that more a fascist tendency than just one of a lust for power? Hitler was a piker at it compared to Stalin and Mao, and it’s hard to consider them fascists. Everyone uses the fear card to some degree. That’s how the Democrats tried to oppose Alito, for instance. So that’s so vague it simply doesn’t add any value to the list.</p>
<p>Worse, it covers over the real issue that might have been intelligently included in a list describing fascists. Racism. Fascist theory was fundamentally founded on racial purity. That that allowed them to scapegoat the “racially inferior” was a welcome bonus, but racism was the policy and racially motivated gencide was the objective. That should be shockingly clear to anyone who’s familiar with history or made even a passing study of fascism. White Supremacy (which galls me even to type) is the key stone of fascism even today. Why is it such a glaring ommission from “Dr.” Britt’s list?</p>
<p>More to the point, what evidence can you offer that this administration is more racist than any recent administration? Specific evidence of racially based policy, not something that incidently impacts minorities more. Again, I’ll refer you to Secretaries of State past and present. And don’t bring up Katrina unless you’re prepared to be countered with recent demographic evidence that the worst affected (dead) did not reflect that race was even remotely an issue.</p>
<p>Note that none of this is a defense of Bush. I’m asking you to explain your criteria and the evidence that supports your rating of them.</p>
<p>The list is BS and so are your ratings.</p>
<p>The sad thing is, TheDad, I’ve always had great deal of respect for your posts. This just suggests that you’re suffering from a hate-filled self-delusion that obscures your judgement and objectivity. Some fraud created a list that feeds into your anger and you wound up being duped by it.</p>
<p>Strick, anon…your post is not something I can dissect in respond to in five minutes, which is approximately have at the moment.</p>