Sardonic Sistah Says

Why don’t they do what they say, say what they mean

~The Fixx, “One Thing Leads to Another“

I’m not a linguist but it’s hard not to tell that the purveyors of the war are playing word games with the American public. 

On Friday night during the first presidential debate McCain kept calling on Obama’s disagreement with the surge.

“Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations. But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly, incredibly Senator Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days and never”

“ …and by the way, Senator Obama’s original plan, they would have been out last spring before the surge ever had a chance to succeed. “

“And I’m — I’m — understand why Senator Obama was surprised and said that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.” 

Not to belabor semantics but at what time does this military movement stops being defined as a surge and becomes known for what it truly is: an escalation?

The American people were sold on the idea of a surge.  When you think of something surging its a quick movement.  Going by a few definitions on dictionary.com a surge is

• a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob.
• an uneven flow and strong momentum given to a fluid, as water in a tank, resulting in a rapid, temporary rise in pressure.
• a swelling wave; billow.
• a sudden rush or burst of current or voltage.
• to rise, roll, move, or swell forward in or like waves: The sea surged against the shore. The crowd surged back and forth.

In none of the definitions do you get the idea that what is happening is going to be sustained for an extended period of time.  It’s after a few months I thought we would be toning it down, but instead the “surge” surges on. 

Scientist and linguist George Lakoff wrote an article in February 2007 about what the Bush administration really meant when they used the word surge.

Words have meanings; they express ideas, and ideas are important. The word “surge” came with the idea of a relatively small, short-term increase in force that would be effective. Such previous troop increases had been ineffective, and the joint chiefs saw no reason that this one would be effective either. The actual proposal called a “surge” was the opposite of what the word meant. In short, the very use of the word “surge” was a lie.

People all over the country noticed the “surge” framing immediately, and quickly – and accurately – reframed the president’s proposal as an “escalation.” Escalation is a strategy employed by an apparently superior power that is losing when it was expected to win. It is the strategy of raising the level of force and, hence, of violence, bringing in more troops and deepening one’s commitment to a strategy already in place: raising the bar for what is to count as “success” and for the removal of troops.

Which I think makes it more of an escalation, which is not how they want to refer to it.  Escalation makes people think of Vietnam.  But Nico Pitney at ThinkProgress.org makes this good point:

The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a “short-term troop increase,” the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).

Every time the media repeats the word “surge,” they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush’s policy.

McCain would really like to take credit for the “surge” working in Iraq although what he really wants he can’t truthfully define because the American people would be against it.  A surge shouldn’t last for twenty years.  I don’t think it really should last for one year but most likely the same number of troops will still be there for several months (if not another year) after whoever takes office in January.

But let’s call it what it truthfully is and drop the misnomer.

Personally I think Obama did himself a disservice by not taking up John McCain on his offer to do three townhall meeting style debates.  I know that McCain thinks that the style suits him well and I have heard talking heads say the same but I just don’t see it.  McCain comes off relaxed it’s true, but his relaxed seems kind of like a jerk.  The bomb Iran song (which he tried to gloss over during the debate) and his insult to a student who asked him a question made him seem a bit hostile to me.  I don’t think the town hall debate is his baileywick.

But for those who would like to hear some town hall style debating (actual debating, not media hyped talks designed to get a soundbite) tune into Intelligence Squared.  The show has Oxford-style debating with one motion, one moderator, two to three people for a subject and two to three people against.  After the panelists opening remarks the audience is given a chance to ask their own questions.  They poll the audience at the beginning of the debate to see where people stand and then the audience votes again at the end.  The side with the most votes wins the debate.

You can listen on NPR.orgor download the debates from iTunes.  The current recorded debate was “Is the Government Responsible for Health Care?” which was interesting to say the least.  When the debate started I was firmly on one side but by the end I kind of edged over, although not completely. 

Upcoming debates are America is Winning the War, Guns Reduce Crime and Bush 43 is the Worst President of the Last 50 Years.  You can still get tickets for the debates which are held in New York City.

Conflicting information concerning women’s health and vitamin D was released this week.

MarketWatch.com from the Wall Street Journal is reporting that some people are taking harmful doses of vitamin D in response to medical stories that say people, especially women, have low levels of vitamin D in their blood. 

Although there are studies that show that both men and women who have lower blood levels of Vitamin D also have a corresponding higher mortality rate, more Vitamin D is not necessarily better, said Dr. Lyles. He notes that other studies have shown significant toxicity in people who have consumed 2,000 IU (International Units) of Vitamin D daily, in part because Vitamin D is fat soluble and tends to accumulate in the body when taken in excess.

MarketWatch 25 Sept 2008

On Natural News.com it says that women who are deficient in vitamin D at the time they are diagnosed with breast cancer are nearly 75% more likely to die from the disease than women with sufficient amounts of vitamin D.

A number of prior studies have strongly demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency is associated with an increased risk of developing cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, pancreas and prostate, and perhaps others. But until now, no study has looked at how vitamin D levels affect the progress of any cancer.

Natural News.com 25 September 2008

Paleontologist Nina Jablonski noted the correlation between vitamin D and skin color. “Light skin evolved when people migrated away from the Equator and needed to make vitamin D in their skin,” Jablonski said.  “To do that, they had to lose pigment. Repeatedly over history, many people moved dark to light and light to dark. That shows that color is not a permanent trait. “

Jablonski has also noted that geographically women often have a lighter skin tone than men.

Vitamin D naturally occurs in the body and is a by-product of sunshine.  It can be obtained from foods such as grain and dairy, which are fortified with the vitamin in many countries.  The vitamin can also be obtained through supplements.

A light skinned person can produce all the vitamin D that he/she needs with just 15 minutes a day of sunlight on the face, arms and hands.  A darker skinned person needs twice the exposure to the sun.  During the winter when the days are shorter there may not be enough sunlight for the body to produce sufficient quantities of vitamin D.

I don’t think that George W. Bush is completely to blame for the last eight years.

I came to this conclusion yesterday as I was out jogging and listening to a rebroadcast of Bill Moyer’s interview with Andrew J. Bocevich whose new book about our imperial presidency is moving up the NYT best sellers list.  Although I have listened to the conversation a few weeks ago when it first aired, now with the Wall Street fall out it hits more things home.  It was when they got to this point in the conversation that I really perked up:

BILL MOYERS: You’re the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President’s speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word “malaise” in the text to the address. It’s a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don’t act now, we’re headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.

BILL MOYERS: And he lost the election. You in fact say-

ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: -this speech killed any chance he had of winning reelection. Why? Because the American people didn’t want to settle for less?

ANDREW BACEVICH: They absolutely did not. And indeed, the election of 1980 was the great expression of that, because in 1980, we have a candidate, perhaps the most skillful politician of our time, Ronald Reagan, who says that, “Doom-sayers, gloom-sayers, don’t listen to them. The country’s best days are ahead of us.”

And it made me think, is GWB really that bad of a president.  He appears on television a bit more subdued, no brash talk, a slight hang of the head and I feel sorry for him.  I never voted for him, I have never agreed with his policies yet still I feel sorry for him.  Because he is was the President that we wanted him to be.  He did what he said he was going to do and we agreed went him.  He didn’t tell us the downside, but then we never asked.

We never asked were his figures accurate about the war.  We never asked how we were going to pay for it.  We never questioned if it was prudent to go on a spending spree and act like everything was fine after thousands died in 9/11 and then thousands more died in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It’s like knowing that you are sick but you go to a doctor who barely looks at you but gives you a clean bill of health.  In your heart you know he’s wrong but you want to believe his diagnosis anyway because if you press and have him really investigate you don’t know if you can handle the bad news.

If a President tells us that he will have to raise taxes in order to fix some of the things that are bothering us how will that sit with us?  What if he really did need to raise taxes?  That was the downfall of Bush 41 and I’m sure that Bush 43 decided it wouldn’t be his fate.  The phrase of choice for the last few months has being speaking truth to power and in a democracy the power is in the hands of the people.  Who can speak the truth to us and still get elected? 

Bush appealed to our greed in 2000 and 2004.  He read us and gave us what we wanted to get whatever it was he wanted and now we want to blame him for the state that America is in today.

We also want to blame the media for not being fully on their job.  They eagerly printed everything that Bush’s administration said without thoroughly checking the facts or getting a second source.  They didn’t follow up as deeply as they could have on a lot of news stories and on a lot of news shows entertainment is given equal time and attention as other news. 

So everyone was sleeping during the last several years and a lot of the American people are mad and distrusting of our government and our news media.  It’s not that they don’t deserve it, but like the saying goes, when you point your finger there three others pointing back at you.  In order for a democracy to work we have to be less passive and more engaged.  The media is a business and they will give us pabulum or crap depending on which way the wind blows but they won’t give us something that won’t sell.  We as a people have to decide what matters to us most and be willing to work for it, sacrifice some things and do more than just vote. 

Sometimes a president is bad because of the decisions that he makes and the things he allows and disallows.  The people suffer the cost of the actions of the government but the people are sometimes also willing participants.

If you went to church this morning there is a small chance that besides the good word you also got a political sermon from your preacher.

Thirty-three preachers across the country are a part of campaign called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  It was organized by an Arizona based group called Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) which is headed by a group of Christian lawyers who work for socially conservative causes.

The Pulpit Freedom Campaign was organized to challenge a 54 year old law that prohibits religious organizations and nonprofit groups that accept tax-deductible contributions from endorsing specific candidates. The group thinks the law is unconstitutional and inhibits churches from expressing their first amendment right for freedom of speech.

“This is something we’ve committed the resources to,” said ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley. “What we want to do is have a reasonable constitutional addressing of the issues. For 54 years, the Internal Revenue Service has studiously avoided any court confrontation over their ability to regulate a pastor’s sermon.”

Washington Post, 27 Sept 2008

Senior legal council to ADF Erik Stanley cites through American history church pastors have been able endorse or oppose political candidates.  “Churches were free to endorse or oppose candidates and they did so. The record shows they exercised that right responsibly,” Stanley said.  It stopped with the 1954 Johnson Amendment.

Many have pointed out that although American churches aren’t allowed to endorse political candidates it doesn’t prevent them from speaking out on social issues.  Civil rights leader and minister Reverend Martin Luther King often spoke from the pulpit about equal rights for African Americans along with the country’s involvement in the Vietnam war and union issues.

Not all ministers agree with ADF’s stance.  Reverend Eric Williams of the United Church of Christ in Columbus Ohio is opposed to group’s stance.  He feels that the law is there to help protect the free speech of churches.

“This wall protects citizens from the hurricanes of religious extremism,” Rev. Williams writes in the Columbus Dispatch.  “It is the fencerow that encourages us to be caring neighbors; it is the mile marker erected by the Founders to guide faithful patriots in each new generation, who seek and secure for everyone our unalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” “

Reverend Williams told the Wall Street Journal, “If there are churches of any stripe that are breaking this tax code, the IRS should investigate. And that should include UCC churches.”

Which is exactly the type of fight that the ADF is looking for.  The 33 pastors who participate today will send copies of their sermons to the IRS.

So it appears that most Americans aren’t really feeling the bailout plan.  A lot of people are feeling like this and this and this and this.

Bush is trying to keep it together and sell Americans on the bailout.  Acknowledging that many have fallen on hard times, Bush warns that not helping Wall Street out could make things worse instead of better.

“And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession,” he argued.  “The rescue effort we’re negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street — it is aimed at your street.”

It still remains to be seen how much money will be spent or what will be the final cost for tax payers.  In an odd twist that can only happen in an election year it seems that more Democrats were in support of President Bush’s plan than were Republicans. 

But early Sunday morning it appears that an agreement was reached with concessions on both sides.

Officials said that Congressional staff members would work through the night to finalize the language of the agreement and draft a bill, and that the bill probably would be brought to the House floor on Monday.

The bill includes pay limits for some executives whose firms seek help, aides said. And it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures. In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program. As they approached a final deal, both sides appeared to have given up a number of contentious proposals, including a change in the bankruptcy laws sought by some Democrats to give judges the authority to modify the terms of first mortgages.

NYT.com 28 Sept 08

I guess we will see if the bailout helps to stabilize things or if this ends up with us throwing good money after bad.  If it doesn’t work there will be a lot of finger pointing about whose grand idea this was.  And most Americans will still be feeling like this:

It’s over.  McCain showed up, after trying to weasel out of it.  If you were a McCain supporter before after this debate you will still be a supporter of his.  Same for Obama.  As for the fence sitters –doesn’t sitting there all this time hurt?  Man, jump off the fence and pick a side.

If you are a regular reader of this blog I am sure you can tell already where I ideologically fall and whom I support so I won’t even try to appear “bipartisian” on this case.

Instead I’m just going to talk about what made me laugh.

For the first 45 minutes I was out shopping so I listened to the debate on NPR.  Not having the visuals to influence me was good because I was able to focus on what they were saying instead of the body language and eye movements.  Listening to the pundits on PBS afterwards I thought there must have been two debates going on.  All the talking heads complained about not having a catchphrase or a memorable line to repeat and dissect for the next week.  Poor babies.  I guess they might actually have to do work now instead of getting stuck on the dumb stuff.  I hope the rest of the debates go this way.

Back on McCain, I thought he was pretty shaky in the beginning when they spoke about economics –especially how he kept trying to bring up earmarks.  He ignored a question that Obama put to him twice until finally McLerh pointedly asked him.

When McCain brought up Gov Palin out of the blue I was like WTF?!  Since she couldn’t be there on stage with him I guess he had to figure out a way to bring her into it.  He should have worn a Palin button.  Then Obama had to give a shout out to Biden so he wouldn’t be jealous that McCain gave one to his VP. 

McCain sounded very old, a lot older than he actually is.  For a minute I thought to myself, well he’s from that great generation so that is why Obama isn’t getting on the old WWII war veteran and then I remembered that dude was a Vietnam vet.  McCain kept saying everybody was his friend, he remembered when this happened and that happened and he has done this and did that.  I kept thinking good, I’m glad you did this and that but what are you able to do now?  He never made the jump to how his life experience has influenced what he would do now.  If I’m ever in Vietnam as a POW I want McCain on my side because he’s been there.  I want to know what he can do now.

Another thing that made McCain seem old was aside from saying “I have experience” and “I know such and such…” he also kept saying “Obama doesn’t understand” and “Obama doesn’t get it” even once when Obama agreed with him on some points on Russia. 

At the end McCain tried to draw similarities between Obama and Bush by saying that Obama was immovable and stuck on his ideas just like Bush.  He didn’t really have a good set up from the night for that correlation but I’m sure it will be oft repeated next week on Fox and others on the right.

As for Obama, he was smooth, cool and collected.  He showed his awareness of issues, gave a clear plan, and proved he could be presidential.  On those points to me he basically won the debate, but was it enough?

McCain gave me more laughs than Obama.  I didn’t really get a clear view of what he would do with the situations now but I learned about what he did before.  Just for teaching me history (even if it’s U.S. and World history as filtered by McCain) I think McCain won.

If the talking heads are looking for soundbites they might want to make sure their gear is in working order for next Thursday when Palin and Biden go at it.  Palin couldn’t hold her own against Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric.  Let’s hope that Palin is able to show up for next weeks debate because another act of aggression on Russia’s part might make Palin say she can’t make the debate since she has to play sentinel in her house.  You know she can see them from her bedroom window.

By now everyone knows that when Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla she fired the city librarian.  Palin said it was because she didn’t feel she had the full support of librarian Mary Emmons after she asked Emmons hypothetically how she would respond to censoring books if a patron parent had a complaint about a particular book.  Emmons said censoring would not sit well with her.

The story has grown and now a list of books that Palin allegedly wants banned is traveling around the net through emails.  Snopes.comalong with other media outlets have debunked the story.  The list is indeed a list of books that people have tried to ban over the years they aren’t necessarily the books that Palin may have been gunning for.

Which is why I think it’s somewhat fortuitous that McCain picked Palin as his running mate.  Palin helps bring to forefront an argument that has been brewing for a while now.  Over the last few years we have been too afraid to give our rights any thoughts although this is the perfect time for us to assert them and hold them dear.

Banned Book Week has been observed since 1982 as a reminder for Americans to not take their democratic freedom for granted.   On the ALA website they write:

Banned Books Week (BBW) celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met. As the Intellectual Freedom Manual (ALA, 7th edition) states:

“Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled.”

BBW begins tomorrow (Sept 27) and ends October 4.  Around the country many public libraries and bookstores will be celebrating the freedom to read what one wants by having different programs and showcasing books that others want to get rid of.  To find out what is going on in your community please contact your local library or bookseller.  If a celebration isn’t going on please visit the American Libraries Association or Banned Books Week.org to get ideas on how to fight censorship in your community.

Before the power of television we had to rely on our mothers to nag us to drink our milk.  Now we have advertisers trying to sell us on how cool milk drinking is.

Like in the 80s they told us milk does a body good.

Then in the 90s they asked us got milk.

Now milk is white gold, baby.

The new ad campaign comes after 15 years of the “Got Milk” commercials.  In today’s NYT is a story about how three classes at a California High School will be spending the next 6-7 weeks helping an advertising agency develop a new milk campaign.  It will be sponsored by the California Milk Processor Board and “the classes will function as if they were advertising agencies, responsible for research, strategy, creative concepts, media plans and account management.”

I’m not sure if the advertisements help. It’s a health food and no one wants things that are healthy for you, even if it tastes good.  Where are the ads targeting grown women to drink more milk of they want to avoid osteoporosis?  None.  Even if there was one we probably still wouldn’t drink it because its good for us.  Which is why most of my female coworkers mostly enjoy diet colas during the day to quench our thirst instead of a nice glass of milk.

Maybe what they need to do is make parents hate milk and have them discourage their kids from drinking it. That’s the only way I see kids will have empty milk cartons littering their rooms instead of soda cans.

The noose is back.

After the Jena 6 incident of last fall suddenly the hangman’s noose was everywhere, reminding everyone the nation’s lynching past.

This sighting was in Oregon on the campus of George Fox University, around the neck of cardboard cutout of Barack Obama.  Taped to the figure was a message which read, “Act Six reject”.

Act six is a scholarship program that is “geared toward increasing the number of minority and low-income students at several Christian colleges, mostly in the Northwest“. 

The university’s President Robin Baker denounced the act.

“It has been my dream to establish a university that more adequately represents the kingdom of God,” he said. “This act causes some to question our commitment.”

The university has 17 students in it’s Act six program. The students, who receive full scholarships, are selected on their leadership abilities.   All but one are minorities. 

“To me, I just felt like they weren’t ready to have a black person be president,” said Courtney Greenidge, a sophomore. “We’re trying to bring change. Obama’s trying to bring change.” She described herself, like Obama, as biracial: half black, half white.

She also said that overall, the campus has a welcoming and positive environment, but that she has heard comments along the lines of, “Oh, I wish I was black. Then I could get a scholarship like that.”