Word of the Day - Newspeak

The Republicans have taken the principles of George Orwell's fictional language in the book 1984 to help win elections since Ronald Reagan and even earlier. Swiftboating John Kerry was probably the low point - taking a war hero, who was running against a draft-dodger and turning his heroism into a lie. That's precisely the sort of thing that Newspeak, Orwell's future language of thought control, was designed for, to turn truth on its head.

From the Newspeak Dictionary:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

To give a single example - The word free still existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in such statements as "The dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.

The Republicans have taken Madison Avenue marketing techniques and applied them ruthlessly and effectively to presidential politics. Part of their campaign was to take all the words that Democrats used to describe themselves and to turn them into pejoratives. Their biggest achievement was to essentially take away the word liberal as a positive label. Feminists were converted to feminazis. When the Democrats tried to get rid of racist and sexist terms, they were vilified as promoting political correctness. . The Republicans even took to calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party and linked "tax and spend" to the word Democrat. It became hard to talk about being a Democrat without using words that had been poisoned. I suspect they consciously attempted to use the principles of Newspeak - "making other modes of thought impossible" - to make talking about traditional liberal issues impossible. Sarah Palin tried to do this with the term 'community organizer' when she mocked Obama in her acceptance speech.

On page 4 of the online copy of 1984 Winston sees the Ministry of Truth which has three slogans of the Party painted on it:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

This was the goal of the Swiftboating campaign. In this election we see it in the stealth campaign that says Obama is a Muslim. If you tell a lie often enough, people believe it.

The Two Minutes of Hate begins on page 10. The Republicans have multiplied this into nearly 24 hours of hate on talk radio and Fox News. The image below comes from books.google.com.

I'd always thought that the fact that Bin Laden was still alive and free somewhere proved the ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration. But after rereading that passage, perhaps they find that Bin Laden far more useful alive, as the icon of evil, just as their mentors in Oceana used Goldstein.

Democrats who believe that truth and rationality are important for all voters are totally missing the boat. Yes, we need to expose all the lies for those who still use reason. But we also have to constantly examine language to be sure it isn't being shaped in ways that limit our ability to think. By talking about and demonstrating the manipulation of language, we can help people see how they are being manipulated.

Lisa Kron's Well - Interesting Play Totally Pulled Me In

We went to a local theater performance recently that got great reviews, but didn't really excite me all that much. It was good, but not THAT good. Which raised questions about what my purpose is here. Basically the purpose is to explore things that expand how I know the world and maybe expand readers' understanding of how they know. But how to apply that isn't always clear. I also consider how what I write might affect others. I'd rather cheer on something good than rag on something that didn't work.

So, if I see a local event - a performance, exhibit etc. - that is good - particularly if it explores how people know things in some way, which good art should do - I clearly want to let others know about it. I want people to go to local venues, give them appreciative audiences, keep them alive financially, so we continue to have access to them.

But what if I don't like it? Should I say so or should I just not write about it? If I think something is damaging I'll take it up if I have time and energy. But what if it is innocuously not very good? Their intent was good, but they just didn't excite me at all? At this point I think I'll just not deal with it. I'm not completely comfortable with that decision, so I'm open to other opinions on this.


Now, the Well. I like to come into a performance with no knowledge of what I'm going to see. Of course, this isn't easy, but my ideal is just to be told by someone I trust, that I should go. I want to discover it as it unfolds, be surprised by having my expectations ambushed.

I basically knew nothing about this play, except that we'd seen Lisa Kron here a couple years ago and that her piece and performance were stunning. That was enough to know.

The Well, which opened last night, experiments with the whole idea of a play - the roles of the actors, the audience, the story. It examines itself, and examines itself examining itself. I suspect that sort of thing could be too cerebral for some people, but I loved it.

The lead character seemed a little stiff at times, but I'm not sure that wasn't the role itself. The audience wasn't totally sure of its role either and that may have affected her opening night performance. Overall, it was a great experience and left us all talking about it. I thought it was much better than the highly praised performance we saw but were not so excited about. The other cast members totally inhabited their roles. So much so that even when they played different characters there was no confusion at all. When it was over I thought it was the intermission, but my watch showed that two hours had passed.

It's at Out North and will be here for a couple of weeks more. You can get tickets for slightly less on line.

About the picture. I normally wouldn't a take picture during live performances unless I have permission. This was at the very beginning. I thought it was before things had started, but now I'm not totally sure.

Does Race Matter?

[UPDATE:  I've posted Does Race Matter Part 2]

On September 28 the Anchorage Daily News reported:

The [Ted Stevens] jury is made up of nine black women, three black men, two white women and two white men -- a mix that reflects the population of Washington, which is more than 56 percent African American.

It's a far different jury than Stevens likely would have faced in Alaska, had he been successful in moving the trial to his home state. In Anchorage, U.S. Census figures show the population is about 72 percent white, 6.5 percent black and about 8 percent Alaska Native.

The D.C. jury also is reflective of the city's professional class, where 39 percent of the population has at least a four-year college degree. In Anchorage, that number is closer to 29 percent.

So, can Ted Stevens, an 84 year old white male, get a fair trial from a jury with a majority of black females? I'm sure, unless he is acquitted, some folks will insist he didn't get a fair trial .

Does race matter? The four attorneys for the prosecution who were active in the courtroom for the three previous trials resulting from this investigation were all white males. They convicted all three defendants in Anchorage. Two are based in Anchorage and two in DC.

Now that this trial is in Washington DC, suddenly there is a new lead attorney, plus those four white males. This new attorney is an African-American female. I'm in Anchorage, so I have no basis for evaluating Brenda Morris except what's on paper.

Here's the beginning of her bio at Georgetown Law School website where she is an adjunct professor. The rest of the bio can be found at that site.

Brenda Morris

Adjunct Professor of Law; Principal Deputy Chief, Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
B.S., University of Southern California; J.D., Howard University

Biography

B.S., University of Southern California; J.D., Howard University. Brenda Morris joined the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice in September 1991. After working for twelve years as a Trial Attorney with the Public Integrity Section, she was promoted in March 2004 to Deputy Chief for Litigation. In August 2006, Professor Morris was promoted to the position of Principal Deputy Chief. Her staff consists of 30 attorneys and 11 support staff. The Public Integrity Section is a distinctive unit within the Criminal Division which is responsible for the nationwide investigations and prosecutions of corrupt federal employees. As a Trial Attorney, Professor Morris investigated white-collar cases ranging from federal conflict of interest crimes to conspiracy to commit bribery of public officials...
the rest is here.

On paper there's good reason for her to take part in this case. But if the jury would have been predominantly white males, would she have been added? If she weren't African-American, would she have been put on the case? I have no idea. The defense also has an African-American attorney, Alex Romain.

So why do I bring this up?

Because we have an African-American candidate for President. When he or anyone brings up the issue of race and its effect on the political campaign, he's accused of 'playing the race card' (for example: "Obama Plays Race Card" "Is Obama Playing the Race Card?" "Media Play Race Card for Obama"). I use this phrase here in the sense that Wikipedia says Dei and Karmanchery use it

that the term itself is a "Rhetorical device" used in an effort to devalue and minimize claims of racism.

I'm sure some people who say 'Obama played the race card,' do so simply to win the election and have no concern about whether it is true or not. But others use the term because they believe that racism is no longer an issue in the United States.

Overt racism is often invisible for whites. And often the victims of racism can't be sure themselves. When their dinner reservations are lost when they arrive at the restaurant and there are no other openings for the evening. When the apartment that was available when they called 3o minutes ago has 'just been rented.' When Lakisha Washington's resume is eliminated and Emily Walsh gets the job, even though Lakisha has better educational achievements and work experience

The only time many white folk see racism is when a white person finds his fate in the hands of black folks. When someone like Ted Stevens is to be judged by mainly African American jurors. I can't imagine that Ted Stevens isn't aware that his jury is black. And that he hasn't, at the very least, toyed with the idea that they might simply see him as a old, white male. But African-Americans live in a mostly white world and so they feel that way - judged by their skin color - all the time. I'm not saying this makes someone bad, we all live in a culture that has taught us to do this. But it is important that we realize what is happening, that we don't deny that race still matters, that we don't act on our deep seated racial prejudices.

Race does still matter in the United States. African-Americans still bear the legacy of the slavery. Even if people could conceal their race the way they can conceal their religion or political party, African-Americans would still bear that legacy because

• White slave owners gained wealth from their slaves' labor, wealth that, in many cases, was increased through businesses, investments, and education and has been passed on to their heirs. Their slaves had little or no financial gain from their labors to invest and pass on.
  
• Many slave families were split up by owners who sold children away from their parents. Women who had to sexually service their white masters. And their husbands who could do nothing to stop it. These all leave terrible psychological scars that have affected African-American families to this day.
• Education both in the North and the South for African-Americans has, and in many cases still is, separate and unequal.
• People are alive today who lived in a world where, by law, blacks were not allowed to drink from white water fountains, sit in the front of the bus, or in the white section of theaters, or swim in white public swimming pools; where the law prohibited whites and blacks to marry. Many whites who grew up with this still harbor prejudices from this period. (And many also do not.) The psychological impacts on blacks vary too. It made some stronger and more determined, but probably for most it embedded a form of self loathing - manifested in products like skin-lightener and hair straighteners.
  

The fact that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president clearly demonstrates that the United States has come a very long way on the issue of race. But race is down there under the surface. Pundits have pointed to race as a factor that explains how

• an attractive, articulate, charismatic Democratic candidate
  
• appearing after eight years of Republican rule by
  
• a president with the lowest ratings in history,
  

can only be slightly ahead of the Republican candidate many in his party don't like.

Race seems like a pretty obvious factor for many. I've heard anecdotal stories such as one about the normally Democratic elderly customers of a manicurist in Buffalo, New York who "just don't trust Obama." Or about others who say they can't vote for a Muslim. [Just in case anyone reading this thinks I'm saying Obama is a Muslim, I'm not. He's not. But people keep saying that.]

There are a lot of people quietly mumbling my line of thinking - the shark of racial prejudice is swimming just below the surface of the presidential race . Most prominently was a Stanford survey. But people are getting at this point in various ways.

Here's a story from the Chicago Tribune

...Sociologists have found that racial bias pervades the subconscious of most Americans and that the elderly hold more such prejudices than those who are younger.

For example, 35 percent of Americans age 60 and older believe it's unacceptable for whites to date blacks, according to surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Yet just 16 percent of Baby Boomers disapprove of interracial dating—and among Americans age 30 and younger, the disapproval figure is only 6 percent...

And one in Slate on a CBS/New York Times poll:

In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Or this June Washington Post article on another poll:

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

Maybe this low key, statistical analysis of poll data is the best way for us to discuss this. Just acknowledging how race impacts us is a big step. We can never be absolutely sure of other people's motives, but I'm sure that a statistically significant portion of the US population emotionally find it difficult to vote for a black man for president.

And I know there are people out there trying to exploit those racial prejudices. There's a local political blog in Anchorage with lists of links to white supremacist websites. I got an email the other day from an unfamiliar email address with a link to an anti-Obama video not so subtly called Race for the Truth - The State of Obama Part I.

It has a series of stark black screens with a white "Fact" on each and a voice that proclaims each time: "FACT!" Except the facts they list are totally bogus. "Fact" - Obama's campaign is about censorship. "Fact" - censorship was the basis of the Nazi Party's control of Germany. [The irony of linking a black candidate to Nazis seems lost on the authors of this hate mongering video.] I'm not even going to link to the video I don't want to encourage them, but it is clearly meant to appeal to those who want 'legitimate' reasons to vote against a black man.

But for white people to really feel in their gut that race is still an issue, I ask them to just think about Ted Stevens' trial and whether you believe that a majority black jury will treat Ted Stevens the same as a majority white jury. I'm not saying it will or it won't, I'm just asking readers to honestly assess what they believe, what they feel. And then tell me, honestly, that race is no longer an issue in the US.

Put your own title on this one.

Interpreting Sarah Palin

We heard the Vice Presidential debate at the Student Center of the University of Alaska Anchorage. There were perhaps 100 or more people. Free pizza didn't hurt. But as you can see from the pictures, they stayed after they finished the pizza. The picture on the right is at 5pm.








The one on the left is at 6:10pm.







A good place NOT to put your hand. (Yes, these chairs rock.)













Watching the debate from the back of the room.










I'd have to give the debate to Biden, easily. While Palin did have some moments, not saying something completely wrong is not my standard for a debate. Most of the time she avoided the questions by ignoring them and reciting something she'd studied with her trainers. She talked in vague generalities that didn't make much sense, though she did have some specifics - like how Obama voted X times to raise taxes - that also didn't make any sense.

Meanwhile Biden clearly knew what he was talking about and a few times, very politely, but firmly called her on her nonsense. This was particularly the case when he finally got tired of her talking about how she and McCain were mavericks. He went on to list a series of things - like the war, health care, subprime loans, etc. - where McCain was not a maverick. He wasn't a maverick, Biden told us, on anything of importance. I did wonder about his saying that the VP only presided over the Senate when there was a tie vote. The Constitution says the VP is the President of the Senate, but only votes on a tie. He might have explained this when he said that "the only authority the VP has in the legislature is the vote." So I think he meant that otherwise the presiding is basically ceremonial and the VP has no power over the agenda or anything else, except to vote when there is a tie.

I did catch a little of the debate on video. At UAA the audience was not asked to remain silent during the debate. Listen to the difference in the kind of answers they give to the question about whether they would agree with Cheney's interpretation of the role of the vice president as not simply under the executive, but also as part of the legislative branch.



It might be easier to figure out what Palin said if you read it. Here's the best I could do transcribing it with the laughter blocking out a couple of words in two places:

Well our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the Vice President and we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the President’s agenda in that position. Yeah. So. And I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility there and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very corporately the plan ????. It is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as VP with McCain not only as a Governor, but early on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, and as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the ????.

I'm sorry, but if a graduate student had turned in a test with an answer like this to the question, I would have had to mark it a D or an F. It doesn't answer the question, it rambles. If this was a strategy to not say something wrong - "Sarah, if you aren't sure, if it isn't one of the questions we prepped you on, just go back to something you do know. There's no need to answer the question" - it worked. She was like a doll. You pull the string in back and it answers what it's programmed to answer, not the question you asked.

In her response to the question about Cheney's VP model, she never mentioned Cheney (she did say ‘him’) and never discussed Cheney’s interpretation of the Vice Presidency as partly a member of the legislative branch. She just gave us platitudes and then her resume.

What did she say?

Here are the key points - if you are trying to understand content.

1. Our Founding Fathers were wise and allowed much flexibility for the Vice President
2. We’ll do what’s best for American people
   - tapping into that position
   - ushering in an agenda
   ------that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda
   [Whatever that means]
   
3. Yeah, I agree with him
   - that we have a lot of flexibility
4. We’ll administer very corporately the plan
   [what plan?]
   [Now she starts talking about her qualifications]
5. I was picked for McCain’s VP running mate because of
   -being Governor
   -being Mayor
   -being an oil and gas regulator
   -being a business owner
   

In contrrast, Biden responded directly to the question and went into the Constitutional duties of the vice president and why he (Biden) believed Cheney's views were in conflict with the Constitution.

Even if we say the VP isn't that important, Palin's performance raises serious questions about McCain's decision making abilities.

Perhaps, Joe Sixpack, who Palin mentioned in the debate, might think, "Wow, there's someone just like me." But when Joe Sixpack breaks a leg, he doesn't drive down to the Palin house to get his leg fixed. He goes to a hospital where there are doctors who have spent years and years studying medicine. Why would he want a someone with as little training for the job as himself to be in a position to be called on to run one of the most important countries in the world? To make decisions about health care, global warming, banking, foreign policy, etc.?

Hike to the Ballpark

I didn't get a chance to mention that our daughter is visiting this week for Rosh Hashana and her Mom's birthday. So today M and I took advantage of the cool (40s F - 5-9C) but sunny weather to hike to the Ball Park, a plateau above Powerline Pass. The Glen Alps parking lot is about a 20 minute ride from our house.

Picture from GoogleEarth - Anchorage.

As we got to Powerline Pass trail from the parking lot, we had a decent view of Denali (officially known in Washington and Ohio as Mt. McKinley) about 250 miles north. It was slightly hazy, but you can see the mountain pretty well. This is the tallest mountain in North America - 20320 feet, 6194 meters.

Here's why it's called Powerline Pass.

There are at least three moose in this picture, but even if you double click to enlarge this they aren't easy to spot.


Part of the trail has a relatively new boardwalk. While this sort of addition intrudes into the natural experience of the hike, there are so many people hiking here now that it is probably necessary to save the landscape. As we got near the top and then on the way down, there are many different trails that hikers have created. Coming down, particularly, when the trails - pretty much straight up and down, not zig-zagged - are muddy is pretty tricky and people, trying to escape the mud, go onto the vegetation, eventually creating new trails. And soon all the natural vegetation will be gone. And since the upper part of the trail often has a large chunk of ice and snow on it, it is usually wet. Coming back - below - it was great to get off the mud and onto this smaller walkway.

Here's the trail going up. Even at about 1:30 when we got to this poing, the trail still had tiny icicles on it. We were headed for that little notch in the ridge on the upper left. From here it looks like a gentle slope, but it's pretty steep when you're closer. Steep enough that the mud paths get really tricky. They were relatively hard still on the way up, but on the way back, they'd thawed a bit more.

Here's a leaf with ice crystals.

There's still a small snow pack at the top.

And here M is just above the lip of the ridge looking at the Ball Park. This was also the snowline today. That's O'Malley Peak in the background. We stopped here to eat before turning back.


Here I'm looking down from the snow pack at the top. You get a better sense of the steepness. My older knees were complaining on the way back. I think it's time to get hiking poles for trips like this. I've marked the parking lot. To the left (outside of the picture) is Flattop. Way in the back, you can see the tide is out in Turnagain Arm and the mudflats are visible.

Here's a view of a little bit of fall color in the tundra.

M's knees are much younger than mine.

This moose was much closer than the ones in the earlier pictures. He was going one way and we another.

Catherine, what are these?

A ground squirrel catching some rays.

Cliff Groh is Blogging the Stevens' Trial

Anyone out there like me who's been wanting to read an Alaskan blogger covering the Stevens trial can do so. Here's Cliff Groh's new blog. Cliff is an attorney who attended many of the trial sessions last year here in Anchorage and he's blogging from DC. From today's post:

Day Nine--October 2, 2008

Washington, D.C.--

The judge smacked the prosecutors hard but let the trial go on.

Judge Emmet Sullivan denied the defense’s request for a dismissal of the indictment or a mistrial, ruling that the government’s failure to disclose material to the defense was not so egregious that he needed to shut down the trial.

The judge did, however, grant the defense’s motion for a continuance until Monday morning. The delay gives the defense time to review the additional materials the judge ordered the prosecution to disclose before the defense cross-examines Bill Allen, the prosecution’s key witness against Sen. Ted Stevens.

The rest is at Alaska Political Corruption. There's posts from Day 1.

Subprime Primer

This presentation was sent to me by a professor friend. He didn't know its origins - so I'll just say thanks to whoever put it together. It's the clearest explanation of how we got here that I've seen. It matches well with the story I heard from another friend who was on a grand jury on subprime lenders in the US Southwest. The red ink was added for use in classes.

I'm still looking for the presentation that takes us step-by-step through the expected consequences of not committing $700 billion of our money.

[You can enlarge it to read it easier by clicking the + button on the top.]

Subprime Mess - Upload a Document to Scribd

Theresa, It's still Fall in Anchorage

Theresa has a picture of Fairbanks snow up. While it's still fall down here in Anchorage, my wife did get her snow tires put on today.

So, Anchorage folks, where was this shot taken from this afternoon? It's very much within city limits.

Bear Tooth VP Debate Sold Out

If you don't have tickets to watch the debate Thursday at the Bear Tooth, find another venue. UAA will also have a large screen TV in the Student Center. With all the attention focused on Palin for the last month, I'm hoping that we're all going to be pleasantly surprised at how good Biden is.