<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Michael,<br>
This was quite interesting, and I enjoyed trying to respond. I hope I
don't further agitate you. I actually am seeking a real dialog. A few
comments follow:<br>
<br>
Michael Christopher wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">Lynn says:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->some value and truth underlying the branding or the
effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the
Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<<
--Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to
make all that branding and framing seem moral and
honest. </pre>
</blockquote>
This sentence doesn't make sense. The word "hijack" seems out of place
in a discussion about branding and positioning. Perhaps I stirred up
some anger in you, but I am reporting a very serious perception. The
right now sees the left as idiots who don't know history. There is a
good deal of discussion on the right about how the left has become a
reactionary force, against all change. <br>
I actually am quite sympathetic about that view, as you see below. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">Then you can say out of one side of your mouth
"I have Christian values" and out of the other side of
your mouth call your opponent names and trash their
reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such
tactics before they started. </pre>
</blockquote>
I didn't see anyone saying "I have Christian values." I didn't see
where anyone was trashing reputations. The idea about branding is to
associate a service or product with an easy-to-remember word or image.
It has to be positive, not negative. <br>
<br>
Paul the Apostle said, "I become all things to all people so that I may
by some means bring some to Christ." The story in Acts about Mars Hill
is a classic. You may already know that the KJV translation is
completely wrong. "Ye men of Athens, I see that ye are too
superstitious" Wrong. The Greek word for superstition and religion are
the same. The context shows what Paul meant; he was complimenting the
Greeks on their devotions. "Ye are very religious" is the right
translation, and modern translations and foreign language translations
I have read have that meaning. So Paul was positioning himself so that
he'd be listened to.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">A phony one would use
them covertly while appearing untainted in public.
I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you
know the mic is on.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Again, I don't understand the anger here. Christians are "men of
passions" which again is an allusion to the book of Acts. As Paul says,
we wish to do good and we do evil; we wish to avoid evil and we do good
(Romans, around chapter 8). So a Christian might call someone a name,
like Bush did during the first campaign about the NYT reporter. It is
not right, and he should repent, and probably did. Christianity is for
flawed people; perfect people don't need it. What is your point? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">
As long as you have a golden tongue, </pre>
</blockquote>
who? Bush? Ha! <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">nobody bothers to
look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric
becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction.</pre>
</blockquote>
Actually I have thought this is exactly what is lacking in the Left. I
read DailyKos today and was repelled by the reliance on rhetoric and
the flimsy data. Perhaps I am wrong, but when I try to read Left sites,
it seems they are full of heat, not light. I actually would like to see
some good ideas from the Left, as I believe in dialog, but instead I
see a lot of ad hominum and guilt-by-association stuff. I see some on
the right, but when I read townhall.com, I see more reasoned arguments.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">
In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth
that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by
the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to
your level and get caught calling you names and using
fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If
Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by
Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely
Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground.
If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep
namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more
alienated from the two party system.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Again, I am not seeing the problem here. The Right has some ideas that
they genuinely believe will help society, reduce unemployment, reduce
poverty, empower individuals, and raise the standard of living. They
try to make those ideas sound as appealing and positive as possible.
The Democrats see Bush as a bad president, and hope for his failure.
Check out today's opinion journal:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362">http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362</a><br>
Rather good dialog on this. <br>
Please read Horowitz' Radical Son, where he talks toward the end of
the book about how tolerant the right turned out to be of diversity,
dissent, and dialog. He was astonished, since as a leftist he had
always thought the opposite was true. <br>
Who specifically called whom a name? Who specifically is using
fuzzy logic (which I thought was a type of artifical intelligence used
in computers)? Please give me an example. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">
What I really want is something other than liberals
and conservatives. People who have some values on each
side of the fence and are willing to hammer out
agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met.</pre>
</blockquote>
Many Republicans are moderates. I would suggest that the Democrats have
driven many moderates out of their party, which I think has been a huge
mistake. Zell Miller. Sam Nunn. JFK and Truman wouldn't fit in today's
Democratic Party. I don't see how Harry Reid can be a Democrat, but he
is at least trying to reduce the Democrat=Abortion linkage. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">
It would help a great deal if people had more direct
input as to where their tax money goes, since the
bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against
taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is
angry, it's angry because it feels forced to
contribute its money to a system which they feel
doesn't have their interests at heart. </pre>
</blockquote>
I actually just finished a book on anger - I mean, I wrote it - and I
would differ here. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own
emotional state. To blame it on outside forces is unreasonable and
disempowering. Anger reduces one's ability to think - see Barbara
Fredrickson's work at the U. Michigan. "If you can keep your head when
all about you . . . "<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">And it becomes
dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds
over into other issues and colors them, prevents them
from being made clear in discussion. When someone
resents paying taxes, their views on social security
might be just a little bit biased in the direction of
ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has
to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. </pre>
</blockquote>
Again, I don't follow. There is a serious demographic problem with
social security. I don't hear anyone wanting to end it. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">Views on
military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged
resentment over paying taxes to support military
contractors. </pre>
</blockquote>
Are you referring to the anti-war left? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com">
<pre wrap="">The issue of resentment over taxation
should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in
other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with
on a more honest plane.
Michael
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/">http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/</a>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>