"Easy," Does It!

For several years, I worked in a penal institution which housed inmates with an age range of about 15 years old to about 25 years old, young men as well adults.

In conversation one day with one of the inmates, the talk suddenly turned to why he robbed homes.

His answer was as unexpected as it was bewildering: "I break into homes," he said, "because it's easy."

There it was, it wasn't just the money, the thrill, or the need to impress his homies, it was, as he put it, "easy."

In a world of moral relativism, this young man's candor stands out, a striking reminder that right and wrong is a constantly shifting concept, so many dunes, here today, but gone tomorrow, as the wind shifts, or we capitulate to the demands of a source, or we seek out our fortunes in a narrowing landscape of opportunities, seen more often as bare, than verdant with hope, infinite possibilities, and endless choices.

Under these perceived circumstances, like the young man who broke into homes, because it was easy, departing from our moral code, or breaking away from our ethical foundation becomes the "easy," convenient, and lucrative thing to do.

Greg L, and I, at his blog, exchanged posts exploring the edges of our moral boundaries, and why some in society behave the way that they do. Greg L, wrote:

"[T]he political system and all other forms of leadership, are ultimately reflection of the moral system that governs us."

Greg L. summed up his position, thusly:

"Morality, in part, involves the ability to objectively examine something to determine if it actually aligns with what you subscribe to. It's these judgments that are sorely missing and that's why we have what we have."

To which I responded:

True, but our morality isn't absolutistic, but relativistic, in as much as we subscribe to several, some of which obtain their relevance and their validity from a source--an existential morality dictated by that source, rather that subject to a morality to which we may all generally subscribe, and which we may all hold in common.

Let me illustrate: There's a political morality. Politics has established its own moral center, where almost anything goes--lies, deception, misrepresentations, flip-flopping, waffling, spin, and propaganda--and, by our actions, looking the other way, excusing it, downplaying it, justifying it, we often dismiss this moral laxity, or moral turpitude in our body politic by supporting and voting for those candidates who have clearly demonstrated that they play loose and fast with either the facts or the truth.

Politics, then, dictates its own morality, for which voters will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they rush to the polls and the voting booth in the hopes of installing their party's candidate into the office for which they're running.

There's an economic morality. Capitalism has shown time and time again that it doesn't subscribe to a moral correctness, saving that which the government imposes, an imposition which it doesn't often enforce, or enforce poorly. People in this country still buy iPads, and iPhones, and it doesn't matter to many that they're produced under almost slave-like conditions or not. Sure there are some who do care, and will put their money where their conscience resides.

Capitalism, then, dictates its own morality, for which consumers will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they avail themselves of its various offerings.

There's an elitist morality. Congress has passed many laws from which it has exempted itself, one in particular as odious as they come--congresspersons can participate in insider trading, an act that would have anyone else arrested, and sent to jail for a time. Congress can be bought to vote against what's in the best interest of those who sent them to congress, and use brinkmanship to wrest from the opposing party concessions it cannot obtain otherwise, risking a potentially expensive downgrade in our national credit rating.

Despite its low approval rating, Congress dictates its own morality, for which its constituents will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they return incumbents time and again to the office which they held, deluding themselves into thinking that it's not their Representative that's inept and crooked, but the other guy's.

There's planned obsolescence, the use of psychology, and behavioral science, to seduce consumers, to trick them into buying--whether impromptu, or not; there're repairs that we don't need for which we're being charged, low interest rates for which we may qualify, but which aren't offered, loans we're said to qualify for, but which, in the end, will bankrupt us, or force our homes into foreclosure, product insurance which is too expensive, and useless, if we try to collect, health insurance with caps, and for which a preexisting condition may not be treated, advertisements, and commercials that don't live up to the hype, and a variety of other scams, designed to part us from our hard-earned money.

Because morality comes in many shapes and configurations, and oftentimes dictated by a source, life comes with many caveats--buyer beware, test drive before you buy, read the contract, especially the small print, live within your means, know the return policy, don't remove the tag, and, get it in writing.

My Fair Lady

For all the years I've lived, you'd think I be accustomed to it, but I still find human nature strange, if not bizarre.

I'm still flummoxed by it.

Sure, I'm aware that people can, and will, do certain things out of the ordinary--things for which I'm always scratching my head in total amazement, bewildered beyond words.

And when they do, I'm taken aback, sometimes pleasantly when they offer a kindness (such as holding a door open), and sometimes exceedingly perplexed, especially when people behave in ways that are foreign to my sensibilities, and my expectations.

One instance from my life will serve to illustrate this. I once worked for an organization that required that some of us meet at least once every other month to coordinate system-wide activities. We were a fairly good size group, perhaps as many as thirty or forty of us.

We would meet at various locations throughout the system and the meeting organizer from each location was responsible for providing morning refreshments, and arranging for a restaurant that would accommodate our number for lunch, as it was customary for us all to eat at the same time, and in the same place.

When the collective bill arrived, each would pay for what they had ordered, and, in a similar fashion, each would leave tips, in the middle of the table according to the generosity of each, or how each felt about the quality of the service.

On one occasion, the tip was left as usual, a fairly large amount, as there were many in our number, and the service had been excellent.

Most of us had filed out of the room where the lunch tables and chairs had been assembled, with me and another straggling behind, my companion straggler a well-respected, middle-aged woman, who had stopped suddenly to eye the pile of money that constituted our collective tip, left there by those who, after settling up, fully expected that the money that remained on the table would go to the restaurant staff that brought the food and drinks to our table.

With out hesitation, my coworker reached into the pile and withdrew a handful of the bills deposited there. "That's too much money for a tip," she said simply, and stuffed the money into her coat pocket and walked out.

I was stunned.

Not only did she take an unwarranted initiative, she had, in effect, stole money, stealing it twice--first, from those who waited on the table, and then from those who had left the money as a tip.

Not only did my coworker not pay her fair share, she took from those who had.

Some corporations are like my coworker: Not only do they not pay their fair share (using tax loopholes, and tax dodges), they also take from those of us who do pay our fair share. (Click to enlarge chart.)

Here's how the headline reads from this International Business Times article: 30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010. [1]

By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day -- including weekends -- during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections, according to a new report from the non-partisan Public Campaign.

The Public Campaign, a non-partisan research and advocacy organization, reports 30 major U.S. corporations spent more money lobbying Congress than they did on federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010.

Despite a growing federal deficit and the widespread economic stability that has swept the U.S since 2008, the companies in question managed to accumulate profits of $164 billion between 2008 and 2010, while receiving combined tax rebates totaling almost $11 billion. Moreover, Public Campaign reports these companies spent about $476 million during the same period to lobby the U.S. Congress, as well as another $22 million on federal campaigns, while in some instances laying off employees and increasing executive compensation.

This revelation is enough to make one take to the streets and start a blood-less revolution--a new movement. Perhaps we'll call it the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wait a minute: Don't we have such a movement already?

Not only do we have such a movement, with each passing day, certain information comes to light to justify its existence, and to silence those critics who have done all that they could on behalf of these offending corporations to besmirch the movement.

And if you believed that it is only the federal government that's being stiffed by these corporations, think again:

"Our report shows these corporations raked in a combined $1.33 trillion in profits in the last three years, and far too many have managed to shelter half or more of their profits from state taxes," Matthew Gardner, Executive Director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the report's co-author, said in a statement. "They're so busy avoiding taxes, it's no wonder they're not creating any new jobs."

According to the report, titled "Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010," state corporate tax revenues have been declining for 20 years, due to the passage of multiple state tax subsidies, as well federal tax breaks that further reduce state corporate income tax revenues since states usually accept corporations' federal tax. Moreover, Gardner said multi-state corporations are constantly "devoting their money and legal firepower to coming up with tax avoidance schemes."

Between 2008 and 2010, the 265 companies analyzed paid state income taxes equal to only 3 percent of their U.S. profits, half of the statutory 6.2 percent state corporate tax rate. As a result, these companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate taxes over three years.

What is the Republican position on all this? They believe that these supposed corporate job creators shouldn't have to pay more taxes (their fair share)--and, if they had their way, no taxes at all. But are these tax-avoiding corporations actually creating jobs?

Even while dodging most of their state and federal taxes between 2008 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) laid off more than 21,000 U.S. employees, while Boeing, Wells Fargo, General Electric, American Electric Power, and FedEx also let go of thousands of workers. Because companies can be reluctant to make data changes in U.S. employment available, Public Campaign reports it was not able to find up-to-date employment statistics for many of the companies evaluated in the report.

Moreover, as it was laying off employees, General Electric gave their top executives a 27 percent pay raise between 2008 and 2010 -- executives received more than $75 million in compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo increased executive pay by a whopping 180 percent, upping executive compensation from $17.8 million in 2008 to almost $50 million in 2010, while Boeing, FedEx and American Electric Power also instituted lavish executive pay raises while laying off thousands of lower-level workers.

In fact, 2010 year was a record year for executive compensation. The CEO's of some of the largest U.S. corporations made, on average, $11.4 million in 2010, about 343 times more than workers' median pay, according to an analysis by the American Federation of Labor, the widest gap between executive and employee pay in the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed since 1980, when chief executives were only paid about 42 times more than the average blue collar worker.

Corporate compensation is symptomatic of the income disparity that's become a gaping hole in our economy, looking more like a chasm than a ditch. For better or for worse, corporations are now elevated to the status of gods, permitted to do pretty much as they choose with little or no interference from government regulators, and with politicians at all levels tripping over themselves to regale them with gifts of additional tax breaks, some of which come in the form of negative effective tax rates, tax cuts, and a potential tax reparation holiday:

A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate, usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and credits to an earlier year, thereby allowing the company to receive a tax rebate check, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

U.S. House Deputy Whip Kevin Brady, R-Tex., is currently making a last-ditch effort to include a corporate tax repatriation holiday on legislation to extend a payroll tax cut....While those in favor of the corporate tax repatriation provision -- which would give U.S. businesses a temporary tax break on as much as $1 trillion in overseas income -- insist it would boost the nation's sluggish economy and make it easier for corporations to create jobs, the Congressional Budget Office reports tax repatriation holidays ranks dead last among 13 policy options for creating jobs. The CBO estimates that over the 2012-2013 period, a repatriation holiday would, at best, create the equivalent of one-full time job for every $1 million in federal costs.

My Fair Lady, my coworker of many years, not only was unfair, so, too, are many of the corporations that make this fair nation their home. Not only have these corporations transferred the tax burden of supporting this country to the average taxpayer, they have become, despite this, one of the chief recipients of government largess--the backing of the world's largest, and most powerful military, and the support of practically every politician in the country, many in the courts, and, at times, the executive branch.

Unfortunately, these corporations have money to burn, and it's burning the pockets of legislators and judges, who, increasingly, are more anxious to fill their campaign coffers, than fill state and national treasuries.


[1]

A Pavolvian Christmas Award

One of the first things you learn in Psychology 101 is the "Pavlovian response mechanism," or the "Pavlovian conditioning response." Most of us have heard of this phenomenon whether we've taken a class in psychology or not.

Just to refresh your memory--and mine as well--let's go over Pavlov's findings, and how he came to discover that certain behavior can be conditioned in dogs (and by extension humans) by manipulating actions and the environment.

"Ivan Petrovich Pavlov studied medicine in Russia and Germany, accepting posts in St. Petersburg as a professor in pharmacology and physiology. In 1889 Pavlov began experiments with dogs that proved their reflexes could be conditioned by external stimuli. Specifically, after they were conditioned by the ringing of a bell at feeding time, they would reflexively salivate upon hearing the bell, whether or not food was present. In 1904 Pavlov won the Nobel Prize for his work on digestive physiology, but he is most widely known today as an early influence on behavioral psychology."

In my own life, I've seen the power of "conditioned reflex," but this reflex wasn't induced directly but indirectly. We say people "push our buttons," but what we're actually saying is this: At various times in our life, we have--directly or indirectly--allowed the actions, behaviors, words, or attitudes of others, to trigger certain prescribed responses.

When the environment is suitable for such responses (certain stimuli is present), a prescribed behavior follows as certainly as night follows day.

For most of us, these responses go unchallenged, and unexamined. Were we to scrutinize them we'd fine that many of what we call normal or natural responses to stimuli in our environment are really nothing more than "conditioned responses," prescribed, almost automatic, reactions that come to the fore when certain things, or events occur in our environment. We're a great deal like the salivating dog in Pavlov's experiment--reacting to the "ringing bell" of our own making, whether the bell is heard as words, behaviors, or other stimuli in our environment.

But what does all of this have to do with Christmas? Believe it or not, this is a Christmas story, despite our delving into the mysteries of human and animal behavior, and our departure into the realm of human psychology.

Just to prove it, let me make a casual observation. The lovely Christmas card that's appended to the top of this blog entry is the Obama family official White House Christmas card, featuring the beloved First Dog Bo. Would you believe over at Fox News the card has become the subject of some controversy, nothing short of a "Pavlovian conditioned reflex response"?

In an article entitled, "No Christmas in White House Card," [1] the author--referencing the card--writes facetiously and humorously:

"It's all pretty non-controversial. Boring, even. Unless, of course, you're Fox News—in which case the bookshelf is filled with Lenin's B-sides, the Constitution is burning in the fireplace, Winston Churchill's bust is conspicuously absent, Bo has become dependent on the federal government for handouts, and the empty seat is a stirring reminder of President Obama's nonexistent leadership. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly."

Several of Fox News' talking heads--even one as neatly coiffed as Sarah Palin's--weighed in on the Christmas card:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told Fox News & Commentary that she found the card to be a bit unusual.

"It's odd," she said, wondering why the president's Christmas card highlights his dog instead of traditions like "family, faith and freedom."
...
Palin said the majority of Americans can appreciate the more traditional, "American foundational values illustrated and displayed on Christmas cards and on a Christmas tree."

As for the Obama card, she replied, "It's just a different way of thinking coming out of the White House."

As Pavlovian conditioning responses go, the Fox News one is comparatively a light-weight one, and not deserving of much attention other than to say that Fox and Company are in the GOP spirit this year--that is, Grinches On Parade.

The response that won my Pavlovian Christmas Award this year is not the Fox News Pavlovian attack on Obama, but the public response to the new Air Jordans that went on sale just days before Christmas, creating some troubling scenes from coast to coast, as anxious shoppers do whatever it takes to buy this pricey footwear.

You can watch some of it here", but videos aren't in short supply if you have the time to Bing or Google them.

In this season that celebrates the birth of Jesus, Joy, Peace on Earth, and goodwill toward men, we find our perennial villain, "conditioned response," lurking among Christmas decorations, scores of presents, festive colors, fake Santas, and merry carolers ready to pounce upon unsuspecting Christmas shoppers at the first sign that something they've been conditioned to do--"shop till they drop, and buy till they die"--reaches a fever pitch when items, as generally desirable as a pair of new Air Jordans, are placed within their immediate reach.

We have seen this buying craze with other items, and we have become witness to yet another soul-numbing impulse compliments of capitalism and the crass commercialism that undergirds it. And--can we say honestly--we want to share this "blessing" of the American Way with the rest of the world?

Are we sure?



[1]

Kingsize Rhetoric and New Government

On Sunday night, in almost the same timeslot as Sunday Night Football, Larry King aired a Special on CNN. It was called "A Dinner with the Kings". Larry King and his wife hosted the event, and Wolfgang Puck plied his culinary skills in the creation a multi-course meal fit for Kings.

If you didn't have the good fortune of watching the special, you can sample some of the fare here.

Many of the invited guests are arguably kings in their own right, having achieved crowning successes in their respective fields, from sports to television, from the world of fashion, music, and the Internet, to television host.

Tyra Banks, Shaquille O'Neal, Quincy Jones, Russell Brand, Seth MacFarlane, Jack Dorsey, Conan O'Brien--all royal standouts in their various industries, were seated, not around a Round Table, but an oblong one.

The guests responded to questions that Larry passed to them, first to one, and then to another, as one would pass a dish laden with food--after helping oneself--from one person to another.

Of the several questions that were passed from guest to guest, one, perhaps more than others, left a bitter taste in the mouth, and contributed to a likely case of indigestion.

Larry asked one guest: "What gets you angry?"

It was Conan O'Brien's answer to the question that would have had me reaching for a handful of Tums, or an Alka-Seltzer, had I been there:

"I think entitlements is my least favorite. I can't stand it when people think that they're entitled to something. I think our culture is very entitled. I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything. I come from a culture where you get what you can...and you're grateful for it--but I don't think I deserve anything...we [his family] didn't feel any entitlement. I think in America there's a lot of I'm owed this and this."

O'Brien's statement came from a classic Republican/conservative recipe, a potluck dish secreted in to compete with a dish from one of the world's greatest chefs, Wolfgang Puck.

After the "entitlement" statement, O'Brien revealed: His mother became a lawyer, and his father was successful in his own right. It's easy to slam "entitlements" when your life has had the auspicious beginning that a upper-class upbringing can afford.

Larry King with a followup question asked: "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"

O'Brien responded: "I don't know where that comes from."

As the camera panned them, Tyra Banks and Shaquille O'Neal appeared visibly uncomfortable with the subject, perhaps prompting Larry King, after a couple of more responses from his dinner guests, to quickly changed the subject.

But not before Russell Brand garnished the topic with a biting remark of his own, interpreting "entitlements" as it may relate to consumerism, and not as it may relate to people's expectations from the government and others in society. Harking back to the question, "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]? he said:

"I don't know where that comes from...because you're told that you're nothing unless you can consume, unless you can purchase. People see these products and they want them. People are being accidentally marketed to who can't afford the products that they're being sold, they're being told they should have, that they deserve, because you're working, just do it....And there's been a void created, a spiritual void."

Not to be outdone, Seth MacFarlane added a pungent spice of his own to the evening's meal: It comes from "every politician on the planet saying, 'You know what, you're getting screwed, you deserve more, how are you, why are you, tolerating this.'"

Now, I'm willing to admit: O'Brien and MacFarlane may not have had the Arab Spring or the various Occupy Movements and their foreign supporters in mind when they made these statements, perhaps sprinkling a bit too much hot sauce on them, but neither did they answer the question that the host posed:

"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"

The term, "entitlement," has various definitions:

1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" (Jason DeParle).

The last definition Red Eye would refer to as "earned benefits," and rightfully so, as the term "entitlement" has been muddied by the likes of Frank Luntz.

Rather than argue whether a "sense of entitlement" is prevalent throughout the world (which is absurd), or whether the Occupy Movement or the Arab Spring, or the unrest we see in England, or Greece, is symptomatic of this (which it's not), let me answer the question that the host, Larry King, or his several guests failed to answer to my satisfaction.

My answer will focus on "entitlement" as it pertains to this country, and not as it may be considered in other parts of the world.

To the question--"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"--I have this answer: It comes from our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution. Entitlements, loosely defined, are Rights, pure and simple. Entitlements are what one has a right to expect from a government that has established itself as sovereign over the lives of those that fall within the sphere of its governance.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Over the past several decades, our federal and state governments have become "destructive of these ends," and a growing number of the people (especially those in the Occupy Movement) are exercising their rights--entitlements afforded them by their Constitution--"the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," one that hasn't been corrupted by special-interest money.

And there are other Rights, entitlements, at the people's disposal. They're called the Bill of Rights:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisions concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution [1]

Over a Wolfgang Puck meal, Conan O'Brien assured us that he didn't feel entitled: "I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything."

Well I do! And I'm not reticent to say so.

I'm entitled to the social contract that was drawn before I was born, one that I didn't have a hand in writing, but which has governed my actions, and those of many of my fellow Americans since its inception--the United States Constitution.

Because I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a government that actually works for the people and not corporate special interests that have more legislators and judges on their payroll, and in their pocket, than did Al Capone at the height of his infamy.

Because I vote, as a civically-minded member of my city, state, and nation, I'm entitled to have my vote count and not suppressed; I'm entitled to representatives--those who I helped elect to office--who will do their utmost to represent me and other constituents to the best of their ability, putting in more time to carry out the people's business than their own.

Because I live in the country in which I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a livable environment--clean air and clean water--and regulatory agencies that actually take steps to make sure that my air is breathable, and my water potable, and a Congress that stands with me against corporate polluters, rather than with them, patiently waiting for just the perfect moment to dismantle them and scuttle their live-saving mission.

Because I worked to become a contributing member of my community, I'm entitled to a government that works to be a contributing force in the lives of its many constituents, by assuring "that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [by affirming equal rights for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual preference], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life [by making health-care universal, and available to all], Liberty [by insisting that no one is above the law, and that all participate in the defense of this country, and help pay for the cost, regardless of social status] and the pursuit of Happiness [by providing opportunities to all, using a criterion of inclusion, rather than exclusion]. [2]

We may never achieve the status of kingliness in this lifetime that would satisfy Larry King's criterion sufficiently to be invited to his home for a royal dinner, or partake of a seven-course dinner created by the incomparable chef, Wolfgang Puck, but we can all do our part to elevate our government so that it is self-correcting, continuously monitoring and rectifying an errant system which is more vested in promoting social, political, and income inequality, where a few arrogate to themselves through their wealth, the people's power, than standing with the 99 percent.

When government fails the people, we the people are entitled by history, and by duty, "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to [what] shall seem most likely to effect [our] Safety and Happiness."

[1] Read more about your Bill of Rights.

[2] See GrannyStandingForTruth latest blog entry

What's in a Name?

It's hard to admit, but I never really cared all that much for my name. I honor it because the one who named me is someone I dearly love and cherish. Over the years, I have taken on nicknames, and nom de plumes that I believe represent who I am more accurately than my given name.

I suspect that I'm not alone. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that there's been more legal name changes, more uses of substitute names, aliases, and sobriquets, than there are actual baby names in books designed to help you give your newborn the perfect name in combination with a given surname.

Shakespeare may have been the first to ask the question, using the voice of Juliet in his tragedy, Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet."

Nevertheless, there's one who may disagree with Shakespeare. One who has built a career on changing the names of things, guaranteeing that even the sweet smell of a rose may lose its attractive fragrance, if only an appropriate name may be found, and applied.

That someone is Frank Luntz, political consultant and pollster.

Wikipedia says in part the following about Luntz in a brief bio:

Luntz's specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”...

Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." "If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak."

If you conclude from this that Luntz' goal is to shape the perception of others using the persuasive power of words that are charged with just the right emotions, and invoking just the right imagery, you'd be right. Just so that no one will mistake his aim, Luntz gives this description of his methodology:

Luntz discussed his use of the term, "energy exploration" (oil drilling). His research on the matter involved showing people a picture of current oil drilling and asking if in the picture it "looks like exploration or drilling." He said that 90 percent of the people he spoke to said it looked like exploring. "Therefore I'd argue that it is a more appropriate way to communicate." He went on to say "if the public says after looking at the pictures, that doesn't look like my definition of drilling—it looks like my definition of exploring—then don't you think we should be calling it what people see it to be, rather than adding a political aspect to it all?" Terry Gross responded: "Should we be calling it what it actually is, as opposed to what somebody thinks it might be? The difference between exploration and actually getting out the oil—they're two different things, aren't they?"

Recently, Luntz made headlines again, this time before the Republican Governors Association, and on the subject of the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS):

The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."

Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."
Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'
Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'
"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:
Don't say 'bonus!'
Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."
"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

Christians are told that the devil is always busy, but I suspect that the devil has nothing on Republicans. They never seem to rest, never seem to take a break from the battle, continually devising ways to defeat their mortal enemy--Democrats.

It could be that Democrats are strategizing to the same extent as Republicans, deploying some of the same undermining, deceptive practices, but I doubt it.

Republicans are a breed apart, calculating and devious to a flaw, not reticent to do whatever it takes to maintain a political edge--and no detail is too small to exploit, whether it's descending upon liberal blogs with a swarm of anonymous locusts to attack liberals and the president, coordinating their attacks with the use of ALEC, or attempting to enact voter suppression laws, "[s]weeping new laws — including an end to same-day registration and cuts to early voting — could disenfranchise millions of voters in 2012."[1]

If we're to defeat a Republican take over of this country, we need to know the party's methods, and work harder than they do to impose a political ideology that works for the 99 percent as well as the 1 percent.

You can be sure: Republicans are willing to use legislation, our language, and our emotions--and not so much our intellect--to achieve their ends. We don't have to operate in the same fashion as they do, but we do have to be willing to expose their tactics, and deploy a counterattack to their attacks, lest the whole nation ends up in an oversize body bag.



[1]

Black-eye Friday?

Have big retail stores found a way to curb the enthusiasm of thousands of Occupy Movement protesters who may have plans in the making to disrupt what is usually considered their blackest day of the year--Black Friday?

Unfortunately, it seems that way.

With the possibility of business-disrupting protests becoming a growing reality, already these big retailers may be mobilizing an army of lawyers to help protect their bottom line, and send a chilling message to those who may be contemplating sit-ins and other protest tactics to bring attention to how corporations--multinational and otherwise--have conspired with congress to keep the people of this nation captive to crass commercialism and to the might of their congress-corrupting dollars.

In an article titled, "Could Occupy Wall Street protesters be sued for Black Friday tactic?" the dreary prospect is raised, and it offers those who would love to see an ignominious end to the movement yet another weapon--besides police in riot gear, armed with rubber bullets, gas canisters and pepper spray--with which to deploy to defeat this inconvenient movement.

They can also bring lawsuits seeking damages, says John Banzhaf, a legal expert who teaches a class called "Torts R Us.”

Yes, Occupy protesters contemplating illegally squatting in “publicly traded” stores such as Neiman Marcus and Wal-Mart on Black Friday, might want to check to see if the stores are litigious before sitting down in front of a pallet of children’s toys. If the store owner is so inclined, lawsuits seeking damages could be in order.

Yes, a lawsuit seeking thousands of dollars could be filed, says Mr. Banzhaf, who has been called “a legal flamethrower” and teaches at George Washington University Law School.

“It could be a deterrent,” he says. “No one wants to have a huge judgment hanging over one’s head, you can be asked embarrassing questions in court – no one wants to go through that.”

He says the lawsuits can be aimed at a group, if they are organized, or even an individual who can be sued for the total amount of damages. If the damages are intentional, he says, a court could impose punitive damages as well. “Punitive damages are usually more than ordinary damages and that would act like a deterrent as well,” he says.

Banzhaf says he doesn’t know of any lawsuits brought against protesters so far, but he thinks they could eventually happen.

“It will only take one lawyer who gets stuck in an illegal demonstration and suffers a business loss,” says Banzhaf. “Or, perhaps some people can’t get into an office because protesters are blocking the way [and] decide they want to do something about it.”

Banzhaf, who says he is a big proponent of First Amendment rights, says the lawsuits would only deal with illegal activities. “At a university, you have a right to sit-in, to write, to walk around – but not to block people from coming into classrooms.”

One thing that characterizes the Occupy Movement, and has harried its detractors from the very beginning, is that it's near impossible to identify its leadership. As long as the movement remains amorphous (once seen as a negative, but now a blessing), and without discernible leaders, it minimizes its chances of facing litigation from those entities it would highlight for promoting egregious acts against the public good.

The movement would do well to elicit the help of other protest groups--those, for example, seeking to protect the environment from polluters who would would rape it for profit. The ACLU may be persuaded to step in as needed, as well as other sympathizers in the legal community, individuals and well as legal agencies with the necessary expertise to advise and represent the protesters.

For all its potential to derail the movement, litigation may not be the magic bullet to the head of the movement that some detractors may be pinning their hopes on.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, thinks Banzhaf’s idea is “a real stretch.”

Mr. Ratner, who has acted as a legal observer for the Occupy movement, says civil disobedience has been a hallmark of protest in the country practically since the Revolutionary War. During the civil rights era, Americans sat in at Woolworth’s lunch counters to protest discrimination. Animal rights activists have been known to participate in civil disobedience.

“I would consider this a misuse of a lawyer’s time and a misunderstanding of protest in this country,” says Ratner. Read the complete article here.

Recently, we saw what the threat of law suits can do in certain cases, practically silencing the women accusing Cain of sexual harassment, notwithstanding the credibility of their claims:

In general, [Atlanta attorney Lin Wood hired by Cain]...said anyone considering making public accusations of wrongdoing against another person should carefully consider the wisdom and potential consequences in taking such action.

"Anyone should think twice before you take that type of action," Wood said. "And I think it's particularly true when you are making serious accusations against someone running for president of the United States, but I think it's equally true if you are making those accusations against your next door neighbor."

Asked to respond to Wood's "think twice" comment, Kraushaar's lawyer, Bennett, said: "I have not heard his statement, but statements of that nature could intimidate or discourage women from reporting sexual harassment."

And the ploy seemed to have worked: "The two public accusers — Bialek and Karen Kraushaar — had planned to hold a joint press conference, but on Thursday Kraushaar decided against it."

It's my hope that no matter what challenges are thrown their way, the Occupy Movement will remain amorphous enough, flexible enough, and nimble enough (which in hindsight seems more by design than happenstance), to morph into whatever form necessary so that the movement will continue to be a thorn in the side of those who have been a thorn in our side for years.

The Pappafication of the Presidency

In a recent NPR interview, David Frum, a former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, (hat tip to Greg L at http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com/) said the following about President Obama:

"The president is overwhelm. I don't think he's the man for the job.

"But He's not leading the country on the path of socialist ruin as matter of policy and intention. And the danger of thinking so--that's a very powerful way to mobilize followers and raise money...but it also traps you. Because when you mobilize people to that extent, the leaders find themselves unable to lead.

And we saw that happen most dramatically this summer with the crisis over the debt ceiling, where suddenly Republicans who desperately wanted to make a deal, who understood the consequences, they were terrified, they wanted a deal and they couldn't--because they had a wall of people behind them that would not allow them to step back."

"We need a strong and forceful president."

I hear this criticism of the president crop up again and again. Looking back over the several previous White House administrations--Republican and Democratic--the criticism appears almost gratuitous, something that is said (almost casually) if you're a Republican, and you wish to keep your membership in the Republican party in good standing.

We mustn't forget: Bush I was slammed for lack of presidential fortitude: He was excoriated severely for not invading Iraq during Desert Storm, and deposing Saddam Hussien. Bill Clinton surrendered liberal values to appease a Republican congress, and mostly gave them what they wanted in order to appear "strong and forceful." We know, too, that his presidency, elevated by hindsight, was hamstrung by a sex scandal, one that Republicans exploited all the way to an impeachment. George W.Bush showed his Texas cowboy strength and force by embroiling this nation in two wars, squandering a huge budget surplus and enacting tax cuts in a time of war--bold but foolish actions that precipitated the huge federal deficits that're hounding the nation now.

I heard this criticism again when the congressional Supercommittee failed to reach consensus on a debt-reduction package. It as though the president is expected to take each member of the committee behind the woodshed and give them a good thrashing until they relent and give him what he wants. I call this the papafication of the presidency--where the president, to be considered an effective leader, must find a way or ways to coerce the legislation that's required from a fractious congress, or be considered weak and lacking force.

Without a willing congress, nothing gets done in Washington. What this president needed in order to be seen as "strong and forceful" was to know the dirt on each Republican in congress, and the will to expose it if each refused to give him what he wanted. Anything short of that, we have what we have now--stalemates, and obstructionism.

I agree that the "president is overwhelm." With what Obama inherited from George Bush, it would have been a daunting task for any president to overcome, especially when Republicans in congress are more interested in helping the president "fail" than succeed, doing nothing to stem unemployment, or boosting the economy, in hopes that their inaction will help them achieve their end.

With patriotism like that, one thing is clear: We're fighting the wrong "war on terror." The terror with which this nation must contend is inflicted from the Right, and from within the hallowed halls of congress. The Republican Party has done more to damage this country economically than has bin Laden and his merry band of jihadists.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is a response to this "terrorism," and it's ironic that the full weight of our nation's police forces has been brought to bear to squash it. It's also telling that a large segment of this society is more supportive of the terrorism on the Right than in championing the efforts of OWS to bring this terrorism to an end.

Frum's statement above clearly places the lack of leadership squarely at the feet of Republicans. Their entrenchment--which, by the way, is of their own making--may garner party support, but it also paralyzes their will, and capacity, to do more than that.