Hi, Sparrows, I have just finished (mostly) moving this blog to WordPress. It gives me a lot more flexibility. I think you will like the look of it. It is MUCH easier to post and see comments. I also think you will like the "preview" of the links that "pop up" when you roll over them.
I will leave the past posts here as well, but all new ones will be at the new site only.
Let me know what you think of it. See you all there.
Lyn W-H
Monday, October 12, 2009
BRAINWASHING TACTICS EXPLAINED
The link to this video was forwarded to me by someone on the 9.12 list. (It was first posted by James, so a h/t to him.) It is an interview with a former KGB operative who later defected to the U. S. Although the interview was conducted in 1985, the tactics are timeless and still being used by the Left today. Currently, we are so numb to this insidious brainwashing that it rarely reaches our conscious awareness unless we are alerted to it.
I want to look into the CONTENT of the indoctrination of the Left in a subsequent post, i.e., the theories espoused, terminology used, etc. However, this video is a terrific introduction to considering specific content because it describes the PROCESS used. He is speaking in terms of the old Soviet Union, however, the tactics and goals remain the same no matter whether the label is communism, socialism, Marxism, statism, etc.
It is good to have the frame for the "big picture" before trying to fill in the details. This video provides that framework.
I want to look into the CONTENT of the indoctrination of the Left in a subsequent post, i.e., the theories espoused, terminology used, etc. However, this video is a terrific introduction to considering specific content because it describes the PROCESS used. He is speaking in terms of the old Soviet Union, however, the tactics and goals remain the same no matter whether the label is communism, socialism, Marxism, statism, etc.
It is good to have the frame for the "big picture" before trying to fill in the details. This video provides that framework.
Friday, October 9, 2009
THE NOBEL HOPEY-CHANGEY POPULARITY PRIZE
Obama received an early call this morning telling him that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House reported that he was “humbled by the recognition.” (If only that were true). The only shock here is that no one knew he had been nominated, or by whom. Perhaps a nomination in this case was unnecessary? Was there even a real competition once Obama’s name was in the mix? Or was this award simply an extension of the unhealthy and irrational adulation that has been demonstrated ad nauseum by those on the Left?
I pose this question due to the fact that the nomination was reportedly made back on February 1, 2009—on what basis? Campaign rhetoric? Guess this goes to show that if one is really good at telling others what they want to hear, you win!! Yessiree, that is the very thing we want to teach our children—you needn’t achieve anything, you needn’t consider the possible consequences of your words, you needn’t do the really hard work to reason out moral solutions, you needn't develop skills and demonstrate concrete success. Talk a great game, try to please everyone, and you excel because you are…you, you wonderful you!
Nobel Committee Chairman Jagland stated that Obama’s “initiatives have yet to bear fruit”. The PM of Norway, Stoltenberg said that “The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it’s given to someone…who has power to contribute to peace.” Huh, and here I thought that the Nobel Peace Prize was actually to honor accomplishments. (Even Al Gore made a movie, a bad one, but still….) So, it sounds like the prize was given for what it is hoped he will do, and because it is believed he has the power to do it. I’m with Walesa who commented, “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.”
It can be no accident that those American politicians honored with this Prize, Carter, Gore and now Obama, all have extreme Leftist views. Perhaps we can change the name of the Nobel Peace Prize to the “Nobel Appeasement Incentive Prize”, or the “Nobel Hope Prize”, or the “Nobel Encouragement for Good Intentions Prize”, maybe the “Nobel Expectations for the Future Prize”. I am certain that we can devise names that much better describe the criteria upon which this Prize is being awarded. Let’s call a spade a spade here, this is not about establishing world peace. It is about selecting a popular figure who can best promote an agenda.
My conclusion is that the Nobel Peace Prize, (whose reputation was irreparably harmed by its previous, dubious recipients), is now officially a joke. Me thinks me smells a big, fat, disgusting rat-the fix was in. Are we surprised?
I pose this question due to the fact that the nomination was reportedly made back on February 1, 2009—on what basis? Campaign rhetoric? Guess this goes to show that if one is really good at telling others what they want to hear, you win!! Yessiree, that is the very thing we want to teach our children—you needn’t achieve anything, you needn’t consider the possible consequences of your words, you needn’t do the really hard work to reason out moral solutions, you needn't develop skills and demonstrate concrete success. Talk a great game, try to please everyone, and you excel because you are…you, you wonderful you!
Nobel Committee Chairman Jagland stated that Obama’s “initiatives have yet to bear fruit”. The PM of Norway, Stoltenberg said that “The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it’s given to someone…who has power to contribute to peace.” Huh, and here I thought that the Nobel Peace Prize was actually to honor accomplishments. (Even Al Gore made a movie, a bad one, but still….) So, it sounds like the prize was given for what it is hoped he will do, and because it is believed he has the power to do it. I’m with Walesa who commented, “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.”
It can be no accident that those American politicians honored with this Prize, Carter, Gore and now Obama, all have extreme Leftist views. Perhaps we can change the name of the Nobel Peace Prize to the “Nobel Appeasement Incentive Prize”, or the “Nobel Hope Prize”, or the “Nobel Encouragement for Good Intentions Prize”, maybe the “Nobel Expectations for the Future Prize”. I am certain that we can devise names that much better describe the criteria upon which this Prize is being awarded. Let’s call a spade a spade here, this is not about establishing world peace. It is about selecting a popular figure who can best promote an agenda.
My conclusion is that the Nobel Peace Prize, (whose reputation was irreparably harmed by its previous, dubious recipients), is now officially a joke. Me thinks me smells a big, fat, disgusting rat-the fix was in. Are we surprised?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
OUT-OF-CONTROL OBAMATONS
How concerned are we about the stories coming out of Detroit where people lined up for what they believed was money from King Obama, (who obviously has a Royal Treasury about which the rest of us are unaware)?
There is a video here from the local Detroit network. The transcript of the WJR interview with one woman is posted, along with Rush Limbaugh's commentary, here. In the meantime there is another interview of a woman that was also asked about the origins of the money. It is not yet available on the internet. She said in part, "maybe he's getting it from his stash ... I don't know it's Obama money and he's givin' it to us ....that's why we voted for him."
And lest we forget that all of these folks were once children, you may want to watch school kids perform a song supporting the healthcare "reforms" desired by our "Dear Leader".
After watching and reading all these items, please remind yourself that there are still more of "us" than there are of "them". New Zealand really would not be large enough to accommodate all of us, trust me.
There is a video here from the local Detroit network. The transcript of the WJR interview with one woman is posted, along with Rush Limbaugh's commentary, here. In the meantime there is another interview of a woman that was also asked about the origins of the money. It is not yet available on the internet. She said in part, "maybe he's getting it from his stash ... I don't know it's Obama money and he's givin' it to us ....that's why we voted for him."
And lest we forget that all of these folks were once children, you may want to watch school kids perform a song supporting the healthcare "reforms" desired by our "Dear Leader".
After watching and reading all these items, please remind yourself that there are still more of "us" than there are of "them". New Zealand really would not be large enough to accommodate all of us, trust me.
WATCH OUT FOR THE CREEPY-CRAWLY HEALTHCARE BILL
We've all heard about ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggedy beasties and things that go "bump" in the night. (Good Lord, deliver us). Now we have a completely imaginary, and therefore scary, "CBO analysis" being reported by such news outlets as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News that supposedly will save us all kinds of money. BEWARE! If it sounds too good to be true...
On the Heritage Foundry Blog you can read about what this "CBO analysis" actually is. It also gives a very good summary of how Reid plans to jam it through the Senate with only 51 votes. There is further information about the "scoring" of what Red State calls a "Vapor Bill" in the second entry down on their home page. I especially encourage you to read Donald Marron's analysis, especially important if you interact with any liberal types. (The link to his analysis is the last one within the "Vapor Bill" entry).
National Review Online also has several very good analyses of the CBO "scoring" of the Baucus bill. All of them are worth reading to have a good grasp on what this bill would entail.
Check all of it out, then take a deep breath, say a prayer, (good Lord, deliver us is a good one) and carry on.
On the Heritage Foundry Blog you can read about what this "CBO analysis" actually is. It also gives a very good summary of how Reid plans to jam it through the Senate with only 51 votes. There is further information about the "scoring" of what Red State calls a "Vapor Bill" in the second entry down on their home page. I especially encourage you to read Donald Marron's analysis, especially important if you interact with any liberal types. (The link to his analysis is the last one within the "Vapor Bill" entry).
National Review Online also has several very good analyses of the CBO "scoring" of the Baucus bill. All of them are worth reading to have a good grasp on what this bill would entail.
Check all of it out, then take a deep breath, say a prayer, (good Lord, deliver us is a good one) and carry on.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
America: a dark city in a valley
Jean Kaufman at the Weekly Standard has written an article that compares and contrasts the language of Reagan with the language of Obama. As stated in my previous post on "words", one can clearly see how inextricably language is woven into worldview and subsequent policies. This one is a must read.
"WORDS, JUST WORDS"--REALLY?
After our fun (?) foray into Obama “Doublespeak” recently, I was curious about the roots of the language of the Left. Seriously, why do they seem to speak in code? Where does it come from? What does it mean? I know that all administrations have their messages and talking points. I know that certain words and phrases are purposefully chosen after being thoroughly tested on focus groups. Yet this language seems different in a qualitative way. As a friend of mine used to say, “It’s not only that they are on a different page; they’re reading a different book!”
All groups have their own “lingo”. It is what, in large part, gives a group its identity. We recognize that someone belongs to a group by how well and to what extent he or she knows particular “jargon” or catch phrases. However, as a counseling-psychologist myself, of the cognitive-behavioral school, I believe that language has greater potency than simply defining group character. Language shapes the way we think about relationships, events, oneself and the world. In turn, the way we think generates particular feelings. Those feelings lead to observable behaviors, (or in the political arena policies). Understanding resultant behaviors, (and/or policies), is impossible without first developing an understanding of the words, thinking and feelings that preceded them. It all begins with language.
Initially, we acquire our vocabularies, syntax, grammar and idioms/slang within our families-of-origin. Later, these are enlarged and refined to a great degree by our interactions with others. The nature of these interactions can be active, (as a conversation), or passive, (as in listening to or watching media). As we mature, our usage develops nuances and shades of meaning. We begin to understand that words are often used in less than concrete ways. Perhaps the most important impact on language acquisition and development occurs from reading the written word. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” A reader interacts with the material that is read on numerous levels. Words can paint pictures and inflame passions. A seemingly well-reasoned argument can influence, persuade and even radically change perceptions of reality. All of us are vulnerable to a speaker or writer who has a facility with the language. Words can manipulate. Words can mesmerize. Words can illuminate. Words can indoctrinate. Words can obfuscate. Words have power!
Consider the example below:
“Democrats can win if they stop being corrupted by cash and bullied by lies paid for by special interests. Democrats will lose if they remain cowed into fear by those who shout at town meetings, yell at joint sessions, rant on cable television, slander on talk radio, bring guns to greet elected officials, take surveys about violence against presidents, cheer when America does not win the Olympics and filibuster to preserve, protect and defend the despised status quo.”
(Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog. 10-5-09).
The above quote is filled with evocative language; language that is meant to arouse the emotions of the reader. What type of picture is the writer painting by using words and phrases like: corrupted, bullied, lies, special interests, cowed, fear, shout, yell, rant, slander, guns, violence, cheer when America does not win, filibuster, despised status quo? To me, it seems to paint a picture of a weak, victimized minority being coerced into submission by an unscrupulous, dangerous and vicious enemy! And, lest we forget, the Democrats possess control over, arguably, all three branches of the Government, as well as its bureaucracy and the Fourth Estate, an extraordinary amount of power-power that the Left wishes to not only retain, but to expand.
The current administration excels at using words in such a dissembling fashion. We “sparrows” would do well to be alert to these contortions of the language. And, as we will learn in coming posts, this insidious usage did not originate with the present Administration. Its roots are deep within the words that so influenced and shaped Mr. Obama—those of Marx, Baldwin, Ellison, Hughs, Wright, Zakaria, DuBois, Alinsky and Davis, among others.
It is crucial that each of us develops the ability to dissect, dig out, interpret and discern the true meaning of what the Left says in order to grasp how they will act-the future of our Country depends upon it.
All groups have their own “lingo”. It is what, in large part, gives a group its identity. We recognize that someone belongs to a group by how well and to what extent he or she knows particular “jargon” or catch phrases. However, as a counseling-psychologist myself, of the cognitive-behavioral school, I believe that language has greater potency than simply defining group character. Language shapes the way we think about relationships, events, oneself and the world. In turn, the way we think generates particular feelings. Those feelings lead to observable behaviors, (or in the political arena policies). Understanding resultant behaviors, (and/or policies), is impossible without first developing an understanding of the words, thinking and feelings that preceded them. It all begins with language.
Initially, we acquire our vocabularies, syntax, grammar and idioms/slang within our families-of-origin. Later, these are enlarged and refined to a great degree by our interactions with others. The nature of these interactions can be active, (as a conversation), or passive, (as in listening to or watching media). As we mature, our usage develops nuances and shades of meaning. We begin to understand that words are often used in less than concrete ways. Perhaps the most important impact on language acquisition and development occurs from reading the written word. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” A reader interacts with the material that is read on numerous levels. Words can paint pictures and inflame passions. A seemingly well-reasoned argument can influence, persuade and even radically change perceptions of reality. All of us are vulnerable to a speaker or writer who has a facility with the language. Words can manipulate. Words can mesmerize. Words can illuminate. Words can indoctrinate. Words can obfuscate. Words have power!
Consider the example below:
“Democrats can win if they stop being corrupted by cash and bullied by lies paid for by special interests. Democrats will lose if they remain cowed into fear by those who shout at town meetings, yell at joint sessions, rant on cable television, slander on talk radio, bring guns to greet elected officials, take surveys about violence against presidents, cheer when America does not win the Olympics and filibuster to preserve, protect and defend the despised status quo.”
(Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog. 10-5-09).
The above quote is filled with evocative language; language that is meant to arouse the emotions of the reader. What type of picture is the writer painting by using words and phrases like: corrupted, bullied, lies, special interests, cowed, fear, shout, yell, rant, slander, guns, violence, cheer when America does not win, filibuster, despised status quo? To me, it seems to paint a picture of a weak, victimized minority being coerced into submission by an unscrupulous, dangerous and vicious enemy! And, lest we forget, the Democrats possess control over, arguably, all three branches of the Government, as well as its bureaucracy and the Fourth Estate, an extraordinary amount of power-power that the Left wishes to not only retain, but to expand.
The current administration excels at using words in such a dissembling fashion. We “sparrows” would do well to be alert to these contortions of the language. And, as we will learn in coming posts, this insidious usage did not originate with the present Administration. Its roots are deep within the words that so influenced and shaped Mr. Obama—those of Marx, Baldwin, Ellison, Hughs, Wright, Zakaria, DuBois, Alinsky and Davis, among others.
It is crucial that each of us develops the ability to dissect, dig out, interpret and discern the true meaning of what the Left says in order to grasp how they will act-the future of our Country depends upon it.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
CURRENT STATUS OF REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE REFORM--OR "JUST SAY NO"
IMHO, there is an important article over at National Review Online by Deroy Murdock. With the Congressional vote on a healthcare reform bill drawing ever closer, I believe that it is crucial to know how the Republicans are attempting to reform our healthcare system, because you will rarely hear about it from any mainstream media outlet. It is just as essential to know how the Democrat-controlled legislature is operating with respect to such things as:
-federal funding for abortion;
-senior citizen healthcare rationing;
-eligibility of recipients for federal healthcare dollars;
-waste and fraud in Medicaid
-giving individuals responsibility and control over their healthcare dollars.
I highly recommend that you read Murdock's article. It will not only give you the facts you need in order to speak cogently on the subject of healthcare, but it will also arm you with plenty of information should you wish to, yet again, write or call your elected representative about this critical issue.
-federal funding for abortion;
-senior citizen healthcare rationing;
-eligibility of recipients for federal healthcare dollars;
-waste and fraud in Medicaid
-giving individuals responsibility and control over their healthcare dollars.
I highly recommend that you read Murdock's article. It will not only give you the facts you need in order to speak cogently on the subject of healthcare, but it will also arm you with plenty of information should you wish to, yet again, write or call your elected representative about this critical issue.
THE GOVERNMENT CAN
A fun video by Tim Hawkins, (hat tip to Patti), it brought a smile to my face. We need every smile we can get these days. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)