20 January 2005
Spectator
US mercenaries...Framing Social Security...Sam Hoyt & Nero
Sweetening the Pot by a Billion or So
Serious voices like that of Sen. John McCain have expressed the belief that our involvement in Iraq will extend for the next decade or so. Aside from the unthinkable possibility that today's ten-year-olds could be tomorrow's casualties, that assessment means trouble for military recruiters. Problems are already surfacing in National Guard and Army Reserve recruitments, both of which are missing their goals for the first time in years. It seems that a lot of men and women who signed up to be part-time soldiers are not enamored by the possibility of becoming full-time.If people knew the horrible severity of the wounds there would, no doubt, be an even great reluctance to serve. We are currently in our fourth explanation of why Americans are fighting and suffering and dying in Iraq, having dispensed of WMD, blame for 9/11, and Saddam the dangerous man. We're now telling Americans their sons and daughters need be sacrificed on the altar of Middle Eastern democracy. When faced with the reluctance of the populace to risk life and limb for such an ill-defined objective, what's the American way? Right - throw money at it; your money.
This year's recruiting budget contains financial incentives totaling more than one BILLION (that's billion with a "B") dollars. A lot of respected voices in the field are asking where the line is between "all-volunteer" and "mercenary." It should be noted that this money is NOT being reported as part of the cost of the war. The administration's philosophy seems to be "if we can't convince you, we'll buy you." How's that for a coalition of the willing?
Framing the Argument
The Spectator recalls a "Saturday Night Live" skit from the mists of the distant past in which Jon Lovitz played the part of Michael Dukakis in a debate against George I, played by Dana Carvey. After listening to yet another "stay the course, thousand points of light, stay the course" response from Bush/Carvey, Dukakis/Lovitz looks at the camera and says "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."That bit of humor is, sadly, truer today than it was even then. If you are like the Spectator, you often wonder how so many people could remain so blind to the outrages and scandals of the self-anointed theocrats running the country. On the Today Show this Inauguration Day morning, we got another glimpse of how and why. Interviewing Tim Russert about the prospects for the Bush second term, Matt Lauer asked a question about the president's efforts to gut Social Security and its prospects for enactment. Except he didn't say "gut Social Security;" he said "reform Social Security." [emphasis added]
Be cognizant of the number of times the word "reform" is used in connection with changing Social Security. The word "reform" carries with it a connotation that the system is broke and needs fixing, like a convict needs to "reform." In actuality, no objective analysis of Social Security conveys the context of crisis that is the heart of the Bush message. No "reform" is necessary because no crisis exists. But you hear the phrase "reform Social Security" often enough and you assume the system needs reformation. How many times have we heard the latest developments in "the war on terror" in Iraq? The war on terror was being fought in Afghanistan. The war against Saddam, that morphed out of the war against weapons of mass destruction, that morphed into the need to punish terrorist sympathizers, that morphed out of "regime change," is being fought in Iraq. Yet the mindless twits like Don Postles, who read the news nightly, continue to push the notion that somehow what's going on in Iraq is the war on terror.
We are losing the fight against the disinformation and the lies because we are allowing the other side to frame the argument in terms that are conducive to their thinking. Who wants to be against the "reform" of something? Who wants to be counted on the side of terrorists? And while we know that opposition to the Bush doctrine is warranted and necessary, a lot of people get trapped in the words and start believing.
Hoyt as Nero
Sam Hoyt was overheard on the news last week saying he might oppose the increase in the county sales tax. Without debating the merits of that position, the Spectator got a huge laugh at the reason Assemblyman Hoyt gave for that prospect. He said he wasn't sure giving more money to "the two most dysfunctional units of government in the region" was the right way to go. Wow—this coming from a guy who works in the state legislature, the paragon of virtue and responsibility; the very same body that creates the problems that confront localities has the balls to call them dysfunctional. That's like Nero saying Rome needed better fire protection.
Copyright 2004 by Buffalo Report, Inc.