The Push and The PushBack

The Push and The PushBack:Chris Wallace and Barney Frank
On Sunday, Mar 15, Congressman Barney Frank appeared on Chris Wallace'Fox News Sunday with Senator Bob Corker and Mark Zandi, chief economistat Moody's Economy.com .Here is the transcript of the discussion from foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509315,00.html

Early in the discussion, Chris Wallace raised the "second stimulus":"Mr. Zandi, ... you have raised ... the probability of the need for a second stimulus ..." There was some back and forth discussion around this with Wallace, Zandi, and Corker. Then from Wallace: "Gentlemen, I want to move on..." at which point from Congressman Frank:"... Chris, ... can I respond to Bob Corker's partisan attack ... ? ... nobody in the administration or on our side in Congress is focusing on the second stimulus. We only answer that when we are asked ..." An argument ensues:Frank: "I do want to rebut a false charge ..."Wallace: " ... I was trying to stay on substance ..."Frank: " ... if you want to, then don't let political attacks go..."Wallace: " ... Go ahead, Senator Corker. Do you want to talk about the budget or do you want to get in a food fight?"

This last remark exemplifies an epidemic and important problem.His use of "food fight" is totally inappropriate while carrying a powerful emotional message.On the one hand, it is a clear criticism of Mr. Frank's "Push Back" against the distracting and potentiallydeceptive effects of the "second stimulus" comments.More than that, it introduces a vivid and emotionally charged image from outside the realm of the conversation.For some, it will resonate with their awareness of Mr. Frank's body habitus, which is overweight.For some, it will resonate with their homophobic disgust and revulsion for Mr. Frank.Because of the striking and over-the-top inappropriateness of the comment, I suggest that this lastapplies to Chris Wallace himself.

The important point, though, is that the comment provides a powerful "Push" against the weight andcredibility of Mr. Frank's comments.It is intensely personal, unfair, and very difficult to "Push Back" if only due to the lack of time.The one who made the remark is in the preeminent position of power.His voice is that of the moderator, the "House."

But there is another way to "Push Back" against this.Mr. Frank's comments leading up to it are a good example of a "Push Back" at the top.He speaks and argues directly against an intellectual point and his arguments will havesome sway as heard by the many who are listening.But for the unanswered and emotional "Push," the best potential "Push Back" would comefrom recognition and comprehension by each individual listener of the importance of ChrisWallace' "food fight" comment.

This would be a true "grass roots" PushBack.It can be enabled by education alone.We must educate ourselves to at least recognize the presence of "The Push" in what we are told.And we can, rather quickly and easily."The Push" takes many forms but they all fall into just a few categories: - Intellectual. If the facts are true and the logic is true, it can be convincing. If the facts are false, the logic is confusing or fallacious, it can fail to convince or be deceptive. - Emotional. If what is said includes dogma, bigotry, or a sexual or hateful element, it can be powerfully convincing and/or deceptive.

But recognition by the listener of attempts to deceive or manipulate powerfully undermines the capabilityof a speaker to effect our thinking.That recognition instantly eliminates the credibility of the speaker.It eliminates any inclination to suspend our critical thinking, our trust, and thereby protects us frombeing bamboozled.

Pistachio Recall Source - Setton Farms

Here is an email received from Paramount Farms, the supplier for Sunkist brand Pistachios:

Thank you for contacting Sunkist concerning pistachios processed and packaged by Paramount Farms.

Paramount Farms has learned that Kraft Foods, maker of Nantucket Blend trail mix, and its supplier the Georgia Nut Company, have issued a voluntary precautionary recall in the United States due to potential Salmonella contamination.

The recall was issued as a result of in-house sampling and testing with respect to pistachios provided by Setton Farms a third-party supplier. There have been no reports of illnesses linked to these products.

The recall does not involve Paramount Farms and our product is not affected by the situation. Paramount Farms has stringent quality control procedures in place and employs the highest food safety standards.

For any media inquiries, please contact the Kraft Foods media help line at 1-847-646-4538. Consumer inquiries should be directed to 1-866-538-8280.

Regards,

Karen Getten-Powell
Paramount Farms
800-528-6887
661-797-6429 Direct

---

Here is the contact information for Setton Farms from their website:

Setton InternationalFoods, Inc.
http://www.settonfarms.com
85 Austin Blvd.Commack, NY
11725
1-800-CASHEWS within the US,
except NYT: 631.543.8090
F: 631.543.8070

Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc.
9370 Road 234
Terra Bella, CA 93270
T: 559.535.6050
F: 559.535.
email: info@settonfarms.com

Arianna Huffington Comes Off the Tracks on Morning Joe

This morning Arianna appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to tout The Post's new initiative to promote investigative Journalism directed at the economy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-discusses-huffing_b_180680.html

She was critical of The President's efforts to correct our economic problems, basing her pronouncements on the opinions of several economists she trusts. She stated that our government bailouts are not transparent nor accountable. Please excuse that I am speaking from memory and paraphrasing. - Don

How can you form an informed opinion if the information is not available, i.e. there is "no transparency and no accountability?" How weakly reasoned is it to articulate her opinion based on others' opinions, all of which must, per her pronouncement about transparency, be uninformed by the facts?

She finished her comments by criticizing Larry Summers for appearing sleepy in public and the administration in general for being overworked and undermanned. This is the kind of insidious attack which serves no purpose other than to undermine public confidence. Not unexpectedly, one of the panel hosts chimed in with details about Larry Summers' dependence on Diet Coke.

When have we ever had a competent President and adminstration which was not overworked? Can we expect otherwise when we know that Treasury, Justice, State, and Homeland Security were in a shambles by the end of the Bush presidency? How silly can you get?

Michele Bachman, McCarthyism, Wm Ayers - 18Oct2008

First, I too am frightened by the assertions of Michele Bachman and by the widely held views she espouses, which the McCain campaign is clearly attempting to promote. The Nation's editor Katrina vanden Heuvel spoke movingly to this fear and to its clear justification. Pat Buchanan seized on that fear and challenged vanden Heuvel about William Ayers to which, among other things, she said: "I do not defend Bill Ayers."

This was a defeat for sanity. Bill Ayers must be defended. To fail to do so in this context is to yield to the the mob, to fear, and to the attacks of those who would brand those with whom they differ as anti-American. While it is a distraction from the very important economic and foreign policy issues of the campaign, it bears on a very important issue in its own right. The disgrace to our nation of the prevalence of the ideas espoused by Rep. Bachman is the tip of the iceberg of something which must be addressed whenever it is raised.

Bill Ayers is and has been for decades a productive member of society. He has rehabilitated himself. He remains committed to the anti-war stance which led him to violent actions forty years ago. He has repeatedly said: "I wish we could have done more" to oppose the war. But he has long since abandoned violence. He has become an important member and leader for good of his community. His behavior and actions demonstrate his repentence.
That he has not apologized in a manner which satisfies Pat Buchanan means very little on balance against his very real actions for good.

Compare the fervent apology from Senator McCain at the time of the Keating Five savings and loan collapse. He said the right things but continued absolutely unchanged to this day in his commitment to deregulation. Consider too the statements he made after his losses in the 2000 primaries regarding his "blind ambition" and his commitment to clean politics.

We can be afraid. But we cannot yield to it. We must not lose our perspective and yield to attacks. Pat Buchanan is very good at what he does as are many others. We must set fear, outrage, indignation, hurt, frustration, all of it aside. We are not running for office. We are far less constrained in taking an umpopular position that senators McCain or Obama.

Tucker Carlson: Jon Stewart v Jim Cramer - 20Mar2009

The Push and the PushBack:

Tucker begins his article describing Jon Stewart indictment of Jim Cramer using Cramer's own words: "...grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and unethically) depress a company's stock price..." Stewart continues: "You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this derivative-market stuff,"

Now Tucker rebuffs Stewart's reasoning: "... you can't draw any such line." Congratulations, Tucker. You came up with a way to misunderstand something very simple: Jim Cramer was a greedy unprincipled professional gambler; so too those at AIG and Bear Sternes.

Are you really that stupid, Tucker? I don't think so. Maybe you have an axe to grind. You do mention your own 2004 "run-in" with Jon Stewart on your own program, Crossfire: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds

You reduce the entire conversation to a few irrelevant sentences and then dismiss its significance (and Jon Stewart's) while raising your nose in the air like the patrician you pretend to be by telling us that you went to a dinner and that one of your producers called you later to tell you Jon Stewart hadn't yet left.

Who now has his own successful TV program 4 nights/week, Tucker? And whose show was cancelled 2 months after your 2004 run-in? And how many episodes did your solo TV show run after that?

As part of your argument that Jon Stewart is on the skids, that he is no longer funny, you fantasize: "... there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in the press ..." Hey Tucker, maybe few people criticize Jon Stewart because he is a comedian, and a good one.

Did you see his recent bit about The President's announcement of our timetable for leaving Iraq? He did one of his video juxtapositions, with The President in one frame making statements, and George W. Bush in the adjacent frame, making exactly the same statements and using the same reasoning. It's difficult to be more intellectually honest than using your target's own words.

Remember Tina Fey's caricatures of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. It was the same. And how much criticism has fallen on her? She's a comedian too. And she's intellectually honest too.

But you're not. Right from the start of this article, you attempt to confuse and deceive your readers with sophistry. I don't trust you and most others don't either. You're too clumsy, you're too arrogant, and you're too wrong.

The President's Plan for Iraq

Iran - 27Feb2008:

Leaving troops in Iraq serves the second purpose of maintaining a threatening presence on Iran's flank. This will, I think become the primary purpose of our force in Iraq.

Iran is a real cause of concern and this retains one of our "sticks" in place for almost 3 more years. At the same time, we will be increasing the size of our force on Iran's 2nd flank and hopefully placing that force in a more powerful and secure position than they are now. In other words, our Afghan force will become considerably more threatening.

Many of us are profoundly disappointed by The President's announcement today. As with other things, however, his style is to go for a "twofer" whenever possible and it's difficult to be patient about his approach. I personally believe that he is trustworthy, both regards his intentions and his judgement. Of course he will make errors. I hope he will not make big ones.

28Feb2008:

It's 34 months, not 19: I am very disappointed by The President's announcement yesterday that we will retain a very significant force in Iraq till the end of 2011.

This is contrary to what he repeatedly asserted during his presidential campaign. There he promised a 16 month drawdown at the end of which he would leave a small force to guard our embassy and perform other comparable security tasks. 35,000-50,000 troops is far more than is needed for these tasks.

With regards the deadlines he stated of Aug 31, 2010 and Dec 31, 2011, the latter of these is already in place in the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush signed with Iraq. In addition, the SOFA presents June 30, 2009 as the latest date by which all of our forces must have withdrawn to "agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated ..."(Page 16) The SOFA is online at:
http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm

The President did not mention the advantage of maintaining a significant force in Iraq as an aid to our diplomatic efforts aimed at Iran. Nor did he mention any changes in plan may have been forced by the recent decision by the Krygystan government to eliminate our base there. I am inclined to trust The President. But he has clearly reneged on his campaign promise of 16 months.

Stimulate The Economy Without Government Spending

Reduce the maximum interest chargeable on credit card debt. Reducing this interest rate does not cost our government any money at all.

If it is reduced to 12% or less, many times many home owners and others will be able to carry their debt, both credit card and other. This measure would enable credit card useage with far less fear.

This measure would not effect the current balance sheets of the credit card companies, but it would nominally reduce their income going forward on debts at interest higher than the new reduced maximum. But most of those owing that debt are likely "underwater" already and will default now or in the near future.

Reducing the interest rate may actually moderately increase the income of the credit card companies since more of those "on the edge" will be able to make their payments. For this reason, voluntarily reducing their rates might help the credit card company's incomes.

In any case, this issue must be addressed by experts. But overall, reducing the maximum credit card rate to a maximum of 12% or less would significantly stimulate consumer spending without any government spending.