Drama students learn tough lesson

May I prescribe a trip down to his local recruiting office if he thinks Bush is right about this war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speaking as a guy with a hellova lotta theatrical experience: I annoys me to no end when plays are censored. Funny story – during our recent family musical of ‘Annie Get Your Gun’, the superintendent saw the play and was shocked: Annie and Frank actually kissed on stage! Ye Gods! He demanded that we cut the kiss. I politely reminded him that our musical pulled in thousands of dollars in revenue (yup, a play that makes money) for the school and that he ought to shut his pie hole. Problem solved.
Anyway, there’s a solution to this: if you don’t want to see a play, don’t see it. Don’t like criticism of Bush/Kerry/fill in the blank here, don’t watch a play criticizing them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is it that the drama or theater people seem always to take punches at the Republicans but rarely do you see them ridiculing ant Democrats? Do you see their bias as well as I do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does not bode well , this political interference always starts at Americas entertainment industry . Similar to the witch hunts of the Mc Carthy era , there is a reason for this as US citizens began questioning the necessity of the Cold War the political offensive started on Hollywood . The object was to control the industry and employ the industry as propaganda tool to convince the skeptical US public of the Soviet threat . Likewise today in the US people are questioning the war on terror and people are doing it outside of control of the US media and hollywood . Grassroots organisations are doing it on the net , school etc simply put the US public is being watched more closely .

 

cosmic - usually, but I've written plays that ridicule them both (as the same). Oddly enough, when Conservatives see said play they feel that Liberals were the ones riduculed. Liberals feel that I ridiculed the Conservatives.

Otherwise, you're right, drama people tend to side with the liberal slant.


Brian, you're exactly right. No offence to you guys, but I'm kinda glad i'm not in the states right now.

 

Social and political criticism in the theatre is older than Shakespeare. Want a Republican play criticising a socialist/liberal point of view? Write one then. My problem is what the article and the school's actions say about the lack of importance of teaching dissent by it's educators. I compare the school system's response to a lock step position of support for Bush, and his rhetoric of: "You're either with me, or with the terrorists." Dissent is a right of every American, and it was the basis for our Constitution, and our war of Independence. Bush, by equating fellow Americans who do not agree with his policies as aiding terrorists, is probably forgetting how he got into office: by dissent of the Religious Right, who disagreed with the direction of the country over the last 20 years.

Accepted criticism for political change, in the form of political satire, for example, is a sign of a healthy democracy.



Today, because of 9-11, dissent requates to doubt in the President's actions, and politically and internationally, that looks "bad". If the entire nation, even a school system in California, finds it necessary to use a hammer to kill an ant in a drama department, and cannot tolerate dissent and protest it's students, then I feel sorry for those students. Teaching how to dissent and protest, and critical thinking ought to be in every cirriculum, starting with our school boards and school administrators.

 

I don't think they want dissent. Thats the whole point of not teaching it!!!

Seriously, I see the theme "don't think, just listen" around alot. I see it on kids shows, commercials, and the like. I think its pretty disturbing, but all I can really do is not support those shows/companys. Maybe its always been there, I'm only 20, so I really wouldn't know. I just hope that people continue to think for themselves, and not what they are told.

 

I'm 50, and the message you describe, "don't think, just listen" is how the media, advertising, and the Bush Administration works. I can't recall the full title of the book, but it's about a psychological technique of controlling a debate, and a method of overt brainwashing--it's called "reframing". One of the basic tenets is, do not answer your opponents questions directly, always reframe the question into the position statement that best fits your goals and values.

I watched an interview during the previous election where Diane Sawyer asked some very damning, incriminating questions of the President. He didn't answer a single question or acknowledge or deny any of her questions. Instead, he turned it in another direction. She tried to get him back on her questions, and he simply refused to answer, turning the negatives into positives from his point of view. There's much more to this reframing than I can describe here. But it's basically a way to control the debate, and control the perception of reality. Reframing, in effect, was how Bush and Rove won the election. The election was turned away from Bush's policies and ineffectual leadership on domestic issues, and the war, into moral and values issues of gay rights, gay marriage, and christian beliefs--important--but not nearly as critical as the conduct of President during the war, in my opinion.

The way to combat reframing is to be very aware when it's going on. It has to be recognized by every citizen, and it needs to be confronted, in public, directly by the media, if possible, so that oppositional points of view are included, explained, without or in spite of, who is doing the reframing. This takes work and time, and a media who is not swayed by pressure tactics. It takes a media not controlled by certain political agenda's.

Here's the best reframing example I've heard Bush say, "You're either with me, or your with the terrorists", a modification of the original, "You're either with me, or against me." Strongly implied in that statement is that if you don't agree with me, and do as I say, then you are aiding the terrorists, by going against me. I think we can agree, citizen dissent, and disagreement over what is politically important, ie, Bush Administration's inability to take responsiblity for errors, lies, and abuses of power, is nowhere near a comparison of being a terrorist! A secondary association that has crept in is, that if you're a democrat, liberal, anti-war person, then you are the "enemy", and a terrorist! Last time I looked, no citizen of the US is a terrorist just because he's not a Republican! lol.

Bush, and many of his supporters, have even been able to refine the reframing by saying, "If you don't support the President, then you are aiding the enemy." That's a gross mistatement of fact, but it is a form of political dissent using a brainwashing technique, and it's been broadcast, and implied by the media for years. Bush has been able to make statements like the above, and get away with it, by manipulating public fears about the war and potential terrorist attacks in the future, by using two fundamental concepts of human nature around the issue of peer pressure: 1. People want to follow a responsible leader, and 2. People do not want to experience the pain of doubting a leader, or their own beliefs.

If this topic interests you, trying googling "reframing" and "Psycholinguistic Reprogramming". A interesting book on the subject of forensic psychiatry, using a method of analyzing the President's speech, writing's, substance abuse, and family history, from his mother's biography, is "Bush on the Couch". Another interesting approach to understanding reframing as it applies to the cultural phenomenon of the current "fad" of white, male dominated conservatism is, "The Wimp Factor."

Keep thinking, and don't just listen. Find your own frame of reference, by deeper reading, and never accept the horseshit you're being fed! My generation's axiom was, "question authority." Maybe yours could be "Don't just listen, think."

 

yes, reframing, the dirty little debator trick. A word to those who use it: it dons't work at all when there's an intelligent audience. Fortuantly, 'audience' usually means 'more people than four', so most debators i know use it all the time. The only real way to counter this is by saying "We are talking about (blank), and you're off talking about (blank - make it sound as stupid and inane as possible, unless it's patriotism, in which case you claim it's a moot point). What are you afraid of telling me?" I use that a lot. Trust me, if there's any debators or otherwise rebelous citizens out there.

 

Thanks for the tips regarding reframing. When it's happening, or as I heard it in the political campaign, I was reeling, kind of angry when Bush refused, or wouldn't acknowledge any Democratic opinion, turning everything into patriotism, or worse, "enemy" of the people. Your tip on reframing the reframed statement, I haven't heard enough of this in action. I was particularly in awe of Rove, and his association with, but giving the appearance of, disconnection from the "Swift Boat" gang. The media didn't dig into his association with it's members in Texas thoroughly enough. I checked into Kerry's record thoroughly, I spent over 50 hours on line, and I could find nothing that proved their allegations, other than the 34 pages Kerry refused to release of his military record, and even that they turned into some secret "cabal". But Kerry's mistake was to allow the reframing to take place without saying anything other than, "my record is out there, it's public knowledge", and he never answered a single allegation directly. This became a tacit acceptance of the oppositional point of view as "true". The Swift Boater's message played well in the South. It wasn't a question of "truth", it was an issue of perception. He was relabeled (reframed) into a hippie anti-war freak, from 34 years ago! He had a fairly quiet, but effective 16 year career in Congress--doesn't that count for something? And like you say, the uninformed 'audience' took it and ran, and didn't check into Kerry's speech, for instance, to the Senate Subcommm. on Investigations, in '71. I listened to it as a kid, and then listened to the stream on C-SPAN during the campaign. I didn't hear "traitor", I heard him praise his fellow soldiers and sailors. He told their stories of heroism. He went there to get the US out of Vietnam sooner. If Congress had listened to him, and to the generals at the time, who said in early '71, before Kerry's speech, the war was militarily unwinnable. If we'd gotten out of there in '72, 4000 men would not have died. As it was, Nixon went into Cambodia, and prolonged the war, thinking he could win reelection if he could win the war by stopping the supply routes through Cambodia. The war went on to '75, and we know what happened to Nixon.

Anyway, knowing all this, and hearing WS McNamara basically repeat in a 2003 documentary, called "The Fog of War", what Kerry said in '71 to the Senate, blew me off my chair. Anyone listening to Kerry or McNamara would realize the truth of the war, and that Kerry was a patriot of the highest order, by his military deeds, and for testifying to Congress about truth's already known! And of course, the Swifties were found to be liars across the board, but it didn't matter, they got their reframed message out to an uninformed public and media. For some voters all you have to say is "commie-liar", and you are one. Just the same, Kerry wasn't the right man, but still....

Last thing. I recently heard a speech from Bill Moyers, a devout even-handed journalist I think. He regularly attacks his profession. He said, "The media is very good at writing down what the two opposing parties have to say, but they are abysmal at giving the context in which comments are made, and they forget, or refuse, to use the editorial process as it was intended." (paraphrased) He was referring to the more risky part of journalism, the hard work of journalism, and what is the most vital part to understanding political positions, and that is using the facts to support a position. Without that element, political parties can frame debates anyway they want, without facts, with tons of spin, and the media simply write it down, and we read it, and we havn't the context or counter information, at the right time to pick fact from fiction.

His speech was about his getting into trouble with a new conservative board member, Tomlinson, for the CPB, the quasi-government group, partially responsible for Federal funding of Public Broadcasting. Moyers quite the show NOW, because he refused to slant his editorials to a preconceived conservative postion. And rather than address the facts, or understand actual public opinion about the Now show, Tomlinson reframed the debate to "I want to ensure a more balanced opinion on Public Television and Radio programs. Polls conducted of viewers of NOW, including both liberal, Dem, and conservative, Republican viewers denied a liberal bias, or a slant that was pro-Israeli. So much for reframing reality.

 

what Kerry ought to have done was got mad. Not Howard-Dean style dinosaur mad, but 'angry american' style mad. Latin 'I'm gonna flip out and make you wish you never said that' mad. Whenever someone points out something personal in any kind of debate, I Accuse the opposition of ignoring the issues by going on a McCarthy-style witch-hunt. And I do use the word McCarthy, because it conjures up some pretty ghastly images of politics.
Back to Kerry. War veterans can get away with that type of thing (getting mad when you call then dishonorable), especially in a place like America where the veterans are so honored. Picture Kerry going, ‘I most certainly god-damn did earn my medals! I god-damn went through hell and back to get this country out of a war we oughta never been too, and I’m not gonna tolerate any sorry SOB privet who doesn’t love America enough to respect her officers!’
This statement does the following:

- ‘god-damn’ sends a good ole boy message, and I might add that veterans can get away with saying ‘god-damn’ because everyone imagines them fighting in a war movie they’ve seen and wonder whey they don’t cuss even more.
- Reconciles going to war and not agreeing with it. That segment also suggests sacrifice.
- Pointing out the chain-of-command, which is also pretty common knowledge in the states. Reminding people of officer status is generally a good thing.
- ‘I’m not going to tolerate . . .’ If Kerry gets that mad when someone affronts his personal honor, how mad will he get when someone affronts America’s honor?
- Accusing the other men of not loving America is a dirty trick, but it’s a good one. No one likes the unloyal soldier.

Basically, I thought that Kerry should have pointed out that he had his money where his mouth was when it came to Vietnam, and the Bush administration didn’t. It’s okay to do that when affronted for the reasons above, and it’s that much more powerful when Kerry doesn’t really talk about his personal experience otherwise (because no one likes the arrogant soldier either). So there’s more of Dave’s debate tips. Joining the armed forces give one a lot of credibility.

 

BTW, everyone should see 'fog of war', pro-war or anti-war. It's an amazing film and McNamara's eleven rules are now in my wallet.

 

Man, you should be running some political campaign somewhere! Do you teach debate, or, are you lawyer, by chance?! I agree with all of your points on what Kerry should've done. I sort of saw him get mad, but it's a peculiar kind of "mad". Like Carter, I thought he was a good man, but just too nice. Water's over the dam now, and Ohio threw the election, so...lol. Yes, I did see "Fog of War", and I will never forget it. I have a friend who was a real Viet vet, worked in a communication relay station in Laos...he was completely unaware of the documentary, and especially the part about the previous 1000 year civil war Viet Nam had with China...I immediately realized our error...of not understanding, or appreciating history. We failed to realize the so-called "stone age" people, as Westmorland called them, willing to fight for 1000 years, for their independence is tenacious, despite nearly 2 million dead, plus the Tett Offensive. The look in McNamara's eyes when he described facing off with the former NVA generals, when they said, "we would never, ever have stopped fighting", said through gritted teeth (in the 90's!) made my hair stand up! And for McNamara, what a horrible moment! He said he would've advised Johnson the war was not winnable in the short run, and to pull out in '64, my God! He realized his failure in judgement...all things he and JFK should've seen before the war. What did he say, from Lao Tsu, "know the reason your enemy is fighting". I somehow missed all 11 rules, but I'll bet it's in Tsu's writing's, The Art of War. To think we did not know the actual reason the N. Viets were fighting (for independence), and we substituted "The Domino Theory", for reality.

Great shooting the cheese with you. I hardly expected a political discussion in SciForums, but I like it. I'll check back later in the week.

 

I always have noticed reframing, but didn't know the name for it. Thanks, It is interesting and i'll look some more into it.

 

Hi Scribe:

Today I thought of our post exchanges about reframing when I heard Bush's response to Amnesty International's damning report that the US is a major purveyor of torture and abuse today, referring, of course, to Abu Graib, and Guantanamo. Bush called "them", Amnesty International, "hater's of America". You gotta wonder how Bush can assume such a high moral position, and attack an organization that attempts to protect all prisoners from torture, even his own citizens and US military. Read this online, but not a word of it on the nightly TV news.

You said you were "kinda glad you're not in the states right now." Hey, be damn glad you're not here! I have to admit I'm a bit radical and critical, but I feel we are living through "evil" times, through a new McCarthyism, with the added twist of the Inquisition of the Relgious Right, overseeing, and blessing the carnage. The extreme right wing is very angry with Bush...he's not pushing hard enough(!), and they want somebody more hardline. Even Bill Frist may not be their man!

To add fuel to the fire of controversy and conspiracy, I just finished a book, "Them" by an investigative journalist, Jon Ronson. http://www.jonronson.com/news.html. Last chapter, he and three other Americans infiltrated the famous Bohemian Grove, in northern California, where many rich and powerful men go to blow off steam, do some strange Owl Ritual, and burn human effigies, before a 50 foot stone owl, and Lucifer, out in a 4000 acre compound of Redwoods. They somehow got in, and recorded and watched a ceremony called the "Cremation of Care". To make a long story short, these men, many leaders, and former leaders of every walk of life, were heard to say, (before Bush's second election), "We will get him in", and they will burn, burn, burn!" These old men were talking about getting Bush into office. These men, some, members of the Bilderberger Society, too, in the words of founding member, Mr. Healey, from Britain, "assist" democracies around the world by consulting with current leaders to improve their democracies. That's his public statement to Ronson. What do they do actually, behind the scenes? The conspiracy belief is that they are a "ruling elite" of the world.

There was no consensus among Ronson's group on what the "Owl Ceremony" meant, but it was clear from the context, the dialogue and the play's performance...these men are burdoned by having to run the world, and to have to "care" about the needy. Their 'camping trip', a two-week free for all, of all kinds of dancing, drinking, and other debaucheries, was a way to blow off steam. The "cremation of care" was a burning away of their responsibilities, according to the Ronson crew, and I believe, their way of discarding the needs of the world. But it was also a ritualized, "fantasy" of what they would like to do with us, all the little people, and that is, burn us, and get rid of us. They seem to think we are under their thumbs, in effect, because they control access to jobs, industries, raw materials and resources, and they have the financial means and the security forces and world communication systems, to keep us down, where we apparently are supposed to stay. Nothing in that sounds like a transparent process of democracy support to me. What they do, they do in secret, so are they not the enemy of self-determination and democracy?

Jon's commentary was that these old men were acting out their fantasies of "how it used to be", when they were running the world And if it's any consolation, this organization of thousands of men, is dying out, and the younger one's coming up, do not attend, in general. Who will be the next era of controlling world elite? The leaders of our government, the Ivy Leaguer's, the rich and influential, are still in the "skull and bones" type fraternities, just like these old men were. The strings of power are more entrenched than ever, just in more complicated ways, with more complex world systems, andmore people, and perhaps power is less centralized, by industry. And we still have men like Bush, with really, his father's men in charge, like Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they're pushing and enacting imperial policies, and dreams of Empire---that old dream of running the world. Incidentally, Dick Cheney assisted in the ceremonies at Bohemian Grove. Ronson and crew did secret video's of some the ceremony, but some of it got mysteriously erased, and some ended up on the Internet, in 2003.

PS. If you don't mind me asking, where are you in the world? What do the local's think of Amerika? lol.

 

Well, here’s some answers:

I don’t teach debate, but I am a debater and a pretty good one at that.

Currently I’m in Canada, but I grew up overseas in South East Asia. Specifically, Thailand, Singapore, and Jakarta.

Now, Canadians tend to think of Americans with some animosity which is, for the most part, unfair. That being said, most Americans (I’ve been to the States many times and I’ve got a lot of great American friends) I’ve met return the animosity. I personally think that Canada and America’s sour relationship is all a bit silly, but it will become a problem if left uncured.

Asians, on the other hand, and honestly a vast majority of the Third World, have mixed views about America. On the one hand, they’ve met some decent Americans – say, some soldiers who’ve helped them out, businessmen who give them jobs, or missionaries who help even the poorest. A lot of people really appreciate Americans sending aide, or Americans being in power. Seriously, the vast majority of people, myself included, prefer to have America in charge rather than the Mad Mullahs and their Carbombing Crew.

That being said, the vast majority of people in the Third World are put off by, say the invasion of Iraq (WMD? Anybody?) because the reasoning is IF Iraq wanted a democracy, then maybe IRAQIS would create a democracy. Remember, the vast majority of nations all had autocratic rulers at some point, many fairly recently. Indonesians reason that they just overthrew Suharto, so if Iraqis wanted to overthrow Saddam, why didn’t they? Sure, there are some Indonesian terrorists out there who’d love to spread mayhem and cause death. When I lived in Jakarta, I lost friends in the Bali bombing, which really came down to hatred of westerners (the Sari club was a westerner haven – if you’re a westerner, that’s as good as an American). It’s terrible, but I know that the majority of Indonesians are not like that and were just as horrified.

America has a lot of people who are fully prepared to support her. There’s a lot of goodwill to be tapped into. America just has to start reaching out and empathizing – what’s the better way to get into Cuba:
a) Attempt to kill their leader on a number of occasions in silly ways? Or,
b) Stop the trade embargo and let Cubans see American made goods.

 

Hi Scribe! I like your online name, it's also what they call me at work due to my long reports. I enjoy your point of view, which is wide and ranging. I think you're the first person I've ever talked to online from SE Asia.

Ah, Canada! Lots of jealousy on both sides, and they have good reason to be mad at us--we owe them $3 billion! All the lines of my families emigrated from Canada at various times in the last 100 or so years, and we have Canadian family get-together's of 650, once a year. I know Canada, to an extent.

I've been posting here about a book I read called, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", by John Perkins. An amazing book about an insider in clandestine loans made to the 3rd World, in SE Asia, and Indonesia, S. America, between the 50's-90's. These were huge loans, so large that they could not be paid back, which was the object: create debtor nations, so that the US could extract political and economic favors from their leaders. This Perkins was an economist, his job was to predict economies for these countries, the loans then were run through the US Treasury, and The World Bank. While there was a perfectly good legal system of loans obtainable, the US basically had a money laundering scheme, the money would go directly to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, for large infrastructure projects, like energy companies, power grids, dams, and public works. This scheme, by the way, was designed by WS McNamara, in the 50's when he was head of the World Bank, who, incidentally was Defense Secretary during the Vietnam War.

My point is that the US was involved in creating crushing debt in these countries, (not Vietnam because we did not take it over), but in places like Jakarta, Panama, Columbia, and S. Arabia, we created millions of impoverished people, we enriched corrupt leaders, and our big construction companies, while the GNP of some of these countries actually went down, despite having new power companies and new roads, etc. Another secondary aspect to this economic control was political control, whereby our CIA would be in these loan countries, fomenting revolution, or be involved in assassinations if leaders refused to do the US's bidding regarding sending to us raw natural resources, or if leaders did not act to protect oil interests. So much for free markets, democracy, and freedom! It seems we are quite corrupt, but we have a great set of ideals to use for cover!

I wonder if you've seen these projects, or if the people in Jakarta, etc., have knowledge of Mr. Perkin's methods, and if they were evident to the people? In other words, did they know their huge national debt was caused by working with the US? It's not surprising really, where there's terrible poverty, there are millions of dissatisfied Muslims. The terrorist connection is obvious. But so is the fact the US creates a kind of economic "terrorism". Perkins wrote the book after 9-11, partly out of guilt for all the misery he created, and he suggests world terrorism is partly due to his economic forecasts that became the basis for the loans. Now he has formed a company for ecological tours, creating "healing efforts" (atonement for his sins?) if you will, in Costa Rica, Panama, and Guatemala.

It's quite a book, if you get a chance to read it.

 

What is wrong with that? Jesus didn't mind looking like an israeli?

 

Certainly, for world peace, I think Bush should be dressed up like an orthodox Jew, including black ringlets, black suit, and a Texas twang, by way of Tel Aviv...then have him dress up like Prince Abdullah...they were holding hands recently, they seem to be more than just "oily" friends. And dress Bush like Jesus and nail him to a cross, whatever it takes to reduce world terrorism and violence. I'd be worried tho if he's made to look too Jewish, or insufficiently Arab, or if he performs too many self-flagellations, the terrorists could become jealous, and a whole new round of bombings could begin. Absurd, I know...but that's BushWorld.

 

Well, the average Indonesian knows that Suharto was backed by the US, and that's enough.