RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How the Pentagon Sank the US-Russia Deal in Syria Print
Monday, 26 September 2016 08:24

Porter writes: "US and allied planes carried out multiple strikes on a Syrian government base in the desert near one of its airbases in Deir Ezzor and killed at least 62 Syrian troops and wounded more than 100. The Pentagon soon acknowledged what it called a mistake in targeting, but the impact on the ceasefire deal was immediate."

Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry. (photo: Reuters)
Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry. (photo: Reuters)


How the Pentagon Sank the US-Russia Deal in Syria

By Gareth Porter, Middle East Eye

26 September 16

 

Was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces an intentional hit by the Pentagon to block military cooperation with Russia?

nother US-Russian Syria ceasefire deal has been blown up.

Whether it could have survived even with a US-Russian accord is open to doubt, given the incentives for al-Qaeda and its allies to destroy it. But the politics of the US-Russian relationship played a central role in the denouement of the second ceasefire agreement.

The final blow apparently came from the Russian-Syrian side, but what provoked the decision to end the ceasefire was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces on 17 September.

That convinced the Russians that the US Pentagon had no intention of implementing the main element of the deal that was most important to the Putin government: a joint US-Russian air campaign against the Islamic State (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda through a “Joint Implementation Centre”. And it is entirely credible that it was meant to do precisely that.

Withdrawal from Castello Road - or not?

The Russians had a powerful incentive to ensure that the ceasefire would hold, especially around Aleppo.

In the new ceasefire agreement, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russsian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had negotiated an unusually detailed set of requirements for both sides to withdraw their forces from the Castello Road, the main artery for entry into Aleppo from the north. It was understood that the “demilitarisation” north of Aleppo was aimed at allowing humanitarian aid to reach the city and was, therefore, the central political focus of the ceasefire.

The Russians put great emphasis on ensuring that the Syrian army would comply with the demilitarisation plan. It had established a mobile observation post on the road on 13 September. And both the Russians and Syrian state television reported that the Syrian army had withdrawn its heavy weaponry from the road early on 15 September, including video footage showing a bulldozer clearing barbed wire from the road. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported the Syrian army had withdrawn from the road. 

But al-Qaeda’s newly renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously the al-Nusra Front) had a clear incentive to refuse to comply with a move that could open the door to a US-Russian campaign against it. Opposition sources in Aleppo claimed that no such government withdrawal had happened, and said that opposition units would not pull back from positions near the road. On the morning of 16 September, the Syrian army moved back into positions on the road. 

Kerry and Lavrov agreed in a phone conversation that same day that the ceasefire was still holding, even though humanitarian aid convoys were still stalled in the buffer zone at the Turkish border because of the lack of permission from the Syrian government, as well as uncertainty about security on the route to Aleppo.

But Kerry also told Lavrov that the US now insisted that it would establish the Joint Implementation Centre only after the humanitarian aid had been delivered.

US policy clash

That crucial shift in US diplomatic position was a direct result of the aggressive opposition of the Pentagon to Obama’s intention to enter into military cooperation with Russia in Syria. The Pentagon was motivated by an overriding interest in heading off such high-profile US-Russian cooperation at a time when it is pushing for much greater US military efforts to counter what it portrays as Russian aggression in a new Cold War.

At an extraordinary video conference with Kerry immediately after the negotiation of the ceasefire agreement was complete, Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter strongly objected to the Joint Centre – especially the provision for sharing intelligence with the Russians for a campaign against IS and al-Qaeda.

Obama had overridden Carter’s objections at the time, but a New York Times story filed the night of 13 September reported that Pentagon officials were still refusing to agree that the US should proceed with the creation of the Joint Implementation Centre if the ceasefire held for seven days.

The Times quoted Lt Gen Jeffrey L Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT), as telling reporters, “I’m not saying yes or no.”

"It would be premature to say that we’re going to jump right into it," he added.

President Obama’s decision to insist that the US would not participate in the joint centre with Russia until humanitarian convoys had been allowed into Aleppo and elsewhere first was apparently aimed at calming the Pentagon down, but it didn’t eliminate the possibility of a joint US–Russian campaign.

Immediate impact

Late in the evening the next day, US and allied planes carried out multiple strikes on a Syrian government base in the desert near one of its airbases in Deir Ezzor and killed at least 62 Syrian troops and wounded more than 100.

The Pentagon soon acknowledged what it called a mistake in targeting, but the impact on the ceasefire deal was immediate. Syria accused the US of a deliberate attack on its forces, and the Russians similarly expressed doubt about the US explanation.

On Monday 19 September, the Syrian regime declared that the seven-day ceasefire had ended. And that same day, a major UN humanitarian aid convoy was being unloaded in an opposition-held town West of Aleppo when it was attacked, killing more than 20 aid workers. US officials accused Russia of an air strike on the convoy, although the evidence of an air attack appeared slender, according to a Russian defence ministry spokesman.

It is not difficult to imagine, however, the fury with which both Russian and Syrian governments could have reacted to the US blows against both the Syrian army and the deal that had been sealed with Washington. They were certainly convinced that the US air attack on Syrian troops was a clear message that the Pentagon and US military leadership would not countenance any cooperation with Russia on Syria - and were warning of a Syrian campaign to come once Hillary Clinton is elected.

Attacking the aid convoy by some means was a brutal way of signalling a response to such messages. Unfortunately, the brunt of the response was borne by aid workers and civilians.

Mistake or strategy?

The evidence that the US deliberately targeted a Syrian military facility is, of course, circumstantial, and it is always possible that the strike was another of the monumental intelligence failures so common in war.

No one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target

But the timing of the strike - only 48 hours before the decision was to be made on whether to go ahead with the Joint Implementation Centre -and its obvious impact on the ceasefire make a tight fit with the thesis that it was no mistake.

And to make the fit even tighter, Gen Harrigan, the USAFCENT commander who had refused to say that his command would go ahead with such cooperation with Russia, would almost certainly have approved a deliberate targeting of a Syrian facility.

USAFCENT planners are very familiar with the area where it bombed Syrian troops, having carried out an average of 20 such strikes a week around Deir Ezzor, a DOD official told Nancy A Youssef of The Daily Beast.

Pentagon officials acknowledged to Youssef that the USAFCENT had been watching the site for at least a couple of days, but in fact they must have been familiar with the site, which has apparently existed for at least six months or longer.

Yet no one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target.

Obama was strongly committed to the general strategy of cooperation with Russia as the key to trying to make headway in moving toward a ceasefire. But that strategy was based on a refusal to confront US regional allies with the necessity to change course from reckless support for a jihadist-dominated opposition force.

Now that the strategy of the past year has gone up in flames, the only way Obama can establish meaningful control over Syria policy is to revisit the fundamental choices that propelled the US into the sponsorship of the war in the first place.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Canada's Founding Myths Hold Us Back From Addressing Climate Change Print
Sunday, 25 September 2016 13:17

Klein writes: "What I find striking is the narrowness of our public discourse - how much continues to be treated as unsayable and undoable when it comes to keeping carbon in the ground. Other countries are moving ahead with policies that begin to reflect the scientific realities. Germany and France have both banned fracking."

Naomi Klein. (photo: Maclean's)
Naomi Klein. (photo: Maclean's)


Canada's Founding Myths Hold Us Back From Addressing Climate Change

By Naomi Klein, The Globe and Mail

25 September 16

 

t has been one year and one week since a coalition of dozens of organizations and artists launched The Leap Manifesto, a short vision statement about how to transition to a post-carbon economy while battling social and economic injustice.

A lot has changed: a new federal government, a new international reputation, a new tone around First Nations and the environment. But when it comes to concrete action on lowering emissions and respecting land rights, much remains the same.

Our new government has adopted the utterly inadequate targets of the last government. Alberta has a climate plan that would allow tar sands emissions to increase by 43 per cent, wholly incompatible with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

And the push for new pipelines – often sold as “nation building” – continues to tear us apart.

What I find striking is the narrowness of our public discourse – how much continues to be treated as unsayable and undoable when it comes to keeping carbon in the ground. Other countries are moving ahead with policies that begin to reflect the scientific realities. Germany and France have both banned fracking.

Even in the United States, there is a wider spectrum of debate. The new platform of the Democratic Party, for instance, states that no new infrastructure projects should be built if they substantively contribute to climate change – essentially the same position that caused all the outrage around The Leap Manifesto.

So what’s going on here? Why is it so hard for Canadian political leaders, across the political spectrum, to design climate policies that are guided by climate science?

There are many factors, of course – the need for jobs in an economic downturn, the power of the fossil-fuel lobby, to name a couple. But we are hardly the only country contending with these forces.

I think there is something deeper at play, something that brings us back to the founding narratives of this nation. The story begins with the arrival of European explorers, at a time when their home nations had slammed into hard ecological limits – great forests gone, big game hunted to extinction.

In this context, the so-called New World was imagined as a sort of spare continent, to use for parts. And what parts: Here seemed to be a bottomless treasure trove – of fish, fowl, fur, giant trees, and later metals and fossil fuels. And in Canada, these riches covered a territory so vast, it seemed impossible to fathom its boundaries.

Again and again in the early accounts, the words “inexhaustible” and “infinite” come up – to describe old growth forests, beavers, great auks, and of course cod (so many they “stayed the passage” of John Cabot’s ships).

From the start, Canada was conceived as the place of endlessness, a wilderness of such bounty that the very idea of ecological limits seemed gone for good. Except, of course, that it didn’t work out that way.

The early U.S. economy was brutally extractive too, of course – but in a different way from Canada’s. The Southern slave economy was based on the brutal extraction of forced human labour, used to clear and cultivate the land to feed the rapidly industrializing north.

In Canada, cultivation and industrialization were secondary. First and foremost, this country was built on voraciously devouring wildness. Canada was an extractive company – the Hudson’s Bay Company – before it was a country. And that has shaped us in ways we have yet to begin to confront.

Because such enormous fortunes have been built purely on the extraction of wild animals, intact forest and interred metals and fossil fuels, our economic elites have grown accustomed to seeing the natural world as their God-given larder.

When someone or something – like climate science – comes along and says: Actually, there are limits, we have to take less from the Earth and keep more profit for the public good, it doesn’t feel like a difficult truth. It feels like an existential attack.

The famed economic historian Harold Innis warned of all this almost a century ago. Canada’s extreme dependence on exporting raw natural resources, he argued, stunted Canada’s development at “the staples phase.” This reliance on raw resources made the country intensely vulnerable to monopolies, foreign interference, as well as outside economic shocks. It’s why “banana republic” is not considered a compliment.

Though Canada doesn’t think of itself like that, and our national economy has diversified, our economic history tells another story. Over the centuries, we have careened from bonanzas to busts, from beaver to bitumen.

The trouble isn’t just the commodity roller coaster. It’s that the stakes grow larger with each boom-bust cycle. The frenzy for cod crashed a species; the frenzy for bitumen and fracked gas is helping to crash the planet.

This dependence on commodities continues to shape Canada’s body politic – and for our new government, it will continue to confound attempts to heal relations with First Nations.

While Indigenous hunting and trapping skills were the backbone of wealth production in the early Canadian economy, Indigenous culture and relationships to the land were always a profound threat to the lust for extraction.

Which is why attempts to sever those relationships were so systematic. Residential schools were one part of that system. So were the missionaries who travelled with fur traders, preaching a worldview that regarded nature-worship as sinful.

Today, we have federal and provincial governments that talk a lot about reconciliation. But this will remain a cruel joke if non-Indigenous Canadians do not confront the why behind those human-rights abuses. And the why, as the Truth and Reconciliation report states, is simple enough: “The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources.”

The goal, in other words, was to remove all barriers to unrestrained resource extraction. This is not ancient history. Across the country, Indigenous land rights remain the single greatest barrier to planet-destabilizing resource extraction, from pipelines to clear-cut logging.

And there can be no reconciliation while the crime is still in progress.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Hillary Clinton's Problem? We Just Don't Trust Women Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 September 2016 13:13

Valenti writes: "Clinton has been deemed untrustworthy by the public long before Trump came into the political picture, it's true. And like most politicians, she's given the public reasons to question her. But it's impossible to divorce the way that voters view her from the misogyny she's faced over decades."

'The notion that women are fundamentally untrustworthy snakes through almost every area of our lives.' (photo: Joe Burbank/AP)
'The notion that women are fundamentally untrustworthy snakes through almost every area of our lives.' (photo: Joe Burbank/AP)


Hillary Clinton's Problem? We Just Don't Trust Women

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

25 September 16

 

It’s incredible that voters consider Donald Trump more honest than his opponent. But it’s sadly in line with society’s double standards

lues legend BB King once sang: “Never trust a woman, until she’s dead and buried.” Sadly, it’s a sentiment that sounds just at home in our current political discourse as it does an old song: while this week’s NBC/WSJ poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in general support, voters consider Trump more “honest and straightforward” than Clinton by 10 points.

Let’s take a moment to consider this. A candidate whose first campaign ad was judged by one site to contain one lie every four seconds and who, according to Huffington Post, told over 70 lies in just one televised town hall; a man who one philosopher argues has “perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool”, is considered more honest than his opponent.

This isn’t a new problem for Clinton – a CNN poll from July found that only 30% of people surveyed found Clinton trustworthy, while 43% thought Trump was. It’s also not a new issue for American women.

The notion that women are fundamentally untrustworthy snakes through almost every area of our lives. Managers distrust women who ask for flextime; women who show anger are less trusted than their male counterparts; and people think the more makeup a woman wears, the less trustworthy she is. (In fact, there is a trove of “don’t trust women” memes inspired by before-and-after pictures of women with makeup.)

Republican policies and conservative thought, too, rely on this belief. Legislators have tried to pass laws that would mandate women get written permission from men before obtaining abortions, or have suggested that rape and incest exceptions would give way to women lying about abuse. There is a reason that one of the phrases most often used by the pro-choice community is “trust women”.

When it comes to sexual assault or domestic violence, victims – the vast majority of whom are women – are still widely disbelieved. When Amber Heard brought charges against her then-husband Johnny Depp, she was accused of fabricating the allegations to extort him in their divorce settlement. Only when a video of Depp appearing to behave aggressively was released and Heard donated millions from the settlement to a charity did the scrutiny slow. There are literally dozens of women who have accused Bill Cosby of rape, and still there are people who believe every single one of them is making it up, something I find barely credible. The way that the police doubt sexual assault victims has even been shown to be part of the reason we have such a backlog of untested rape kits: officers treat women shoddily and they don’t want to come back to pursue charges.

When we don’t trust women, when we disbelieve them even in the face of thoroughly convincing evidence, everyone suffers.

Clinton has been deemed untrustworthy by the public long before Trump came into the political picture, it’s true. And like most politicians, she’s given the public reasons to question her. But it’s impossible to divorce the way that voters view her from the misogyny she’s faced over decades. She’s considered “guarded” – but how could she not be after years of sexist smears and slights? Trump, on the other hand, is lauded for “telling it like it is” even as so much of what he says is shown to be untrue.

The act of trusting women shouldn’t be a radical act, and women shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to be considered credible. No matter your politics, the double standard here is hard to ignore.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How Donald Trump Would Save Us from "Radical Islam" Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 September 2016 12:21

Weissman writes: "Selling himself and his personal smarts, Trump wants to 'make America scared again.' He wants to feed and fuel the anti-Muslim bigotry of so many of his followers, especially among white supremacists."

Bill de Blasio and Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Bill de Blasio and Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


How Donald Trump Would Save Us from "Radical Islam"

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

25 September 16

 

ur way of life is under threat by radical Islam and Hillary Clinton cannot even bring herself to say the words,” Donald Trump tweeted back in July. Trump says the words all the time. Just look at how he responded after the pressure-cooker bomb went off in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood and other explosive devices were discovered few blocks away and in New Jersey on Saturday morning September 17.

While New York City mayor Bill de Blasio carefully called the explosion “an intentional act“ of criminal violence before police and FBI had determined whether or not it was an act of political terrorism, Trump took enormous credit for calling it a bomb from the start. “We better get very tough, folks,” he told a rally in Colorado on Saturday. “We better get very, very tough. We’ll find out. It’s a terrible thing that’s going on in our world, in our country, and we are going to get tough and smart and vigilant.”

No one knew exactly what had happened, Trump admitted to the crowd. But he clearly wanted his followers to believe that it was another terrorist attack by a radical Muslim, which the police and FBI now believe it was. In no time, they identified a 28-year-old Afghan-born, naturalized American named Ahmad Khan Rahami over the weekend, arrested him after a shoot-out on Monday, and are now investigating whether or not he had accomplices and any ongoing links to the Taliban or other terrorist groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Trump similarly pumped himself up after suicide bombings killed 32 people and wounded over 300 in Belgium in March. “I have proven to be far more correct about terrorism than anybody – and it’s not even close,” he tweeted. Ditto after Omar Mateen went to a largely gay nightclub in Orlando in June and perpetrated a deadly mass shooting. “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump tweeted. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Selling himself and his personal smarts, Trump wants to “make America scared again.” He wants to feed and fuel the anti-Muslim bigotry of so many of his followers, especially among white supremacists, theocons who want America to be a Christian nation, and disgruntled white workers looking for a scapegoat to blame for the loss of so many good-paying factory jobs. Hitler and his Nazis blamed Jews, Trump and his nasties blame Muslims.

Am I making too big a stretch? Just consider the all-too-revealing tweet by his son Donald Trump Jr.: “If I had a bowl of skittles [fruit-flavored candies] and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.”

Young Donald took his simplistic metaphor directly from a children’s book by Julius Streicher, publisher of the hate-filled Der Stürmer, which ranted against Jews, Catholics, Communists, and Capitalists. “Just as a single poisonous mushroom can kill a whole family,” Streicher wrote in his fable, “so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk [nation].”

Replace Streicher’s solitary Jew with young Trump’s Syrian refugees or any Muslim in America, whatever his or her ethnic or racial roots. Does that give you a sense of the general direction in which Daddy Trump is taking our country? Would you prefer to wait for a return to waterboarding or worse, which Trump has urged? Or putting Muslim suspects into indefinite military custody as “enemy combatants,” which Senator Lindsey Graham advocates? Or detention camps, mass deportations, and even a new Holocaust?

Long before most of that, Trump’s hate-filled fantasies will jeopardize your safety and mine – and, far more, the safety and wellbeing of our Muslim friends and neighbors.

“Our local police – they know who a lot of these people are. They are afraid to do anything about it because they don’t want to be accused of profiling,” he told Fox News.

“You know, in Israel they profile. They’ve done an unbelievable job, as good as you can do,” he went on. “They see somebody that’s suspicious, they will profile. They will take that person and they’ll check [him] out. Do we have a choice? Look what’s going on. Do we really have a choice? We’re trying to be so politically correct in our country. And this is only going to get worse.”

Trump has also called for more stop-and-frisk policing in American cities, just at a time when police are killing blacks in a spate of truly scary shootings. White Americans do not yet live in a police state. Black Americans do, and Trump would only make it worse.

“He does not understand how policing works,” said New York mayor Bill de Blasio, who fought to get rid of both profiling and stop-and-frisk. What Trump proposes, said de Blasio, “will simply alienate the very people who we need to be partners in the fight against crime.”

De Blasio’s comments are not simply progressive rhetoric or political correctness. In the prompt identification and arrest of accused bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami, the joint police and FBI task force interviewed a group they found driving his car. The group included some of his relatives, who cooperated with the police and appeared to have provided information that helped lead to Rahami’s capture.

“They all seemed to be really nice people,” a senior law enforcement official said.

De Blasio is trying to create this much-needed communication between police and public in New York City. Donald Trump would destroy much of that, making us all a great deal less safe.

“Donald Trump doesn’t know anything about communities of color,” said de Blasio, who has a mixed-race family. “Stop and frisk affected Latinos just as much as African-Americans. He has no clue that it wasn’t an effective strategy.”

Trump’s demonization of Muslims could become a major horror show, especially since right-wing leaders in Europe are pushing in the same direction. But even in the short term, his know-nothing approach to policing could endanger us all.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Thwimpie - A Spoiled Brat Named Little Donnie Thwimp Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40905"><span class="small">George Lakoff, George Lakoff's Website</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 September 2016 10:36

Lakoff writes: "Twimpie's weakness is revealed in his exaggerations: What he likes is 'terrific.' What he dislikes is a 'disaster.' All or Nothing. Weak on careful, subtle reason."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


Thwimpie - A Spoiled Brat Named Little Donnie Thwimp

By George Lakoff, George Lakoff's Website

25 September 16

 

Voyage Into Sound Symbolism by George Lakoff

As strange as it may sound, the sound symbolism of a name has become an unnamed central issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. As a cognitive linguist, my job is to study the issue and, at the very least, to name it.

Perhaps the best-known discussion of naming occurs in Juliet’s soliloquy in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Here is Juliet, proclaiming that all that divides her from Romeo are their family names.

Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

Shakespeare here was writing about love, not profit or politics. Donald Trump’s father changed the family name from Drumpf to Trump. It was a name change worth billions. Herr Drumpf understood the power of naming, as has his son, who renames his rivals: Lyin’ Ted, Little Mario, Crooked Hillary.

Trump has made his fortune by marketing and selling his name. He slaps his name in large bold letters on Trump Tower, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, and so on. He has even managed to get his name on property he doesn’t own!

The name Trump is his brand, his product; he sells his name. When he seeks financial backing for a project, he insists that he be paid very well for the use of his name, even if his name is used just to get investors or bank loans. The condition is that he gets paid for the use of his name, even if the project fails and goes into bankruptcy. Time and again, his companies have gone bankrupt; but though others — builders, employees, investors —  lose money, Trump is always paid for the use of his name.

What it is about the name “Trump” that sells, and would it sell if it were changed a bit?

Sound Symbolism

There is a subfield of cognitive linguistics that studies sound symbolism, where there is pattern in a language linking sound structure of a group of words to what is called an ‘embodied conceptual schema’ that characterizes a significant part of word meaning, though by no means all word meaning. To give you a feel for sound symbolism, consider words ending in –ip: drip, clip, snip, rip, dip, sip, whip. There is a pattern here: the meanings all involve a short path to a sudden stop. This is what the mouth is doing; there is short path of breath to a sudden stop. The pattern is called an “image schema.” It provides structure to a meaning, without filling out the whole meaning. Moreover, the pattern does not cover all –ip words or all short paths to a sudden stop. It is simply a pattern that fits a significant number of important cases.

The –ip sound is called a rhyme, which occurs at the end of a syllable. Sound symbolism also occurs at the beginning, or “onset”, of a syllable. Consider words beginning in cl-: clap, cling, clasp, clump, clench, cleat, cloak, closed, club, cluster, … . The pattern involves things coming together: either the part of the hand in clench, the two parts of a clasp, the two hands as in clap, the members of a club, the trees or plants in a clump or cluster, the cloak what comers together with the shoulders it is attached to. When the blades of scissors come together in a short path to a sudden stop, there is a cl+ip, as in clip. English has dozens of such sound-symbolic patterns, as observed by Richard Rhodes and John Lawler in their classic paper “Athematic Metaphor” (Chicago Linguistics Society, 1981).

TR- Words

This brings us to tr- words. When you say tr- in English, your tongue starts out with the tip just in back of the teeth and pressed along the top of the mouth to pronounce an r. Then a vowel follows and the mouth is forcefully opened, moving with the vowel in one direction or another. In short, there is forceful press and a forceful release. Not surprisingly, English has a very common sound-symbolic pattern in which the initial cluster, the onset tr- expresses Force, with a forceful tension followed by a forceful motion.

There are many kinds of forces involved in many kinds of forceful actions and experiences. As a result the tr- words span a wide range of meanings in which an initial force is part of the meaning of the word. Start with tr+ip, trip — a verb expressing a force resulting in a short path to a sudden end: you can trip on something that exerts force on you sending you moving to a quick sudden stop, or you can trip someone else sending them moving to a quick sudden stop.

Then there is try, in which someone exerts force to achieve some purpose. Trap can be a forceful action by one or more people to retain someone, or can refer to a mechanism that exerts force to restrain someone. A truss holds an injured body part in place by force. And to trim or truncate something is to forcefully cut it shorter. To forcefully start something is to trigger it. A tremor is a forceful movement of the earth, as in an earth quake.  A trench is a long hole dug with force. A trumpet is a musical instrument that takes force to play and as a result of the force makes a loud sound.

Then there are machines that exert force to move things: a truck, a tractor, a train, a trolley, a tram, and forms of transit. Motion across some area usually requires force to carry out the notion. Trans- means across and in the right word, it can express forceful motion across or forceful change, as in transmit, transfer, transpose, and transfigure.  

The forceful motion of a train moves along a track, while heavy steps on wet ground can leave tracks. The forceful motion of people over a landscape creates a trail that others can move along. Forceful motion on a landscape over a distance can be a trek. Forceful walking is treading, with the past tense trod. And the tires of a wheeled vehicle need tread to forcefully grip the road. To forcefully step repeatedly on something to destroy it is to trample it. And an object to jump up and down on forcefully and repeatedly for the sake of exercise or play is a trampoline. The successful use of force to achieve something significant is a triumph. A problem that can be solved by forceful action is tractable. A trend is an event sequence understood as exerting a force in itself to continue motion in the same direction in the future.

Some forceful events exert harm, for example, a trauma, a tragedy. The very thought of them can exert the force to make you tremble.  A trial is an event you undergo that can seriously harm you and that takes forceful action or resilience on your part to avoid that harm. A tribulation is a harmful effect you undergo when you experience a trying experience.

You can sense the force of the tr- sound in a word if you try to rename an object or experience. There is a reason why a tractor is not called a yiss! Or why a trauma or a tragedy is not called a “wug.” In studying sound symbolism, you need a sense of your own reaction to the sound of word and what would happen under a renaming.

-UMP Words

Now we move to the sound symbolism of –ump words. In the pronunciation of  –ump, the u is a schwa, a mid-vowel, neither high nor low, front nor back, a giving up of breath, as in “uh.” The nasal m is pronounced by opening the nasal tract allowing air to move up and around the nasal tract and then down to the mouth to stop at p. There is release of low energy “uh” tracing a rise in the nasal tract ‘m’ and then a lowering and stopping of the breath at p.

It is a sound pattern that expresses entities of low or no energy having a 3-dimensional shape that can be traced over time as a rise and then a fall. We can see this sound symbolism in bump, lump, hump, rump, plump, and stump, which in each case has a 3-D shape that can be traced by a rise and then a fall.  A clump (say, of trees) is a group brought together (cl-) with that shape. A pump is an instrument for blowing up stretchable objects into that shape. A jump in place is a rise and then fall. When you dump something, it goes downward (d-) and what is dumped has the –ump shape. A frump is a low energy person with such an appearance. A grump is someone who makes a growling sound and has that appearance. To slump is to take on such a shape, and a baseball player goes into a slump when his hitting becomes ineffective and his batting average falls. A chump is an ineffective person who is a “fall guy” in interacting with an aggressive effective person who can take advantage of him. And a thump is the sound made by a low energy fall against a solid resonant object.

This bring us to  tr+ump Trump as a name. It has a causal structure: a causal force (the tr-) followed by a person or object (the -ump) that the force acts on and affects. The person or object either already is an –ump or is made into an

ump by the force. As a person’s name, tr- followed by -ump symbolizes a person who acts with force on existing chumps or creates them by his exertion of force. In short, it names someone who has the power to take advantage of others. In business, it names a person who can profit by taking advantage of others. Similarly, in the game of bridge, trump is a card of a suit that will always win the trick, that is, it has power over a competing card of lesser strength.

That is why he can sell his name in a business deal, market his name by plastering it on everything he owns —  the Trump Tower, his airplane, his steaks, wine, suits, ties, with signs in bold letters. He even has managed to get his name on buildings he does NOT own.

Tr+ump is a perfect last name for a presidential candidate who offers himself as the ultimate authority, able to turn others into chumps in politics. It is the perfect name for the ultimate Strict Father and authoritarian ruler — the ultimate authoritarian who makes those ruled into chumps.

The Renaming

The point here is that Shakespeare was wrong. A rose by any other name need not smell just as sweet. Tr+ump is a great name if you want to vote for a powerful person who can take advantage of others — make chumps out of people you don’t like: liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, the Chinese, blacks, and people who can’t take care of themselves, namely, the poor.

If you are among the tens of millions of Americans who wholly or mostly idealize strict father morality, someone named TR+UMP sounds like your man.

But what if he didn’t have that name? Would you be voting just for the name, not the real person?

It has been observed that he often acts like a spoiled child. In fact, he was a spoiled child. When his father tried to teach him personal responsibility by making him take on a paper route in Manhattan, he kept out the rain by getting the family chauffer to drive him around in the family Cadillac on his paper route!

In financing building, he got loans on his father’s collateral housing empire that would not rent to African-Americans or Latinos. He got tax breaks through his father’s influence with city officials, who depended on his father’s political donations.  When things don’t go his way, he just makes up lies and depends on then power of his name to get him through.

And he renames is opponents: Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Crooked Hillary.
Suppose he were renamed.

If there is any a putative strict father cannot be, it is childish and spoiled — and weak.  Some children at a young age have trouble pronouncing T+R.  The R turns to W after a T, as in Twump, and the T may weaken to Th, as in Thwump. Suppose we change the U to I, to indicate smallness. That would be Thwimp: Little Donnie Thwimp. The –ie on Donnie is called a “diminutive,” it makes someone or something sound smaller. Thwimpie is a possibility.

Imagine a national renaming campaign, starting now. Imagine those with photoshop skills might change the name on the image of his Tower to Twimp Towie. Changing the letter on his plane to Twimp, and have it falling toward the ocean. Photoshop campaign signs to Thwimp / Punts. Imagine running Twitter campaigns with #Thwimpie.

The fact is that Little Donnie Thwimp is something a strict father  authoritarian cannot be named because it is a weak childish name!

Little Donnie dreams of being the ultimate strongman, like Putin, and to cover his weakness, he tells lies, he tells BIG LIES, REALLY BIG LIES! But the bigger the lie, the greater the weakness. He is weak on foreign policy. He is weak on economics. He is especially weak on history. He is really weak on his taxes and has to hide them. And he is dangerously weak on the facts about the use of nuclear weapons!

Twimpie’s weakness is revealed in his exaggerations: What he likes is “terrific.” What he dislikes is a “disaster.”  All or Nothing. Weak on careful, subtle reason.

Would voters who want a strong authoritarian vote for someone named Thwimp? Or Thwimpie? Or Little Donnie?

Do the Thwimp polls. Let’s find out.

Democratic candidates need not engage in the renaming. Let the ordinary people who understand the lies and the weaknesses do the renaming on social media.

But isn’t this just fun and whimsical? Shouldn’t everyone be focused on fear — the fear that he might just get elected. The fear is real and justified. But the problem with justified fear-mongering is that it gives power to the person you’re afraid of. By all means discuss why the fear is justified. But take the power away. Rename and rebrand: Twimpie.

If people vote for someone on the basis of the sound symbolism of his name, change the name. Let them try to say they want to elect a Thwimp with a straight face.

The Point

What’s the point of a Thwimpie campaign? The candidate is not going to change his name, and reporters are not going to do serious investigative reporting using only the candidate’s new name.

The point is simple: The President of the United States and the Leader of the Free World should not be chosen on the basis of the sound symbolism of his name.

The sound symbolism is unconscious. This paper brings it to consciousness. Offering an alternative with very different sound symbolism is crucial if Americans are to become aware that the sound of the name can be working on them unconsciously and against their better judgment.

Sound symbolism is an issue in this presidential campaign — as weird as that sounds. The issue can only be brought up with a discussion of what the sound symbolism is and what a very different sound symbolism might be.

The issue may sound laughable. But it is quite serious. It needs to be brought to attention, and to be reported on.

And it should raise ratings. Because while being serious news, sound symbolism is not just informative; it is fun. Fun in the news raises ratings.

Fear also sells in the media. Shouldn’t you be afraid that someone has a chance of being elected president based on the sound of his name?

This is a real fear, as well as fun.

#Thwimpie


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 Next > End >>

Page 1889 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN