Interesting. He's on pretty good, if not partricularly original, ground
when analysing verbal metaphors--there's a value-laden text to look at. His
lengthy conclusions, while I largely agree with him, don't follow
necessarily from his analysis. The first part, the presumption of necessary
metaphoric associations with objects that are neutral in themselves, is a
familiar coercive tactic--I'd bet that Lakoff has been in
psychoanalysis--you can't say you don't make those associations because,
after all, they're unconscious.
When the WTC was still new and controversial there was a contest for
artists to come up with things they could be used for. It got a lot of play
in NY at the time. One of the most successful images was a photo of the
towers to which had been added a slingshot. Interestingly, no one imagined
them as a head, and reading Lakoff's description of them as such I suffered
a shock of lack of recognition. But I'm probably repressing.
Mark
At 02:01 AM 9/24/2001 -0400, Candice Ward wrote:
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> Many of you have written expressing your thoughts and feelings about the
>> events of September 11 and have asked me for my thoughts in return. Here is
>> what sense I have been able to make of all this so far.
>>
>> If you find this of interest, please pass it on over the net to anyone you
>> think might also be interested.
>>
>> Kathleen and I hope you and your loved ones are all safe and well.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> George Lakoff
>>
>>
>> George Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics at the University of
California at
>> Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. He is the
author of
>> Moral Politics (U. of Chicago Press, 1996), a study of how conservatives
and
>> liberals see the world, and ėMetaphor and War,î perhaps the most widely
>> distributed critique of the Gulf War, distributed over the Internet during
>> its early days. He also studies language, metaphorical thought, and the way
>> the mind is embodied.
>>
>>
>>
>> September 11, 2001
>>
>> By George Lakoff
>>
>>
>> 1
>>
>> The Power of the Images
>>
>>
>> As a metaphor analyst, I want to begin with the power of the images.
>>
>> There are a number of metaphors for buildings. We see features--eyes, nose
>> and mouth--in their windows. The image of the plane going into South Tower
>> of the World Trade Center is metaphorically an image of a bullet going
>> through someone's head, the flame pouring from the other side blood
spurting
>> out. Tall buildings are metaphorically people standing erect. Each tower
>> falling was a body falling. We are not consciously aware of the
metaphorical
>> images, but they are part of the power and the horror we experience when we
>> see them.
>>
>> Each of us, in the prefrontal cortex of our brains, has what are called
>> "mirror neurons." Such neurons fire either when we perform an action or
>> when see the same action performed by someone else. There are connections
>> from that part of the brain to the emotional centers. Such neural circuits
>> are believed to be the basis of empathy.
>>
>> This works literally--when we see plane coming toward the building and
>> imagine people in the building, we feel the plane coming toward us; when we
>> see the building toppling toward others, we feel the building toppling
>> toward us. It also works metaphorically: If we see the plane going through
>> the building, and unconsciously we metaphorize the building as a head with
>> the plane going through its temple, then we sense--unconsciously but
>> powerfully--being shot through the temple. If we metaphorize the
building as
>> a person and see the building fall to the ground in pieces, then we
>> sense--again unconsciously but powerfully--that we are falling to the
ground
>> in pieces. Our systems of metaphorical thought, interacting with our mirror
>> neuron systems, turn external literal horrors into felt metaphorical
>> horrors.
>>
>> Here are some other cases:
>>
>> Control Is Up: You have control over the situation, you're on top of
things.
>> This has always been an important basis of towers as symbols of power. In
>> this case, the toppling of the towers meant loss of control, loss of power.
>>
>> Phallic imagery: Towers are symbols of phallic power and their collapse
>> reinforces the idea of loss of power.
>>
>> Another kind of phallic imagery was more central here. The planes as
>> penetrating the towers with a plume of heat. The pentagon, a vaginal image
>> from the air, penetrated by the plane as missile.
>>
>> A Society Is A Building. A society can have a "foundation" which may or may
>> not be "solid" and it can "crumble" and "fall." The World Trade Center was
>> symbolic of society. When it crumbled and fell, the threat was more than to
>> a building.
>>
>> We think metaphorically of things that perpetuate over time as "standing."
>> Bush the Father in the Gulf War kept saying, "This will not stand," meaning
>> that the situation would not be perpetuated over time. The World Trade
>> Center was build to last ten thousand years. When it crumbled, it
>> metaphorically raised the question of whether American power and American
>> society would last.
>>
>> Building As Temple: Here we had the destruction of the temple of capitalist
>> commerce, which lies at the heart of our society.
>>
>>
>> Our minds play tricks on us. The image of the Manhattan skyline is now
>> unbalanced. We are used to seeing it with the towers there. Our mind
imposes
>> our old image of the towers, and the sight of them gone gives one the
>> illusion of imbalance, as if Manhattan we sinking. Given the symbolism of
>> Manhattan as standing for the promise of America, it appears metaphorically
>> as if that promise were sinking.
>>
>> Then there is the persistent image, day after day, of the charred and
>> smoking remains: it is an image of hell.
>>
>> The World Trade Center was a potent symbol, tied into our understanding of
>> our country and ourselves in a myriad of ways. All of what we know is
>> physically embodied in our brains. To incorporate the new knowledge
requires
>> a physical change in the synapses of our brains, a physical reshaping of
our
>> neural system.
>>
>> The physical violence was not only in New York and Washington. Physical
>> changes--violent ones--have been made to the brains of all Americans.
>>
>>
>> 2
>>
>> How The Administation Frames the Event
>>
>>
>> The administration's framings and reframings and its search for metaphors
>> should be noted. The initial framing was as a "crime" with "victims" and
>> "perpetrators" to be "brought to justice" and "punished." The crime frame
>> entails law, courts, lawyers, trials, sentencing, appeals, and so on. It
was
>> hours before "crime" changed to "war" with "casualties," "enemies,"
>> "military action," "war powers," and so on.
>>
>>
>> Rumsfeld and other administration officials have pointed out that this
>> situation does not fit our understanding of a "war." There are "enemies"
>> and "casualties" all right, but no enemy army, no regiments, no tanks, no
>> ships, no air force, no battlefields, no strategic targets, and no clear
>> "victory." The war frame just doesn't fit. Colin Powell had always argued
>> that no troops should be committed without specific objectives, a clear and
>> achievable definition of victory, a clear exit strategy--and no open-ended
>> commitments. But he has pointed out that none of these is present in this
>> "war."
>>
>> Because the concept of "war" doesn't fit, there is a frantic search for
>> metaphors. First, Bush called the terrorists "cowards"--but this didn't
>> seem to work too well for martyrs who willing sacrificed their lives for
>> their moral and religious ideals. More recently he has spoken of "smoking
>> them out of their holes" as if they were rodents, and Rumsfeld has
spoken of
>> "drying up the swamp they live in" as if they were snakes or lowly swamp
>> creatures. The conceptual metaphors here are Moral is Up; Immoral is Down
>> (they are lowly) and Immoral People are Animals (that live close to the
>> ground).
>>
>> The use of the word "evil" in the administration's discourse works in the
>> following way. In conservative, strict father morality (see my Moral
>> Politics, Chapter 5), evil is a palpable thing, a force in the world. To
>> stand up to evil you have to be morally strong. If you're weak, you let
evil
>> triumph, so that weakness is a form of evil in itself, as is promoting
>> weakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines how you
will
>> act in the world. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is
>> necessary. There can be no social causes of evil, no religious rationale
for
>> evil, no reasons or arguments for evil. The enemy of evil is good. If our
>> enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essentially nature and
>> what we do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked
in a
>> battle, which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which
>> the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show
>> of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is
>> immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because
>> they'll think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of superior
>> strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important in the battle of
>> good against evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and
get
>> hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about
>> it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified--
>> "lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties, sanctioning political
>> assassinations, overthrowing governments, torture, hiring criminals, and
>> "collateral damage."
>>
>> Then there is the basic security metaphor, Security As Containment--keeping
>> the evildoers out. Secure our borders, keep them and their weapons out of
>> our airports, have marshals on the planes. Most security experts say that
>> there is no sure way to keep terrorists out or to deny them the use of some
>> weapon or other; a determined well-financed terrorist organization can
>> penetrate any security system. Or they can choose other targets, say oil
>> tankers.
>>
>> Yet the Security As Containment metaphor is powerful. It is what lies
behind
>> the missile shield proposal. Rationality might say that the September 11th
>> attack showed the missile shield is pointless. But it strengthened the use
>> of the Security As Containment metaphor. As soon as you say "national
>> security," the Security as Containment metaphor will be activated and with
>> it, the missile shield.
>>
>>
>> 3
>>
>> The Conservative Advantage
>>
>> The reaction of the Bush administration is just what you would expect a
>> conservative reaction would be--pure Strict Father morality: There is evil
>> loose in the world. We must show our strength and wipe it out. Retribution
>> and vengeance are called for. If there are "casualties" or "collateral
>> damage," so be it.
>>
>> The reaction from liberals and progressives has been far different: Justice
>> is called for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are what is
>> needed. The model for our actions should be the rescue workers and
>> doctors--the healers--not the bombers.
>>
>> We should not be like them, we should not take innocent lives in bringing
>> the perpetrators to justice. Massive bombing of Afghanistan--with the
>> killing of innocents--will show that we are no better than they.
>>
>> But it has been the administration's conservative message that has
>> dominated the media. The event has been framed in their terms. As Newt
>> Gingrich put it on the Fox Network, "Retribution is justice."
>>
>> We must reframe the discussion. Susan Bales reminds us of Gandhi's words:
>> Be the change you want. The words apply to governments as well as to
>> individuals.
>>
>>
>> 4
>>
>> Causes
>>
>>
>> There are (at least) three kinds of causes radical Islamic terrorism:
>>
>> Worldview: The Religious Rationale
>> Social and Political Conditions: Cultures of Despair
>> Means: The Enabling Conditions
>>
>> The Bush administration has discussed only the third: The means that enable
>> attacks to be carried out. These include: Leadership (e.g., bin Laden),
host
>> countries, training facilities and bases, financial backing, cell
>> organization, information networks, and so on. These do not include the
>> first and second on the list.
>>
>>
>> Worldview: Religious Rationale
>>
>> The question that keeps being asked in the media is, Why do they hate us so
>> much?
>>
>> It is important at the outset to separate out moderate to liberal Islam
from
>> radical Islamic fundamentalists, who do not represent most muslims.
>>
>> Radical Islamic fundamentalists hate our culture. They have a worldview
that
>> is incompatible with the way that Americans--and other westerners--live
>> their lives. One part of this world view concerns women, who are to hide
>> their bodies, have no right to property, and so on. Western sexuality,
>> mores, music, and women's equality all violate their values, and the
>> ubiquity of American cultural products, like movies and music, throughout
>> the world offends them. A second part concerns theocracy: they believe
that
>> governments should be run according to strict Islamic law by clerics. A
>> third concerns holy sites, like those in Jerusalem, which they believe
>> should be under Islamic political and military control. A fourth concerns
>> the commercial and military incursions by Westerners on Islamic soil, which
>> they liken to the invasion of the hated crusaders. The way they see it, our
>> culture spits in the face of theirs. A fifth concerns jihad--a holy war to
>> protect and defend the faith. A sixth is the idea of a martyr, a man
willing
>> to sacrifice himself for the cause. His reward is eternal glory--an
eternity
>> in heaven surrounded by willing young virgins. In some cases, there is a
>> promise that his family will be taken care of by the community.
>>
>> Social and Political Conditions: Cultures of Despair
>>
>> Most Islamic would-be martyrs not only share these beliefs but have also
>> grown up in a culture of despair: they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such
>> poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists. When the Bush
>> administration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be
>> talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions
that
>> lead one to want to give up your life to martyrdom.
>>
>> Princeton Lyman of the Aspen Institute has made an important proposal--that
>> the world-wide anti-terrorist coalition being formed address the causal
>> real-world conditions as well. Country by country, the conditions (both
>> material and political) leading to despair need to be addressed, with a
>> worldwide commitment to ending them. It should be done because it is a
>> necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism--and because it is
>> right! The coalition being formed should be made into a long-term global
>> institution for this purpose.
>>
>> What about the first cause--the radical Islamic worldview itself. Military
>> action won't change it. Social action won't change it. Worldviews live in
>> the minds of people. How can one change those minds--and if not present
>> minds, then future minds? The West cannot! Those minds can only be changed
>> by moderate and liberal Muslims--clerics, teachers, elders, respected
>> community members. They need to be recruited to a worldwide full-time
>> effort, not just against terror, but against hate. Remember that "taliban"
>> means "student." Those that teach hate in Islamic schools must be replaced
>> --and we in the West cannot replace them. This can only be done by an
>> organized moderate, nonviolent Islam. The West can make the suggestion,
but
>> we alone are powerless to carry it out. We depend on good will and courage
>> of moderate Islamic leaders. To gain it, we must show our good will by
>> beginning in a serious way to address the social and political conditions
>> that lead to despair.
>>
>> But a conservative government, thinking of the enemy as evil, will not take
>> the primary causes seriously. They will only go after the enabling causes.
>> But unless the primary causes are addressed, terrorists will continue to be
>> spawned.
>>
>>
>> 5
>>
>> Public Discourse
>>
>> The Hon. Barbara Lee (D, CA), who I am proud to acknowledge as my
>> representative in Congress, said the following in casting the lone vote
>> against giving President Bush full Congressional approval for carrying out
>> his War on Terrorism as he sees fit:
>>
>>
>> I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of
>> international terrorism against the United States. This
>> is a very complex and complicated matter.
>>
>> However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of
>> restraint. Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say,
>> let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think
>> through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral
>> out of control.
>>
>> I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and I
>> came to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet
very
>> beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said,
>> "As we act,let us not become the evil that we deplore."
>>
>> I agree. But what is striking to me as a linguist is the use of negatives
>> in the statement: "not prevent," "restraint" (inherently negative), "not
>> spiral out of control," "not become the evil that we deplore." Friends
>> are circulating a petition calling for "Justice without vengeance."
>> "Without" has another implicit negative. It is not that these negative
>> statements are wrong. But what is needed is a positive form of discourse.
>>
>> There is one.
>>
>> The central concept is that of "responsibility," which is at the heart of
>> progressive/liberal morality (See Moral Politics). Progressive/liberal
>> morality begins with empathy, the ability to understand others and feel
what
>> they feel. That is presupposed in responsibility--responsibility for
>> oneself, for protection, for the care of those who need care, and for the
>> community. Those were the values that we saw at work among the rescue
>> workers in New York right after the attack.
>>
>> Responsibility requires competence and effectiveness. If you are to deal
>> responsibly with terrorism, you must deal effectively with all its causes:
>> religious, social, and enabling causes. The enabling causes must be dealt
>> with effectively. Bombing innocent civilians and harming them by destroying
>> their country's domestic infrastructure will be counterproductive--as well
>> as immoral. Responsibility requires care in the place of blundering
>> overwhelming force.
>>
>> Massive bombing would be irresponsible. Failure to address the religious
and
>> social causes would be irresponsible. The responsible response begins with
>> joint international action to address all three: the social and political
>> conditions and the religious worldview and the means with all due care.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6
>>
>> Foreign Policy
>>
>>
>> I have been working on a monograph on foreign policy. The idea behind it is
>> this: There are many advocacy groups that have long been doing important
>> good works in the international arena, but on issues that have not
>> officially been seen as being a proper part of foreign policy: the
>> environment, human rights, women's rights, the condition of children,
labor,
>> international public health issues (e.g., AIDS in Africa), sustainable
>> development, refugees, international education, and so on. The monograph
>> comes in two parts.
>>
>> First, the book points out that the metaphors that foreign policy experts
>> have used to define what foreign policy is rules out these important
>> concerns. Those metaphors involve self-interest (e.g., the Rational Actor
>> Model), stability (a physics metaphor), industrialization (unindustrialized
>> nations are "underdeveloped"), and trade (freedom is free trade).
>>
>> Second, the book proposes an alterative way of thinking about foreign
policy
>> under which all these issues would become a natural part of what foreign
>> policy is about. The premise is that, when international relations work
>> smoothly, it is because certain moral norms of the international community
>> are being followed. This mostly goes unnoticed, since those norms are
>> usually followed. We notice problems when those norms are breached. Given
>> this, it makes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those
>> norms.
>>
>> The moral norms I suggest come out of what I called in Moral Politics
>> "nurturant morality." It is a view of ethical behavior that centers on (a)
>> empathy and (b) responsibility (for both yourself and others needing your
>> help). Many things follow from these central principles: fairness, minimal
>> violence (e.g., justice without vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of
>> those needing it, a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the
>> common good, the building of community, mutual respect, and so on. When
>> applied to foreign policy, nurturant moral norms would lead the American
>> government to uphold the ABM treaty, sign the Kyoto accords, engage in a
>> form of globalization governed by an ethics of care--and it would
>> automatically make all the concerns listed above (e.g., the environment,
>> women's rights) part of our foreign policy.
>>
>> This, of course, implies (a) multilateralism, (b) interdependence, and (c)
>> international cooperation. But these three principles, without nurturant
>> norms, can equally well apply to the Bush administration's continuance of
>> its foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy, as he announced in the election
>> campaign, has been one of self-interest ("what's in the best interest of
>> the United States")--if not outright hegemony (the Cheney/Rumsfeld
>> position). The Democratic leaders incorrectly criticized Bush for being
>> isolationist and unilateralist, on issues like the Kyoto accords and the
ABM
>> Treaty. He was neither isolationist nor unilateralist. He was just
following
>> his stated policy of self-interest.
>>
>> The mistaken criticism of Bush as a unilateralist and as uncooperative will
>> now blow up in his critics' faces. When it is in America's interest (as he
>> sees it), he will work with other nations. The "War against Terrorism" is
>> perfect for changing his image to that of a multilateralist and
>> internationalist. It is indeed in the common interest of most national
>> governments not to have terrorists operating. Bush can come out on the side
>> of the angels while pursuing his same policy of self-interest.
>>
>> The mistake of Bush's critics has been to use "multilateralism" versus
>> "unilateralism" as a way categorizing foreign policy. Self-interest crosses
>> those categories.
>>
>> There is, interestingly, an apparent overlap between the nurturant norms
>> policy and an idealistic vision of the Bush administration's new war. The
>> overlap is, simply, that it is a moral norm to refuse to engage in, or
>> support, terrorism. From this perspective, it looks like Left and Right are
>> united. It is an illusion.
>>
>> In nurturant norms policy, anti-terrorism arises from another moral norm:
>> Violence against innocent parties is immoral. But Bush's new war will
>> certainly not follow that moral norm. Bush's military advisers appear to be
>> planning massive bombings and infrastructure destruction that will
certainly
>> take the lives of a great many innocent civilians.
>>
>> Within a year of the end of the Gulf War, the CIA reported that about a
>> million Iraqi civilians had died from the effects of the war and the
embargo
>> --many from disease and malnutrition due to the US destruction of water
>> treatment plants, hospitals, electric generation plants, and so on,
together
>> with the inability to get food and medical supplies. Many more innocents
>> have died since from the effects of the war. Do we really think that
the US
>> will have the protection of innocent Afghanis in mind if it rains terror
>> down on the Afghan infrastructure? We are supposedly fighting them because
>> they immorally killed innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the
>> same, are we any less immoral?
>>
>> This argument would hold water if the Bush War on Terrorism were really
>> about morality in the way that morality is understood by
>> progressives/liberals. It is not. In conservative morality, there is fight
>> between Good and Evil, in which "lesser" evils are tolerated and even seen
>> as necessary and expected.
>>
>> The argument that killing innocent civilians in retaliation would make
us as
>> bad as them works for liberals, not for conservatives.
>>
>> The idealistic claim of the Bush administration is they intend to wipe out
>> "all terrorism." What is not mentioned is that the US has systematically
>> promoted a terrorism of its own and has been trained terrorists, from the
>> contras to the mujahadeen to the Honduran death squads to the Indonesian
>> military. Indeed, there are reports that two of the terrorists taking part
>> in The Attack were trained by the US. Will the US government stop training
>> terrorists? Of course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity?
>> Not in terms of conservative morality and its view of Good versus Evil and
>> lesser evils.
>>
>> If the administration's discourse offends us, we have a moral obligation to
>> change public discourse!
>>
>> Be the change you want! If the US wants terror to end, the US must end its
>> own contribution to terror. And we must also end terror sponsored not
>> against the West but against others. We have made a deal with Pakistan to
>> help in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its own
>> terrorism in Kashmir against India? I would be shocked if it were. The Bush
>> foreign policy of self-interest does not require it.
>>
>> The question must be asked. If that is not part of the deal, then our
>> government has violated its own stated ideals; it is hypocritical. If the
>> terrorism we don't mind--or might even like--is perpetuated, terrorism
>> will not end and will eventually turn back on us, just as our support for
>> the mujahadeen did.
>>
>> We must be the change we want!
>>
>> The foreign policy of moral norms is the only sane foreign policy. In the
>> idea of responsibility for oneself, it remains practical. But through
>> empathy and other forms of responsibility (protection, care, competence,
>> effectiveness, community development), it would lead to international
>> cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.
>>
>>
>> 7
>>
>> Domestic Policy
>>
>> I have a rational fear, a fear that the September 11 attack has given the
>> Bush administration a free hand in pursuing a conservative domestic agenda.
>> This has so far been unsayable in the media. But it must be said, lest it
>> happen for sure.
>>
>> Where is the $40 billion coming from? Not from a rise in taxes. The
>> sacrifices will not be made by the rich. Where then? The only available
>> source I can think of is the Social Security "lockbox," which is now wide
>> open. The conservatives have been trying to raid the Social Security fund
>> for some time, and the Democrats had fought them off until now. A week ago,
>> the suggestion to take $40 billion from the Social Security "surplus" would
>> have been indefensible. Has it now been done--with every Democratic senator
>> voting for it and all but one of the Democrats in Congress?
>>
>> Think of it: Are your retirement contributions--and mine--going to fight
>Bush's "war"? No one dares to talk about it that way. It's just $40
>> billion, as if it came out of nowhere. No one says that $40 billion dollars
>> comes from your retirement contributions. No one talks about increasing
>> taxes. We should at least ask just where the money is coming from.
>>
>> If the money is coming from social security, then Bush has achieved a major
>> goal of his partisan conservative agenda--without fanfare, without notice,
>> and with the support of virtually all Democrats.
>>
>> Calling for war, instead of mere justice, has given the conservatives free
>> rein. I fear it will only be a matter of time before they claim that we
need
>> to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security
>> reasons. If that most "pristine" place falls, they will use the national
>> security excuse to drill and mine coal all over the country. The energy
>> program will be pushed through as a matter of "national security." All
>> social programs will be dismissed for lack of funds, which will be diverted
>> to "national security."
>>
>> Cheney has said that this war may never be completed. Newt Gingrich
>> estimates at least four or five years, certainly past the 2004 election.
>> With no definition of victory and no exit strategy, we may be entering a
>> state of perpetual war. This would be very convenient for the conservative
>> domestic agenda: The war machine will determine the domestic agenda, which
>> will allow conservatives to do whatever they want in the name of national
>> security.
>>
>> The recession we are entering has already been blamed on The Attack, not on
>> Bush's economic policies. Expect a major retrenchment on civil liberties.
>> Expect any WTO protesters to be called terrorists and/or traitors. Expect
>> any serious opposition to Bush's policies to be called traitorous.
>>
>> Who has the courage to discuss domestic policy frankly at this time?
>
|