Not Too Late To Make A Difference This Year

That's it. I am sick and fucking tired of wingnut freakazoids getting credit for being "charitable" when all they're really doing is paying protection money to their churches, whose clergy use it to buy cocaine and secret abortions.

When a supposed liberal like Nick Kristof falls for the lie, it's gotten out of hand.

We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Bullshit. Utter, complete, unadulterated bullshit.


Dig down into those studies and you'll find - oops!, sorry, not so much.

Rich people - conservative and liberal - tend to give money to education (private colleges they want to get their kinds into as legacies), museums/arts (fancy new wings named after the donors) and research (more personalized construction.)

Religious people of all persuasions give to their religious organizations, which spend the vast majority of that money on administrative salaries and building maintenance. Doubt it? Drive past Southland Christian Church in Lexington and tell me you think that fancy ten-building campus looks like a charitable organization.

Non-religious, non-rich conservatives don't give jack shit to anybody. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bitch, and don't whine that you're barefoot!

Non-religious, non-rich liberals, granted, tend not to give much to charity, either, but here's the difference between them and their conservative counterparts: liberals make their contribution by pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker, pro-job, pro-family, pro-health care government policies that help large numbers of people in ways private charity simply cannot.

George H.W. Bush's ridiculous "Thousand Points of Light" was the perfect example. All the charities in the country together could not replace a single government program to help poor people, like even the minimal Food Stamp Program.

And if you think I'm making excuses for myself, here's my own charitable record: I give to what I consider real charities - those who help those who cannot help themselves. Local food banks, homeless shelters, drug rehab for single mothers, family planning, victims of war and disease. I have gradually increased the amount over the years, until last year I gave three percent of my gross income. This year, with so many in need, I jumped it to four percent. Not much, but finally more than the national average.

Don't get me wrong; I do it out of pure selfishness. My favorite part of the holidays is making the list of charities I will donate to, figuring the total amount I will donate, dividing it up among the charities (making sure everybody gets at least a little more than they got last year), and writing out each check. I like to send a holiday card with it, so the organization can tape the card up on the door to show off their donors.

They always send a letter of thanks. Yes, it's required by the IRS, but the local charities almost always add a little hand-written personal note.

It is absolutely the greatest feeling in the world to know that someone in need is getting a meal, a home, medicine because of you.

There aren't enough church recreation centers in the world to match that.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Not Too Late To Make A Difference This Year" >>

What We Get To Say Now

For 28 years we've bitten our tongues. Since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan plunged the nation into the Dark Ages when only rich, white, church-connected men had rights to life, liberty and happiness, we've held our peace, waiting for the day when speaking our minds would not earn us a prison sentence.

But our day is about to arrive. Progressives, liberals, Dirty Fucking Hippies - rejoice!

There's a new scent in the air. If you're a Democrat, you haven't felt it tickle your nostrils since October 1996, when everybody knew that Bill Clinton was about to beat Bob Dole. The perfume hasn't been this strong since October 1964, the eve of Lyndon Johnson's landside presidential victory. It's the sweet smell of success that you can take for granted.

SNIP

During the past 25 years, there have been countless sentiments that respectable Democratic politicians were never, ever supposed to say out loud for fear of angering the all-powerful Republicans. It still isn't wise for Obama to say them, but maybe the New Complacency will loosen other tongues within the political mainstream. Even if it doesn't, it's fun to think about what those utterances might be. What follows is a list, compiled with help from my fellow Slate staffers. The views expressed don't necessarily reflect those of the contributors—one of whom is a conservative Republican—or even me. But they sure are a refreshing change from what we've been hearing since 1981. With a little luck, they may soon be orthodoxies.

Read the whole thing for the full list, but here are my personal favorites:
(More after the jump.)

• I think Karl Marx had some valuable insights into capitalist economies!
• I think abortion should be safe and legal. Rare is fine, too, but the way to achieve that is contraception, baby!
• The Second Amendment does too allow government to ban handguns!
• Promiscuity between consenting adults is good exercise!
• Health care is a service, not a business!
• Pot is no more dangerous than vodka. Legalize it!
• I don't support the troops. I support some troops, depending on whether or not they've committed war crimes!
• No more wars without United Nations or at least NATO support!
• Let's teach evolution in Sunday school!
• The military-industrial complex is a greater menace than most foreign nations!
• If Israel isn't out of the occupied territories in six months, we'll cut off all aid.
• Higher gas prices are good because they make everybody bike and take public transit like they should!
• Judges should legislate from the bench if they want to. Conservatives do it, so why not liberals?
• I do not accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior! I don't even believe in God!
• What's so great about the Judeo-Christian tradition?
• Big-city values are better than small-town values!
• We're undertaxed. Look at Europe!
• Terrorism isn't that big a threat to America!
• I'm not a "progressive," for Pete's sake. I'm a liberal!
• I'm not a "liberal," for Pete's sake. I'm a leftist!
• I'm not a "leftist," for Pete's sake. I'm a democratic socialist!
• I'm not a democratic socialist, for Pete's sake. I'm a Communist! Just kidding!
• Let's bring back the era of big government.
• It's not enough that the top 5 percent pays 55 percent of our taxes. Why not 75 percent? Believe me, they can afford it!
• Prostitution is a victimless crime! Don't outlaw it; regulate it, so we can arrest physically abusive pimps, limit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and halt sexual trafficking in minors!
• Many welfare moms kicked off the rolls by the 1986 welfare-reform bill are worse off in their crappy jobs!
• Ronald Reagan was a crummy president!
• Broad availability of gay marriage: good. Broad availability of gay divorce: better!
• You want to know why George W. Bush was a lousy president? Because he's stupid!
• Pornography is good for your marriage because it teaches you new sexual techniques!
• The problem with public schools is private schools!

Read the full list, then add your own.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "What We Get To Say Now" >>

Why Liberals Must Stand Proud and Conservatives Should Be Ashamed

Every single good thing that has happened to Americans in the last century has been brought to you by liberals. Every single obstacle in the path of improving people's lives and making the world a better place has been thrown there by conservatives.

It can't be repeated often enough, yet rarely gets mentioned, much less articulated as clearly as Bob Herbert does here.

The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.

SNIP

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.

(More after the jump.)

When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”

Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”

Scary.

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

As Warren Street writes about Herbert's column:

Pardon the fuck out of me, but I needed this. I needed something to get my chin up off my chest. I needed this wake-up call. I needed this kick in the ass. I needed this call to action. I needed this because I'm sick to fucking death of sitting on my fucking ass watching these assholes rise up like a Phoenix. It is time to take up the cause and get back to smashing the living shit out of Republicans and their lies.

If you need some Kentucky examples to make this clear, Heather Ryan is a Proud Liberal. John Yarmuth is a Proud Liberal. David Boswell is a sniveling coward who wants credit for liberal accomplishments while denying liberal values.

Here's a question to ask your candidates who want Democratic votes: What are three liberal accomplishments that were opposed by conservatives? If they can't answer, you know what they really are.

Let's put an end once and for all to the oxymoronic concept of the "conservative Democrat." No such animal. Democrats are Proud Liberals. Everybody else is a republican, not matter what they call themselves.

No more DINOs.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Why Liberals Must Stand Proud and Conservatives Should Be Ashamed" >>

Act like a liberal Democrat, dammit!

If you're a proud left of center liberal like me, read Rick Perlstein's article, "Will the Progressive Majority Emerge?" at The Nation to understand why we are not alone. In fact, Americans agree with us more often than not contradicting what the news press and broadcast pundits propagandize. We are not a "conservative country" no matter how many times the doh-dee-doh-doh media declare that we are.

Attacking this misperception, Perlstein summarizes and shares insights from the Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007, which involves "a massive twenty-year roundup of public opinion from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press." A few have already written selective bites from the Pew survey whereas Perlstein digs deep supplementing the findings to include multiple sources, the National Election Studies (NES) survey, and numerous polls on how American attitudes about the role of government have shifted toward progressive ideas.

People! America sounds and thinks more progressively than we've been told, what Perlstein describes as "the most favorable climate for liberalism in a generation." Some grafs that could make conservatives gulp hard:

Is it the responsibility of government to care for those who can't take care of themselves? In 1994, the year conservative Republicans captured Congress, 57 percent of those polled thought so. Now, says Pew, it's 69 percent. (Even 58 percent of Republicans agree. Would that some of them were in Congress.) The proportion of Americans who believe government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep is 69 percent, too--the highest since 1991. Even 69 percent of self-identified Republicans--and 75 percent of small-business owners!--favor raising the minimum wage by more than $2.

The Pew study was not just asking about do-good, something-for-nothing abstractions. It asked about trade-offs. A majority, 54 percent, think "government should help the needy even if it means greater debt" (it was only 41 percent in 1994). Two-thirds want the government to guarantee health insurance for all citizens. Even among those who otherwise say they would prefer a smaller government, it's 57 percent--the same as the percentage of Americans making more than $75,000 a year who believe "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person." ...

... Want hot-button issues? The public is in love with rehabilitation over incarceration for youth offenders. Zogby/National council on Crime and Delinquency found that 89 percent think it reduces crime and 80 percent that it saves money over the long run. "Amnesty"? Sixty-two percent told CBS/New York Times surveyors that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to "keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status." And the gap between the clichés about what Americans believe about gun control and what they actually believe is startling: NBC News/Wall Street Journal found 58 percent favoring "tougher gun control laws," and Annenberg found that only 10 percent want laws controlling firearms to be less strict, a finding reproduced by the NES survey in 2004 and Gallup in 2006.

You suspected it all along. Now it just might be true: Most Americans think like you. Nearly two-thirds think corporate profits are too high (30 percent, Pew notes, "completely agree with this statement...the highest percentage expressing complete agreement with this statement in 20 years"). Almost three-quarters think "it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer," eight points more than thought so in 2002.

If only there was an American political party that unwaveringly reflected these views, as a matter of bone-deep identity. You might think it would do pretty well. Which leads to the aspect of the Pew study that got the most ink: "Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats," as the subtitle put it. When you compare Americans who either identify themselves as Democrats or say they lean toward the Democrats with Republicans and Republican leaners, our side wins by fifteen points, 50 percent to 35, the most by far in twenty years. As recently as 2002 it was a tie, 43 to 43.

Plunge below the surface, however, and this stirring tale becomes disconcerting. Yes, again and again, the views of independents track the views of Democrats--more so, in fact, with every passing year. Pew says it's "striking" that 57 percent of independents think government should aid more needy people even at the price of higher debt. In 1994 it was only 39 percent. When asked their opinion of statements like "Business corporations make too much profit," independents answer the same way as Democrats: about 70 percent agree. On questions like "Are you satisfied with the way things are going for you financially?" the chart is amazing: Republicans, independents and Democrats clustered together at 65 and 64 percent in 1994. But Republicans have increasingly answered that question in the affirmative--81 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, the lines for independents and Democrats headed down, down, down, nearly in lockstep, to 54 percent today.

Pew says independents are thinking like Democrats, and that fewer and fewer want much to do with the Republican Party. In 1994 independents gave the GOP a 68 percent approval rating; now only 40 percent do. And the percentage of people who call themselves Republicans has dropped from 29 percent in 2005 to 25 percent today. But these people are not signing up as Democrats. The proportion of those who call themselves Democrats has held steady, in the lower 30s....

...The pattern--Democrats losing because they don't look enough like Democrats--is nothing new: During the 2002 election Democrats did such a poor job of selling themselves as better protectors of middle-class interests that Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found only 34 percent of voters saw a difference between Democrats and Republicans on prescription drug benefits to seniors.

Go read Perlstein, a lengthy read (much more than I have snipped) but worth every word. I doubt you will hear the press connect and articulate these attitudinal changes sufficiently because... "The stubborn oxen on TV and in the establishment media who tell the American people how to think are part of the problem too."

What will the Democratic Party do about an auspicious moment, "the most favorable climate for liberalism in a generation"? Perlstein offers this caveat: "They rarely ask the public to vote for them as Democrats." We can only hope that Democrats will remember their ABCs...

Always. Be. Closing.

There's more: "Act like a liberal Democrat, dammit!" >>

The Hunters v. The Herd

A few days ago I wrote a short note entitled "Is American empire the end of American Democracy?" That note was really intended to point readers to a longer and much better essay by Chalmers Johnson entitled Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us? In preparing that note, I actually read Johnson's article. In reading the article I learned some things. I had to interact with the written word. I had to think.

I mention all this because like a lot of folks, including Blue Girl, I have been wondering why the left is winning the Internet revolution? Why are the conservatives generally struggling with the Internet?

First of all, I am not at all sure all conservatives are struggling with the Internet. As I point out a couple of posts below, Ron Paul isn't having much trouble with the Internet. Steve Jeffery is accurate when he says:

In the past week, Ron Paul's website received more traffic than those of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (Obama only recently took the lead by a hair). His videos are among the most-viewed on YouTube and popular social news site Digg.com is literally choked with Ron Paul-themed articles and comments.

The conservatives who are struggling are the movement conservatives currently in power--The Karl Rove/American Enterprise Institute/William Kristol/Fox News conservatives (lets call them neo-cons.) To understand why they are struggling we have to examine why they were so successful. It has been argued many, many times that they are successful because they pioneered and mastered talk radio. That's partly true, but what they really mastered was the "sound bite" and the 10 second "video clip." They learned far better than their counterparts on the left just how to use the medium of television advertising. Nothing more than 30 seconds. The shorter the better. A quick hit, then move on.

Above all else they learned message control--how to keep repeating the sound bites over and over again. They gained control of television, playing the same video over and over again. They ruined Howard Dean's 2004 run by playing "the scream" over and over again without context. Conservatives are still doing well with people who gain most of their news via television and talk radio.

Where the neo-cons are failing is with the growing percentage of the population that is no longer satisfied with sound bites. Many of those people learn most of their news reading it on the Internet. The neo-cons are struggling with the Internet.

How is the Internet different? The principal difference is the difference between hunting and grazing. Every year people go deer hunting. Every year to be successful deer hunters have to carefully watch for signs. They hunt for subtle movements. Moments are spent contemplating this movement or that. Some things are dismissed. Even though many hunters don't move for hours, hunting is very active.

Grazing is different. When I look out my window, or at a television, I am just grazing. Information is passively entering my brain. I might have an emotional reaction to a sunset or I might see a car turn the corner. I might react to something I see, but like a herd animal reacting to a running lion, my reaction is thoughtless. In no way am I hunting. Ever try remembering any of Jay Leno's jokes 5 minutes after his monologue. Me neither. The joke comes in to my brain, before I have time to really think, I laugh and he moves to the next joke. Listening to his monologue is very passive. It is brain candy.

The user of the Internet has to read. Reading is a powerful form (maybe the most powerful form) of active watching. It is a form of hunting. It invites thought. It is done at the pace of the reader. He can read fast or slow depending on his mood or needs. The Internet reader expects footnotes. He can follow links to back-up material.

The sound bite on the other hand is totally controlled. A quick hit and then move along to the next "sound bite." It is completely passive. You are not invited to reflect--to think. Like Leno's joke it is here one second and gone. Ever see references to supporting material in an advertisement. Even if they exist they go so fast you can't catch them.

This brings this long post back to Ron Paul. In particular it brings us back to the reaction Rudy Guiliani and Fox News are receiving among Internet readers to their response to Ron Paul's "controversial" comment. During and after the last debate Guiliani, Fox News and the Republican establishment essentially called Paul a traitor for making the comment that we really ought to look at what America has done in the middle east to encourage attacks like 9/11. Over the past few days, people on the Internet are asking what is wrong with looking back and learning? That idea is gaining traction among Internet readers. Paul is winning on the Internet front. This morning Ben Schwartz went so far as to turn Guiliani's comments back on him. Schwartz called him a professional victim just like cable news's Nancy Grace. He chided Guiliani for knowing so little about his signature issue-9/11. We on the Internet are readers. We are hunters. We don't like victims, and we think that people who can't learn from the past are losers.

Before you get too smug just remember, human beings are omnivores (both hunters and grazers.) You and I are little different from any other member of our herd.

Please post your comments on this issue. I would love to hear from you.

UPDATE: Both bmaz and Jo Etta at Change for Missouri make some great points. You might want to take a look at their comments.

There's more: "The Hunters v. The Herd" >>

Limbaugh--Liberals Are Going to Attack Me. Wah, Wah.

In an audacious display of verbal self-defense Radio Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh admits he said

If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act

ABC News' Political Punch goes on to report that, anticipating that liberals would take umbrage at his obvious link of Cho to Liberalism, he tried to insulate himself from criticism by saying

Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out.

Apparently he ducked and covered right after he made the offensive remarks about liberals. Old Oxycontin can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Are decent Americans going to take this? When will we tell this blowhard to sit down and listen if he doesn't have anything to say.

Right on cue the utterly shameless freepers (or is that creepers) have taken up the mighty right wing Wurlitzer's new unfounded charge that the Virginia Tech massacre was caused by liberals or "liberalism." And we are still setting on our hands. What's wrong with us? Where is our fight?

If you want to have a good time read the comments thread at ABC's site. Not many defending Rush. After you have learned you are not alone start writing your own comments and send them to Newt and Rush and any of their enablers in the big time media you can think of.

There's more: "Limbaugh--Liberals Are Going to Attack Me. Wah, Wah." >>

Current Limbaugh Contact Information

The post below links to out of date contact information for Rush. Here is his current information. If you elect to write, be polite. Just tell him he is wrong and why.

Rush Limbaugh
rush@eibnet.com

Premiere Radio Networks
Premiere
Radio Networks

Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
15260 Ventura Blvd. 5th Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Main: (818)377-5300
Fax: (818)377-5333
Toll Free: (800)533-8686

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1-800-282-2882
rush@eibnet.com
fax: 212-563-9166

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

If you are wondering why I didn't just update my previous post, well I believe this is an issue we bloggers should take on. Both Rush and Newt Gingrich are working hard to tie the word "liberal" to Virginia Tech. One of them working the angle might be an aberration. Both of them? Well that implies that someone has decided people are viewing the word "liberal" a little more favorably than they should. Their branding of "liberal" and liberals is fading. That is bad for them. They know it. "Conservatism" is so weak intellectually that conservatives can compete only when "liberalism" is sufficiently diminished. What better way to refresh their brand than by tying the word to the Virginia Tech massacre.

There's more: "Current Limbaugh Contact Information" >>

Shame on You Newt. Shame on You Rush

In his April 19, 2007, broadcast Rush Limbaugh said

If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out.

This morning Newt Gingrich blamed Liberalism for the Virginia Tech massacre.

I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of these wacko conservative ideologues exploiting tragedies like Virginia Tech for political gain. Cho wasn't a liberal, and no sane American of any stripe would claim him. Mass murderers come in both no and all ideologies. Timothy McViegh was ostensibly an arch conservative. There were mass murderers before there were "conservatives" and "liberals." Ever read about Bloody Kansas before the civil war? Was Bloody Bill Anderson a liberal or a conservative? What about John Brown?

The truth is people like the Columbine killers, Charles Whitman, and Cho kill because they are mentally ill, and driven by feelings of inadequacy none of us understand. Others like Bill Anderson or Timothy McVeigh claim their killings are justified by their ideology. I think that is hogwash. They kill because they put their drive for personal power above the lives of others. Still others like Osama Bin Laden or any number of religious fanatics, such as John Brown, kill because they say their God has told them too. The truth is, mass murderers kill because they do not respect the lives of others. They are selfish to the extreme. Many suffer from the delusion that their victims are not human, not deserving of respect.

Why don't we all write Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and tell them what we think. Here is Rush Limbaugh's contact information. You can find Newt Gingrich here. Pass this forward. Millions need to tell these crass ideologues "shame on you." Its time to put a stop to this nonsense.

And if some "liberal" tries to blame "conservatives" we need to call shame on that indifferent fool as well.

There's more: "Shame on You Newt. Shame on You Rush" >>

Issue Framing and Exaggerations

One of the biggest problems Democrats have had in terms of pushing an agenda over the last 10 years has been, in my opinion, their inability to frame their issues. Issue framing is probably the most important aspect of successful marketing. Or instance, anti-tax conservatives have always had a serious problem with the Estate Tax. Of course, many of them are super rich, but many of them just disagree with it on principle - these estates were built with wealth that had already been taxed, so the resources should not be taxed when passed down to beneficiaries. However, the Estate Tax has been largely popular amongst the majority of Americans because 1) the vast majority of people are not, nor will they ever be, subject to such a tax, and 2) because Americans tend to approve of progression tax schematics, particularly when the wealth transfer is unearned; i.e. inheritance, lottery winnings, capital gains, etc. To counter this sentiment, anti-tax forces have re-framed the issue from one of economic fairness and the taxing of wealth transfers, to one of liberals trying to tax death. Taxing DEATH. This is, of course, grossly disingenuous. The Estate Tax (or rather, death tax, as some would put it )does not tax death, but rather, taxes a transfer of wealth from one person to another - from one who earned it, to one who did not. The anti-Death tax movement has gained some steam as a result of this re-framing. Fortunately, Washington State voters voted down an initiative which would have done away with our state Estate Tax, the revenues of which are collected from no more than 250 families and which are diverted to public school funding.

Bill O'Reilly has engaged in a re-framing strategy in an effort to mitigate support for programs which are widely considered to be "leftist" programs. Of course, referring to them as "leftist" is ridiculous; something is only as right or as left as they are in relation to the general will of the American moderates, which is to say, the middle 60 percent or so. I would go so far as to say that embryonic stem-cell research is incredibly popular in this country, garnering support well over 60 percent. Many political hacks (as opposed to wonks) try to frame this as a liberal pet project, which is silly, because the vast majority of people support such research. However, by framing the issue in such a way as to make it appear "leftist", conservative forces are able to link it to other, more controversial issues, like abortion or social welfare, or whatever. O'Reilly uses his radio and TV shows to this end pretty constantly. His whole "Culture War" thing attempts to further solidify issues into certain classes as secular-progressive (aka liberal/Democratic) or Traditionalist (aka conservative/Republican). By using a taxonomy which creates dichotomous classes of issues, O'Reilly is able to associate unrelated issues with each other, and thus mitigate support for one issue by focusing on its association with others. He does this primarily with silly language. For instance, he refers to embryonic stem-cell research as "fetal stem-cell research" which is, of course, ridiculous because the stem-cells are not harvested from fetuses, but rather, embryos. He does this to link stem-cell research to abortion in an effort to sway pro-stem-cell-research people who happen to be pro-life away from supporting stem-cell research.

Last night's "Talking Points Memo" on The O'Reilly Factor was a perfect example of how O'Reilly uses issue framing to manipulate how people examine these issues. My good friend Blaine, on his blog over at Dead Journal, has provided an excellent analysis of O'Reilly's segment, and illustrates how O'Reilly uses rhetoric to misrepresent the American left.

Check it out.

There's more: "Issue Framing and Exaggerations" >>