You all may remember that DeeK and I had a bit of a tiff over gay marriage. He thought that if it meant we couldwin elections- we should table the gay marriage talk for a while. I thought that telling someone to wait (again and again and again) for a right that you already have is cowardly. But if only we had this book (or if I had taken any linguistics classes- damn you community college!) we could have re-framed the debate so that gays don’t loose out and we don’t loose elections.

The republicans have been really amazing at re-framing debates, while us progressives have seen the politcal ball stolen from our hands and run down the other side of the field. I’ll give you an example of how they do it.

I’m sure you’ve all heard of the death tax. You know that scary thing that double taxes your children after you’re dead and are just trying to leave them the family farm or business. You know what the death tax really is- it’s estate tax and it only applies to people with very large estates (there is a measure in Washington state to eliminate the estate tax on estates over 2 million dollars- there are only 250 families in the state who would get the benefit. Don’t forget to vote in November!). But it sounds like double taxation. It sounds like this tax is going to leave your greiving widow and crying children destitute to the tax man after your death. Calling it the “death tax” brings to mind some Dickens plot where formerly stable families are forced to rummage though landfills after big, bad, mean government has turned them into the streets.

How about “pro-life”? Are any of the prominent people declaring themselves pro-life trying to abolish the death penalty? Or get nationalized healthcare to improve our atrocious infant death rates? No. So what is it about them that is actually pro-life? Not much except the name. But because they have the name- those of us on the other side of the arguement must be pro-death. So we need to learn how to re-frame the debate so that our ideas are ressonate with the rest of the population.

Many Americans, however, are what Lakoff calls “biconceptual.” In some parts of their lives — at home, say — they behave according to the nurturant-parent model, while in others — perhaps the workplace — they’re more strict-father. The point is, they swing both ways, although in recent years, conservatives have done a much better job at persuading them to the strict-father view of things. This has happened, Lakoff believes, because conservatives really worked at it. Finding themselves out of power in the ’60s and ’70s, they did some serious soul-searching and consolidated their moral view of American political life. They invested heavily in the think tanks, educational institutions and media outlets that figured out how to hone their message so that it penetrated to the very heart of the American political imagination.

If progressives would only do the same thing — get a better grasp on the moral frames that unite them and concentrate on how to express those frames properly — Lakoff believes they could arouse the nurturant-parent models that lie dormant in the minds of most Americans. And they wouldn’t have to betray their ideals or pander to centrists by “skewing right.” They can win back the public (or at least the biconceptuals) “honestly, using framings, both deep and surface, that we really believe and that reveal the truth about our social, economic and political realities.” That’s why much of “Why Freedom?” is devoted to explaining how classic progressive issues like social welfare, universal healthcare, improved public education, fair trade, labor unionization and a less warlike foreign policy can be articulated as forms of freedom.

So back to the marriage equality debate (and that is what it should be called instead of gay marriage). We need to remind people that it is not a special right, it is not creating a class of people who ge to have more access or benefits than you. It is allowing people to have the same benefits as you without diminishing anything that you already recieve.

This is why I use phrases like “forced-pregnancy” instead of “pro-life”: to re-frame the debate and to call the opposition what it is instead of what it wants to be seen as. The more we use these terms – the bigger part of the lexicon they become and so do the ideas behind them.

(oh the spellcheck still ain’t working right- dooda dooda)

The Supreme Court ruled today that using military tribunals to try Gitmo detainees exceedes the President’s authority and violates the Geneva conventions (load of crap that the conventions are anyways- but my disgust at the International Committee for the Red Cross is a whole ‘nother post).

“That return marks a high-water point,” Commander Swift said at a news conference outside the court. “It shows that we can’t be scared out of who we are, and that’s a victory, folks.”

Bolds are so mine. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin- He who would scarifce liberty for secuity deserves neither.

Scotus did leave the door open for Bushy to get congress to approve use of tribunals though- and that is why the happy dance only lasts for a minute.

I bet it’s not long before we have a bunch of redstate yahoos screaming about terrorists and that the only way to protect ourselves is through a congressional act allowing military tribunals for enemy combatants. They will be waving the flag while they put the boot on our neck the whole time.

PS- Spellcheck is dead in firefox- how lovely. Suffer the little typos, just like Jesus said.

who thinks that girls are gay because they can’t attract guys or guys are gay because- well, he never answered that one because I don’t think he has ever even met a gay man (at least not one who was out in front of him). Guess what dipshit- it is just as much of a “choice” to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual.

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely due to biological rather than social factors.

So is this why there seems to be so many gay boys that come out of large religious families? I wonder if we can use this little bit o’science to get the forced pregnancy wingnuts off our backs? “See I have to use birth control cause I don’t want to make a gay baby”*

*Not that I have any sort of problem with gay babies or gay adults- I’m just playing with the homophobes folks.

Via War Room, we are now spending about 9.7 billion dollars a month on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..

Whenever I see numbers this big- I like to put it in perspective and I usually use the 37 million and growing men, women, and children living in poverty in the US. But first you should check out what poverty means as far as the feds go.

9.7 billion dollars a month would:

Give every man, woman and child living in poverty $259 a month. In Washington state, the TANF cash pay outs per month are only $220 per person, in a state like Georgia the payouts are only $120.

Or

Give every man, woman and child living at 150% of poverty or below(21% of the population, by the way) $149 a month in food stamps. Currently the average monthly food stamp benefit per person is only $86 and only applies to families that are at 130% of poverty or less.

Or

Every adult over age 18 living at 200% of the federal poverty guidelines or less that does not have a high school diploma or a college degree (about 50 million people) could recieve an additional $2200 per year in FSEOG grants to go to school.

Or

Give every one of the 85 million people who do not have health insurance $112 per month towards the purchase of it and let them buy into state Medicaid plans with the money.

Priorities folks.

(Just so you know- I have been geeking out over 2004 census records for these numbers- my math may be off a bit but the census reports are always very interesting to read)

Slackers.

On another note- guess what I found on Craigslist.

Is there any chance in hell of a Republican in Seattle getting elected? And would you spend the next 5 months working your ass off on a losing campaign for a lousy $1000?

Can’t stop laughing. Hahahahahahahahahah!

Via via via….

For just $6 per person the feds could completely fund election campaigns. Imagine a world where your campaign messages are not brought to you by ADM or Rupert Murdoch, where people don’t have to be well connected or well financed to run for office, where corporate big wigs and wealthy mucky mucks don’t get to demand quid pro quo from elected officials because they got them in office.

I’m in- where the hell do I send my $6?

If any of you can figure this one out- you get major cool points in addition to the giant virtual cookie.

This singer died tragically while swimming in the French Riviera with her kids. A speedboat was racing by and she pushed her kids to safety but got decapitated in the process. Morrissey thought she had the voice of an angel- I think she’s much better (and more naughty minded) than an angel.

I once met a man with a sense of adventure
He was dressed to thrill wherever he went
He said “Let’s make love on a mountain top
Under the stars on a big hard rock”

So there is this huge debate going on in the feminist blogosphere. It started at Twisty’s and has hopschotched all fricken over. I weighed in at Twisty’s originally and then got caught in the “holy fuck I have to work 18 hours a day for the next month” mode and didn’t realize it had become such a big fucking deal.

What is the big fucking deal about?

Blow jobs. Or specifically, whether or not the act of delivering a blow job is an act of submission and humiliation to the patriarchy.

Those of you who know me in real life know that I am one of the most outspoken supporters of any act designed to lead to orgasm, and my blow job skills are legendary. I do not consider it an act of submission as long as I get to choose to do it. And I get a big fucking sense of power in getting anyone- male or female- off. It’s not a submissive thing at all to make another person’s knees shake and head explode. It is not a submissive act to willingly hold someone’s most sensitive parts between your teeth. And anyone who doesn’t understand the power received by giving someone else an orgasm is a selfish lover who I would never let in my bed. I wouldn’t be insulted by someone yelling “fuck yeah” and giving me a high five after they had just given me the be-all-end-all-multiple- multiples orgasm (someday I’ll tell ya all about why I call it going to Switzerland- but another time). They should feel fucking awesome.

And I feel the same way about blow jobs. If I can make someone fall at my feet and stutter incoherently for a good long time afterwards- I feel fucking awesome.

This is not to say it is a requirement, but I would never fuck a guy who isn’t willing to go down on me with enthusiasm regularly. Some guys don’t enjoy blow jobs. Some girls have horrible experiences of being forced to gag on a cock when they didn’t want to. Neither one should be required to do something that gives them no pleasure and no one should ever do it because they think they fucking have to. But I will be damned if someone is going to tell me that I shouldn’t like sex or a sex act because I am a girl. Whether they mean to or not- the anti-blow job brigade is just as much a tool of the fucking patriarchy as the anti- sex before marriage people. It’s just one more excuse to make girls feel bad about doing something they might fucking enjoy.

Yeah- I wrote fucking a lot in this post. I really hate it when people tell me what I should or shouldn’t be doing for pleasure. Asswipes.

Migraines linked to higher sex drives

For those of us who suffer from migraines- this is going to seem like a big fat duh moment. I have the libido of an 18 year old boy and get migraines almost as often as I think about sex (fortunately- the migraines don’t seem to be a pavlovian response to thinking about sex).