by Maryscott OConnor, Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:59:07 AM EDT
Crossposted fromMY LEFT WING
His first comment:
How can Obama juggle being president and a Black Man?
Intersted (sic) in hearing comments on this issue!
I mean really how can a black man handle being president?
We all know that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a mom to be VP...right?
A My Left Wing regular responds:
what do you think
the problems would be that need juggling? What is it about being a Black man that you think conflicts with being president? Is there some job or policy about which Obama will have to say, "You know, Joe, I'm a Black man, so i can't do this one. You'll have to take it?"
Give us a guideline by outline the problem as you see it for us. Please.
To which I respond, with my usual irrepressible aplomb:
That giant swinging cock will get in the way, of course.
Everybody knows that.
And the possibly syphilitic troll comes back, using those tactics they probably teach in Seminars for Conservatives Who Blog:
Giant swinging cock
Well it might be more pleasing to the interns!! But see that's a positive...this thread is here to explore the negatives of being a black man and trying to juggle responsibilities.
Could it that black men are inferior to the rest of the population? You know similarly to being a women and having children...women can't multitask and juggle responsibility like a white man can..as this has been pointed out so very well in the media since Sara Palin has come on the scene.
Now... here's my response to THAT...
by jlars, Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:24 AM EDT
I understand that the convention is already over and I wish I had realized it earlier but I have to say it. Most people in the MSM and indeed here in the blogosphere refer to the site of last nights speech as Invesco Field.
I'm asking you all (especially you posters like Todd, Jerome, Johnathan, and Natasha) from now on to call it MILE HIGH STADIUM. "Phooey," you say, "Mile High was demolished years ago." Furhermore aren't there better, more noble, less nit-pickey causes to write about? Certainly all these points are true, but let me explain my reasons before you dismiss this as moon-bat-ery.
As many of you may know Denver was home to a Stadium called Mile High Stadium from 1948 to 2001. Around 1998, after the Broncos finally won a Super Bowl, the owner of the Broncos, Pat Bowen, strong armed the city into building a new stadium for the team which they did using mostly taxpayers dollars to do. The new stadium was slated to carry the same name as the old one. However, once the new stadium was built, Invesco bought the naming rights to the stadium and changed it to Invesco Field, setting off a PR firestorm in the local media. The Denver Post refused to use the name Invesco. Citizens who had paid to build the stadium felt they had been betrayed and finally Invesco settled to call it officially "Invesco Field at Mile High."
So why should anyone care about a name? A rose is a rose is a rose, right? As George Lakoff would say, its all about the framing. The importance of using Mile High instead of Invesco is that Mile High reminds us that the stadium was built on taxpayer dollars. The name Invesco concedes the "right" of private companies to rename -- and metaphorically take ownership of -- a building that we the people of the City of Denver paid for.
After a speech like the one that Obama delivered last night, one in which he criticised this conservative doctrine of private companies freeloading on publicly funded projects, it just isn't right to call it Invesco Field. Granted the stadium isn't a public park, but we paid for it and then Invesco slaps their name on it.
Obama's speech and this convention will be talked about for years to come, so when you write about it call it Mile High Stadium. It doesn't cost you anything and it reinforces the idea that the building was built by us and not Invesco. Its also going to make you popular with people from Colorado.
by Maryscott OConnor, Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:57:25 AM EDT
crossposted fromMY LEFT WING
I'll be brief:
Here's another thing that drives me up the wall:
When one side rears its ugly head and demands that the other side, for instance, "DENOUNCE that supporter of yours!"
Politically, it's just about as disingenuous as we can get, whoever does it. Because let's face it: we get a helluva lot more political mileage out of someone NOT denouncing his outrageous supporter (say, McCain and Hagee/Parsley?) than out of his capitulation to the "pressure."
by jamess, Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:56:01 AM EDT
There was a perceptible difference between the coverage on the tsunami that hit South-East Asia in December 2004 and the earthquake that hit Pakistan in October 2005. The tsunami received far more extensive coverage in all countries analyzed in both television and print media which in turn affected people's behaviour in terms of private donations.
... the tsunami received ... private donations amounting to $178 millionwhile only $8 million has been collected for the earthquake so far.
"Here may lie the most important effect of mass communication, its ability to mentally order and organize our world for us. In short, the mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about."
-Shaw & McCombs, 1977
by RFK Action Front, Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:36:39 PM EDT
Cross posted from: RFK Action Front
George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute have done a tremendous job of educating progressives about the importance of framing. But as I troll through the progressive blogosphere, I notice that even some of the best bloggers (who, out of courtesy, will remain nameless here) make basic framing mistakes. So as the risk of repeating what may be obvious to many--here is my Progressive Guide to Framing:
1. LEFT and RIGHT refer to baseball pitchers and driving directions not political ideas or policy choices. It seems to me that the biggest framing mistake progressives make is referring to progressive ideas as "left" or "lefty" and Republican or fundamentalist Christian ideas as "right" or "right wing."
Why is this such a disadvantageous frame?
The word "right" of course, has several meanings. For example, "right" can mean "correct" as well as "politically conservative." Only 8 to 15% of the adult population is left handed. Every time you use the terms right and left to refer to politics you are using a Republican frame that implies that Republicans are correct and progressive only represents 8-15% of the population. See the problem?