Remember Frank Luntz? The Dark Lord of Semantics? ... he'd likely appreciate that title.
Very smart man; focuses on the inherent emotion of words with little regard to their information content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
(nice discussion about Orwell in that article, actually)


I was actually thinkings about similar things earlier this week; what do you think about this...

Q. Why can't liberals sell ideas as well as conservatives right now?

A. Smarter liberals oppose or are critical of using deceptive, emotionally manipulating words to sell their ideas, and don't as often fall in line with talking points that use this tactic. This is possibly due to a recognition that transparency is required when you want government influencing society. OR may simply be due to liberalism being tied to empathy.
Smarter conservatives are not as concerned about transparency or educating people on the issue; they have re-learned that directing the power of emotion is much more efficient and effective, and can be essentially mined from focus groups and applied broadly.


Q. What should liberals do to better sell their ideas?

A. Seek professional help; be concise, and go with humor and sincerity 9 times out of 10 (think John Stewart, but rapid online focus-grouping things for lameness). And once there is a message convince other liberal leaders of the value of that message with your survey/focus-group data and just REPEAT IT, don't expound on things and go all John Kerry, just FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE. Don't make bumper stickers; keep cool and stay classy.

I used to dislike sweatshops and avoided with open disdain any company that used them. Then I realized I love my goddamn Nikes. Fuck off and sweat, motherfuckers.

Kidding. Though I do think the majority of "sweatshops" in underdeveloped and poor countries give better working wages than laborers in those areas typically receive. To us, $5 a day is impossible to live on, but over there that may be a decent wage when adjusted for their economy.

As for @volumptuous claim that Ubuntu cannot handle the software he uses, he is correct, but only because there isn't a market for it - if people chose Ubuntu all that software would be created for it. But Ubuntu isn't sexy like Mac, and all of volumptuous' low fat soy latte sipping, Prius driving, Sig bottle drinking, iPhone calling, Oliver Peoples glasses wearing, carbon credit buying, The Standard in Downtown going, CNN text alert receiving, CFL bulb using, Obama Biden bumper sticker having friends use Mac because they're the "in" thing here in LA.

^Let's be honest, you've not put an ounce of thought into 'voting with your wallet'. It's a catchy slogan that you heard someone else say, and now you are regurgitating it here. By all means, feel free to back up your bumper sticker politics with an argument. I'm all ears and willing to read as much text as you are willing to type. Prove me wrong.

^Yeah @enoch, perception is a funny thing. While you saw a powerful argument, I saw basically two vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless arguments repeated ad nauseum. Those arguments were:

1) It's all a distraction.
2) You are all a bunch of (adorably misspelled insult here).

His ideology is slim enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the corporate media distracts us from issues that are potentially damaging to corporations. They love issues like gay marriage and abortion, which have few financial ramifications for big money. But you know what? There is plenty of quality reporting out there. Foreign policy, health care, the bailouts and other meaningful issues have been covered at great length and with impressive depth.

The major undoing of choggian bumper sticker politics is the fact that the media he tends to criticize is often the more honest and progressive reporting of people like Rachel Maddows. And when he does decide to lay into Rachel, he does it with the intellectual heft of a flea, with dumb ass comments about her sexual orientation and the way she styles her hair. I've never heard any kind of in depth, insightful or intelligent analysis from choggie beyond the vague and redundant bumper sticker refrains: It's all a distraction, she's a dyke cunt, you are all monkeys.....

If you have a problem with Rachel, then by all means speak up, but an argument requires some bare modicum of substance before it can be taken seriously.

Lastly, do you know what lies at the end of choggie's yellow brick road? Do you know what we are all being distracted from? Satanic UFOs, the illuminati, Bildaburgers, New World Orders among other conspiracies. Say what you will about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Greens, but at least their belief systems don't play like an episode guide of the X-Files.

Anyway. I enjoyed the choggie freak show as much as anyone else, heck, I even voted to bring him back (sorry nr, kp, bf and bt), but he has been nothing but a bile spewing asshole ever since he's been back. I won't make that mistake again. He's lost my support for good.

"Anybody's Son Will Do

By Bill Willers

20 April, 2010
Opednews.com

In 1983, the National Film Board of Canada produced a 57-minute film, "Anybody's Son Will Do". Arguably the best anti-war film ever made, and tailored for public television, it scared the hell out of the U.S. military machine, which has done its best to "disappear" it. For years it has been nearly impossible to find a copy, but some kind soul has posted it on YouTube where it can be seen in six segments.

The film shows the process by which young men become psychologically engineered to kill or die on command. While the model used is the U.S. Marine Corps, it's made clear that the modern techniques for creating soldiers are refined, dehumanizing and universal.

Military forces will take boys as young as the law allows, as witness African militias that, unrestrained by regulation, recruit children as young as ten. People into their twenties, having begun to think for themselves to too great a degree, tend not to be sufficiently malleable. In the U.S., recruitment below age 17 is not legal. However, as war has become ever more computerized, need is growing for tech-savvy recruits who can kill coolly and indiscriminately from great distances, as if playing video games. The military has become very good at video games.

What this leads to in the real world is exemplified by this recently publicized footage of the slaughter by U.S. military of 12 civilians. The video has been a much-needed awakening for many. But as distressing as the carnage itself is the callousness with which the people go about their work: "Alright, hahaha, I hit 'em... Nice, good shooting.... Thanks"

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

AsGlenn Greenwald has correctly declared, the tragedy of this is that it's not aberration but commonplace. What is unusual is that this particular episode was made public.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39266

What is also tragic is that it represents precisely what the U.S. military wants to make of recruits who will be

reeducated -- brainwashed -- to see it as manly, patriotic, heroic. And what youngsterwith percolating hormones, negligible life experience and no basis for critical thought doesn't want to be like that?

Go to http://www.americasarmy.com/ and click on "America's Army Graphic Novel" to see what age group and level of education the Pentagon is aiming for. The "novels" are 28-page comics with text bubbles over GI Joe action figures and brightly colored noise representations: "KRR-AKK", "BLAM", "RATATATAT, CHAKA CHACKA CHAK...".

And now with their arcades open to the public, the military has its foot in the door of the minds of younger children who, if asked, would likely insist they can tell the difference between video games and reality.

click here

As for "Anyone's Son Will Do", DVDs of it should be in every junior high and high school in the country. Parent-teacher associations should have screenings. With any luck, it might get us headed toward a day when a common sight will be bumper stickers "Support Our Peace Makers".
Bill Willers is emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh now living in Middleton, WI. He is founder of Superior Wilderness Action Network (SWAN) and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He posts occasionally online at OpEdNews, Common Dreams, Counterpunch and Dissident Voice."
http://www.countercurrents.org/willers200410.htm

>> ^BansheeX:
You and several people in this thread seem terribly confused about his viewpoint, so maybe a libertarian like myself can help you.

I was writing that other post from the (attempted) view of a Tea Party activist. The speeches at those rallies tend to be highly simplistic bumper sticker slogans (tax cuts, hopey changey stuff, etc). The people who are attracted to that level of discourse wouldn't make it through your first paragraph, which is why I said Ron Paul probably confuses them.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation though. Libertarian fiscal conservatism appeals to me much more so than standard Republican fiscal conservatism (if you could even call it that). I just saddens me that many people lose interest when a position on an issue is longer than a couple sentences.

@kir_mokum, you hit the nail on the head. I always feel like it's a big, sad joke whenever these ideologues start calling me a socialist or accusing me of being some sort of hardcore ideologue myself. Hell, I'd likely be considered a raving right-wing crazy in any country other than this one.

What I want is a pragmatic approach to governance -- just do what works. If I thought cutting taxes and regulation would really lead to some utopia, I'd be on board too. But the reality is that this mindless drive to cut government "spending" during a recession will make the country look a lot more like Colorado Springs than some sort of Galt's Gulch.

I'm against bad government policy, and for good government policy. There is no simple, universal rule about how to tell one from the other, no matter how loudly conservatives scream that there is.

The country would be better off if people stopped screaming bumper stickers, and instead took some time to read up on history, and look at the way other countries have dealt with various societal challenges, and an objective look at the results they achieved. Then have a real debate about that instead of engaging in this perpetual cycle of name calling and chest thumping.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^rosekat:
SO true. The double standard some vegetarians present is ridiculous. Also, veggies who wear leather are quite intriguing ethical conundrums, aren't they? This is one of my favourite of theirs.

Psh, like we all wear Cat sweaters and rock Peta bumper stickers.
I personally avoid dead animal flesh because i'm not a lion or vulture.
Don't you think it's strange we're the only animals that have to cook other animals before we eat them. (Or risk food poisoning, worms, death)
Also, I don't think the criticism is quite justified.
Vegetarians only eat plants. So why would one go purchase or have meat lying around just in case?
You guys are probably omnivorous. So you'd expect an omnivore to have a few vegatarian options about.
Likewise, if at a "Carnitarian's" house, is it appropriate to give them guff about not having any vegetables in the crisper drawer? And question why they have house plants?
I understand the joke, but if you put thought into it.. it doesn't quite make sense.

Relax, it's a great piece of script that handles a common social conflict with a bit of depth and real humour (and makes perfect effing sense). It's not a personal attack on you! I'm sure you're wonderful

We don't have to cook our food. I love sushi. We're perfectly capable of eating any meat raw. There is a tiny risk of food borne illness, though. That's not unique to humans -- our vet didn't want us feeding our dog raw chicken.

Humans and animals both get more calories from cooked meat (or almost any food). Humans are just the only creatures smart enough to use the tool.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^rosekat:
SO true. The double standard some vegetarians present is ridiculous. Also, veggies who wear leather are quite intriguing ethical conundrums, aren't they? This is one of my favourite of theirs.

Psh, like we all wear Cat sweaters and rock Peta bumper stickers.
I personally avoid dead animal flesh because i'm not a lion or vulture.
Don't you think it's strange we're the only animals that have to cook other animals before we eat them. (Or risk food poisoning, worms, death)
Also, I don't think the criticism is quite justified.
Vegetarians only eat plants. So why would one go purchase or have meat lying around just in case?
You guys are probably omnivorous. So you'd expect an omnivore to have a few vegatarian options about.
Likewise, if at a "Carnitarian's" house, is it appropriate to give them guff about not having any vegetables in the crisper drawer? And question why they have house plants?
I understand the joke, but if you put thought into it.. it doesn't quite make sense.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^rosekat:
SO true. The double standard some vegetarians present is ridiculous. Also, veggies who wear leather are quite intriguing ethical conundrums, aren't they? This is one of my favourite of theirs.

Psh, like we all wear Cat sweaters and rock Peta bumper stickers.
I personally avoid dead animal flesh because i'm not a lion or vulture.
Don't you think it's strange we're the only animals that have to cook other animals before we eat them. (Or risk food poisoning, worms, death)
Also, I don't think the criticism is quite justified.
Vegetarians only eat plants. So why would one go purchase or have meat lying around just in case?
You guys are probably omnivorous. So you'd expect an omnivore to have a few vegatarian options about.
Likewise, if at a "Carnitarian's" house, is it appropriate to give them guff about not having any vegetables in the crisper drawer? And question why they have house plants?
I understand the joke, but if you put thought into it.. it doesn't quite make sense.




most omnivorous and meet eaters are susceptible to the same worms and problems with meat . but if u kill something fresh its normally fine , you don't actual have to cook Manny meats , Fish, Beef,Dear,Lamb,spring buck, maggots , lavee , so long as you get it fresh.

due to the way we kill animals and store them and genraly dont eat fresh fresh it dose make it safer to cook alot of meets but this also applies to vegetables and other non meet produce. I think Rice is actually one of the more common ways for people to get serous food poisoning Evan over meat.

I think in the case of most meats the more you cook it the more you actually lose from the meat where as with most vegetables light cooking increases there nutritional value as what is lost is replaced by the ablity for the stumach to better digest more of it.


Im just looking forward to the time we can grow meats so that we don't have to deprive creatures of life in order to eat something tasty and different from vegetables. Its also a shame that in most western cultures its frowned apon to eat larvii and bugs, when they make an excellent food source and also consume waste , would make far more sence than killing large wasteful and relitavly intelligent creatures like cows.

>> ^rosekat:
SO true. The double standard some vegetarians present is ridiculous. Also, veggies who wear leather are quite intriguing ethical conundrums, aren't they? This is one of my favourite of theirs.


Psh, like we all wear Cat sweaters and rock Peta bumper stickers.

I personally avoid dead animal flesh because i'm not a lion or vulture.

Don't you think it's strange we're the only animals that have to cook other animals before we eat them. (Or risk food poisoning, worms, death)

Also, I don't think the criticism is quite justified.
Vegetarians only eat plants. So why would one go purchase or have meat lying around just in case?

You guys are probably omnivorous. So you'd expect an omnivore to have a few vegatarian options about.

Likewise, if at a "Carnitarian's" house, is it appropriate to give them guff about not having any vegetables in the crisper drawer? And question why they have house plants?

I understand the joke, but if you put thought into it.. it doesn't quite make sense.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Why shouldn't she be allowed to write whatever she wants? You don't address that anywhere in this stack of strawmen and ad hominem fallacies you've posted.
Just because she's a moron and a bigot doesn't mean she should be silenced.
>> ^spoco2:
Dipshits pulling out 'free speech' to try to suggest they can write anything they want.
Would she be happy with a license plate that said 'CUNT', or one that said 'JCSUX' or one that said 'ANALRX'?
I would doubt it, she would say they're obscene, and yet she thinks she's allowed to have hateful stuff as her license plate. Well, you know what, it's a fucking license plate, the DMV get to decide what is and isn't allowed on them... if she wants to have anti homosexual shit on her car, let her make a fucking sticker and put it on there.
People like this are disgusting hypocrites who are the first to go apeshit if there is ANY sign that's anti Jesus... but don't dare suggest they can't say they hate fags, god no... that's their fucking right.



Um... I said she can have bumper stickers to her hearts content. Because it's a LICENSE plate she DOES NOT have the right to have it say whatever she wants.

That's the beginning and end of it, the State doesn't want that as one of their license plates... THE END.

I want people like this to keep their stupid license plates and bumper stickers. That way I won't feel bad cutting them off.

i can't wait for the revolution so we can take everyone with a sarah palin bumper sticker and throw them all off a cliff, like they did in spain in 1936. that's how you treat fascists.

Whats wrong with prejudice? Prejudice works both ways you know - its not always negative. For example, if you hear someone is an atheist and assume they are a free-thinker. Or if you hear someone is a libertarian and you assume they are very intelligent . Theres just not enough time in the world to get to know every person you meet so most information you gather must be based on assumptions. To act like you have no prejudice is just dishonest.

Prejudice is only a problem when it prevents you from making a rational judgment; i.e. you think Asians are uptight and this prevents you from ever being friends with an Asian - even one who isn't uptight.

I don't like americans, hippies, hipsters, liberals, people with obama 08 bumper stickers, christians, politicians, police officers, military personnel, tax collectors, blacks, jews, or gays

Just kidding on the last three . Point is, disliking whole groups of people isn't a problem unless its irrational. I would be friends with someone belonging to any of those groups. Of course, if you are a hippie obama t-shirt wearing christian tax collector you better have some pretty funny jokes.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^imstellar28:
Thinking Asians are uptight really isn't racism.

You're correct, that's prejudice. Which really isn't any better.