Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi! | 140 comments (140 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

You appear (4.00 / 2)

to be disagreeing with me but you aren't.

Let's say that we think it is important to have class sizes no bigger than 18 students in our public schools. That is our idea, the merit of which is based on studies that show that classes larger than that wind up ill-serving many students.

Framing is deciding how to communicate the merits of this idea, and/or hide its downside.

It's not discussing it in a rational matter, citing studies, and pontificating on cost/benefit analysis.

It's countering the accusations that it is a federal intrusion into local schoolboards, that it is throwing good money after bad, that it is your money, that it's a give away to urban schools, etc.

An effective counterattack is difficult, but that is the job of framing. Framing is important. But it has taken over the job of policy formation.

And lastly, you can usually do better by just saying, "I'm for goddamn small class sizes, America's children deserve it."

Mind you, that is NOT framing. That is just a declarative statement.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 12:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You appear (4.00 / 4)

And lastly, you can usually do better by just saying, "I'm for goddamn small class sizes, America's children deserve it."

Plain talk can be the best framing. [Ducks head]

No really. The above is a statement of values that does not employ Republican-leaning words like "school choice" or "performance accountability," etc. It's the kind of thing Howard Dean tosses out, usually after having used several lovingly crafted framing sentences, and it's why I will still do anything the Governor asks me to.

So obviously we're converging on a common ground, which is always good. I do see your point that framing can be used to hide details of what ideally should be an open policy debate that does not hide the tradeoffs or negative aspects of our position.

I guess I do see what you hope for--a renewal of civic debate and honest, open issue debate by candidates--as unrealistic and naive. We hear entire speeches that never mention details. Even some of our better leaders hurt us regularly by reinforcing Republican ways of thinking. I think framing provides a realization of the power of words that many Democratic politicians lack.

But your argument is persuasive. Dean's plain and honest policy talk made him a hero well before he or I had read Lakoff, and somehow actively framing things became very natural for him. And he does it in a way that I don't think leads to any of the intellectual dishonesty you see. Framing is a tool that can be used well or poorly, but we need it in our toolbox.

Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

by ubikkibu on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 12:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You appear (4.00 / 4)

The GOP spends about 200 million dollars a year in just "framing" their lies... and people believe them.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 12:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It may (4.00 / 4)

come as a shock to a lot of people, although I've made it clear before...but

I could never stand Howard Dean. I didn't like the way he talked, or his facial expressions, or his gestures, and I found him utterly unpersuasive even when I agreed with him.

The only thing I found appealing was when he dropped his comments about gunracks, his incredibly bad timing and tone-deaf downers (like poo-pooing the capture of Saddam the same day he was captured), and just called Bush a crook and a liar.

I said, "Hark, what did I hear? Did he just call the President a lying fraud?" That's my man Howie.

In other words, his frank talk was his appeal, at least to me, but his lack of political skills meant that his frank talk, and inappropriate pep-rallies were as much of a downside as an upside.

I'll make it up to you Deaniacs. I promise.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It may (4.00 / 7)

Well most Dean supporters got beyond the superficial and recognized that Dean was the best candidate to lead the country.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It may (4.00 / 6)

It was the Republican "framing" of Dean that killed his chances. It was done so well, the dems bought it. Just look at the Dean "scream" frame. Framing, imho, is not a bad word it is just how it is used. Take any issue and put it into its best light by framing it properly. Framing is a marketing tool. Let's use it to our advantage. You don't have to lie in order to frame something. Jeez, they even called the folks that wrote the Constitution "Framers".

Frodo failed...Bush has got the ring.

by alohaleezy on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let the atonement begin. (4.00 / 8)

First impressions are hard to break.

I loved Howard from the moment I heard him yelling "What I Want to Know." He's the guy we told...ordered, actually...to bring a bat on stage for his next appearance. A bunch of bloggers posting just like this, and a few hours later, here's Howard swinging the bat at his next stage appearance.

Now that is people power.

"Inappropriate pep rallies?" I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I guaran-damn-tee you BooMan Tribune would be a ghost town without the energy Howard catalyzed.

I disagree strongly with several of Howard's issue positions. But he has arrived at them honestly, through thought and debate and compromise. I ask for nothing more.

Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

by ubikkibu on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It may (4.00 / 4)

LOL. In any case I eshew the term "Deaniac". It always was pejorative, esp when used by the press... despite the fact supporters embraced it...

One question, if I may, who did you support in the primary (that crowded horse race) and why.

Sorry, if you wanna swipe one guy (tho he led in spectacular fashion for a while and now is DNC Chair, an interesting trajectory) then, please, state who got your vote.

So,
-who did yuo support early on? And
-who did you vote for in the PA primary?

(I was Dean from July 2002 and voted for him March 2 in CA)

by Marisacat (Marisacat@aol.com) on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False Statements Don't Make True Arguments (4.00 / 5)

This statement is false:

Framing is deciding how to communicate the merits of this idea, and/or hide its downside.

Framing can be used to communicate the merits of an idea and/or hide its downside. But framing is much, much more than that.

For example, optical illusions work by showing us that we are subconsciously processing visual information that we didn't even know existed. And a crucial part of that processing involves framing. The most obvious are the optical illusions involving a picture that can be read two different ways. But other optical illusions involve framing as well, because neural computing is heavily reliant on framing of information in order to further process it. (See, for example, illustrations involving checkerboards, where the 'light' square in shadow is the same shade as the 'dark' square in direct light.)

The same is true of cognitive processing. You can assert that framing and rational discourse are two opposite things. But mere assertion is not rational argument. Ironically, in this case, it's simply the arbitrary invoction of the either/or frame.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Paul (4.00 / 2)

the problem with the framologists is that they insist that absolutely everything is framing.

Framing must be defined, and that means limiting in some way. It can't be both 'Healthy Forests' AND a dissertation on the benefits of clear-cutting for forest health.

If we are talking about cognitive function we are talking about the visceral, right? Not a damned debate.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Framing Is Pervasive--But Not Everything (4.00 / 6)

The circulatory system pervades the entire human body. But that doesn't mean it IS the entire human body. The same is true of framing and human cognition.

By focusing on one narrow manifestation--the conservative/GOP use of propagandistic framing ala Luntz, Gingrich, et al--you are blinding yourself to the big picture. And you need to reconnect to the big picture in order to have a truly accurate and effective critique of conservative framing, as well as an effective counter-response.

Janet Strange really did hit the nose on the head. It's about getting clear on our values, and articulating our political positions as a direct expression of them. And Parker was right, too. It's about realizing when we are using conservative frames ourselves, and reversing the process, so that they are using our frames.

In fact, the entire internal debate about frames among Democrats and progressives is, in a sense, another example of this. You have accepted the conservative frame on framing--"It's what we do!" And this is highly misleading, both for those who oppose it and for those who endorse it.

There are a lot of people who misunderstand and misapply Lakoff's message. That's bound to happen with any newly introduced idea of sufficient scope. And you are right to criticize those who use framing as an excuse for not doing other things--or as a justification for moving to the center, which Lakoff explicitly rejects. I will join you wholeheartedly in either of these endeavors. But your critique will be far superior if you take the time to get inside the whole logic of framing, and develop a more precise critique of how people are misusing it.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is what (4.00 / 3)

I think framing is:

It is a focus on the non-rational or pre-rational or subconscious effects of words, and an attempt to exploit the susceptibility of the human mind to these types of coercive arguments.

If you repeat GOP frames you are doing their work for them. You can always improve the attractiveness of your policies by improving the wording you use to describe them. That is why I keep saying framing is important.

My critique is that the Democrats seem to think that they don't have to change their policies, they just need to package them better. And when that packaging fails, as it almost always seems to do, they abandon framing in favor of actually moving to the right.

My idea is that framing is a losing argument when your policies are sound. If you are losing a framing argument, then just make a declarative statement. 'I am for abortion on demand dammit, and if you don't like it you can eat your hat' will sell better in Okalahoma than any attempt to use 'anti-choice' 'government intrusion' or any other visceral triggers.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 01:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Closer, But... (4.00 / 4)

You're getting more specific, which is good. But you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And you still seem to have totally ignored the fact that Lakoff is not a moderate! He is not arguing for a GOP-lite strategy, he is arguing against it! (How many exclamation marks do I need? Damn it!!!!!)

Now, I agree with your criticism where it applies. Those who misread and misapply Lakoff would lead us astray. And the failure of their misguided efforts would be used as further fuel by the rightward marchers. But your over-the-top straw-man attack does nothing to clarify the situation, and only further splits people apart. It's a whole lot of heat and not much light. And it comes from someone who is generally just the opposite.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would just like to point out (4.00 / 5)

If you are losing a framing argument, then just make a declarative statement. 'I am for abortion on demand dammit, and if you don't like it you can eat your hat' will sell better in Okalahoma than any attempt to use 'anti-choice' 'government intrusion' or any other visceral triggers.

You are in fact proving the importance of framing by attempting to reframe how to discuss reproductive rights. You may be right about this issue -- heaven knows the right has been dominating the debate for years -- but your argument here is for a different frame.

media girl

by media girl on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No no no (4.00 / 4)

this is what I hate about this debate.

Framing cannot be everything. You cannot state that every possible thing I say is but a different frame.

A frame is using a word or words that effect a person on a non-rational basis.

the word 'anti' is bad
the word 'pro' is good

that's framing

'I support x, take it or leave it' IS NOT A FRAME.

What people are responding to is not the words but the self-assurance.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the problem here (4.00 / 5)

...is that you don't seem to define framing in the same way the rest of us are. That's fine, but please don't pretend to critique what we call framing because you hold to a different definition of the word.

A frame is using a word or words that effect a person on a non-rational basis.

Not true. A frame is what is evoked by language. Look at the gay debate:

"Should gays get special rights?"

"Should gays be denied basic civil rights?"

Two statements on the same issue: gay marriage. Neither is irrational -- there's a factual basis for either interpretation -- but they evoke different frames, and how one talks about what one believes is essential if one hopes to convince people who might agree with you, but have been looking at things differently.

So ignoring frames, like Kerry did on this issue, will only backfire. (Kerry bought into the right-wing frame that gay marriage is wrong and an intrusion for special rights, and tried to moderate the position by supporting civil unions -- and lost the argument on that issue.)

I responded in more detail in a different comment as to what framing is, as described by Lakoff.

media girl

by media girl on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here (4.00 / 2)

is why it is not rational.

Is anyone proposing that gays get 'special rights'?

No. Not really. Not rationally.

They are proposing that gays get the same rights, not special rights.

Therefore, this question is leading and dishonest. That is a frequent problem with frames.

A better example would be:

Are you anti-gay marriage?
Are you pro-the protection of marriage act?

Now, those two ways of asking the question are basically synonymous.

But you will get different poll results depending on which one you ask. The difference has nothing to do with the proposed act. Nothing.

That's framing.

Now, you can increase your odds by being dishonest or inflammatory.

You can ask:

Do you support bigamy, beastiality, and gay marriage?

or:

Do think homos should be able to get married?

Those frames will bias the listener against a positive response.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a very interesting exchange (none / 1)

Therefore, this question is leading and dishonest. That is a frequent problem with frames.

between you and Media Girl. I hope noone will mind if I ask a question to both of you.

So, what's the difference between 'frames' and 'spin'?

Because the startling degree of dishonesty which characterises our national political discourse and which you're quite rightly objecting to seems to me to be far more widespread than 'framing'. I do think that readers of Lakoff use the notion of framing in a slightly different manner than you are doing and tentatively suggest that the problem isn't framing as much as a desire to package and sell policies and candidates with not only a disregard for the truth but an active antipathy towards honesty. It's as if speaking truth isn't considered a viable option and people are no longer able to call a lie what it is.

by the other colleen on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not true (none / 0)

The "special rights" are being able to marry someone of the same legal sex.

Not rational? Spare me.

media girl

by media girl on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 04:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0)

I have the right to get married to a woman.
You have the right to get married to a man.

You can call this 'the right to get married'.

Do gay people have the right to get married? Yes. But not to a person of the same gender. Ergo, being gay, their right to get married is effectively annulled.

We can quibble about the degree of annullment since countless gay people have had straight marriages.

But if a gay person wins the right to marry a person of their own gender, I also win that right.

Therefore, they do not get any special right that I do not also receive.

Therefore, they have no advantage over me, and they have no 'special right'.

If you suggest that they will get a right that I do not have, that is dishonest and will bias me against supporting the policy change.

I.e. per your example, they are not equivalent questions.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 04:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok (none / 0)

I don't agree with it. I'm just saying that there's a rationale behind the homophobic agenda.

media girl

by media girl on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 09:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Problem with your example (none / 0)

State recognition of marriage as a legal contract is not a special right, if the principle of legal protection under the law is to be adhered to.

If this protection is to be based on gender, in a tiered system, it is not equal protection under the law, it is tiers of protection based on gender.

US has a history of tiered protection, most notably with regard to race, however the Civil Rights Act sought to remedy that, at least on paper, leaving tiered protection advocates forced to argue that ending apartheid granted special rights to non-whites. ;)

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops, typo first paragraph above (none / 1)

"legal protection" should be "equal protection."

Why can't we edit comments? Where is the outrage?

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:20:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! Yes! Yes! (3.66 / 3)

Framing cannot be everything. You cannot state that every possible thing I say is but a different frame.

It's not that everything you say is but a different frame. It's that everything you say involves a different frame. It's the old blood vessels/flesh thing I mention elsewhere.

A frame is using a word or words that effect a person on a non-rational basis.
the word 'anti' is bad
the word 'pro' is good
that's framing

That's part of framing. So, too, is the subconscious processing that gives two different interpretations to various well-known optical illusions.

'I support x, take it or leave it' IS NOT A FRAME.
What people are responding to is not the words but the self-assurance.

And self-presentation is another aspect of framing. When AWOL Bush put on a flight suit, that was framing, too. (Truth and falsity are another issue.)

Framing is ubiquitous. It's everywhere, but that doesn't mean it's everything.

It's a holographic universe, dude! Get used to it!

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then (none / 1)

it means nothing.

You have never heard Democrats engaged in a serious discussion where they opined that we would win more elections if we only wore more red ties, used better posture, or blinked our eyes less.

You are confusing the cognitive theory of framing with the political theory of framing.

For the purposes of political theory this is what matters:

Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ASSERTIVE AND SELF-CONFIDENT.

That is my answer to the obsession with fighting back on the framing front.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does Not! Does Too! (none / 0)

You are arguing that if framing means everything, then it means nothing. But I'm not arguing that it means everything. I'm arguing that it touches everything. It's the circulatory-system-in-the-body/holographic universe approach.

Framing is about cognitive processessing--perception, cognition, communication, all of it. Much of it is linguistic, much of it--such as the optical illusions I referred to--isn't. Self-presentation in social animals is a pre-linguistic form of communication that is clearly part of this package.

You are confusing the cognitive theory of framing with the political theory of framing.

No, you are confusing the misguided application of framing by some with the theory that has no boundaries separating "political" from "cognitive."

Would you define evolution by the way political activists in Kansas or Pennsylvania respond to local creationist attempts to smuggle their ideas into the classroom? Or would you define it in terms of 100+ years of scientists advancing their understanding, and connecting it to various other branches of science?

I have a hunch it would be the later. And you would critique the activists in light of the later understanding, as well as other things.

You should take the same approach to framing. It's not the activists who never thought of it before 2004 who can tell you what it means. It's the scientists who've been studying it for decades who can do that.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is what (none / 1)

...Democrats seem to think that they don't have to change their policies, they just need to package them better. And when that packaging fails, as it almost always seems to do, they abandon framing in favor of actually moving to the right.

This needs to be explained more...please give an example.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Example? (none / 1)

first we tried to talk about 'rights' then 'choice' always being sure that we are 'pro' and not 'anti'.

When we discovered that all this framing bullshit had utterly failed to persuade Nebraskans and Louisianians to vote for pro-choice candidates, we stopped trying and recruited anti-choice candidates.

Now the virus has spread to Pennsylvania, and nearly Rhode Island.

My critique isn't with Lakoff as a theorist, but with framing as a policy.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Example? (4.00 / 4)

That is not true.

What happened in the meantime was that the GOP came up with some juicy whoppering frames:

Culture of Life
Partial Birth
Abortion on demand
Parental Notification

They purposely set up frames to put the Democrats of the defensive.

Democrats suddenly became the party who wanted to let teenage girls kill their babies in between classes two days before they gave birth.

Framing killed the pro-choice position because instead of fighting back and throwing off of these frames ... the Democrats (unsurprisingly) coward and accepted these frames and tried to moderaterate their position.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a good debate (none / 1)

but we are just seeing things a tad differently.

You say they framed us to death.

I say they tricked us into engaging in a framing game in the first place, and we lost.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

abortion on demand (none / 1)

This is the jist of the whole problem... you just used a GOP frame....

What the hell is "abortion on demand" ... this frame is making abortion as though you can waltz into a MacAbortion Clinic on your lunch break and kill your fetus.

This is what 200 million dollars a year spent on framing does... people use these frames without even realizing what they are doing.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS " abortion on demand ".... got it... it is a freaking harrowing journey that women have to go through fraught with millions of obstacles put in place by the anti-choice crowd...yes "anti-choice" because that is what they are ...for damn sure they could not give a flying fig about life... knowing how many women will die if they persue to outlaw abortion.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Relax Parker (none / 1)

I used the GOP frame on purpose. It adds to my point.

by BooMan on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, You Just Switched Sides??? n/t (none / 1)

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi! | 140 comments (140 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Recommended Diaries

Children of a Lesser Allah
by Jeff Huber - Jan 6
20 comments

Israel's Propaganda War
by ask - Jan 6
12 comments

What the inauguration means to me
by Real History Lisa - Jan 6

The Hamas red herring now belongs to Obama
by shergald - Jan 6
6 comments

The kind of story Israel does not want told...
by btchakir - Jan 6

WWL Radio Invitation (& shameless plug)
by Diane G - Jan 6
1 comment

End of Empire: Beginning of Wisdom
by gottlieb - Jan 5

Breaking News: Israel Ground Forces Enter Gaza
by Oui - Jan 3
5 comments

Recommended World Diaries

Breaking News: Israel Ground Forces Enter Gaza
by Oui (NL) - Jan 3
5 comments

Recent Diaries

The kind of story Israel does not want told...
by btchakir - Jan 6

WWL Radio Invitation (& shameless plug)
by Diane G - Jan 6
1 comment

Waiting to see what Sore Loser Coleman does in Minnesota
by btchakir - Jan 6

The Hamas red herring now belongs to Obama
by shergald - Jan 6
6 comments

How to Pick Alternative Energy Winners.
by joelado - Jan 6

Israel's Propaganda War
by ask - Jan 6
12 comments

Children of a Lesser Allah
by Jeff Huber - Jan 6
20 comments

What the inauguration means to me
by Real History Lisa - Jan 6

End of Empire: Beginning of Wisdom
by gottlieb - Jan 5

Is Israel Going To Wipe Out Hamas?
by btchakir - Jan 4
5 comments

What is really going on in Gaza
by stormbear - Jan 4
7 comments

The myth of hamas ceasefires not working...
by Mattes - Jan 3
11 comments

Breaking News: Israel Ground Forces Enter Gaza
by Oui - Jan 3
5 comments

Saturday Painting Palooza Vol.178
by boran2 - Jan 3
9 comments

Preparing the Ground
by danps - Jan 3
1 comment

Reclaiming The Word Liberal In the Age of Obama
by Intrepid Liberal Journal - Jan 2

An ad campaign for the environment
by btchakir - Jan 2

Thank You For Not Flying Air Stupid
by Zandar1 - Jan 2
3 comments

Friday Foto Flogging
by AndiF - Jan 2
56 comments

Iraq oil seen as long range opportunity
by AliceDem - Jan 1
1 comment

More Diaries...

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.