The Reasonable Activist

This is an article from alternet by George Lakoff discussing the concept of ‘framing’.  There are alot of high-level think-tanks out there which do nothing but try to figure out how to get the public to believe one thing or another to further a particular ideological agenda.  ‘Framing’ is the latest tool, which uses some pretty sneaky psychological tricks to actually trick a person’s brain into thinking some idea as their own belief.  Now this particular article is more liberal than I generally lean, but understanding how framing works is important.  It is not conservativism that bothers me, it is that these conservative higher-ups are LYING TO THEIR OWN GROUP to further their political power base.  Once you understand how this sneaky marketing ploy works, you can better avoid its effects.

Alternet: Lakoff Why Conservative Lies Spread and What Progressives Can Do To Fight Them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

The nice thing about being a extrovert in DC is I often learn the truth behind the fantastic news spewed from the press.  The media has this way of looking at issues from only one side, and then pushing that side as the only reasonable and sane way of looking at something.  It sounds perfectly logical when it is said on the television, but when I hear an opposing viewpoint from some knowledgeable soul in the city, their way sounds just as correct.  It pays to remember that the louder someone screams, the more obvious and simple the press makes their viewpoint out to be, the more likely it is some information just as relevant and diametrically opposed to that opinion exists.

Still, I can’t find the spin in the Franken rape amendment.  What happened at Halliburton was atrocious, to be sure, but it may be something in the wording of the bill itself (as presented by Franken) that caused thirty Senators to oppose it.  Congressman and senators love to pass feel-good fluff bills, so the fact that so many opposed this amendment makes me smell a dead rhinosaurus in the room.  My natural inclination is to believe in the utter corruption of Congress (which I know to be an unjust assumption) and I generally want to villify big business, male dominated environments, and sexual offenders.  This emotional charge makes it hard for me to take a step back and look at the facts logically, to ask the mundane questions.  Remember that even a miraculously wonderful bill may be scratched if the wrong miniscule clause is thrown in, and it is a common political tactic to hide sneaky self-serving (or publicly damaging) tidbits into much needed amendments.  Politics is all about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Where’s the damn spin?

For more information, visit: Huffington Post article

Like many activists on both sides of the abortion issue, I’ve been following the murder of the abortion doctor George Tiller.  Even as a pro-choice activist, I can still see the point of the pro-life side.  Now, however, I have a new take on the whole issue which is worth sharing.

Yes, Dr. Tiller was an abortion doctor who performed late-term abortions.  Some people see this as murder.  Some people believe murderers should be put to death (especially in light of the fact that these were ‘legal murders’ and not likely to stop).

Others view these late-term abortions as justifiable homicides.  Most states, including Dr. Tiller’s Kansas, have quite reasonable restrictions regarding late-term abortions.  Late-term abortions are legal if the fetus is found to have a disease which will prevent it from living, one that wasn’t caught earlier in the pregnancy.  For example, if the neural cavity doesn’t close properly and the brain is exposed, then it might be best to abort (because the chance of the baby surviving at all are very slim).

When it comes to the mother’s health, however, these situations are not so cut and dry.  Dr. Tiller was one of the few doctors who would perform late-term abortions for rape victims who simply couldn’t handle it.  In some cases, the mother would have died giving birth, such as the case where a 9-year-old was raped by her father.  In less clear decisions, the mother was deeply suicidal, such as the 14-year-old raped by her uncle and thrown out of her home.  Apparently, whenever the baby kicked she relived the rape, and she just couldn’t take it.  Late-term abortions, in almost every state, are for valid reasons only.  They are cannot be used as ‘contraception’ in the way early abortions can.  It is only the definition of what is or is not a valid reason that changes. 

My point is, who determines what is valid by law?  Our judicial system makes that determination, and our judicial system is governed by the will of the people.  The same people who determine that it is wrong to murder also made it legal to perform abortions.  This is the power of democracy, and one of the important things to remember about democracy is that sometimes you have to follow the rules of the majority even when you don’t personally believe in them.  That is how our society is able to function.  When Scott Roeder took the law into his own hands and assassinated Dr. Tiller, he not only acted illegally, but un-democratically and, in essence, un-patriotically.  You cannot protect the sanctity of the moral structure of a nation by going against the majority’s moral code, even if that code goes against your personal beliefs or values.

So whether or not you believe in abortion, that does not give you the right to be in defiance of the law.  Protest the law itself and work to change it if you feel it is wrong.  If you want to be a member of a democratic society, follow its rules.

REFERENCES:
Prustice Blog: Dr. Tiller’s Medical Reasons for Late-Term Abortions
Our Bodies, Ourselves: My Late Term Abortion
Warner Blogs NY Times: Tiller Rape Case
Hampton Roads: Vigil Held for Slain Doctor (another rape case)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

Govt Commercial Promoting Abstinence-Only Education

Under the Bush administration, $176 million was allocated to abstinence-only education programs.  Part of this money funded virginity pledges, documents signed by teenagers stating they would not have sex before marriage.

The latest study, conducted by Janet Elise Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, shows that not only do these pledges have no effect on teen abstinence rates, but that students who sign these pledges are more likely to engage in sex without using a condom or birth control.  The complete study is published in the January 2009 issue of Pediatrics.

So what things do work when it comes to keeping your teen from sex?  Specifically, it is involvement.  Teens raised with more traditional values are less likely to have sex at an early age.  On the downside, they are more likely to feel guilty about sex in general.

Teens with fewer friends who drink or use drugs are also less likely to engage in sex.  Participation in regular positive youth groups seems to be of benefit as well.  It is all about peer pressure, of the positive kind.

You can’t just tell folks not to do something ‘exciting’ and expect them to listen when they are bored and have nothing better to do.  That’s why abstinence-only doesn’t work, it doesn’t provide alternative activities.  Getting your kids into sports, the arts, church groups, or any other regular positive activity will do more to keep your children out of trouble than preaching at them.  Talk to them, get to know their friends and their friends parents.  Not only does this show your children your commitment to your values, it also shows them your commitment to them.

REFERENCES:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8101

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/134254.php

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2008/12/30/7-factors-that-foster-teen-virginity-pledge-or-no-pledge.html