I think the professor is full of male bovine output.

Actually, the good prof isn't saying anything new at all. Read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", written in 1946. Orwell makes very clear in that little essay that the purpose of language in politics is not to convey information, but to deceive. Politicians (and special interest zealots) have always striven to couch their agendas in words that convey the right mindset, even if the truth has to be sacrificed.

Thus, using the term "public protection attorney" instead of "trial lawyer is no different from using a term like "choice" or "reproductive freedom" instead of "abortion", which is technically accurate but politically neutral, and therefore not conducive to a positive (rather than objective) reception.

The author of the article has hit it on the head - the notion of "if we smile and change the vocabulary, you'll go along". That's what the manipulators have been doing for years.

What's changed of course, is that in the past the Lakoffs of the world could say this sort of thing clearly in the past and get away with it, but not any more. Not with the new media riding herd.

Cheers.

Boston Globe article:

Two boys in Boston were playing basketball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off a
nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck.

A newspaper reporter from the Boston Globe witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy. The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline: "Brave Young Celtics Fan Saves Friend from Jaws Of Vicious Animal."

"But I'm not a Celtics fan," the little hero interjected.

"Sorry," replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston, I just assumed you were."

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began "John Kerry Fan Rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack."

"But I'm not a Kerry fan either," the boy responds.

The reporter says, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Celtics or Kerry or Kennedy. "What team or person do you like?"

"I'm a Houston Rockets fan and I really like George W. Bush" the boy says. Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again: "Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet."

Wow can Jeff Larkin gas! And THE VIRGINS know how to gas too, as everyone knows. (We'll try to be brief.) He is totally right of course, but too much is too much. Ann Coulter's one liners have more impact precisely because they state so much with so little. BYE!

Wow, a first for Islam, only 50 words from THE VIRGINS.

ALLAH AKBAR!!!

I agree with Doug, this is really nothing new. How is this different from Frank Lutz (Republican pollster) coming up with the term "death tax" instead of the usual "inheritance tax?" Or the "right to life?" The bit about the "baby tax" is fucking stupid, of course, but our side does it too.

There's a tactical issue and a substantive issue. On tactics, I think it was Mickey Kaus who nailed the Kerry campiagn not for putting the candidate in a hunting outfit, but for readily explaining that he was being cast as a hunter to appeal to hunting types. If you are engaging in calling arsenic lilac, it is probably wise to shut up about it.

Substantively, repaackaging is only part of the larger issue. Repackaging is fine. But the Democrats are discussing repackaging without evaluating that the goods themselves - borne of fury and emotion - aren't all that tasty. And on the heels of their post-election condescension, it smacks of more of the same.

So if they lose the next election, they'll be shoving a finger in the eye of the Red states, screaming "What kind of frickin' Bible-thumpin' retards don't like our new box?"

Jeff,

Yes, as long as they are concentrating on style instead of substance, the Dems are setting themselves up for further defeat. But as the saying goes, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If they wanna turn their learning curve into a runway, let 'em!

Matt:
"Or the 'right to life?'"

Well, actually, the "right to life" is an accurate characterization of the pro-life movement. I believe that all unborn children have a right to be born alive, not killed in their mothers' wombs. I know that the pro-aborts want to claim that we're really interesting in oppressing women and/or criminalizing sex, but that's simply propaganda. It's compelling propaganda; I used to believe it myself. It's also false.

Pro-lifers really are motivated by a belief in the "right to life". That's not just a clever word game, it's how we really feel.

RobSF- "Pro-choice" is deemed a grim euphemism for "pro-death" by the right-to-lifers. A "pro-choice"r would come back at you, saying that "pro-aborts" (a loaded term, btdubz, I've only ever heard used by RTL attorneys) is an inaccurate phrase, as they believe in the "choice," not necessarily the action, of abortion.
My point is only that both sides try to define the other using these phrases, regardless of their ultimate accuracy.

In your free time, check some information about...