You have a talent to put words on a page that can conjure images. That talent is far better than my own, which is why you have a contract to do that for a living and I don’t.

With that contract and those words comes a certain responsibility. Not just to the truth but to the accuracy of the image you conjure. Factually I can find nothing amiss in your article. However, after reading it, I’m left with an image that, somehow, Democrats are still implicated in this whole sordid lobbying affair.

I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that the word I was looking for was “misleading“. It is entirely possible to give certain facts while omitting others and create a false image of something while still telling the truth.

Because of your previous article, which started the furor, I cannot dismiss the misleading nature of this article as an accident or mere happenstance.

You mention the numbers that are most likely to create an image that this is a bipartisan scandal (that 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats have received money from Abramoff’s Indian clients) but omit so many other facts that surrounding those numbers that would put them in context, including:

- How much smaller the Democratic donations were.
- The fact that the Indian tribes in question actually donated less to Democrats once they became Abramoff clients.
- That the other top Indian tribes (in terms of political dollars donated) all gave far more to Democrats than Abramoff’s clients.

All of which indicate a trend of discrimination (in terms of dollars) towards Democrats.

Moving beyond that one damning number that you placed, out-of-context, in your article, is whether or not receiving money from a client of Abramoff matters in any way at all.

Suppose that, year after year, I, as a public citizen, give $20 to local Democratic candidates. One day I receive a letter from Jack Abramoff directing me to give $10 to the same Democratic candidates. After receiving that letter, I continue to donate to Democratic candidates. What, on God’s green earth, does Abramoff have to do with it?

Do you not see how misleading it is when you fail to put facts in context? I have some hope that, after the firestorm you’ve just been through, that you will take this message and messages like it to heart. I hope that your next column will provide a context for the facts that are in it. I have no doubt that the facts themselves will be accurate.

I’m noticing that the media is starting to pay attention to language more. They’ve switched from referring to the citizens of New Orleans as “refugees” to calling them “evacuees,” which is a much more accurate term. It’s also a term that doesn’t make them sound like they’re from another country, which it was sure sounding, and looking, like on TV.

The other term being used is “Americans.” As in, “there may be more than 10,000 Americans dead in New Orleans” or “nearly 2,000 Americans have died in Iraq.” Those should be amended to refer to American citizens and American soldiers respectively.

Somehow, after the enormity of the tragedy in New Orleans, saying that only a fifth as many people have died in Iraq takes away from the sacrifice they’ve made and the enormity of that number. Being more specific helps people better identify with our fellow Americans and it also helps provide context. Context not just for their death, but for their life.

Fewer soldiers have died in Iraq, but many of them have lived under the constant threat of death for a year or more, seen buddies die, suffered injuries both mental and physical, and endured hardships. On the other side of the coin, I am a citizen. Knowing that thousands of citizens were left to die by our inept government tears me apart inside.

Let’s be as specific as possible in order to help people better understand what is happening.

Another in a series of “framing the conversation.”

Evolution is real. It is concrete. It stands on millions of fossils that all fall into place perfectly with one another, none of them out of place, nothing contradicting the theory. Referring to it as a theory is like referring to the “theory of gravity” as just a theory. Last time I looked out the window, the neighbors weren’t floating over their porches.

The whole idea of teaching “intelligent design” (ID) in our biology classes is anathema to me, but many people think it’s a good idea. There are probably a couple of reasons for that: a large part of the population is religious, another large part of the population has a distrust of science (or anything they don’t understand–I don’t understand what’s under the hood of my car, and I’m notoriously distrustful of it and mechanics), and because the right-wing pundits have done an excellent job of framing the discussion.

The big thing here is that the people pushing ID are really pushing creationism, which was already outlawed in our schools by the Supreme Court under the whole separation of church and state principle. They claim they’re not, but they are. They claim that the complexity of living things is such that they had to have a Creator, err, creator.

Religion is defined as “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Simply put, the belief that someone or something created us is a religious belief. Having that belief is fine. The vast majority of people believe that. It can and should be taught in theology classes and in Sunday school classes at whatever church people want to attend. But not in science classes.

Science is based on testable evidence. As I said, there are millions of fossils supporting evolution, and not one contradicting it. There is no controversy here (the ID movement loves the phrase “teach the controversy”). So let’s frame the conversation in such a way as to make these points more obvious.

Whenever someone brings up the topic of ID, I propose specifically referring to it as creationism in your response. When they balk at that, and they will, you’ll have changed the conversation from “teach the controvery” to “defend the idea that ID is not creationism.” They have to argue that it isn’t creationism because that is already banned from schools. If they don’t argue it, you can point out their implicit acknowledgement that creationism and ID are the same thing.

This is great. Because now you can spend the entire time arguing over whether or not ID is creationism and you’ll have the high ground in the argument. The debate never has to progress to the point of discussing whether creationism (remember, it’s not ID) should be taught in schools.

It’s also a good idea to attack the idea of what they are trying to do. They are attacking scientific principles and the teaching of science. It’s important to frame it that way as opposed to “they are trying to teach/push religion in schools” since the vast majority of people are religious and many of them support the notion of teaching science in schools. As I said above, it’s okay to teach religion in a theology class in a public school. That’s not what this is about.

A question such as “why are you attacking science?” is good. It isn’t inflammatory, and it is a legitimate question that allows follow-up questions of the scientific principles of creationism, for which there are none.

This is the first in what will become a series of posts on framing debates, which is a necessary part of winning debates.

In this particular case, the subject is cloning stem cells, often called therapeutic cloning. Paul Berg, a professor emeritus at Stanford University, recently made the statement “We are not cloning people, we are cloning stem cells to treat patients.”

That sounds good and people on both the left and right support stem cell research, which supporters hope will lead to therapeutic cloning, but people on the far right like to use words like “murder” when referring to stem cell research. I continue to advocate not sinking to their level, however, I do think the cause of therapeutic cloning could benefit from not using the word cloning. Instead, I propose that people refer to it as “copying cells” or “duplicating cells” which are both just as accurate but without the baggage that the word cloning carries with it.

BTW, the cells in your body replicate (duplicate themselves) all the time. But when scientists do the same thing with stem cells it has the chance to save millions of lives and make better millions more.

There’s an AP article out today in which rapper Kanye West talks about using the word “gay” as an antonym to hip-hop (or presumably to “cool” or whatever you might use as a positive affirmation when you’re with your friends). The article can be found here:

Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

It just happens that I’ve recently considered my own use of the word gay as a negative affirmation. Now, I believe that gay people should be treated equally, not just under the law but by society too, and I know that the usage I’m describing of the word gay derived out of a negative connotation towards homosexuality. I just don’t care about the origin of this or any other word.

The reason I don’t care is that words can and do have multiple meanings and their origin is often irrelevant. The nature of language is that it evolves. A word can start out meaning one thing, be used to mean something else, and end up taking on an entirely new meaning (or meanings).

Think about it for a minute. Do you go around speaking ancient Greek or Latin? No. Language has evolved so far away from those languages that we can no longer recognize even a tiny fraction of them. Granted, these changes happen slowly, one word at a time. Sometimes the meaning changes, sometimes the pronunciation, and sometimes the spelling. The point is that they do happen.

Anytime you get into an argument over semantics you’ve moved away from discussing the actual issue. People need to be a little less sensitive and a little more focused. In this instance they should be more focused on equality.

Let me jump back to the evolution of language real quick. I have another beef to bring up. I’m from Texas and I’m sick and tired of people who say “ain’t isn’t a word” or “y’all isn’t a word” or “<insert southern word, expression, or contraction here> isn’t a word.” They are all words. If I can use it in a sentence and you can understand it, it’s a word. Again, the nature of language is that it is constantly evolving, whether you want it to or not. And anybody who says otherwise is soooo gay.

Update: I just realized that my calling things gay almost certainly arose from watching too much South Park. The creators of which are almost certainly gay. Those kids call everything gay. I want to be just like Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker when I grow up (except for the part about being gay).