Posts by Jeffrey Feldman

Jeffrey Feldman is Editor-in-Chief of Frameshop.

Did Limbaugh Try to Incite Violence?
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop on May 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM.

For weeks, now, Rush Limbaugh has been trying to incite political violence by giving on-air military-sounding orders, effectively 'commanding' his listeners to wage war against the U.S. electoral system.

The right-wing pundit's 'orders' to his Republican listeners have been clear: vote in the Democratic primaries as a coordinated tactic for sewing division in the opposition party. The goal of such 'chaos,' Limbaugh has stated explicitly, is to foment hatred between different parts of the Democratic Party leading, ultimately, to street riots during the Denver convention.

The ongoing incident raises a serious question:

How does Limbaugh's bid to incite political violence with radio broadcasts differ from previous instances where radio has been used to that end (e.g., Rwanda)?

Most Americans would agree that using radio to incite political violence is not only wrong, but the attempt itself represents a massive failure in our democracy. How Limbaugh's broadcasts differ from, say, radio broadcasts that incited violence in Rwanda and Kenya, for example, can help us to understand exactly what Limbaugh was doing and the exact danger it poses.

Calls To Incite Violence vs. Calls For Acts of Violence

During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, radio broadcasts called for direct acts of violence to be committed by one faction of the Rwandan public against another. These broadcasts drew considerable attention because (1) radio was the major source of information for the listeners in question, (2) the audience was largely non-literate, and (3) there was an ongoing nationalist struggle into which the broadcasts fed (emphasis mine):

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ann Coulter Jokes About Lynching, Still on CNN
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman, Huffington Post on May 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM.

As usual, Ann Coulter's newest round of violence-tinged pundit appearances included going on CNN to call millions of Americans "traitors" (treason is a crime punishable by the death penalty) and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama is a covert terrorist assassin.

What did Ann Coulter do this week to earn this right to appear on the most trusted name in news?

She published a weekly syndicated column laced with violent-rhetoric in which she suggested that an Obama Presidency would result in the destruction of the U.S. by terrorists and--she joked about lynching Africa-Americans.

Is there nobody left at CNN who cares about this situation? I mean...why is it that a pundit who jokes about lynching blacks is allowed to appear on the largest broadcast platform in America?

A word to the wise at CNN:

When Ann Coulter jokes about lynching blacks in her weekly syndicated column, pull her from whatever appearances she has scheduled for that week.

Better yet, just drop her altogether.

Some Advice for CNN

One has to wonder how someone as well known as Ann Coulter--who relentlessly promotes her work--can continue to appear on CNN given the violence-tinged, racist, anti-Semitic, false-accusations she regularly publishers in her column?

The only possible answer is that nobody at CNN ever reads Ann Coulter's syndicated column.

If someone at CNN did read Coulter's column, they would never let her on the air out of respect for the reputation of the network, for the business interests of their sponsors, and for their viewers.

So, here is my advice to CNN each week, before allowing Ann Coulter to be a pundit on the network:

READ HER COLUMN.

Just read it. And do not just pass this task off to some unpaid high school intern. Have a seasoned producer with a long term vested interest in the future of the network read Ann Coulter's column. And then have a senior member of the sales team read her column.

It comes out every week late Thursday or early Friday. And it is free to read.

Now, once everyone at CNN has read Coulter's weekly column, ask a simple question: Does Coulter joke about lynching black people in the column? If the answer is "Yes," make a note of that.

Next question: Does Coulter accuse members of the U.S. government of being terrorist plots to destroy America? If the answer is "yes," again: make a note of it.

Final question, does Coulter write something that falsely accuses vast numbers of Americans of high-crimes punishable by death? ("Yes?" ditto: make a note).

OK. So far so good. Having done this homework, if it turns out that the answer is "Yes" to one or more of these question, CNN should send a note to Coulter that reads something like this:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Gingrich talks Jewish "ghetto"; botches history [VIDEO]
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on April 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM.

After being caught in the racist slur of calling Spanish a "ghetto" language, Newt Gingrich tried to correct the record. "What I meant is," said Gingrich speaking to FOX News' Alan Colmes,"we ought to have a program of intensive education so that every person who comes to America learns English as rapidly as possible." Gingrich then went on to explain in his inimitable pedantic way that "ghetto, historically had referred as a Jewish reference originally. I did not mention Hispanics, and I certainly do not want anybody who speaks Spanish to think I'm in any way less than respectful of Spanish or any other language spoken by people who come to the United States" (Think Progress has the whole story).

What a shandeh this Gingrich remark.

The problem with Gingrich's example is that it gets the history of the Jewish ghetto completely wrong--backwards even. Historically, Jews who lived in the first ghettos did not suffer the social stigma brought on by a lack of language education, but from the political consequences of too much language skill.

Most scholars agree that the word "ghetto" originates with the 16c Ventian verb gettare meaning "to cast" (as in foundry casting of iron)--as such because the first Jewish ghetto in Venice was located on an island that once housed iron casting factories.

Rather than complain about the Jews' inability to speak the local languages, authorities in the vicinity those original Italian ghettos often complained that the Jews were fluent in too many languages--that they were nervous about being able to control the Jews because they were much better at language than the local population. It wasn't until the 18c when people started to accuse Jews of not being able to function in society because they couldn't speak the local tongue (German).

In other words, if we follow Newt's example of the Jewish ghettos, the moral of the story should not be that foreigners need help learning languages, but that the immigrants among us are actually smarter at language than the rest of us.

And this makes sense. After all, to function in a new country, immigrants have to work twice as hard as the rest of us to keep up linguistically--often times being fluent in a minimum of two languages.

If Newt had spent even 5 minutes in an immigrant community in America he would discover himself completely at the mercy of a group of polyglots much more capable than the average American. Being an immigrant, in fact, is most often synonymous with language fluency as rapid language facility is often the key to Immigrants being able, in a relatively short period of time, to function in two cultures simultaneously--to hold a job, navigate a new set of laws, and so forth.

Sorry, Newt. It looks like you are obviously not smart enough to think these things through.

Maybe the former Speaker of the House is the one who needs some education to bring him up to speed--not the immigrants that he is so desperately trying to smear as somehow lacking the education to function in American society.

Maybe we should propose night classes for Republicans so their racism at least has some sound logic behind it?

Mitt Romney Backer Says Al Gore Plotting Mass Murder, Worse Than Hitler
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on March 5, 2007 at 10:07 AM.

Days prior to endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for President -- millionaire author Ann Coulter accused environmentalists, including former Vice President Al Gore, of plotting mass murder on a scale worse than Hitler or Stalin.

Once an outspoken supporter of environmental policy, Romney has recently flipped his stance on the environment in an effort to model his campaign after the current policies of President George W. Bush.

Claiming that Gore in particular and liberals in general use environmentalism to cloak their hidden plot to murder all but 1 million of the earth's population, Coulter wrote the following in her recent syndicated column (Feb. 28, 2007):

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by … Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

(Feb. 28, 2007, full article here)

Thus, the controversial Republican pundit included Gore and other environmentalists amongst the perpetrators of the 20th Century's worst genocides.

Coulter's column went on to charge Gore and others with the grotesque fantasy of wanting to force "229 million" people to die of starvation, particularly -- in Coulter's words -- the "fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class."

Coulter penned her conspiracy theory about Gore several days prior to endorsing Romney at the 2007 CPAC conference, and several days after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded the Oscar for Best Documentary to Davis Guggenheim's film An Inconvenient Truth, which featured the former Vice President's work on environmental initiatives.

Despite Coulter's accusations, Republican voters in recent election cycles have voiced increasing support for environmental initiatives.

The Mitt Romney campaign has yet to repudiate Coulter's charges.

CNBC's Kudlow on Donohue board
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on February 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM.

Guest post from Jeffrey Feldman.

When Bill Donohue launched his vicious and dangerous attack on John Edwards -- an attack that incited Donohue's followers to  threaten an Edwards campaign staffer with sodomy, rape, and murder -- his attack should have been dismissed as quickly as it began.  Unfortunately, Donohue was able to intervene in the the 2008 Presidential election because he has well-placed, loyal allies in the mainstream media -- allies who went unnoticed and unnamed as such, even as they used their position to give Donohue free and open access to FCC regulated television broadcasts.

Larry Kudlow is one such person.

A prominent and known figure on CNBC as a result of his financial analysis show Kudlow & Company, two facts are not widely known about Kudlow:

1. He is a recovering alcohol and cocaine addict
2. He is a board member of Bill Donohue's Catholic League
   

With this latter fact in mind, we can turn to the CNBC broadcast of Kudlow & Company aired February 9, 2007.

Without announcing it to his viewing audience -- Kudlow...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wasting resources and the real fight to protect America
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on July 5, 2006 at 11:20 AM.

Republicans are on the warpath again, returning to their old strategy of accusing Democrats of cowardice and treason on Iraq. And again, American frustration grows over a ruling party that uses the lives and ideals of our soldiers to fast-talk their way to re-election.

But Democrats, unlike Republicans, are again getting lost in the details of the debate, while the Republicans--despite their obvious political weaknesses--have kept their eyes, and their words, squarely on the frame.

In a national debate of this magnitude, the party that comes out on top will be the party that controls the frame because the frame--not the details--dictates the terms of the discussion. If Republicans dictate the terms of the discussion, they will win the debate, no matter how bad Iraq looks on the ground.

Two Frames Now Define Iraq Debate

The two frames are: 'War' and 'Waste.'

The 'War' Frame vs. The 'Waste' Frame: What is happening in Iraq?

Whether we realize it or not, the debate on Iraq is unfolding at two levels: message and frame.

At the level of 'message,' the debate consists of Republicans accusing Democrats of being cowards and of treason and betrayal and defeatism.

Also at the level of 'message,' the debate consists of Democrats talking about 'time tables for withdrawl and asking the Iraqi's to take 'responsibility for themselves' and so forth.

But there is a second level in the debate that is much, much broader. Rather than taking the form of the actual words people are saying, this second level--the level of the 'frame'--is unspoken.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

3 Steps to defeating Marriage Amendment
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on June 5, 2006 at 10:25 AM.

This week President Bush took time out from his busy schedule to renew his support for Constitionally enforced inequality in America -- a federal amendment banning equal rights [Fun with supporters of the Amendment HERE -- ed.]. Even though most of us believe that The Constitution of the United States should never be used to deny rights, President Bush believes it should.

Here we go again. Apparently, repeating the word "terror" over and over again is not enough to bring up President Bush's polling numbers. So…cracking open his trusty tupperware of hate-n-divide politics, President Bush has once again served up a healthy portion of: gay bashing for votes.

But we know all this. We know the old GOP strategy What we need to know, now, is how to stop this assault on equal rights. What can we say to put this genie back in the bottle once and for all?

Step 1: Talk About The Constitution...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The 5 words Bush didn't say
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on May 17, 2006 at 9:00 AM.

In an important comment last night during her guest appearance on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, Maria Elenas Salinas of Univision said the following about how Latinos are reacting to the anti-immigration movement unerfoot in America:

Whether this is a racial issue of not, I think, really when you start looking at the information, there are over half of Latinos in this country who do feel that this is a personal attack on their families, and we're talking about people who are American citizens and who are legal residents. They do believe this does affect them, even if they are not undocumented immigrants. And one of the things that we are seeing is definitely an increase in the amount of complaints about discrimination, about racial profiling and on hate crimes because of the tone of this issue that is a very emotional issue.

(read the entire transcript here)

President Bush, not surprisingly, did not use any words that speak to the fear and concern Salinas described. Instead, Bush spoke in terms that pandered to the panic of corporate CEOs and industry employers, unlawful businesses who use migrant workers to skirt fair labor laws and increase their profits.

Kudos to Maria Elena Salinas for casting light on the ugly truth at the bottom of President Bush's speech--for reminding us that this anti-immigration debate has become yet another attack of fear and division by the Republican party on the American public.

In response to Maria Elena Salinas' remarks, I wondered which words--if any--might have been missing from President Bush's speech, last night. What keywords were not in his speech?

Heading over to the transcript of the President's speech made available by the White House, I used the 'Find' function to find words that Bush failed to used, last night. Interestingly, the missing words are the very words Salinas uses to describe how Lationos feel about the current political situation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The road to World War III
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on April 19, 2006 at 9:00 AM.

This past weekend, I watched the Chris Matthews show in horror as a guest panel of high-paid journalists chit-chatted about an American nuclear strike against Iran. Is it good timing or bad timing for a nuclear strike? Is a nuclear strike legal? Is it appropriate? Would it cause political harm or raise political capital? Do it now? Do it later? The discussion was so casual, a viewer tuning in midway could have easily mistaken it for a conversation about mah-jongg or golf. Nuclear war, bandied about with a complete lack of gravitas, and without so much as a hint of concern about a White House frozen in the headlights of its own runaway foreign policy.

The key point left unstated by Chris Matthews" guests: A nuclear strike against Iran will crash America and the Middle East head on into World War III.

And that is exactly what Iran seems to want.

The "Road" To World War III

The missing frame from the current discussion of Iran' uranium enrichment program is precisely this idea of World War III. Before it is too late, Americans must join together and move the debate to this new frame, which has two key elements.

The idea that the Bush Administration is "heading down a road" or "driving in the wrong direction" is a basic and clear idea that must be repeated. So far, the debate on Iraq, and by extension on Iran, is caught in a vague discussion about "plans" and "policies." We are on the wrong highway, and it is time to get off. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans or somewhere in between or outside those two categories, we can all agree that the road our foreign policy is driving down will not get us where we want to go.

I want to emphasize this point: That U.S. foreign policy is on the wrong road is not a partisan issue.

The second element of this frame is the phrase "World War III," which must now be used in the media and in political debate in order to focus people's attention on what is really happening in the world. Again, this is not a partisan issue.

When discussing Iran, we must as a nation be willing to stand up and say, "We will not be led down the road to World War III."

The band of U.S. generals that have recently called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign have not been as effective as they could be because they did not frame their criticisms using the "road" metaphor and by invoking the specter of World War III.

What does this mean in actual debate language?

It means that when we are asked to consider the situation in Iran, concerned Americans should respond by saying, "Look, if U.S. foreign policy continues down this road then we are headed for World War III." Plain and simple.

The alternative is to keep talking about nuclear war as if it is something normal and casual--which appears to be the approach taken by the likes of Chris Matthews.

In our America, we should never allow nuclear strike to be discussed as if it is something other than the most horrific possible action. And since the press, the Congress and the White House have already veered off course on this debate, it is the responsibility of citizens to drive the debate back to solid moral ground.

Why the GOP has already lost 2006
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on March 27, 2006 at 3:48 AM.

I love the smell of framing in the morning. It's the smell of: Victory for the Democrats.

Based on the current dynamic of political debate in America, the Republican Party seems slated to lose big in the 2006 mid-term elections. There may not be a full swing in the House of Representatives, but even if there is a more modest uptick in Democratic seats, the losses will be enough for heads to roll in the upper echalons of the GOP.

To all skeptics of political soothsayers, rest at ease. This tale of impending GOP collapse is no crystal ball incantation or tea leaf reading. The proof is in the framing. And the framing favors Democrats.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush's Fish Stories
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on February 13, 2006 at 12:00 AM.

When it comes to national security, America is tired of fish stories from the white House. But when politics get a little tough for the White house, fish stories is what we seem to get from our President.

The President's latest fish story was about 'the big one' he caught while protecting the great city of Los Angeles from terrorism.

This is what a White House fish story sounds like as recently told by the President:

Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots -- including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack...a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.

Actually, here is no "Liberty Tower" in Los Angeles. There is a "Library" Tower (aka, U.S. Bank Tower), however, which is a great big building made famous for being blown up by a super big alien laser gun in the movie Independence Day. So, apparently, this so-called "disrupted" plot is such a huge and serious accomplishment that President Bush has trouble remembering the name of the building that he supposedly prevented from being destroyed by terrorists.

The Amazing thing about President Bush is that he always gives away when he is reading from a new script. The President is very good at staying on message once he has memorized and really believes the fish story his handlers have made up for him, but when the fish story is new, he always trips over the important details. The fact that the President called the "Library Tower" the "Liberty Tower" was a dead giveaway that this was a fish story.

But it got much worse than just a wrong name for a building. As the President continued to tell his fish story about the "serious" Los Angeles plot, it started to sound pretty, well...(ehem) fishy:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Don't just say 'spying'...
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on February 9, 2006 at 7:57 AM.

This is the second of two approaches to reframing the warrantless spying scandal. The first is HERE.

Despite the spreading concern over the NSA domestic spying scandal and the PATRIOT Act, President Bush and his cabinet are winning the political debate. When Americans of all political stripes protest the 'violation of rights,' the President and his team respond that these programs have 'saved American lives.'

It is time for all of us to stop tiptoeing around the issue and use better words to frame this debate:

4 WAYS TO REFRAME NSA-PATRIOT DEBATE:

1. Secret Police ("...Bush has brought secret police to America...")
2. Chilling Vision ("...Cheney's chilling vision reminds me of East Germany..."
3. Fear Spreading ("...fear spreading to every corner of America...")
4. Crack Down ("...threatens to crack down on ordinary Americans...")

These four phrases are not a critique of the ideas that Democrats have put forward in the past few weeks. Senator Feingold, for example, has focused attention on the problem of accessing 'library records' and the importance of 'checks and balances,' in addition to questions about the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping. These topics are very important, but they are still too rooted in questions of policy to adequately frame the entire debate.

The four suggestions presented in this post, push the debate to a question of values and morality. 

President Bush's national security programs have been based on this metaphor:

[national security] is [keeping secrets]

From this basic metaphor, the President, Vice President and Attorney General have been arguing that the more information is revealed about the NSA domestic spying scandal, the less safe we are as Americans.

In fact, that is not true, but it makes sense to Americans listening to the White House PR because the metaphor of 'security=keeping secrets' has been repeated so many times.

An important initial step to take in this debate is for Democrats -- for all interested Americans -- to reject this logic of national security as equal to or depending on keeping secrets.

As all Americans know from history -- particularly the history of the Soviet Union -- when secrecy becomes the driving force behind national security, that means that the executive branch of government is most afraid of, not concerned for, its own citizens. The end result is always the emergence of what we call 'secret police' -- that is, a branch of law enforcement that operates below the radar of public awareness and which answers directly and exclusively to the power of the executive branch. The existence of this form of 'secret police' is always justified on the basis of an 'enemy' within the nation (see this brief Wikipedia article for more information).

What distinguishes 'secret police' from all other forms of law enforcement is that their power is always unchecked by the laws of the land -- a privilege claimed as an extension of the executive. And even though the primary function of 'secret police' is to control and intimidate what is seen as a dangerous citizenry, the executive branch always presents them as a tool acting in the interests of citizens. In fact, 'secret police' are the embodiment of the executive branch's fear of its own citizens and deployed exclusively against them.

Preparing for the State of the Union
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 30, 2006 at 4:29 AM.

What is the difference between a 'theme' and a 'frame' in political speech?

According to the media, President Bush is busy rolling out the 'themes' he will present in his State of the Union Address, but is this really accurate? Not really. Despite what the media will tell us over the next few days, President Bush's 'theme' will not be very important. In fact, if Americans focus on the 'theme,' they may miss what the President has really doing this past week: frame the debate.

There Are Only Two 'Themes' In Politics: Change vs. More of the Same

In the State of the Union address, as in any election campaign, there are really only two possible themes in political debate.

Either a politician is talking about 'change' or they are talking about 'continuity' -- more of the same.

The 'theme' in this respect is just a broad organizing principle on which the individual messages of a campaign hang. When a communications director sits down with his or her candidate to prepare for a long campaign, the first thing they will discuss is the 'theme' for that campaign. "Is our theme going to be 'continuity' or 'change'?"

Not surprisingly, which candidates or politicians pick 'change' and which pick 'More of the Same' as their theme is easy to predict.

Politicians already in office pick 'more of the same.' Those seeking to get into office pick 'change.' (Not rocket science).

In a political campaign within government, the choice is the same. For the party governing, the messages that begin a new term of entering into office are guided by the theme 'change' which slowly gives way to 'more of the same' the longer that official holds office.

President Bush campaigned under the theme 'change' when he was first elected, and then switched to 'more of the same' in his second term. And he's been there ever since.

Overall, as we can see, knowing what the 'theme' will be for President Bush's State of the Union is not very helpful. We already know it.

The real question we should be asking -- and it would be great if the media was also asking it -- is: What 'frame' is President Bush attempting to build in his communications leading up to the State of the Union?

That is a much more important question, and it is much more difficult to see.

Frames Provide the Broad Logic for An Entire Debate

To find the frames for the President's State of the Union, we need to ask (1) What has the President saying and (2) How has he been saying it?

Answers to these two questions will allow us to arrive at a very broad set of ideas and values that the President wants to put in place so as to structure everything that is said before, during and after the State of the Union.

FRAME 1: President as Friend of the People

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »