I've always had difficulty telling my right from my left, which has led to many an awkward, if not dangerous, moment whenever I'm suddenly told to do things such as raise my right hand or turn left here. Unfortunately, this odd form of dyslexia can't bear the blame for my increasing difficulty in discerning the political right from the left.

In this free country, thousands of diverse political organizations exist, all taking turns on the soapbox trying to rally us to their side. Yet, in their first step to make a name for themselves, they must be conspiring to confuse me. The long list of good government groups is a hodgepodge of similar-sounding titles that give little indication of what they stand for. For instance, there's the Public Concern Foundation, Public Good, Public Citizen, Citizen Action, Citizen Alert, Citizen Soldier and Citizens for a Future New Hampshire. Who knew that New Hampshire was in danger of extinction?

In an age when many Americans would be hard-pressed to simply name their congressman, how many can discriminate between Co-op America and Empower America? Between the American Federation of Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists? The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy and the American Center for Law and Justice?

Even the websites of these groups don't make it easy. Very few political groups come to the table completely unbiased in their viewpoints. That doesn't stop many of them from describing themselves as a "non-profit, non-partisan organization." Maybe they're not trying to mislead the public as much as attempting to maintain their IRS tax status -- but that's no excuse for the media. Those rascals often can't be depended upon to clarify a group's leanings when quoting them. Even the media watchdog groups indulge in their own share of obfuscation: Who can remember whether Accuracy in Media (AIM) or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is coming from the right or left?

Most recently, I've had to get out my secret decoder ring to decipher the bias of the quotes and data appearing in stories about the tax plans of the Presidential candidates. Taxes are the favorite topic of many groups -- Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Fair Taxation, Citizens for Limited Taxation, the National Taxpayers' Union -- but the Citizens for Tax Justice and their scoring of the various plans has received the lion's share of the publicity. I've yet to see anyone identify this group as one that advocates using taxes as a means to redistribute wealth, though. Am I the only one who thinks that's important to know before I take their data at face value?

I'm always a little skeptical if the title of an advocacy group seems to leave little room for argument. Maybe their euphemistic euphoria is just an attempt to shame me into their way of thinking. The People for the American Way has a nicely patriotic ring. But who's standing up for the UnAmerican Way? Osama bin Laden and his ilk? Similarly, who could argue with Health Care Without Harm? Obviously someone does or else there wouldn't be any need for the group.

Why would The Center for the New American Dream want to evoke images of a rags-to-riches rise to prosperity -- swimming pools, movie stars -- when they're out to combat "excessive consumerism." On the other hand, the stance of the American Conservative Union appears obvious enough, but isn't the title a bit of an oxymoron in that most conservatives oppose unions?

Some names will simply stick with some people, no matter what. The work of John James Audubon and the organization named after him was pounded into me in elementary school, so despite the nondescript name, I can immediately recall the philosophy of the Audubon Society when I see the name. But for some strange reason, my brain temporarily short-circuits when I hear the John Birch Society mentioned, and I get a fleeting image of pretty white-barked trees.

How about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation? Liberal environmental organization or conservative think tank? Those institutes and foundations -- Brookings Institution, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Reason Foundation - are tricky little devils. It's impossible to tell what the Cato Institute advocates without further information. [Hint: It was named after either a) O.J. Simpson's former houseguest, b) the Green Hornet's sidekick, or c)Cato's Letters, libertarian pamphlets that helped instigate the American Revolution.]

Other groups do give you a fighting chance in knowing their cause. The Clean Air Network and the Clean Water Network both seem to cleanly state their case upfront, while the Clean Land, Air and Water group might be spreading themselves a bit too thin (and it does seem odd to advocate clean dirt). But is the Clean Car Campaign a front group for the car-wash association?