May 2, 2009
"It is time to drop the term 'the environment' and talk about 'the air we breathe, the water our children drink.'"
Because we're dumb, and you need to manipulate us. More blather about "framing." Hey, maybe you need another word for "framing" — you need to reframe framing — because I think that’s a code word for progressive liberals...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
75 comments:
The Death Tax
William Jefferson Clinton
Up or down vote
The Democrat party
Good thing conservatives don't frame.
Misrepresent the mouldering milieu.
The blame in shame stays mostly in the frame.
I find it amusing that the definitions are getting longer for all the 'terms' being dropped...
For example: Terrorism becomes man made disaster and according to the article, "Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.”
Let's imagine the green mother saying to her impressionable four year "Honey, when you grow up I want you to move away from the dirty fuels of the past.."
Everything is now a mouthful.
How about using, "Dirty earth?"
Green Mother "Don't leave behind a dirty earth!"
Four year old "No Dirty earth! No Dirty earth!"
What about using Carboncut? Here's a slogan - Be a carbon-cutter not a carbon nutter!"
They need to keep it short and catchy - they are losing their touch. Everyone uses Global Warming because it comes trippingly off the tongue...
I am not giving up pasta carbonara, no matter what Al Gore demands I do. I refuse to reduce my carbonara footprint.
I gave up carbon copies. Is that not enough?
"Good thing conservatives don't frame."
The problem isn't framing per se but talking and whining and bitching about framing.
If only we could frame as well as the conservatives... blah blah blah... that's our problem...
That's what I'm bitching about.
"dirty fuels"
Note how the article characterizes carbon dioxide as "dirty." Carbon dioxide isn't dirty!
Why not insist that your house guests not only take their shoes off at the door and refrain from smoking but that they not breathe?
"Why not insist that your house guests not only take their shoes off at the door and refrain from smoking but that they not breathe?"
I'm sure that's part of the plan at the later stages. One of my students was talking about human beings as "the pollution" that plagues the earth, so apparently the "framing" is already happening: our very existence is being framed for the murder of Mother Earth.
Why do you think they want State-sponsored and controlled "health care" so much? It will get rid of a lot of "polluters".
Yesterday, Maryland's Governor O'Malley declaimed that following the CDC guidelines for the H1N1 virus is our patriotic duty. The phrasing struck me as odd. Notwithstanding Biden's laughable, particularly in retrospect, insistence that paying taxes is patriotic, are the Democrats making a concerted effort to retake the patriotism meme?
ALE, - I don't get the William Jefferson Clinton reference. Too subtle for me. Care to expound about what is dishonorable in use of his full name? The Death Tax is an excellent framing, don't you think? Almost Alinsky worthy. As is the Democrats use of "Republicans reduced funding" when they in fact merely reduced the increase in funding. That one particularly annoys me. Democrats shouldn't take advantage of uninformed voters that way.
I am not giving up pasta carbonara, no matter what Al Gore demands I do. I refuse to reduce my carbonara footprint.Al doesn't want you to give up carbonara...he just wants you to add a vegatable. You know...Give Peas A Chance!
Our State Religion has reframed Sin and Righteousness and Judgement into more commonly used terms of Polluted and Pure and Capped and Traded. The replacement Diety of course is Man himself in all his Power and Glory. Behold the Environmental Man riding on the Windmills! He clones life as he pleases. He ethnically cleanses the Earth of Palinoid Thinkers who still dare to mention the name and the power of the Ancient of Days called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The culture our young are being indoctrinated into today is not merely post-Christian...It is activly in Replacement of Christianity mode.
You know...Give Peas A Chance!
Especially whirled peas.
Maybe what we ought to do is have a good old fashioned global war, preferably thermo-nuclear global war.
That way we could accomplish three progressive goals at once:
- population reduction
- reduction in industrial output, and
- a nuclear winter that would solve that AGW issue.
why with a little luck the icecaps would reach to say Baltimore, thus increasing polar bear habitat.
They should stop saying “global warming” and start saying “baby killing” and be done with it.
Framing means shaping for soap opera, in the political use.
It doesn't have to be true, it only has to drive out alternative narratives by having legs among the chosen audience.
No other narrative goes anywhere, at bottom simply because of a business model for the news audience.
That's how you get swine flu 24/7, and it was how you got shark attacks 24/7 in the summer of 2001.
Everybody is and was asking WTF but the stories didn't die.
Framing aims to create stories like that.
[L]acegrl130 said: I find it amusing that the definitions are getting longer for all the 'terms' being dropped...
That’s so the people who conform get to feel like they are smarter than the people who don’t.
Effective, sure, but it wears off eventually and that's when the guys in the lab coats, looking down at the Skinner boxes, have to come up with something new.
*sigh* When will it end? All this "Green" business is utterly tiresome at this point. Let me re-frame that: utterly puke-worthy.Why do you think they want State-sponsored and controlled "health care" so much? It will get rid of a lot of "polluters".
Well, to be fair, they don't want to get rid of everybody. Just capitalists.
Wasn't population reduction a big thing 30 years ago too?
What happened during the last 30 years? Were the proponents of Zero Populaation Growth out raising a family, and just now realized- as teh youngest of their 3 entered high school and they suddenly have a few minutes to think again- that they were against people having children?
You know- for the sake of the children !
You know knox, I am on the mailing list for a local homeowners association and in the last issue we had a member's screed that ended with the idea that if you think windmills are ugly, things will get even uglier if we are stop the poles from melting.
I took it as tongue in cheek, but you never know...
Progressive liberal is framing too. It gives radicals an acceptable cachet.
I do agree that they should just call a spade a spade. But when it comes to certain people, they seek perfection. How clean is clean? How much greener do we have to get? It is a never ending search for idealist perfection; something that does not exist in nature.
"...remember to speak in TALKING POINTS...."
Yes, we certainly need those!
Why is it the air we breathe but the water our children drink?
I drink water!
(Not that I'm whining or bitching about the framing -- no Sir!)
It was a criticism of J.L.Austin's philosophizing that he followed the rule that the way to keep things from going wrong was to keep them from starting to go wrong.
That's the idea of talking points at bottom.
No traction for anything else.
"Why is it the air we breathe but the water our children drink?"
You have to get the children™ in there somehow.
Use the following in a talking point: air, children, breathe, drink.
It would seem at first glance that you'd have to drink children.
It would be like talking about unborn babies instead of talking about fetuses and embryos.
Fish embryos would be unborn fish.
As is the Democrats use of "Republicans reduced funding" when they in fact merely reduced the increase in funding. That one particularly annoys me. Democrats shouldn't take advantage of uninformed voters that way.
Yeah. I remember when that was the screed against Sarah Palin wrt state funding to assist pregnant teenagers or some such thing. The progressives (how 1984ish can we get?) were screeching about how she "cut" it
Well, IIRC she actually approved a significant increase. She just did not give them what THEY thought THEY needed and should have. Anything different was retrogressive. So it was a "cut" they could use against her with the uneducated and busy.
Actually, framing is more commonly discussed in the context of promoting a scientific worldview while masking its incompatibility with theism.
Framing comes from Erving Goffman Frame Analysis.
How meta...
Maybe we need to reframe the framing debate about the word "framing"
It would seem at first glance that you'd have to drink children.
Excellent.
Knox wrote: *sigh* When will it end? All this "Green" business is utterly tiresome at this point.
I'm with you knox. I've recently come to realize I have *had my fill* with this "green" crap.
It's foul sloganeering, and class-ism at its worst.
I am so tired of being propagandized by everyone from the grocery store to 24. (I try to turn it off before I get lectured by Jack, or President Taylor, or, GF, Janeane Garofalo about climate change.)
Talk about reframing -- How did the American people get re-framed into being brain dead victims?
I do not need the POTUS to tell me to wash my hands.
I do not need someone in DC to change the name of a disease because they think I am too stupid to pick up that it doesn't come from eating pig meat.
I am tired of a government that doesn't believe one single bit that We, the People know anything about how to be a country.
So this "green" thing makes me see red. It's one more way for people to sniff and feel self righteous.
There are ways to educate people -- and there are ways to cram transient ideologies down people's throats. Excuse me -- re-frame things so they are more acceptable. Doublespeak crap./rant
There. That's off my chest. Now I can go out and finish my donkey pen.
Politicians are funny. They propose policies and at first the public supports them, but as time goes by and people learn more about the topic they start to distrust the proposals.
Instead of changing the policy, politicians start describing the policy by new names, so the public has to go through the learning process all over again.
Then politicians complain about the public being cynical.
ALE, Democrat Party isn't an example of framing. It's more accurately a grammatically incorrect usage of the noun form which has gained popularity due to its amazing ability to annoy democratics. I think the confusion derived from a misunderstanding of the usage of republican as both a noun and adjective. Democratic and democrat don't suffer that confusion.
The Death Tax
William Jefferson Clinton
Up or down vote
The Democrat partyLiberal Elite Pinko
Fellow-Traveler
Stalin's Fifth Column
Pawn of a Muscovite Slavemaster
Frame that.Beeyotch.
ALE--
"William Jefferson Clinton"
A few things that come into mind on this one:
1) His staff started that.
2) Invoking the name of Jefferson, one of our most loved Presidents and historic figures, sounds to me like a way of positively framing someone rather than negatively.
3) Two probably explains one.
Also, regarding the "Democrat Party", this one is another that always struck me as odd. It does not sound like an insult to these uninvolved ears, but it sure seems to drive Democrats (Democratics?) batty. I am guessing that the Republicans did it not because it frames the Democrats in any meaningful way with the public, but because it gets under the skin of, well, the American liberal elite.
My last sentence should have read:
"Democratic and democrat don't suffer that misunderstanding, but the grammatical confusion managed to jump the aisle."
Maybe what we ought to do is have a good old fashioned global war, preferably thermo-nuclear global war.
How about a nice game of chess?
Completely off topic but is anyone else having trouble reaching sites that are linked via Instapundit? This site took 5 reload attempts to get through. A couple of pjmedia posts last night had the same issue - they simply weren't available on the first click. Is althouse's server overloaded by visitors or is something else going on?
It would be like talking about unborn babies instead of talking about fetuses and embryos.You mean, talking about fetuses and embroys instead of talking about unborn babies.
Liberals like the "fetus" word because it's dehumanizing. It sounds like an alien in a bad movie. The Fetus From Outer Space.
A partially born baby is half-baby, half-fetus. Like a minotaur.
Birth is actually the point at which the baby has a social relation to the world, which relation is important to the word.
I prefer fetus because it's short and to the point. Do you know what a fetus is? Yes?
Unborn baby? Twice as many syllables, two words. True, it's alliterative, but not easy to say.
"our deteriorating atmosphere"
Yeah, that's the ticket
--Tommy Flanagan
The reason I use "Democrat Party" is to remind people that it is the party of elitist socialism, union goons, and thug bosses and that there is nothing democratic about it, and, besides, it really gets under their skin;-).
Changing American behavior is no easy task. First they try the carrot, then they come with the stick. Framing is part of the carrot phase. Increased taxes, fees and penalties are part of the stick phase.
So when Ann asked if they thought we were dumb and needed to be manipulated? No way! They are trying to tap into what might positively move us to change our current behavior before they are forced to use their stick on us...again.
Get along little doggies, get along.
Kylos,
No, it's not a grammatical issue at all; English is perfectly happy with compound nouns and noun phrases--for example, I give you:
crack house
whore house
home improvement
though not all of these are likely to remind you of Democrats in Congress.
Isn't the real objection simply that the name is "Democratic Party", not "Democrat Party"? It would just like persisting in calling someone "Dave" after they told you they preferred to be called "David".
My current pet peeve is calling all the new spending "investments". Today, I was watching cable news, and most of the talking heads were down on the economy, with one years GDP being pledged for bailing out the banking system, etc. But then, the requisite Obama representative started jumped in claiming that all that spending was good because the Obama Administration was "investing" in education and health care.
What I couldn't figure out was whether she actually believed that flushing semi-truck loads of money down the toilet and calling it "investment" might actually turn lead into gold, or that she thought that everyone watching this money show was really that stupid that they would believe it.
No. Socializing medicine is not going to get us out of the current recession, and no, giving NEA members raises and hiring more NEA union members won't either. Neither will Harry Reid's high speed train to LA, etc.
---
"Isn't the real objection simply that the name is "Democratic Party", not "Democrat Party"? It would just like persisting in calling someone "Dave" after they told you they preferred to be called "David"."
___
Yep. There is a difference between framing and just being an ass. That 7-year-old kid who keeps poking you with a stick is not "framing."
Also, regarding the "Democrat Party", this one is another that always struck me as odd. It does not sound like an insult to these uninvolved ears, but it sure seems to drive Democrats (Democratics?) batty. I am guessing that the Republicans did it not because it frames the Democrats in any meaningful way with the public, but because it gets under the skin of, well, the American liberal elite.I do it as a reminder that the Democrat party is not democratic, nor do they believe in democracy, therefore they shouldn't get to play on the double meaning of "democratic".
And yes, it drives them bonkers.
Bruce, I agree completely. Considering the only way the US government knows how to make money is by printing it, we really shouldn't be letting them make investment decisions.
And I would love if a reporter asked, "Mr. President, you're a millionaire; how many shares of GM do you own?"
Why don't we call all these viruses "Climate Change Disease"? It's a two-fer: offends no one, pushes the ideology.
rhhardin --
"Birth is actually the point at which the baby has a social relation to the world, which relation is important to the word."
Only if by social relation to the world you don't include the mother and father and anyone else thumping on or listening to the kid inside. Been there, they respond. That's social interaction.
Only if by social relation to the world you don't include the mother and father and anyone else thumping on or listening to the kid inside. Been there, they respond. That's social interaction.
Yes. As far as usage goes, if you want to know if a fetus has a soul, look at the parents, not the fetus. A soul, as far as usage goes, is what connects us to others.
Parents would use ``baby'' when they've bought the nursery stuff, purchased baseball mitt and bat, and so forth. The baby has a social place with them, having nothing to do with whether it responds. There's nothing you have to prove by saying it responds; it's not falsified if it doesn't respond.
Birth is where the baby is cute to the world, and so everybody has a relation to it; it's a nice place for a bright line, legally.
And usage-wise, the word knows it too.
Various theoretical positions detect a slippery slope here and take a dogmatic stand against usage as a preventative measure, as if usage weren't enough to guarantee theoretical safety; when actually it reflects what people find worth distinguishing.
“We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument."
no they think of al gore which causes a massive migraine.
Eat Greens, Don't Vote For Them.
I still have my fingers crossed that the Church of Global Warming and its carbon-fraud agenda will end up an object of ridicule.
It think this frame-job could backfire. If the greens want to talk about "thje air we breathe and the water our children drink" then they have to explain how air and water quality have drastically improved in the past 40 years, even though population has more than doubled and consumption of natural resources has increased 10-fold. Compare the air in New York today to the air there 150 years ago, before cars. Sewage and human waste was in the gutters and horse manure was trampled to dust and floated thick in the air. Life expectancy is up.
Ah yes, rebranding the enviro-green-lefty-kook bowel movement again into something meaningful and more earthy talk about the air we breath, and the water our children drink. As if the image of children drinking tap water is bad given the strict laws on municipal water districts. The enviro-green-lefty-kook moron crew would rather that we spend untold trillions on making the atmosphere pure oxygen and have champagne flow from our taps. These people are the bottom of the leftist barrel. DTL would find good company.
framing is a codeword for liberals? Really?
We learned it by watching conservatives!!
Ha-ha!
Ann Althouse, discovering the world.
Conservatives used to be very good with frameworks. Let's not deny them their due:
Conservative Framework: Liberal men are wimpy, liberal women are masculine.
Conservative Framework: Government is a burden and intrusive while the private sector is the home of freedom and heroes and honest people.
Conservative Framework: The private sector will set you free. Government stifles.
Conservative Framework: Conservatism is the real American view, liberal is anti-American.
Conservative Framework: Religious means conservative.
Conservative Framework: Welfare means black lady in Cadillac paying for groceries with food stamps (Ronald Reagan).
Conservative Framework: We're vulnerable to [insert threat of the day] and need to lavish money on the military.
Many conservatives, and Ann Althouse, have these pretty deeply embedded in their thinking so much they thinks these are facts.
Ah, yes! Let's not forget the classic, "Use a sympathetic face for corporate policies."
Corporate framing: Health care reform wasn't about taking parisitic insurance companies out of health care. No, it was about "Harry and Louise."
Corporate framing: Don't call it an "inheritance tax" or "estate tax,", call it a "death tax."
Corporate framing: When calling for estate tax repeal, point to farmers, even though they are 2% of the affected population and often exempt.
Then there's the abortion debate.
Framing: "Pro-Life" Not pro-controlling your life.
Framing: Avoid at all costs saying: We want to throwing women and doctors party to abortions in jail.
Framing: Don't say: We care for zygotes and sperm. Those are all "life" or "babies."
Framing: Reproductive rights. (Of course, this strikes me as honest).
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”Holy crap, do people really pay for advice like this? I especially like "pollution reduction refund." Is the general public really this stupid?
And, btw, carbon dioxide isn't a "dirty fuel." How do I know this? Because my state of California cleaned up its air in large part by converting the gases that do dirty the air to CO2 which doesn't (each of us who owns a car has our own little CO2 manufacturing machine). And my state of California would never do anything to add to our deteriorating atmosphere. Why, we lead the nation in saving money for a more prosperous future.
You know, I think I learned something today Stan. I think I know what framing is now. Its not a conspiracy. Its just the way you look at something. And we're all, you know, looking at something all the time. I mean we "look at" Cartman like he's a fatass, and he "frames" us as mean and unfair, and we "frame" his complaining as whiney and stupid. Its just how you look at something that's simple and stupid and make it look as if it really sucks a$$!
Cabela sells sun blocking men's wear in both fossil and sage.
Nothing in Indian red. It's not a Crayola thing.
Note how the article characterizes carbon dioxide as "dirty." Carbon dioxide isn't dirty!
Exactly. Plants love carbon dioxide. It's how they breath and if they didn't we wouldn't breath either because they respirate oxygen.
If the eco weenies want to worry about green house gas, how about they reflect on this. Water vapor is the largest component of green house gases. Frame that to be human caused.
Personally, I'm looking forward to more global warming. Living will be more pleasant, plants will grow better, we will have more food, we will need to use less fuels to keep warm in the winter. I don't see a downside.
They can take all the framing of the 'dialogue' they want and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.” (my emphasis)
Hell, just tell me about the "Big Rock Candy Mountain" some more. That never gets old.
* * *
There is a reason that globalist environmentalists they don't want to talk (too much) about "the air we breathe, the water our children drink."
Air and water are local issues.
They are also well-defined economic externalities. You can't kill the smoking dragon of capitalism by talking about local issues that fall under classical economic theory.
"AlphaLiberal said...
Then there's the abortion debate.
Framing: "Pro-Life" Not pro-controlling your life."
Pro-lifers don't want to stop you from having control over whether you have sex or not, whether you use birth control or not, or whether, should you get pregnant, you keep your baby or adopt it out. "Pro-life" means pro-letting the baby live.
"Framing: Avoid at all costs saying: We want to throwing women and doctors party to abortions in jail."
Please point to any indication that women who have abortions or the doctors who perform them are to be jailed if pro-lifers get their way.
"Framing: Don't say: We care for zygotes and sperm. Those are all 'life' or 'babies.'"
Do you mean "ova" and "sperm"? Please get your terms straight. Wikipedia will explain to you what a zygote is. Yes, it is life. You were a zygote once. All mammals start that way.
"Framing: Reproductive rights. (Of course, this strikes me as honest)."
Of course. You have the right to reproduce, or not - this is already the case, see above. Your offspring, if any, have no rights until they manage to get born.
I always thought framing was about providing false evidence. Hmmm. That may not be far off after all.
Water vapor is the largest component of green house gases. Frame that to be human caused.Steam plants and steaming hot coffee. Washing clothes with hot water. Steaming vegetables. And worst of all burning hydrocarbons. What we need is low hydrocarbon coal. Oil and natural gas are dirty fuels.
reframing - false evidence
fear - False Evidence Appearing Real
reframing = FEARmongering
I didn't have kids so I am net negative in my carbon footprint and I want a bunch of carbon credits to auction off every year for millions of dollars. Reward the Nulliparous!
The ultimate reframing is the power bill, which is already going up, sparking petitions and protests against the utility commission April 15. Lost in the noise of the tea parties.
I live in coal country - EPA is blocking permitting - mines are laying off and shutting down - not for lack of demand. Coal prices are good. Demand is good. Artificial scarcity will incrase power rates and that will reframe things blazingly fast.
Laura(southernxyl), with a complicated handle, responds...
Please point to any indication that women who have abortions or the doctors who perform them are to be jailed if pro-lifers get their way.See the anti-abortion movement, which seeks to make abortion illegal and call the women and Dr's "baby killers." How else do you punish lawbreaking like "baby killing"? Citations and fines?
Add to that that the conservative penchant for "locking people up and throwing away the key."
If abortion is killing, both the doctor and the woman are party to the killings. Have you guy gone soft on crime already or found an uncomfortable question?
p.s. "baby killing" is, itself, a framing of the issue.
Ice shelves in the Antarctic are collapsing far faster than expected. Around the globe the results are pouring largely in as predicted and forecast.
Here's a framing for you: Why do people think we can take billions of tons of carbon stored underground for millions of years, pump that up into the atmosphere, and nothing will happen as a result?
The opposition to global warming action is based primarily on two things:
A) thinking like "if my ideological opponents are for it, I'm against it."
B) vested interests who make money/campaign contributions from the current carbon-spewing system.
I think Althouse and most commenters here fall into camp A. Not an especially thoughtful position.
Well, alpha liberal, if my handle is too complicated for you, you can call me "Laura" as others do. I am not the only Laura out there, hence my extended username.
Pro-lifers do not want to throw people in jail. We want people to not have or perform abortions. If we ever give humans human rights starting from conception, as we should, then the murderers of fetuses will go to jail. I'm OK with that. It's not my primary focus. My primary focus, and that of other pro-lifers I know, is to stop the killing in the first place.
Oh, and did you mention framing of the Antarctic ice shelf breakup?
Our side could definitely learn from yours here. This is really something.
They are reframing, using longer strings of words, because they need to deceive you. The older lies aren't working so they need new lies.
See George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
Post a Comment