Letters to the Editor
sysprog
Published Letters: 1591 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Mixed Signals from the Administration - - on the very question of whether Mixed Signals are always bad
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070403.html
April 3, 2007
President Bush Makes Remarks on the Emergency Supplemental
The Rose Garden
10:09 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: . . . I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is a -- it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region, and to the Iraqi citizens . . .
- - President Bush, as reported by the White Househttp://washingtontimes.com/world/20070417-114819-7177r.htm
World Scene
April 18, 2007
Gates finds blessing in push for timetable
AMMAN, Jordan -- The push by Democrats to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has been helpful in showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday. At the same time, Mr. Gates renewed his opposition to congressional approval of a timetable. Both the House and Senate have passed bills calling for an end to the war, and President Bush has said he would veto either version. "I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake," Mr. Gates said."But I think the debate itself, and I think the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable ... probably has had a positive impact -- at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," he said.
- - Secretary Gates, as reported in the Washington Times
Despite his disclaimer -- that timetables and deadlines are good, but only if NOT enacted -- Secretary Gates is clearly stating that President Bush's policy of open-ended commitment is wrong and/or unsustainable.
-
shooter242 Lies Again
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was attacking shooter242's values, and I was defending due process, not defending Feinstein's values.
shooter242 falsely equated a convicted and jailed war profiteer to an accused war profiteer who hasn't been convicted. He feels strongly that it's not fair that the convict is in jail while the second person, who may be equally guilty, is unpunished.
I'm all for jailing war profiteers, but unlike shooter242, I feel strongly that it's fair to wait until after they've been tried and convicted.
Is it fair that a convict goes to jail, and somebody else, who might be guilty of the same thing, hasn't been punished at all?
Yes.
Everybody finds due process a frustrating thing, and its results are often disappointing. But if you demonstrate a disdain for due process, are you a conservative?
No.
-
Bad Framing versus Good Framing
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Washington Post op-ed :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041302064_pf.htmlThanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.
By Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney
Sunday, April 15, 2007; B03
. . . Scientists excel at research; creating knowledge is their forte. But presenting this knowledge to the public is something else altogether. It's here that scientists and their allies are stumbling in our information-overloaded society -- even as scientific information itself is being yanked to center stage in high-profile debates. Scientists have traditionally communicated with the rest of us by inundating the public with facts; but data dumps often don't work. People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less rational factors. In 2000 Americans didn't pore over explanations of President Bush's policies; they asked whether he was the kind of guy they wanted to have a beer with. So in today's America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge. . .http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/nisbet_and_mooney_in_the_wapo.php
Posted on: April 14, 2007 10:36 PM, by PZ Myers
. . . Thanks, guys. Good framing. "Science is boring" . . .
. . . Is "framing" another word for obfuscation, or dissembling, or pandering? That's the only message I'm getting so far. That's probably very poor framing on their part . . .
- - PZ MyersComments
[ #22 ] PZ - I agree that they don't do a good job of explaining how to do the selling. And they're not doing a very good job of explicating why framing is so important. The simple version is that, in general, people hold strong worldviews or frames which aren't capable of being "changed" simply by attacking them with logic and information. To really persuade people and get them to understand something new and threatening (e.g. - evolution for a fundamentalist), the teacher (for that's what you are) must frame the discussion in a way that takes account of and engages the frame of the person you want to teach . . .
- - Posted by: RBB | April 14, 2007 11:48 PMBad framing is just noise. But good framing means having the facts on your side AND presenting the facts in a persuasive way. Like what Glenn Greenwald does, for instance.
-
Framing
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Framing
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/4/18/115613/931
From Justice Ginsburg's dissent:
The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion [written by Justice Kennedy] refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."