Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Framing

For every Democrat in Congress, here's a little help, because I know you're not all that great with words:

"I'm all for spying on terrorists, but if you're going to spy on Americans, you have to abide by the law. We can be both safe and free."

Repeat 1,000 times and call me in November. (And give up the proposed, crappy new party slogan, "We Can Do Better." Truth is, we couldn't do worse.)
"BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

2 comments:

Thersites D. Scott said...

A reader commented in a different thread about this post: One thing though,what's a terrorist? Generic term.

I answered her there, but am reposting the meat of that response here as well:

I agree with you: in my book, the violent "militia" movement is terrorist and eco-saboteurs aren't, while the Bushies see it exactly the opposite. But my use of the word was designed as a "wildcard": whatever the LISTENER (who is afraid of "the terrorists") means by the term, we support spying on them. Simplistic? Sure. But reassuring and rhetorically powerful.

I also agree that we shouldn't buy in to the Republicans' misuse of the word, which the preceding paragraph sounds like we're doing. We need safeguards against misuse of the term, and we need to include some indication of our opposition to misuse of the word in our position statement. But I think that's implicit in the second part of the quote: if you want to spy on Americans -- ANY Americans, whether you call them terrorists or not -- you have to abide by the law. To me, that covers it.

Agree? Disagree?

lucretia said...

A further point here, I think we should stop throwing around the word 'terrorist',as though when used about someone, anyone, it immediately brings up a picture of a 'dangerous' or 'suspicious' person. How the hell does anyone make this distinction? Where did they get the evidence? Well, they didn't, they don't need any.

Small minds use this stuff as dictatorial administrations like Bush know well. They plant the framing.

Again, I emphasize here. How much terrorism do we have to fear? It's been blown up as something that will never end. I do not think the evidence is there that we have ever had to fear countless terrorist attacks of magnitude here or anywhere else.

The problem in the future is this: If this country does not stop trying to take over more and more countries to get energy control, building installations for troops in each country, after the 'insurgency' is over, we're asking for it. Currently, I read the US is building three big installations for troops in Iraq. How would you feel if some superpower ie. China, came in here and did same?

The Bush group invent the reasons for going into these countries, it's so transparent.