Author: pyrrho

I’m not into having a War on “Terror”.  I don’t object to war on a...

I despise elitism, and who doesn’t?  Who endorses elitism? No one, practically, elitism...

Specifically a man. What makes a good man? I think I have good answer, but I don’t want to...

First off, I totally admit I am posting this here because I know there are those that...

Firstly… I only engage Booman on this out of respect.  From my point of view we are using the classical philosophical/scientific/intellectual dialogue method. When Einstein said, “God Doesn’t Play Dice” in criticism of Niels Bohr’s theory, it was out of respect… he didn’t debunk the nutty theories of just anyone. When Bohr said “don’t tell God what to do”… the debate was very clarifying. The issues are still not really resolved, but the dispute is a part of the argument, helping to illuminate the dispute still.

Well… we’re not Einstein and Bohr, but my point is… I take contrast with Booman because I think it’s worth it. Booman’s position is relevant, it’s clear, it’s intentional… it’s well thought out (but mistaken), all good things in a position used to contrast its anti-pode.

Framing is about ideas, the ideas are everywhere, they are the engines behind what we say… to say “don’t frame, just do” is to say “don’t have an engine in your car… just go”… frames are the programs of the mind. To say, “don’t frame” is to say, “don’t run a word processing program… just word process”.

You cannot speak without framing.

The simplest perspective to have on framing is to understand that frames are made of the metaphor we think with, from which we draw conclusions.

Asking progressive to frame is asking us to think about which metaphors we use, to know why we use them, to create new metaphors and refine those we use, and to never use metaphors rigged against us. That last one is important, the advice is to recognize rigged, dishonest metaphors, when we see them.

Booman is actually quite good at this! So I have sought out the frames in his good work at dkos debunking the “defense” of the WH by the WSJ.