There may or may not be an attack but there probably will be various
persuasive and arousing ways to frame either outcome;
In communication theory, and sociology, framing is a process of
selective control over the individual's perception of media, public,
or private communication, in particular the meanings attributed to
words or phrases. Framing defines how an element of rhetoric is
packaged so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others.
Media frames can be created by the mass media or by specific political
or social movements or organizations. The concept is generally
attributed to the work of Erving Goffman, especially his 1974 book,
Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience...
...In politics, linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase
"tax relief"; the use of the word "relief" implies a notion that the
prevailing level of taxes put strain on the citizen, and casts those
who oppose it as insensitive to taxpayers; similarly, when tax
reductions are framed as "giveaways to the rich," this casts those who
support reduced taxation in a bad light.
Terms which frame debate seek to limit the possibilities of discourse
by setting the vocabulary and metaphors by which an issue can be
discussed. In this view, framing cannot be avoided-it is an inherent
part not just of political discourse, but of literally all cognition,
both conscious and unconscious-but the effort should be made to do it
consciously.
According to Klandermans, a sociologist, the "social construction of
collective action frames," involves "public discourse, that is, the
interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive
communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations,
their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness
raising during episodes of collective action." (1997: p. 45)
Cultural anthropologist Jeffrey Feldman, writing about framing and
politics in his Framing the Debate suggests that frames are cognitive,
cultural and historical. Feldman demonstrates that for framing to be
effective as strategic politics, it must be rooted in rhetorical
tradition. Feldman makes his case by drawing on historic speeches
(e.g., Presidential addresses) to understand and define contemporary
debate challenges...
...Buzzword Communication theory Code word (figure of speech)
Demagoguery Figure of speech Frame analysis Framing effect Language
and thought Meme Newspeak Political frame Power word Stovepiping Trope
Argumentation Theory;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%%28communication_theory%%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%%28psychology%%29
Framing effect is a phenomenon observed when a decision maker, faced
with a dilemma, becomes susceptible to the manipulation of context,
where choices are controlled by how risky decision-frame options are
presented. A decision-frame is a subjective conception of the actions,
outcomes and contingencies associated with decision options. The
(mis-)representation of options, due to the framing effect, often
influences the choices of decision makers.
The context or framing of problems adopted by decision makers is
controlled in part by extrinsic manipulation of the decision options
offered, as well as by forces intrinsic to decision makers, e.g.,
their norms, habits, and unique temperament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword
Framework for Ethical Decision Making & Justification of Ethical
Standards
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/c6bcff1194250a28
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html
> "Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision
> directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections -
> that's why they have to be stopped,"
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3746
>
> --------------------
>
> Presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in "great danger" of
> a staged Gulf of Tonkin style provocation while also warning that a
> major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon and could be
> precipitated by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian
>
Gulf.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/130707greatdanger.htm
>
> ---------------------
>
> Elliot D. Cohen: This Summer, Will America Officially Become A
> Totalitarian State?
> 07/16/2007
> by Elliot D. Cohen,
Ph.D.http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1153
>
> The unfolding of events over the past 7 years and the recent emergence
> of certain key facts point to the prospect of an ominous conclusion:
> before the summer is up, America will be brought under martial law
> with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm.
>
> In May 2007, Bush posted a national continuity policy to the White
> House Web site that bypasses Congress and puts him in charge of all
> three branches of the federal government if there is a "catastrophic
> emergency" -- vaguely defined to include anything from a destructive
> hurricane to a terrorist attack. This leaves democracy in America
> dangling on a thin thread of chance that such a "catastrophe" doesn't
> happen.
>
> On Wednesday, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of
> Homeland Security, said he has a "gut" feeling that Al Qaeda will
> launch another terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland sometime this
> summer. Chertoff's "gut feeling" comes on the heels of the latest
> National Intelligence Estimate, which maintains that in the past year,
> Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure and has grown stronger
> along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
>
> This information is disconcerting in itself. But it becomes even more
> so when considered in the context of the Bush administration's
> unrelenting quest for power. Consider these facts, for example: The
> September 11 attacks were foreshadowed by the Project for the New
> American Century (PNAC) in its report on Rebuilding American Defenses
> (2000) when it stated, "the process of transformation, even if it
> brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
> catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor . . ."
> This would not be significant were it not for the fact that the Vice
> President, among other key members of the Bush Administration, were
> founding members of PNAC.
>
> This neoconservative organization also prescribed forced regime change
> in Iraq and buildup of a permanent U.S. military presence there. The
> primary goal for invading Iraq was not to quell tensions or stop the
> threat of terrorism posed by the Hussein regime but instead to advance
> U.S. interests in the region through military force. The 2000 report
> stated, "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
> immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
> presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
> Hussein." Regime change was therefore pretense for the invasion.
>
> Clearly, the invasion of Iraq was never conceived as a means of
> stopping Saddam Hussein from instigating terrorism. This was made
> plain in the official British documents known as the Downing Street
> memos, which said that Bush was attempting to make the facts "fit" the
> policy in order to justify invading Iraq -- since Hussein's WMD
> capability was in fact "less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
> The redeployment of U.S. troops and special forces to Iraq was done in
> spite of the fact that the hub of Al Qaeda was in Pakistan and
> Afghanistan. So the Bush administration permitted Al Qaeda to regroup
> and strengthen in Pakistan and Afghanistan to pursue its ideology of
> global dominance in Iraq.
>
> Add to these facts that the Bush administration has displayed
> consistent disregard for the rule of law by canceling habeas corpus,
> disregarding the Geneva Conventions in the torture of prisoners of
> war, using signing statements to override congressional lawmaking
> authority, eavesdropping on Americans without court warrants,
> summarily refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas, firing
> federal prosecutors for political reasons, outing a covert CIA agent,
> threatening to jail journalists for disclosing leaked government
> documents, censoring mainstream media and infusing it with government
> propaganda ("prepackaged news" staged by PR firms working for the
> government), placing "gatekeepers" in all federal agencies who report
> directly to the White House, eliminating legal protections for
> government whistle blowers, arresting peaceful protestors,
> manipulating the terror alert system to instill fear in Americans, and
> stacking the Supreme Court.
>
> In a press conference on Thursday regarding the war in Iraq, Bush
> indicated that he will not be discouraged by what the American people
> believe. He said that, while he preferred to be loved, he had to do
> the right thing.
>
> Do what is right by whose standards? Not those of the generals; and
> certainly not those of the majority of Americans. While the mainstream
> media brought out its analysts to comment on Bush's press conference,
> none drew the obvious conclusion. In a democracy, it is the will of
> the people, not that of a single man, that is paramount. But,
> according to Bush, respecting the will of the American people would be
> nice if it happened to accord with his own will, but not in the least
> essential to shaping U.S. policy, even if that policy happened to
> affect the lives and limbs (and tax dollars) of the American people.
> This is dictatorship (or "decidership") at its core, not democracy.
>
> All of these facts, among others, point to the willingness of this
> administration to stop at little or nothing to advance its ideology.
> It has proven its resolve to lie to the American people, violate their
> civil liberties, and discount their will. It has shown little respect
> for the rule of law or the U.S. Constitution.
>
> So, this summer (or sometime before the 2008 presidential elections),
> will America officially become a totalitarian state brought under
> martial law by a ruthless dictator? If Chertoff's gut is right, just
> add the current national continuity policy and the conclusion follows.
>
> Like a game of chess drawing to a close, there is a chilling aura that
> the final checkmate is imminent. In the least, democracy in America is
> in grave danger and at best dependent on chance.
>
