Framing framing from a different frame

Sheril Kirshenbaum is guest-blogging at The Intersection while Chris Mooney is away, and she is bravely planning on discussing…dare I say it…framing. It’s a subject that gives me the heebie-jeebies, the flibbertigibbits, and a bad case of the surly snarls, but let’s see if maybe Sheril can give it a new perspective—maybe she can do a better job of framing framing.


  1. says

    So far, she’s talking sense, though her posts aren’t exactly rocking my geological column.

    (That sounds a little dirtier than I intended. Ah, well, I’m not an old fossil yet.)

    The interesting thing is that nothing of what Kirshenbaum has written involves deep anthropological foundations. You could have said exactly the same things before the framing kerfluffle and with no knowledge of Lakoffian whosiewhatsits.

  2. Scott Hatfield, OM says

    Speaking of ‘framing’, Blake, any thoughts on how we might collaborate in baiting the creationists in their own lair? I’m not sure what I can contribute, but I’m game.

  3. says

    It’s amusing. She has a sense of humor and whimsy.

    But it’s just very much just common sense and she avoiding talking about religion so far which is what usually brings people to a boil around here.

  4. says

    In addition to Sheril Kirshenbaum’s excellent skills as the primary guest blogger at Chris Mooney’s The Intersection, the next two days (Thu and Fri) she will also be joined by guest bloggers Mark Drapeau (me!) from National Defense University and Bryan Mignone of the Brookings Institution, both in Washington DC. The topic will be…climate change, culture, national security, and politics. (See also:

  5. gerald spezio says

    I say this without hesitation or qualification. Ms Kirshenbaum is the stage comedienne, mouthpiece, and chief stooge for the foulest marketing whores who work to undermine the very heart of the scientific enterprise. Her whimsy in the name of Vonnegut is a sacrilege to all of us who love Vonnegut. Before he died Vonnegut called us on the carpet for the profligacy, blindness, and yuppism that Ms Kirshenbaum flaunts.

    Behold, our smiling “little peeyar lady in science drag” represents a new forked-tongue in the next phase of the scientific uncertainty frame-up. Take a long and depressing look at her handlers at the Dook University’s Nicholas School of Environmental Obfuscation, Framing & Profiteering. Ditto for Dook’s sister scam – The Center for Global Change. These Dook suits are framing just what changes they have in store for the bewildered schmuckery. Just read it. The shuck and jive framing is everywhere.

  6. gerald spezio says

    It looks like we are in for a super dose of elitist framing obfuscation from the bigger yuppie gunslingers – Doctors Drapeau and Mignone. Mooney and Nisbet planned it well – after they withdrew to lick their well deserved wounds.

    I tried to get the wisdom from National Security guy, Drapeau’s Washington Times site above, but it won’t come up. The Right Reverend Moon is a cog in this Duke Energy and Conoco Phillips corporate horror, perhaps?

  7. Rienk says

    I know why you dislike this “framing” business so much but really, after reading this recently published science article (1), I somewhat do agree that we need to repack science in an easily digestible format.

    (1) Bloom P, Weisberg DS. Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science. 2007 May 18; 316(5827): 996-7.

  8. says

    Thank you for taking notice of my thoughts this afternoon Dr. Myers. I would love to hear your perspective. As Norman points out, I did not approach religion in the series, though perhaps it’s a topic to take on another day if there is time enough before Chris Mooney returns.

  9. gerald spezio says

    Ms Kirshenbaum, I do not know if PZ took notice of your “thoughts.” PZ is always busy doing and teaching good science. So, any request of his energies to deal with the peeyar creation of problems where no problems exist is an energy sink. Worse, if the peeyar is designed to sink the very ship of science that has the best chance of saving the planet and the human species.

    I, however, took careful notice of your linguistic charade. I did ask PZ to check out what you are whimsically framing as a professed scientific contribution to the greatest problem in the history of the human species. Your work is childishly slick, scientifically shameful, and beneath contempt.

    I am so petrified of what you clearly represent that I asked PZ to consider expending some time and energy. You are surely up there in the framing heights with Sally Balunas, Fred-the-corporate-Singer, and Pat Michaels.