Oh man, I can't believe the way this is being framed.
From the site [with my comments]: "While civic leaders develop exciting plans to make our region the world's "Freshwater Hub", proposals [read "threats"]to divert water from Lake Michigan threaten [who is doing the threatening here?]to bog us down in more regional controversy [oh no!]. What are the arguments on both sides of the water diversion issue [water diversion issues have been resolved, please move on], and is there potential for compromise?[any more compromising would dilute the Great Lakes Pact and in the end defeat it, the compromises have already been made] Could successful resolution of this issue lead to greater cooperation on other regional issues [successful from who's viewpoint?], or will this be another excuse for more regional discord [it's discord if Waukesha doesn't get all the water it wants for more expansion? please!]?
Maybe so, but it still looks like the framing of the issues is hardly balanced. I was just trying to point out the loaded words being used.
By the way, some of words used by those setting up this "conference" are: "threaten", "bog us down", "discord". Now where are words like "preserve", "save", "protect", "scale down", "responsible", "stewardship", etc.?
I saw who would be participating, but that does not mean the "conference" will be balanced. It looks to me like a case of "see we've included both sides" when the frame is skewed. A tactic that we see over and over again.
Don't worry though, I'm breathing fine, as a matter of fact you may even say I'm sighing more than I'm hyperventilating. ;-)
Oh man, I can't believe the way this is being framed.
ReplyDeleteFrom the site [with my comments]:
"While civic leaders develop exciting plans to make our region the world's "Freshwater Hub", proposals [read "threats"]to divert water from Lake Michigan threaten [who is doing the threatening here?]to bog us down in more regional controversy [oh no!]. What are the arguments on both sides of the water diversion issue [water diversion issues have been resolved, please move on], and is there potential for compromise?[any more compromising would dilute the Great Lakes Pact and in the end defeat it, the compromises have already been made] Could successful resolution of this issue lead to greater cooperation on other regional issues [successful from who's viewpoint?], or will this be another excuse for more regional discord [it's discord if Waukesha doesn't get all the water it wants for more expansion? please!]?
To Todd F: I think you are over-thinking this a bit.
ReplyDeleteHave you even looked at the speakers?
Also: diversion issues have not been resolved. There is a law, but no process, standards, precedents, etc,
There are years of work to be done.
The program is sponsored by very reasonable people.
Take a breath.
In fact, go there and see what's happening.
Maybe so, but it still looks like the framing of the issues is hardly balanced. I was just trying to point out the loaded words being used.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, some of words used by those setting up this "conference" are: "threaten", "bog us down", "discord". Now where are words like "preserve", "save", "protect", "scale down", "responsible", "stewardship", etc.?
I saw who would be participating, but that does not mean the "conference" will be balanced. It looks to me like a case of "see we've included both sides" when the frame is skewed. A tactic that we see over and over again.
Don't worry though, I'm breathing fine, as a matter of fact you may even say I'm sighing more than I'm hyperventilating. ;-)