A new article on Obama at the Times has used framing to push the idea that he has employed a SWAT team to police your Internet blogs.
The Times article, like so many others, draws participants from the full spectrum of humanity, from rational all the way to 'in need of a straight jacket'. Our son gave me "Don't Think of An Elephant!" by George Lakoff, and we have discussed 'violent rhetoric' and the just released book, "Outright Barbarous" by Jeffrey Feldman. So when I saw this article, the violent rhetoric leaped off the page at me, along with the framing, (that Obama is a danger to free speech because he will set up "SWAT teams" to police the Internet).
A crack team of cybernauts will form a rapid response internet "war room" to track and respond aggressively to online rumors that Barack Obama is unpatriotic and a Muslim.
Crack team, rapid response, war room, respond aggressively: they didn't come right out and say Obama will police your Internet thoughts with his SWAT team, but then, with frames like those, they didn't need to spell it out.
I stumbled onto the Time article from a link at (incredibly!) my favorite fantasy writer's website, which was formerly all about writing, and is suddenly all about this election and Barack Obama. If I needed any more proof that everyone is stirred up and passionate about Senator Obama, this is it. In writing to dispel the untruths, exaggerations and outright paranoia I found among those innocent (and some, politically naive) writers, I included this:
Because of the concept that has been pushed out there by Time, I now find it necessary to state that I am employed by no one (sob) including Senator Obama or anyone representing him.
Just by setting up the dialog so that anyone who defends Barack Obama is automatically suspected of being a paid political hack, Time is winning this argument. However, they win even more if, by our silence and absence in the public discourse, we fail to correct their propaganda.
So I propose my own version of a SWAT team: See What America Thinks!
I propose that the denizens of the political netroots should (if they haven't already) get over to blogs that have nothing to do with politics, because it is beginning to look to me as if in this election, every blogger is going to have something political to say - which isn't a bad thing, except that everyone is convinced they understand the issues, without looking deeply into the issues. I have a new motto to spread around these wells of mis-information: When in doubt - go to the source.
When in doubt, go to THOMAS and look up the bill. When in doubt, go the Senator's website and see what he (or she) says. When in doubt, look at the candidate's Platform, as it is published by the candidate and not by his opponent.
It shocked me to realize that in my fascination with the Daily Kos I have fallen out of touch with what the average unpolitical person is thinking and saying. I have failed to check in with the writer's websites where I used to be active. I have preferred the (usually) informed discussion at political blogs to the crazy-making rumor-mongering of other websites.
I only saw the discussion on Obama at the writer's blog because it was in the headline in my subscription in-box. When I read the comments, I was stunned to find out that "Internet Police" are the least of the worries expressed. It was stated that Senator Obama has co-sponsored a bill to require the fingerprinting of mortgage brokers! Oh! the threat to our liberties! Soon all of us will be under the jack-boot of dangerous radicals!
Perhaps I'm not the only one in this situation, and that is why I'm suggesting we all need to be on a new kind of SWAT team - we all need to be "out there" more than "in here" or we will miss the opportunity to See What America Thinks" - and to bring light and love to the subject.
I didn't laugh, because these people were not against Obama because they were for someone else, and were not deliberately spreading mis-information. They were ordinary citizens who were genuinely fearful of what-may-come-to-pass.
Here is my response to them:
Just to correct another mis-conception: mortgage brokers used to all be mortgage bankers. All bankers, down to the tellers, are fingerprinted for background checks because of the obvious reasons, and have been since before I was twenty and applied at a bank (forty-one years ago). All mortgage brokers are NOT fingerprinted or background checked because they worked "outside" the banking industry - even though what they do is handle the largest financial asset of most people - their home equity. I was fingerprinted and background checked when I was a licensed real estate agent (in 1989) because real estate agents handle people’s money and assets in a position of fiduciary trust. Mortgage brokers are not fingerprinted, and unlike real estate agents and mortgage bankers, they do not have to pass a test or obtain a license to handle people’s money and major assets. When I was a mortgage broker (in 1994) I worked for a reputable company, but I despised the people, some of whom had criminal records, who crept into the industry and sucked innocent and trusting people into the kind of mortgages that are now causing wide-spread misery and foreclosures. I have no personal knowledge of Obama co-sponsoring a bill to fingerprint mortgage brokers but if he did so I would, from my personal knowledge and experience and as a homeowner, fully endorse him for doing so.
This is a forum for writers, and I must apologize for sucking up so much space on these issues, however, due to my personal knowledge of said issues, I could not allow the concerns expressed here to go unanswered.
I didn't try to address whether or not Senator Obama has co-sponsored such a bill, because it isn't the issue. Although I did look it up later, and - thank the goddess! he truly has signed on to protect naive and trusting Americans (much like those in objection at that website). Although my quick read didn't reveal any mandates for fingerprinting, I would assume that would be necessary to implement the rest of the bill.
I wasn't the only one to respond with a comment that might bring balance and objectivity back to the discussion and I appreciate the Thinking Americans who fact check rumors and who use reasoned discourse. One person responded that we need to vote "according to the candidate's platform" - which is a good idea, as long as they don't let the opposition try to tell them what that platform is!
To join my idea of a SWAT team, you don't have to be fingerprinted, or even sign with a blood oath. All you need to do is go and check on all the places where you might have an interest and which you might have neglected for this primary season, and then just do what comes natural to Kossacks (no - not that!).
I acknowledge that others have written eloquently about the need to get out there and be part of the discourse. I hope my diary presents the idea in a frame that may inspire more Kossacks to do so.