Wisconsin Residents Are "Protected" From Delicious Kerrygold Butter
Cognitive linguist and metaphor theorist George Lakoff, who is pretty far left, advises reframing regulations as "protections." Lakoff writes:
President Trump has said that he intends to get rid of 75% of government regulations. What is a "regulation"?The term "regulation" is framed from the viewpoint of corporations and other businesses. From their viewpoint, "regulations" are limitations on their freedom to do whatever they want no matter who it harms. But from the public's viewpoint, a regulation is a protection against harm done by unscrupulous corporations seeking to maximize profit at the cost of harm to the public.
Imagine our minority President saying out loud that he intends to get rid of 75% of public protections. Imagine the press reporting that. Imagine the NY Times, or even the USA Today headline: Trump to Eliminate 75% of Public Protections. Imagine the media listing, day after day, the protections to be eliminated and the harms to be faced by the public.
Lakoff:
Key Takeaways:•Take the Public's viewpoint instead of the corporate viewpoint.
•Shift the frame: always say "protections" instead of "regulations." "Protections" is a more simple and accurate description.
•Remember that "regulations" represent the corporate viewpoint. It is not a neutral term, and it does not represent the public viewpoint.
Of course, the people being "protected" in Wisconsin are those in the dairy business in the state -- those whose cows make butter that a number of people aren't as interested in buying.
By the way, we eat only Kerrygold butter, which Gregg buys at Trader Joe's. It's from grassfed cows, and it's delicious.
Sorry, Wisconsinites! None for you! Not without a big-ass trip!
From Fox News, Wisconsinites are trekking across state lines to get the butter that is now illegal to sell within their state:
According to a Wisconsin law enacted in the 1970s, the state only allows Grade A milk products to be distributed within its borders, reports Milwaukee Magazine. But Kerrygold, the number-one imported butter brand in the U.S., isn't issued a letter grade like American-made dairy products.Wisconsin has since banned the sale of the gold-and-silver foiled butter but Kerrygold is legal in all other states.
"Under Wisconsin legislation, retail butter for sale in Wisconsin must bear either a Wisconsin or federal grade mark," explained Kerrygold's parent company, Ornua North America, in a statement issued to the Irish Farmers Journal.
"This effectively excludes Kerrygold butter being sold in Wisconsin because Kerrygold butter is graded, produced and packaged in Ireland."
Lisa Miller, the marketing director at Ornua, adds that while Kerrygold's inspection process is a "little bit different from the process here, the standards are universally very high."
Still, Wisconsin dairy distributors who violate the law could face fines of $1000 or more-- and up to six months in jail.
Yes, grass-fed butter is now a "controlled substance" (of sorts) in Wisconsin.
Maybe a little less "protection" and a little more buttery deliciousness would be a good idea?
Well, isn't this interesting: Rush Limbaugh is reporting the use of the word, "protections" by Federal agencies and fans of the status quo to resist Mr. Trump's efforts to "drain the swamp".
Fewer regulations, fewer Federal employees needed to enforce them, you see.
Radwaste at February 25, 2017 1:05 AM
Just like we have to protect the consumer from unlicensed casket makers, eye brow threaders, and hair braiders.
Just the mandarin class trying to protect itself.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 25, 2017 5:34 AM
"Metaphor theorist"?
Crid at February 25, 2017 5:48 AM
That's Lakoff for you Crid. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. In other words he's a professional propagandist. But the word propagandist has bad 'optics'. So just like how he is trying to change 'regulation' into 'protection' he changed 'propagandist' into 'metaphor theorist'.
If they don't know what you are talking about people probably won't complain.
Ben at February 25, 2017 6:20 AM
The political Left has a weird obsession with words and meanings. They switch from "Liberal" to "Progressive" and back at the drop of a hat, with unflinching certainty that changing the label on the messenger will make the message more palatable.
Remember when Obama was concerned that people weren't getting his message? That's the essential Democrat and leftist concern, that the message isn't being presented in a palatable way and that the opposition is using friendlier terms in their messaging. "Pro Choice" was chosen to describe pro-abortion positions since choice implies something good.
The political right did the same thing with "Pro Life" over "anti abortion." However, the right is not as fluid with its choices of words and labels, nor as frequent in adopting new ones when the old ones get a bit shopworn. Conservatives seem more interested in defining a message than in labeling it, sometimes putting audiences to sleep with lengthy diatribes about taxation and morality.
"Protections" over "regulations" is the same oft-used leftist tactic - use a friendly word over a non-friendly one in an effort to "sell" the message, as if the label is the most important thing in political messaging.
Perhaps that's why the Left needs a "metaphor theorist."
Conan the Grammarian at February 25, 2017 7:40 AM
*"Pro Choice" was chosen to describe pro-abortion positions since choice implies something good.*
And anti-women's-liberty was changed to pro-life since life implies something good.
The myth of a punishing god: screwing up everyone everywhere for millennia.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 25, 2017 9:00 AM
Regulations are already promoted as 'protections' - e.g. consumer protections, environmental protection et.al.
Lakoff has been at this forever. He'd tried to set himself up as a political consultant in the 90's and gained some publicity for his ideas.
They sound plausible at first blush, until you look at his recommendations, then it's apparent they're not very persuasive. He's has a very childish perspective on politics.
margo at February 25, 2017 10:08 AM
Time to set up a mailing list of Wisconsonites who want Kerrygold so the rest of us can ship it over. :D
D at February 25, 2017 10:26 AM
Many regulations are protectionism for special interests, as in the butter example. Other cases prevent people from braiding hair, selling coffins, or having a food truck business. Who is being protected exactly?
Many many regulations exist to solve a nonexistent problem that some group pushed for. Examples include the banning of plastic bags or laws about recyling. Over reaction to the needs of the disabled has led to crippling regulations for business that often don't even help the disabled--employment of the disabled has gone DOWN since the ADA because now a business can't ever fire the person.
Protection....yeah sure.
cc at February 25, 2017 10:36 AM
Gog, read the rest of my post. I included that "Pro Life" was chosen over "anti abortion." I take exception to your anti-abortion is by default "anti-women's-liberty" but we can debate that some other time in some other (appropriate) thread.
Conan the Grammarian at February 25, 2017 11:28 AM
"And anti-women's-liberty was changed to pro-life since life implies something good."
The only people I've ever heard refferring to "anti-women's-liberty" have been pro-choice. That's so they can change subject of the question.
Ex. "bathroom" not "locker room"
Nice try though.
Bob in Texas at February 25, 2017 12:45 PM
This Lakoff sack of crap is apparently unaware that some of these "protections" actually DO benefit the corporate scum while harming in some way the average person, such as this Wisconsin regulation.
And I thought that "regulation" was a neutral term, simply describing the class of restrictive objects imposed on us by all levels of government.
mpetrie98 at February 25, 2017 4:15 PM
Actually, though I don't think Lakoff supports his own theories very well, the metaphor ("conceptual metaphor") stuff isn't unfounded.
Lakoff's work on metaphor is something he's stretched to apply to politics and it goes beyond his conceptual metaphor thinking (which is too complicated to explain here...but which i do explain in something I've been writing that isn't out yet).
As a person who is basically in the business of applied science, I have to say that there are lines that need to be drawn so stuff is plausible and practical. Simply reframing regulations as protections? Would that really have a meaningful effect? I think it might just cause the pro-regulation people (those who don't see the unintended consequences down the road) to go all thumbs uppy amongst themselves.
Amy Alkon at February 25, 2017 6:07 PM
What is it about linguistics that seems to make a lot of the people who practice it be just this side of Stalin? Yeah, he has a happy-fairy-pony-unicorn view of government regulation. We all know that a lot of regulations get passed to shield market dominators from competition, or because civil servants want more power, or because activists seize on some tragedy to demand that the government "do something", or because of the general belief that government is wiser and more impartial than the private sector in all matters. I'm sure we can all point to hundreds of examples in the areas that we are familiar with.
I'm convinced that the burdens and implied threats of government regulation are now a substantial drag on our economy. And very little of them are really serving a purpose; most of the regs that resulted in substantial improvements happened in the '60s and early '70s, and since then most of the rest of it has been nibbling around the margins, if it does any good at all. Dodd-Frank has caused a lot of economic harm and doesn't seem to have had any impact on financial fraud. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1997 led directly to the 2008 mortgage crisis. Germany's draconian regulations on traditional power generation, together with its rules requiring power producers to pay above market price for "renewable" sources, has driven electricity rates through the roof and is causing transmission and service problems.
Cousin Dave at February 27, 2017 8:45 AM
Leave a comment