Founded by the prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the Rockridge Institute sought to examine the way that frames—the mental structures that influence our thinking, often unconsciously—determine our opinions and values. Based on extensive research in human cognition, the Rockridge Institute argued that the way an issue is framed—the language used to describe it and the metaphors used to understand it—influences our political views as much, or more, than the particulars of a given policy.

Accordingly, the Rockridge Institute attempted to monitor the manipulative use of framing, particularly by right wing organizations and politicians, and to promote frames that encourage progressive thinking. A much discussed example of framing is the Bush administration’s use of the phrase War on Terror to describe its policies following the September 11th attacks. The use of the “war” metaphor, the Rockridge Institute and others contended, had a tremendous effect on U.S. policy and public debate. They further contended it has allowed the president to assume war powers, makes opposition to the “war” seem unpatriotic, and was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, although cooperation between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had not occurred.[7] If the U.S. response to September 11 had been framed as a criminal proceeding, the Rockridge Institute and others argued, such extraordinary measures would never have garnered sufficient political support.

The Rockridge Institute sought to raise consciousness about manipulative framing and to propose progressive frames on a wide range of issues, including the economy, immigration, religion, and the environment.

Our engineers, architects and developers are also at fault for being, frankly, quite boring. In Britain we have rock-star hairdressers, chefs, designers and antiques experts, but where are the rock-star engineers or domestic architects? Who is the Paul Smith or the Conran of house design? Who is the John Galliano of public transportation? Are they so busy talking to bureaucrats, developers and accountants that they have no time to engage the public imagination?

Hear, hear. The UK – and the UK media – needs to turn its attention to innovative engineers: the people who make things happen in the physical world, not just the internet flavours of the month.

The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. “The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible.

I had no idea this happened. I makes you wonder whether something like this goes on (or went on) with illicit drugs…