Category Archives: Ideology

Obligatory Reading of the Day – Femiphobia

NOTE: Bumped to top to draw attention to added links:

Provocative and excellent post by Sara Robinson: There’s Something About The Men. Most definitely read the comments as well. Then come back here in half an hour and read an old post of mine that I have scheduled for republishing at 11am.
I know Sara likes Steven Ducat, so she may agree with my position, or perhaps not.
I am expecting responses by Amanda, Melissa, Lindsay, Jill and Echidne among others. This may become an interesting discussion over the next couple of days on feminist blogs and beyond.
Update: Shakespeare’s Sister responds. Many comments.
Update 2: Amanda Marcotte bit the bait and penned a good one (and a very thought-provoking one)!
Tigtag on Larvatus Prodeo has an interestingly dense commenter on this topic.
Yes, yes, we are going to have a fight! A blog war! I can just smell it in the air! Read Echidne for a very different take.
Another update: Melissa, JackGoff and Michael Bains have more.
Yet another update: More from Hugo Schwyzer and a comment thread on Metafilter.
Dave Neiwert provides some chilling scholarly historical background….
…to which Echidne, Amanda and Flea respond, all three absolutely brilliantly.

Tolerance Schmolerance

Am I going to link to everyhing Sara Robinson writes? I guess the answer is yes, as long as she keeps churning out posts like this one. It’s short – read it twice:

The government cannot harass you or jail you for your associations, your political views, or your religious beliefs. (Or, at least, they couldn’t, right up until last Monday.) It does NOT mean that the rest of us non-government types are required to hold our tongues and smile while people say things that are stupid, dangerous, or contrary to fact.

And it is interesting that Mr.WD wrote on the very same topic today:

Tolerance doesn’t require you to like, respect, or appreciate your neighbor — all you have to do is acknowledge his essential humanity. You can tolerate people whom you otherwise regard as repulsive idiots.

Regressives

RegressivesAn oldie (March 28, 2005) but goodie, bound to stir up the comment section (why do I post controversial stuff on Fridays when the traffic starts coming down?)

Continue reading

Halloween costumes for the sissies

Echidne and Amanda found a couple of incredibly stupid wingnut articles attacking Halloween and showing these guys have no idea what feminism is. Lance adds the dimension of fear to this discussion, and Publius moves the fear factor to other areas of life.

The “-ism” frame

In response to wonderful fisking by Ed of a really silly Creationist screed, Archy comments on the use of the terms “Darwinist” by Creationists, as a marketing tool to paint biologists as dogmatic, while at the same time avoding the term “creationist” in order to paint themselves as scientific:

Their use of the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” aren’t the result sheer ignorance; it’s a carefully thought out propaganda strategy. An “-ism” implies an ideology or a dogma. It moves evolution out of science and into the land of politics or religion: though which is based on faith or blind adherence and not reason. Americans are trained to be suspicious of ideology and like to believe that their beliefs are practical and nonideological (whether they really are or not is another question). Just getting the word “Darwinism” before the audience gains them a few points in any argument. This is the same reason that some Creationists use the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionist” to describe our side.

DuaneSmith and Ron Chusid also look at it from a marketing perspective.
Earlier, I argued that the current marketing strategy of using these terms originated in a genuine inability to comprehend a non-dogmatic view of the world:

….But not a “Darwinist” or “evolutionist” – those two words are Creationists’ constructs. They arise from the basic misunderstanding of evolution. Being religious believers they cannot fathom that people can operate outside of the realm of belief, thus they assume that evolution is a belief, akin to and in competition with their belief.
——-snip—————
Those two terms (“evolutionist” and “Darwinist”) have lately also been used on purpose, as code-words for their own audience. They understand that using these terms implies (and turns on a frame of mind in the listeners) that evolution is a religious belief. It is similar to the way I think of myself as a member of the Democratic Party, but Republicans prefer to use the Luntzism “Democrat Party”. It’s all about framing the debate.

And the word “democratic” is avoided by the Right because it reminds listeners that the Republican party is un-democratic and anti-democratic. They all went to the same propaganda schools.

Can Boobs and Yahoos plan for the Future?

Read these two one after another:
This is a new angle and thinking outside the box: Sara’s Sunday Rant: The Culture of Planning, Part I
Lance has a nice rant on politics and education: Yahoo culture

One or Two Americas?

One or Two Americas?Another one from the post-election 2004 analysis series (November 27, 2004):

Continue reading

Obligatory Reading of the Day – The Clash of Civilizations

Absolutely read this: If This Goes On….A Scenario. And read the comments (ignore the trolls, focus on people with insight and information).
Funny, when I wrote this, people said that I was “paranoid” while the point of the post that too many people are not paranoid enough.
I particularly like this comment by someone on digg:

I’d move to another country if I wasn’t so terrified of our foreign policy.

On one hand, I do not see the utility of moving from one country to another to another until finally dying on the last Pacific island to feel the influence.
On the other hand, I feel the obligation and the responsibility to stay here and fight, to slay this beast before it grows too big to overcome. Are you registered to vote next month?
We need to get every one of them out of office, at all levels from President to dogcatcher. Then, we need to put tremendous pressure on our new elected representatives to do what is right, to do it aggressively and to do it fast in order to bring the Enlightement back and roll back the effects of this last resurgence of pre-Enlightment religious and authoritarian ideology.
This is what I wrote back in July 10, 2004 – my very first post on my very first blog:

Thus, conservative movement is a creed of rich white Christian guys who are still peeved that Medieval power-structure that had them on top is no longer around. They long for the non-existent Golden Age in the past, for the times of fairy tales in which all of them are princes and all of them can get to sleep with Cinderella. They know they are cornered and fatally wounded and are fighting ferociously for their very existence. Through lies and Orwellian language, they have duped millions to help them fight. They will do absolutely anything and everything to retain power, as they demonstrated in Florida recount in 2000. Their only hope for the future is election of George W. Bush. If Bush gets elected, they will be in a position to finish the job they started during his first term, that is, to dismantle democracy and any means through which progressives and liberals can challenge their absolute power, turning America into de facto one-party state. Reforms of the judiciary system, starving the social programs, rigging the voting machines, changing the rules how Congress and Senate operate, waging endless wars and flaming fear through the population – all those are components of the strategy for their survival. If successful, their program will turn America into a totalitarian society without any middle class whatsoever. Middle class is a rare and recent phenomenon in history. A state that wants to foster a free-market economy needs to first form and, through laws and regulations, protect the existence of middle class. The conservatives have a different economic model in mind, one comprised of a few rich guys at the top and a quarter billion enslaved workers, too poor, tired and scared to speak out, with no protection by the courts.

Will they go with a bang or with a wimper?

Libertarianism again

Since the mere mention of Libertarianism induces so much commenting and traffic, I am assuming people are interested in the topic. That post has a bunch of good old links. Here are three brand new ones – what do you think about each one of them?
by Markos Moulitsas
by Bruce Reed
by Harold Meyerson
(Hat-tip: Ed)

In defense of Lakoff

As I have written so much about Lakoff before, I feel I should say something – anything – to defend him from the onslaught he’s seen lately on Seed’s scienceblogs here, here, here, here and here.
What I think is important is to distinguish between several different things that Lakoff does. It appears that the word “Lakoff” triggers different frames in different people!
1. Theory of metaphors. As I stated repeatedly before, I am agnostic about his science. I defer to Chris on that issue. It is possible that Lakoff is wrong on his ideas about mind, language and metaphor. Future research will settle that question. I am only mildly interested in it.
2. Psychology of ideology. Lakoff is trying to explain the psychology, and in particular the ontogeny of psychology underlying political ideology, in a way that I find plausible and which is in agreement with a number of existing studies (see this, this, this, this and this, for some examples). Realizing that liberals and conservatives think differently and that the difference is due to upbringing is a very important piece of information.
3. Framing theory. Without going into any particulars of Lakoff’s theory of metaphors, the fact that without Lakoff, liberals would not be aware that it matters what you say and how you say it is enough to build him a monument. He pointed out that “Truth will not let you free” (you also have to package the truth in a way that appeals to the listener and then it is easier to win than the opponent who has to repackage a lie) and that long lists of policy propositions never energized a voter. Important lessons. He also explains why triangulation does not work. Useful stuff, even if he did it for wrong reasons and out of wrong theory. It is a pity that so many people on the left still cannot dstinguish between framing and branding (i.e., sloganeering).
4. Framing practice. When Lakoff tries to coin new phrases it is laughable. But, he never asserted that we should accept those phrases – he only gives them as examples – and insists that professionals (equivalents of Frank Luntz) need to be hired to do the research (focus groups, polls, etc.). He is also the first to tell that it takes decades of work by think-tanks and friendly media for frames to take hold so making fun of his examples of slogans misses his point entirely.
It is interesting that I put my posts on Lakoff in the “Culture Wars” channel, while Chris puts his posts on Lakoff in the “Brain & Behavior” channel, indicating that our interest in Lakoff is quite different. He is interested in cognitive science. I am interessted in winning elections by “understaning thy enemy”.
Also, I have written it a hundred times before and I’ll do it again. Everyone who judges Lakoff by his recent articles and interviews, or by his most recent books – the Elephant and later – is bound to misunderstand him. Lakoff possibly misunderstands himself over the last 3-4 years. Read only Moral Politics. Lakoff should do that sometimes, too. And then, read some other books in order to develop and build up the edifice of which Lakoff built only the scaffolding in Moral Politics.

The reverberations of Foley

Read this (perhaps also this) and this one after another. What do you think?

Pinker and Lakoff

Apparently, there is a big debate between Pinker and Lakoff going on. Both of new Lakoff’s books are still on my wish list, i.e., I have not read them yet and I have been out of the Lakoffian loop for a while – too much other stuff is vying for my attention these days.
But I have read the two articles, kindly provided by Razib here and my first impression was: “Pinker’s article is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of writing I’ve seen from a cognitive scientist”
Interestingly, Chris had the opposite response:

Lakoff’s reply is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of writing I’ve seen from a cognitive scientist

Who’s to tell?! Perhaps I am so strongly biased against Pinker that I will defend Lakoff even when Lakoff is wrong, assuming that Pinker MUST be wronger?

Obligatory Readings of the Day

David Neiwert: God, evolution, and guns and Naming the enemy
Sara Robinson: The Irony of It All

What ‘Bout Them Libertarians?

What 'Bout Them Libertahrians?Hmmm, after a whole week of fantastic traffic, it has suddenly gone down through the floor today, so I better act quickly and post something really provocative – an old anti-Libertarian screed that is bound to attract trolls (and traffic)….

Continue reading

Obligatory Reading of the Day – the “Morality” Party

Mark Foley and the unmasked Republican Party
Also, welcome to the readers from Leiter Reports (coming here to read this but also hopefully looking around).

God and Torture

These three are best read together, one right after another: Amanda, Dave and Pam.

Science, Free Market and, Is Lakoff Scientific?

Science, Free Market and, Is Lakoff Scientific?This is so old (December 03, 2004) and so long that I did not even bother to re-read it or check the the links. I am sure the commenters will draw attention to everything that is wrong in this post…

Continue reading

Framing the “Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006” (H.R. 4844)

What Would Real Election Integrity Mean?

The repeated use of the Illegal Immigrant frame activates deep frames related to police protection from a criminal threat. In such a law and order frame, progressives who oppose the House bill are characterized as failing to protect the citizenry from criminals. Moreover, progressives may be painted as corrupt, seeking to win the votes of such criminals at the expense of their legitimate constituents.

Thinking Points, new Lakoff’s book, is now out. You can preview and order it on the Rockridge Institute website, where you can also download Chapter1 and Chapter2 (pdf’s).

Just Like “Dred Scott”…

Agonist (via Melissa and Amanda) reports that “comma” is a dog-whistle code word that Bush used to signal to the Fundies:

The phrase is: “Never put a period where God has put a comma.” Which is to say – it ain’t over yet, and God may well make it better. So Iraq’s bad, but if we trust in God, he’ll make it better.

Mark Liberman of Language Log, after a couple of funny riffs on “comma”, starts digging into the dog-whistle theory and uncovers the antcecedents here and here.

Devilish Hillary

Pam found the link to this article from LA Times in which Rev.Jerry Falwell compares Hillary Clinton with the Devil:

“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,” Falwell said, according to the recording. “She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton.”
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: “If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”
At that moment in the recording, Falwell’s voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.
One critic who has been observing the conference said Saturday that Falwell’s words offered a rare glimpse into how religious conservative leaders were planning to inflame opposition to the Democrats with below-the-radar messages that are often more scorching than the ones showing up in public.
“He was calling Hillary Clinton a demonic figure and openly arguing that God is a Republican,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It’s hard to know whether people thought he was joking or serious, but once you start using religious imagery and invoking a politician in this way, it’s not funny. A lot of people who listen to him do think that she’s a dark force of evil in America.”

Lukewarm handwaiving afterwards does not mean that he did not really mean it, nor that his followers do not really believe it. Everyone who has read The Wimp Factor and Great Limbaugh Con understands how Hillary got turned into a Devil, something that has been hammered since 1992 and is now so deeply ingrained in the national psyche, that even those of us who personally like Hillary realize that she cannot possibly win. She is a personification of Evil for just too many Americans.
On the other hand, Sara Robinson reports that rural voters, religious fundamentalists aside, are not as squarely in the Republican field as previously believed. Thus, Democratic candidates this November can make serious inroads by addressing issues important to rural voters. And the same goes for presidential candidates two years from now.

Genocentrism aids Anti-Abortion Arguments

Genocentrism aids Anti-Abortion ArgumentsFrom October 09, 2004. I’d write it differently today, but the main point still stands.

Continue reading

The Homunculus

Amanda makes a correct connection between preformationism of old and the anti-abortion ideology of today. The only thing missing is the connection of both to Dawkinsian genocentrism which is just preformationism with modern rhetoric of DNA and genes and “blueprints of life”. The history of the war between epigenetics and preformationism and, within preformationism, between spermists and ovists is masterfully covered in Clara Pinto-Corriea’s book Ovary of Eve.

Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!

Chris Clarke explains Berube’s new book (yup, I am hoping to buy it one day) for the masses.
I am assuming that Chris spent quite a lot of time and effort into making this from scratch. I could have saved him some of that by mailing him some of the existing stuff I had and read as a kid. Ah, the glory of growing up in a socialist country!
[Hat-tip: Amanda]

Twelve Traps to Avoid

This is an excerpt from the first chapter of George Lakoff’s new book Thinking Points. You can read more here or download a PDF of the first chapter here.
You have heard many of these ideas before, including repeatedly on my blog, but it is nice to see them all stated succintly and collected in one place:

1. The Issue Trap
We hear it said all the time: Progressives won’t unite behind any set of ideas. We all have different ideas and care about different issues. The truth is that progressives do agree at the level of values and that there is a real basis for progressive unity. Progressive values cut across issues. So do principles and forms of argument. Conservatives argue conservatism, no matter what the issue. Progressives should argue progressivism. We need to get out of issue silos that isolate arguments and keep us from the values and principles that define an overall progressive vision.
2. The Poll Trap
Many progressives slavishly follow polls. The job of leaders is to lead, not follow. Besides, contrary to popular belief, polls in themselves do not present accurate empirical evidence. Polls are only as accurate as the framing of their questions, which is often inadequate. Real leaders don’t use polls to find out what positions to take; they lead people to new positions.
3. The Laundry List Trap
Progressives tend to believe that people vote on the basis of lists of programs and policies. In fact, people vote based on values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.
4. The Rationalism Trap
There is a commonplace–and false–theory that reason is completely conscious, literal (applies directly to the objective world), logical, universal, and unemotional. Cognitive science has shown that every one of these assumptions is false. These assumptions lead progressives into other traps: assuming that hard facts will persuade voters, that voters are “rational” and vote in their self-interest and on the issues, and that negating a frame is an effective way to argue against it.
5. The No-Framing-Necessary Trap
Progressives often argue that “truth doesn’t need to be framed” and that the “facts speak for themselves.” People use frames–deep-seated mental structures about how the world works–to understand facts. Frames are in our brains and define our common sense. It is impossible to think or communicate without activating frames, and so which frame is activated is of crucial importance. Truths need to be framed appropriately to be seen as truths. Facts need a context.
6. The Policies-Are-Values Trap
Progressives regularly mistake policies with values, which are ethical ideas like empathy, responsibility, fairness, freedom, justice, and so on. Policies are not themselves values, though they are, or should be, based on values. Thus, Social Security and universal health insurance are not values; they are policies meant to reflect and codify the values of human dignity, the common good, fairness, and equality.
7. The Centrist Trap
There is a common belief that there is an ideological “center”–a large group of voters either with a consistent ideology of their own or lined up left to right on the issues or forming a “mainstream,” all with the same positions on issues. In fact, the so-called center is actually made up of biconceptuals, people who are conservative in some aspects of life and progressive in others. Voters who self-identify as “conservative” often have significant progressive values in important areas of life. We should address these “partial progressive” biconceptuals through their progressive identities, which are often systematic and extensive.
A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must “move to the right” to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right’s values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.
8. The “Misunderestimating” Trap
Too many progressives think that people who vote conservative are just stupid, especially those who vote against their economic self-interest. Progressives believe that we only have to tell them the real economic facts, and they will change the way they vote. The reality is that those who vote conservative have their reasons, and we had better understand them. Conservative populism is cultural–not economic–in nature. Conservative populists see themselves as oppressed by elitist liberals who look down their noses at them, when they are just ordinary, moral, right-thinking folks. They see liberals as trying to impose an immoral “political correctness” on them, and they are angry about it.
Progressives also paint conservative leaders as incompetent and not very smart, based on a misunderstanding of the conservative agenda. This results from looking at conservative goals through progressive values. Looking at conservative goals through conservative values yields insight and shows just how effective conservatives really are.
9. The Reactive Trap
For the most part, we have been letting conservatives frame the debate. Conservatives are taking the initiative on policy making and getting their ideas out to the public. When progressives react, we echo the conservative frames and values, so our message is not heard or, even worse, reinforces their ideas. Progressives need a collection of proactive policies and communication techniques to get our own values out on our own terms. “War rooms” and “truth squads” must change frames, not reinforce conservative frames. But even then, they are not nearly enough. Progressive leaders, outside of any party, must come together in an ongoing, long-term, organized national campaign that honestly conveys progressive values to the public–day after day, week after week, year after year, no matter what the specific issues of the day are.
10. The Spin Trap
Some progressives believe that winning elections or getting public support is a matter of clever spin and catchy slogans–what we call “surface framing.” Surface framing is meaningless without deep framing–our deepest moral convictions and political principles. Framing, used honestly at both the deep and surface levels, is needed to make the truth visible and our values clear. Spin, on the other hand, is the dishonest use of surface linguistic frames to hide the truth. And progressive values and principles–the deep frames–must be in place before slogans can have an effect; slogans alone accomplish nothing. Conservative slogans work because they have been communicating their deep frames for decades.
11. The Policyspeak Trap
Progressives consistently use legislative jargon and bureaucratic solutions, like “Medicare prescription drug benefits,” to speak to the public about their positions. Instead, progressives should speak in terms of the common concerns of voters–for instance, how a policy will let you send your daughter to college, or how it will let you launch your own business.
12. The Blame Game Trap
It is convenient to blame our problems on the media and on conservative lies. Yes, conservative leaders have regularly lied and used Orwellian language to distort the truth, and yes, the media have been lax, repeating the conservatives’ frames. But we have little control over that. We can control only how we communicate. Simply correcting a lie with the truth is not enough. We must reframe from our moral perspective so that the truth can be understood. This reframing is needed to get our deep frames into public discourse. If enough people around the country honestly, effectively, and regularly express a progressive vision, the media will be much more likely to adopt our frames.

And yeah, the book is also listed somewhere on my wish list

‘Prussian Blue’ not making their white neighbors happy after all

Town Tells White Separatist Singers ‘No Hate Here’

The girls, their mother, April, and stepfather Mark Harrington recently moved to Montana from Bakersfield, Calif., after April told “Primetime” that Bakersfield was “not white enough.” Now Kalispell has put the family on notice, “Not in my backyard.”
Last week a group of neighbors printed information sheets about the family and distributed them door to door.
“This letter is not written as a means to harass the family or to begin a witch hunt,” the flier said. “We wish the family no harm. Our goal is to peacefully communicate that this kind of hate and ignorance will not be accepted here in our neighborhood where we live and raise our families.”
Lamb and Lynx created the band Prussian Blue to communicate their white separatist views musically. The song “Sacrifice” praises Nazi leader Rudolph Hess, Adolph Hitler’s deputy. The two have modeled T-shirts featuring Hitler smiley faces. They mostly appear at rallies for white nationalist causes and maintain a Web site with links to other white separatist organizations
—–snip———–
Rebecca Kushner-Metteer, one of the people who handed out the fliers, says the teens and their parents moved into her south Kalispell neighborhood a couple of weeks ago. At first, no one paid much attention until another neighbor showed a rerun of the “Primetime” broadcast. They then recognized their new neighbors.
Now Kushner-Metteer and other families say they have received threats.
—–snip———–
Kalispell Police Chief Frank Garner says all the threats have come from outside the region but are being investigated. He also says none contained death threats.
In the “Primetime” interview, Lynx who was 13 at the time, says she and her sister were “proud of being white.”
“We want our people to stay white,” she says. “We don’t want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race.”
—–snip———–
The Gaedes apparently want to be left alone. They have refused to answer their door or telephone.
However, the Kalispell Police Department has heard from the family. The police say they received a complaint that the family was being “harassed” by the neighbors posting the fliers.
In an irony not lost on many in the community, the officers had to explain that the neighbors’ free speech rights made the fliers perfectly legal.
Just as legal as the free speech rights afforded Lynx and Lamb Gaede.
Although a date has yet to be set, the 1,400-member Montana Human Rights Network is planning a rally in Kalispell. Seems all area residents are now exercising their free speech rights in northwest Montana.

Montana may be white, but it is also fiercely devoted to individual freedoms. More info on the duo here and here.

Four Conceptions of God in America

An interesting new study of religiosity in America:
One God, four views:

“Not all Americans see the powerful old man in the sky”

Really?

The authors suggest religion may most successfully motivate individuals through what it can offer them in spiritual intimacy and congregational connectivity rather than through demands backed by threats of divine punishment. Believers in an “angry” God tend to reject the idea that church and state are or can be separate, and are more likely to feel that one’s religious faith is exclusively the correct path of righteousness.

Read the whole thing…

Wow! A Real Futurist!

Sara Robinson explains.

Obligatory Reading of the Day – Authoritarians

Sara Robinson (since yesterday a permanent co-blogger on Orcinus – congratulations!): Tunnels and Bridges, Part IV: Landing Zones

Obligatory Readings of the Day – why, why, why?

Why are religious people religious, in two parts: Why do religious wingnuts think the way they do? Part I and Why do religious wingnuts think the way they do? Part II
Why are creationists creationists, in three parts: Why are creationists creationist?, Why are creationists creationist? 2 – conceptual spaces and Why are creationists creationist? 3: compartments and coherence.
Why conservatives take conservative jobs and suck if sucked into liberal professions, in two parts: It takes talent to make good schlock TV and Conservatives in the classroom

Hitler and other authoritarians

Obligatory Readings of the Day:
Amanda: Disney emerges from the grave, demands right wing propaganda so he can stop spinning
Publius: ABOUT THAT LENIN ANALOGY
David Neiwert: Projecting fascism
Sara Robinson: Tunnels and Bridges: A Short Detour
RobertDFeinmanOvercoming the Authoritarian Personality
Archy: I break with Olbermann

Obligatory Readings of the Day – Authoritarians III

Sterotypes, Sellouts, and Winning the Meme Wars by Sara Robinson
The Beltway Freemen by David Neiwert
Dr. Bob Has The Map by Sara Robinson

Politics of Animal Protection

There has been a lot of commentary online about the Inside Higher Ed article about an UCLA primate researcher who quit his research due to being terrorised by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and the follow up article about the steps UCLA and other Universities are taking to ensure the safety of their faculty and staff:

Continue reading

Some Thoughts On Use Of Animals In Research And Teaching

Some Thoughts On Use Of Animals In Research And Teaching In light of the recent cases of researchers quitting animal research under the duress of threats and attacks by Animal Rights groups, e.g., Dr. Ringach at UCLA, this may be a good time to repost this old rant from May 23, 2005 (originally here, then reposted here on January 16, 2006):

Continue reading

Obligatory Reading of the Day – Postmodern Authoritarians

Mr.WD continues with his series on “Postmodern” Christianity – here is It’s still that old time religion, Part III.
Sara Robinson continues her series on authoritarians: Tunnels and Bridges, Part III: A Bigger World

Obligatory Reading of the Day – Authoritarians II

Sara Robinson is on the roll: Tunnels and Bridges, Part II: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself

Obligatory Reading of the Day – Authoritarians

Sara Robinson turned the last installment of her previous series into a whole new series, first part of which is now up: Tunnels and Bridges, Part I: Divide and Conquer.

They think that sex is yucky so they don’t want us to enjoy it

They think that sex is yucky so they don't want us to enjoy it
From January 15, 2006, another good book….

Continue reading

Stephanie Coontz On Marriage

Stephanie Coontz On Marriage You probably know that I am quite interested in the history, current state, evolution and future of the institution of marriage, mainly because it is an important indicator of societal attitudes towards sex and towards gender-relations, which is the key to understanding political ideology. Between May 29, 2005 and February 23, 2006 I frequently mentioned Stephanie Coontz and particularly her latest book – Marriage, A History, e.g., in New History Of Marriage, Stephanie Coontz On Marriage, Op-Ed on the ‘End of Marriage’, Don’t Know Much About History…. and What ‘traditional’ marriage?. Amanda of Pandagon also wrote two good posts about it: Nothing to it and How to save your marriage (or at least give it a fighting chance). While I never really reviewed the book, here is a post with some thoughts and several good links to other people’s reviews as well as her own articles:

Continue reading

Books: “The Good Father: On Men, Masculinity, and Life in the Family” by Mark O’Connel

The Good FatherIt is great when you write a blog post about somebody, then that somebody shows up in the comments and clarifies his position thus starting an interesting conversation (both in the comments and via e-mail), then you realize that his book-signing tour is bringing that somebody to your town, so you go there and meet that somebody in person and have a great conversation, which inspires you to write yet another blog post – the one under the fold….

Continue reading

Reading List – American Politics

Reading List - American Politics
I wrote this post on Dec 23, 2004 and posted it both on Science And Politics and DailyKos. Then, on April 03, 2005, I reposted it on my blog again. Many good books have been published since then, but the list would not have changed too much if I have made it today, e.g., I would have replaced E.J.Graff’s book on the history of marriage with much better book on the same topic by Stephanie Coontz, and I probably would have replaced the last two on the list with new books by John Dean and Geoffrey Nunberg on the strength of reviews and what some smart bloggers said, as I have not read them yet (yup, they are on my amazon wishlist….), or perhaps with the Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. Continue under the fold….

Continue reading

Books: “The Postman” by David Brin – chillingly current…

Books: 'The Postman' by David Brin - chillingly current...This review was first written on April 14, 2005…

Continue reading

Books: “The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity” by Stephen J. Ducat

 FemiphobiaThis is not a real review – I never got to writing it – but it is about a book I mention quite often in my blog posts and think is one of the most insightful about the conservative mindset. Written originally on October 21, 2004:

Continue reading

Cracks in the Wall, Part III: Escape Ladders

The third part of the series on authoritarian psychology by Sara Robinson is now up on Orcinus. It tackles the strategies for dealing with (and hopefully healing and converting) the victims of authoritarian upbringing who turned out authoritarian themselves. The whole series is a must-read.

Obligatory Readings of the Day – more on Conservatives…

In Jeebus can’t see through the walls of the Ramada, Amanda adds some excellent commentary on my guest-post over on Echidne.
I know I have already linked to Cracks In The Wall, Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality yesterday, but here it is again if you missed it, especially now that Cracks In The Wall, Part II: Listening to the Leavers is also up. Very worth reading.

Empire, Empiricism, Empowerment: Contributions to Political Cryptozoology

Empire, Empiricism, Empowerment: Contributions to Political Cryptozoology Before the days of Times Select, David Brooks used to provoke long rants twice a week. This post from October 24, 2004 is one of those.

Continue reading

On Horowitz

Apart From Being An Idiot, Horowitz Is Also An Unwiped Anal Orifice With Hemorrhoids This – “Apart From Being An Idiot, Horowitz Is Also An Unwiped Anal Orifice With Hemorrhoids” – is the worst and nastiest blog-post title I ever used. But I was furious. See why…. (first posted here on March 05, 2005, then republished here on December 10, 2005):

Continue reading

Coturnix on Sex, part I – Blogging in the nude

My first post guest-blogging on Echidne Of The Snakes, cross-posted under the fold.

Continue reading

I’m Gone Country

Every now and then, especially when the Right Wing comes up with another one of thos silly lists of supposedly conservative rock songs, a lot of people take a look at pop and rock (and hip-hop) songs and do some sociological analysis on them, trying to glean the way society is changing by the way song lyrics have changed.
That is fine, but I think that one needs to focus on the lyrics of country songs instead. Especially if one want to unserstand the mindset of rural/exurban/Southern voter, which seems to be a mystique to some coastal big-city liberals.
I have done that before and occasionaly, others did as well. But Publius made a really, really interesting analysis the other day – THE DIXIE CHICKS – The Most Subversive Band in America .
Do you agree with him?
I have loved the Chicks from the beginning of their stardom, and bought their new CD in advance. It is not ‘Home’, but it is very good.
I thought the closest they were coming to my neck of the woods this Fall is Greensboro, which is but an 1.5 hours away, but it appears they are not (was that on the list, but scratched?). Does anyone have any info if they are coming down to North Carolina any time soon?

Lakoff In Space And Time

 Lakoff In Space And Time This post from October 21, 2004 laments the lack of spatial and temporal context for Lakoff’s theory of political ideology.

Continue reading

Obligatory Readings of the Day

Along with my earlier post (the “can of worms…” one) you should really read these two together. Superposing them works synergistically: the whole is greater than the sum of parts:
Republican Crows
Archetypes
(via Mike)