Science magazine reports an Italian study that discloses more physiological differences between liberals and conservatives. Participants in an experiment were shown images of politicians looking to their left or right. Participants were asked to look left or right depending on the color of a small square placed between the politician's eyes, but the real experimental goal was to see how strongly the participants followed the politician's gaze left or right. Self-described conservative participants looking at conservative politicians tended to look in the direction the politician looked even if the colored square instructed them to look the opposite way. Liberal participants were less likely to follow the gaze of liberal politicians. The experimenters compared the conservatives’ behavior to animal studies which found that subordinate primates follow the gaze of dominant monkeys.
I add that this is consistent with the tendency of House Republicans to vote 100% with their leadership’s desires. The experiment results above also are consistent with the famous Will Rogers quote: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
Study by Marco Tullio Liuzza, a social neuroscientist, published in PLoS ONE. From Science 7 Oct, 2011, p 25.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Think Big
Another comment I posted at the NYT, this time in response to a despondent Democrat:
Dem (comment #8) said:
"... a Romney presidency might be the only way to break the impasse and at least make some policy progress."
This assumes that the Rs continue in control of the House, and the Ds lose the Senate. The coattails of any elected R as President might lead to that, but the country would shoot back to 1890, pre-taxes, pre-regulation, pre-workers rights, pre-modern science. That would be a disaster.
Think what Obama could have done if the Rs had acted even halfway responsible the last 3 years. Obama with a D House would have a chance to move the country forward (and the economy is likely to get better the next few years no matter who is President).
Dem, you should work to return control of the House to the Ds. All the new Rs are vulnerable because they have sabatoged the govt since day 1 - and they say such stupid things - so that a public angered with govt stalemate may want more change since the 2010 version didn't work. Or as Sarah would say, How those Tea Party guys workin out for ya?
Dem (comment #8) said:
"... a Romney presidency might be the only way to break the impasse and at least make some policy progress."
This assumes that the Rs continue in control of the House, and the Ds lose the Senate. The coattails of any elected R as President might lead to that, but the country would shoot back to 1890, pre-taxes, pre-regulation, pre-workers rights, pre-modern science. That would be a disaster.
Think what Obama could have done if the Rs had acted even halfway responsible the last 3 years. Obama with a D House would have a chance to move the country forward (and the economy is likely to get better the next few years no matter who is President).
Dem, you should work to return control of the House to the Ds. All the new Rs are vulnerable because they have sabatoged the govt since day 1 - and they say such stupid things - so that a public angered with govt stalemate may want more change since the 2010 version didn't work. Or as Sarah would say, How those Tea Party guys workin out for ya?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Religious Extremists
I posted this comment in response to Ross Douthat's column in the NY Times today:
I don't see how you can uncritically accept any of these crazy Republicans who want to be president. You ignore their beliefs and only talk of the horse race. Do you not believe in science? Is the Earth really only 6000 yrs old? Do you want fewer regulations on cantaloupe growers? Do you think any of the Repubs have any idea that compromise is part of governing? Do you want to abolish the Dept of Education? How can someone who doesn't believe in government run it? Don't dignify them by calling them populists, they are crazy religious extremists who reject the 21st century much less the 20th. How can you and any serious Republican not be ashamed of their hijacked party?
I don't see how you can uncritically accept any of these crazy Republicans who want to be president. You ignore their beliefs and only talk of the horse race. Do you not believe in science? Is the Earth really only 6000 yrs old? Do you want fewer regulations on cantaloupe growers? Do you think any of the Repubs have any idea that compromise is part of governing? Do you want to abolish the Dept of Education? How can someone who doesn't believe in government run it? Don't dignify them by calling them populists, they are crazy religious extremists who reject the 21st century much less the 20th. How can you and any serious Republican not be ashamed of their hijacked party?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Are Republicans Crazy?
Crazy is not a word that encourages dispassionate discussion, but may be appropriate for beliefs that are counter to the lessons of history. In today's NY Times Steven Rattner talks about these ideas espoused by Republicans:
* Bachmann, Paul and Romney: opposed raising the debt ceiling
* Bachmann and Paul: will never vote to raise the debt ceiling
* Cut, cap and balance bill: cut government spending by 25%, taking US back to 1966 level
* Balanced budget amendment: no government flexibility to manage
* Ryan budget proposal: replace Medicare with vouchers
* Perry: would not have supported TARP financial rescue
* Perry: repeal 16th amendment to eliminate income tax (80% of federal revenue)
* Paul: abolish Federal Reserve to prevents previous panics and busts
* Bachmann: no extension of unemployment insurance for jobless
* Bachmann and Romney and others: repeal Obama health care plan
* Bachmann: repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform
* Bachmann: General Motors and Citigroup should have not received government support, should have gone bankrupt
Rattner quotes UCal professor who found idealogical divergence in Congress the greatest in 120 yrs - since the decade that led up to the Civil War. And the increased polarization is from Republicans moving further to the right than ever before.
In general, Republicans want to remove all the protections that have grown up over the last 100 years that attempt to prevent business abuses, protect the poor, stabilize the economy, and support a government of a size necessary for a vastly large economy. I wonder if they defend the Gilded Age when large corporations - trusts - did whatever they wanted, the working week was 50-60 hr, child labor was common, full time workers lived nearly in poverty, and retirement meant instant poverty. Are any of those conditions ones we should try to re-establish?
* Bachmann, Paul and Romney: opposed raising the debt ceiling
* Bachmann and Paul: will never vote to raise the debt ceiling
* Cut, cap and balance bill: cut government spending by 25%, taking US back to 1966 level
* Balanced budget amendment: no government flexibility to manage
* Ryan budget proposal: replace Medicare with vouchers
* Perry: would not have supported TARP financial rescue
* Perry: repeal 16th amendment to eliminate income tax (80% of federal revenue)
* Paul: abolish Federal Reserve to prevents previous panics and busts
* Bachmann: no extension of unemployment insurance for jobless
* Bachmann and Romney and others: repeal Obama health care plan
* Bachmann: repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform
* Bachmann: General Motors and Citigroup should have not received government support, should have gone bankrupt
Rattner quotes UCal professor who found idealogical divergence in Congress the greatest in 120 yrs - since the decade that led up to the Civil War. And the increased polarization is from Republicans moving further to the right than ever before.
In general, Republicans want to remove all the protections that have grown up over the last 100 years that attempt to prevent business abuses, protect the poor, stabilize the economy, and support a government of a size necessary for a vastly large economy. I wonder if they defend the Gilded Age when large corporations - trusts - did whatever they wanted, the working week was 50-60 hr, child labor was common, full time workers lived nearly in poverty, and retirement meant instant poverty. Are any of those conditions ones we should try to re-establish?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
All You Need is Opinion
Here is a great quote from an article in today's NYT:
It is no secret, especially here in America, that we live in a post-Enlightenment age in which rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate have lost the battle in many sectors, and perhaps even in society generally, to superstition, faith, opinion and orthodoxy. While we continue to make giant technological advances, we may be the first generation to have turned back the epochal clock — to have gone backward intellectually from advanced modes of thinking into old modes of belief.
There has been a general decline in rationality, but the faith, opinion, etc approach is the hallmark of conservatives. Belief is all they need. Just as in the long period of European history known as the Dark Ages.
NYT article: The Elusive Big Idea by Neal Gabler
It is no secret, especially here in America, that we live in a post-Enlightenment age in which rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate have lost the battle in many sectors, and perhaps even in society generally, to superstition, faith, opinion and orthodoxy. While we continue to make giant technological advances, we may be the first generation to have turned back the epochal clock — to have gone backward intellectually from advanced modes of thinking into old modes of belief.
There has been a general decline in rationality, but the faith, opinion, etc approach is the hallmark of conservatives. Belief is all they need. Just as in the long period of European history known as the Dark Ages.
NYT article: The Elusive Big Idea by Neal Gabler
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Lack of Critical Thinking
Today in the New York Times Frank Bruni wrote that both sides in the recent debt ceiling fiasco were at fault for being true believers. I objected with this comment:
You are making a more sophisticated version of the standard - and wrong - comment that both Democrats and Republicans were equally at fault for the debt ceiling crisis, or that there is equally valid pro and con evidence for evolution. This is like the barber shop converrsation that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them so throw all the bums out. But there is vast difference between conservatives who refuse to negotiate at all because of a pledge, not to the United States but to a belief, and who fail to recognize that low taxes and uninforced regulations under Bush did not lead to growth and jobs. And for evoution, global warming, the age of the Earth, and stem cells there is vast scientific evidence - meaning there is a process to challenge and test hypothesizes - that far outweighs the 100% religion-based arguments of deniers. Please recognize that there can be profound differences in the quality of arguments and don't imply that all are equal and their proponents are equally rational.
You are making a more sophisticated version of the standard - and wrong - comment that both Democrats and Republicans were equally at fault for the debt ceiling crisis, or that there is equally valid pro and con evidence for evolution. This is like the barber shop converrsation that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them so throw all the bums out. But there is vast difference between conservatives who refuse to negotiate at all because of a pledge, not to the United States but to a belief, and who fail to recognize that low taxes and uninforced regulations under Bush did not lead to growth and jobs. And for evoution, global warming, the age of the Earth, and stem cells there is vast scientific evidence - meaning there is a process to challenge and test hypothesizes - that far outweighs the 100% religion-based arguments of deniers. Please recognize that there can be profound differences in the quality of arguments and don't imply that all are equal and their proponents are equally rational.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Tea Party Moving Towards Treason?
An opinion piece by NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof stated that Tea Party people threaten our security more than China or Iran. I added this comment to the discussion:
Finallly it is becomming recognized that in their zealotry Tea Party Republicans - and there are few Rs who aren't - are so unbendingly extreme that they threaten the security of the nation. They are such true believers that negotiation and compromise are impossible for them to consider. This is extremism. And it is tied to a refusal to accept any other opinions or even facts. Science doesn't matter. Experts are wrong. And for some reason the poor and the middle class should suffer so that the hyperwealthy can supposedly create jobs. But they didn't during the low tax and no regulation years of Bush, instead concentrating historical wealth in their few 1000s of hands. I am ready for the people of the country to start impeachment proceedings against these elected extremists who cherish their besotted opionions more than their country.
Finallly it is becomming recognized that in their zealotry Tea Party Republicans - and there are few Rs who aren't - are so unbendingly extreme that they threaten the security of the nation. They are such true believers that negotiation and compromise are impossible for them to consider. This is extremism. And it is tied to a refusal to accept any other opinions or even facts. Science doesn't matter. Experts are wrong. And for some reason the poor and the middle class should suffer so that the hyperwealthy can supposedly create jobs. But they didn't during the low tax and no regulation years of Bush, instead concentrating historical wealth in their few 1000s of hands. I am ready for the people of the country to start impeachment proceedings against these elected extremists who cherish their besotted opionions more than their country.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Who caused this mess?
A comment in the NY Times that I like:
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither.
Johnny E
Texas
April 24th, 2011
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither.
Johnny E
Texas
April 24th, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Unemployment Rises under Republican Presidents
A statistical study from Truman to Bush 2 shows that under Democratic presidents the rate of change of unemployment decreases by 0.22%/yr, and under Republicans it increases 0.35%/yr. This means that for a typical 8 year presidency, unemployment decreases 1.8% for Democrats, but increases by 2.4% when a Republican is president. If you add these together you can claim that unemployment is typically 4.2% better if there is a Democratic president, compared to having a Republican one.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Core Republican Beliefs - Taxes
I am a liberal and think that I have rational and even noble reasons for my beliefs. A major personal goal for this blog is to figure out why Republicans/conservatives have difference beliefs, ones that seem detrimental to poor people and the environment. It is easy to assert that they are ignorant, mean-spirited, selfish and racist (as some Demoncrats/liberals are) but I want to understand those beliefs and why some people accept them. This posting is a beginning, and will have things added over time.
In a recent Washington Post story this statement appears:
In a recent Washington Post story this statement appears:
... conservative principle that the government must not increase the amount of money it takes in through taxes.Further down is this amplification:
... 41 senators, including Coburn, and 237 House members have signed the pledge, in which candidates vow to oppose “all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business” as well as “any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”The pledge was instituted 25 yrs ago by Grover Norquist who heads his own organization, Americans for Tax Reform. The group's website gives this reason for being against taxes:
The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized.This is a sentiment that has ebbed and flowed throughout US history. Some mistakenly think that our revolution was because of unfair taxes, but the founding fathers were against taxation without representation. All of the taxes that exist have been approved by representatives (congress people) of US citizens so conservatives' complaints must be that they do not like the laws that our representatives have passed and presidents of both political parties have signed.
There is ample historical precedent to be afraid of your own government. In the past, nearly all governments acted in dictatorial ways to control their people, and that is still true, to varying degrees, in many countries today. But America's founders specifically wrote a constitution that shared powers between different actors so that dictatorships and illegal and immoral activities would be more difficult to get away with.
I think most people would agree that the government should not have excessive power to control the lives of its citizens. The issue is not black and white, but rather what should be the limits of government's power. For example, governments regulate the flow of traffic with laws and policies - e.g. stop signs, air traffic control, inspections to make sure vehicles are safe, etc. Most people believe these are important roles for government, although a neighbor says they aren't and that, for example, after a certain number of plane collisions, airline companies would work out control procedures that would maximize their profits. I would not want to fly on those planes, and would ask who is going to make sure that solutions are followed by all carriers in all nations?
Similar arguments have been made about safety and protection of people's lives through work place safety, food inspections, auto safety, air and water pollution. Businesses have been against every one of these because they increase cost. But the public has supported them, that is why many safety laws now exist. In general, many people feel they have a right to be protected from fraudulent and unsafe practices, and only the government can do that. Many conservatives seem to accept caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. In other words, if you aren't smart enough to avoid being taken advantage of, it is your own stupid fault. Unfortunately, it is impossible for each citizen to investigate the ingredients or cleanliness of food processing plants, for example. During the second President Bush's term he reduced the funding for food inspectors and food contamination outbreaks resulted. Caveat emptor is a philosophy of the past, and laws have grown up in every modern country to protect their citizens.
This introduces another concept that will be discussed in another posting: capitalism. Conservatives generally want no restrictions on a company's ability to make profits. Companies were largely uncontrolled during the 1870s thru 1900s so that gross inequalities became so outrageous that a Republican president (T.R. Roosevelt) was forced to introduce government regulations. This episode demonstrates why so much government regulation was approved over the last 100 years: both small companies and large corporations were unfair to their workers.
Similar arguments have been made about safety and protection of people's lives through work place safety, food inspections, auto safety, air and water pollution. Businesses have been against every one of these because they increase cost. But the public has supported them, that is why many safety laws now exist. In general, many people feel they have a right to be protected from fraudulent and unsafe practices, and only the government can do that. Many conservatives seem to accept caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. In other words, if you aren't smart enough to avoid being taken advantage of, it is your own stupid fault. Unfortunately, it is impossible for each citizen to investigate the ingredients or cleanliness of food processing plants, for example. During the second President Bush's term he reduced the funding for food inspectors and food contamination outbreaks resulted. Caveat emptor is a philosophy of the past, and laws have grown up in every modern country to protect their citizens.
This introduces another concept that will be discussed in another posting: capitalism. Conservatives generally want no restrictions on a company's ability to make profits. Companies were largely uncontrolled during the 1870s thru 1900s so that gross inequalities became so outrageous that a Republican president (T.R. Roosevelt) was forced to introduce government regulations. This episode demonstrates why so much government regulation was approved over the last 100 years: both small companies and large corporations were unfair to their workers.
As discussed below conservatives tend not to accept nuances - their world view is typically of right and wrong. That is not the topic of this analysis but is a factor in understanding behavior.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Mountain Top Removal Immoral
Here is a post that I contributed to the New York Times in response to an excellent article about mountain top removal: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/us/13lindytown.html?_r=1
Mountain top removal, like slavery, is immoral. But those who profit from it make excuses and keep blasting away the contours, habitats and beauty of the land. This story should have featured before and after scenes so the ravishment of the land could be shared, as is the resulting energy. Coal is plentiful but not cheap - the air and water pollution is not included in the cost, and loss of the land surface is incalculable. Will it take a civil war to stop this immoral destruction of our homeland?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)