From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 1 02:13:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:13:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is economic patriotism? Message-ID: <01C51DC1.44431DB0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From guavaberry at earthlink.net Tue Mar 1 04:01:50 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:01:50 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] K12 Education, Technology, St. Patricks Day, Sports & Music Fans: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050228225903.01cf9e90@mail.edu-cyberpg.com> hi, i know this is kinda off topic but it's pretty snazzy :-) best, karen K12 Education, Technology, St. Patricks Day, Sports & Music Fans: MARCH 1913 at spring training for SF SEALS BASEBALL TEAM that the word JAZZ first appears in S.F. Bulletin Newspaper sports columns of SPORTS REPORTER SCOOP GLEESON. It appears as many as a hundred times that summer as only a sports and baseball word. The Irish, Baseball and JAZZ Heat up the Educational CyberPlayGround Karen Ellis founded the Educational CyberPlayGround [ECP] http://www.edu-cyberpg.com provides a community for intuitive learners, adult learners, and educators working with students on the Web and in classrooms. Using her experiences teaching music, dance, and elementary education to young people in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Ellis set up a learning site that celebrates diversity in students' backgrounds while "highlighting the variety in students' preferred approaches to learning." Ellis integrates linguistics, music, and technology into the classroom and while doing research for her most recent project the National Children's Folksong Repository she hit upon an answer to a question that has eluded everyone in the 20th century. "News is the first rough draft of history." Philip L. Graham (1915-63), U.S. newspaper publisher. Where does the word Jazz Come From? It all starts with the Irish sports writers and baseball. Ellis: "There have been many discussions and debates over where the word Jazz comes from and we are now able to explain it's origins." Dan Cassidy, Director of Irish Studies at New College in San Francisco, singer, author of 2 books: Irish Language influence on Poker and American Gambling and The Tongue of the Saol Luim (slum) from University press in Ireland due out in the fall of 2005, explains its roots. "The word Jazz, like the music, is part of our entwined American roots culture and was first used in March 1913, by Irish American sports reporter "Scoop" Gleeson in The San Francisco Bulletin as a baseball slang term for exciting, hot, spirited play" says Cassidy. Jazz Etymology: Irish American Vernacular English and the hidden influence of Irish and Scots-Gaelic on what we call American English. The sanas of jazz is explained in 7 articles with numerous resources. The Pizzazz of Jazz: The Sanas (Irish etymology) of Jazz, Fizz, Fizzle, and Sizzle, St. Bridget's House of Fire and The Secret Irish Traveller Bain-Fhile (Woman-Poet) of "Whoopie Ti Yi Yo, Git Along Little Dogies" is available. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/irish.html Another opportunity for the Educational CyberPlayGround to recognize the nation's unknown culture makers is The National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ A public folklore project where children record and submit their folksongs, indigenous playground chants and songs into the online archive. When you access her award-winning site, you can choose the map that matches your learning style (intuitive, logical, or visual) by clicking on the "search this site" pull-down menu. Explore playful educational approaches to music, arts, literacy, linguistics, internet, technology, teachers and online curriculum. The New York Times Learning Network selected the Educational CyberPlayGround as its "Site of the Day." The Times noted that the site provides opportunities for parents, teachers, and librarians, even with limited online experience, to learn how to use the World Wide Web to provide more effective teaching. USA Today in January 2000 selected the Educational CyberPlayGround as one of its "Best Bets for Educators." The Educational CyberPlayGround was also a USA Today "Hot Site," in both its online and print editions, and MSNBC News online named the portal as a "Web Pick." The site also includes the Hot List a Master Registry of K12 Schools Online, http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/schools/ 6 Mailing Lists reaching across the world with thousands of readers http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/community/ and access to "Ring Leaders," experts in their fields who will assist site users. -- 30 Karen Ellis The Educational CyberPlayGround <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 1 05:31:22 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:31:22 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] math and music? Message-ID: <4223FE2A.3090207@solution-consulting.com> Nicholas, On a slightely different note. There is some overlap between musical ability and math. A quick couple of references: Title Inter-domain transfer between mathemetical skills and musicianship. Abstract Investigated the nature of transfer of problem solving skills between 2 domains which are very dissimilar at a surface level but which overlap at a deep structural level in specific areas. The domains are formal musical skill and mathematics. This study examined specifically whether this transfer occurs without explicit instruction to facilitate transfer. Structural Learning Theory provided a frame of reference for the study of the deep structural similarities between music and math. 85 public secondary school students (mean age 15.5 yrs) enrolled in an extension math course completed a mathematics test in their regular classroom. One wk later Ss completed the Musicianship Rating Scale to measure trained musical knowledge. The results indicate that in the domains of mathematics and music, students who had training in musicianship performed better than students with no musical training in mathematical areas of structural overlap. However, they did not perform better in areas without overlap. The author concludes that transfer occurs as a result of deep-structural similarity of domains and that this transfer can occur spontaneously without explicit instruction designed to facilitate transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved) Authors Bahr, Nan; Christensen, Carol A. Affiliations Bahr, Nan: U Queensland, Graduate School of Education, QLD, Australia Source Journal of Structural Learning & Intelligent Systems. 14(3), 2000, 187-197. Title Music as embodied mathematics: A study of mutually informaing affinity. Abstract The argument examined in this paper is that music - when approached through making and responding to coherent musical structures, facilitated by multiple, intuitively accessible representations - can become a learning context in which basic mathematical ideas can be elicited and perceived as relevant and important. Students' inquiry into the bases for their perceptions of musical coherence provides a path into the mathematics of ratio, proportion, fractions, and common multiples. In a similar manner, we conjecture that other topics in mathematics - patterns of change, transformations and invariants - might also expose, illuminate and account for more general organizing structures in music. Drawing on experience with 11-12 year old students working in a software music/math environment, we illustrate the role of multiple representations, multi-media, and the use of multiple sensory modalities in eliciting and developing students' initially implicit knowledge of music and its inherent mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved) Authors Bamberger, Jeanne; Disessa, Andrea Affiliations Bamberger, Jeanne: Music and Theater Arts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, US Disessa, Andrea: University of California, Berkeley, CA, US Source International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 8(2), 2003, 123-160. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 1 12:14:36 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:14:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51E15.30150E80.shovland@mindspring.com> Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, these are the words never to say again. 1. NEVER SAY Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives." 2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) 3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, something should be done to simplify the tax code. 4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death tax. 5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. 6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire "the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. 7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing "immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has universal support. 8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade INSTEAD SAY: International Trade For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept than either foreign or global. 9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and "balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. 10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add the word "frivolous." 11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury lawyers." 12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. 13. NEVER SAY School Choice INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the issue right and you get the support you need. 14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too many senior citizens. From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 03:17:37 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:17:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and marketing In-Reply-To: <200503012349.j21NnPh31691@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302031737.77026.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>NEVER SAY Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington<< --This goes to why the Democrats did so badly. Republicans stayed on message, had catch-phrases that were clearly focus-tested by competent marketing teams, and "branded" everything in sight in a way that would make Nike proud. Think tanks, church activists, talk radio and internet email trees were coordinated, all using the same press releases, the same language, the same lockstep labeling and negative branding of anything "liberal" as weak, wimpy and vacillating. Anyone who studies marketing will recognize all the techniques, and will be amazed that Democrats were so slow to respond with appropriate counter-moves and pre-empt branding with branding. If the GOP campaign had been framed as a marketing-based campaign, which it very much was, its moves would have appeared manipulative and underhanded, as they did in the primary campaign where McCain was so unfairly trashed. Instead, Democrats were cornered at every turn, branded vacillating, and their squirming to catch up confirmed the dominant theme, which was "Republicans are decisive, Democrats weak. Republicans stand firm. Democrats are lukewarm. Republicans have the endorsement of God. Democrats believe in relative values and are therefore anti-God." Enough repetition and any binary labeling will seem true. I'm hoping Democrats don't end up using the same techniques, at least not as well as Republicans have used them. Stirring up resentment against conservatives the way it's been stirred up against liberals, deliberately and with strategy, is not something I'd want to be associated with. Some anger is inevitable when people feel wronged, but playing on the victim mentality, whether it's Christian resentment against secular humanism, or race/class alienation against the system, is not something that should be done, in my opinion. If either party wants to have the moral high ground, it's going to have to stop using character assassination as part of its toolkit, and it's going to have to use marketing that holds up as well when it's exposed as when it's covert. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 05:12:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:12:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51EA3.5AA2D310.shovland@mindspring.com> I heard about this on Air America about 3 am and jumped out of bed to find this. So as far as I know this is real. There is also a pdf of a 160 page briefing book supposedly from Luntz. This is the page: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/3244/72156 The link to the briefing book download is the word "Republicans" in orange. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:23 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Source??? Steve Hovland wrote: >Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other >times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a >paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared >exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, >a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular >demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively >communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words >and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. >So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, >these are the words never to say again. >1. NEVER SAY Government >INSTEAD SAY: Washington >The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up >their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation >services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about >Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington >bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind >voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's >responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to >ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and >improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the >context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve >their lives, not try to run their lives." >2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts >INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts >Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" >it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security >while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social >Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while >privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH >PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) >3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform >INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification >While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, >one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in >taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans >believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was >simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about >the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, >something should be done to simplify the tax code. >4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax >INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax >While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, >fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority >would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would >repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death >tax. >5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism >INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy >More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even >privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, >something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans >like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the >more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of >globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market >economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic >competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free >market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. >6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing >INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education >When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting >their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the >word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the >practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we >should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire >"the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, >over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality >education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. >7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers >INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens >The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. >Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing >"immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking >about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has >universal support. >8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade >INSTEAD SAY: International Trade >For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up >negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign >products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept >than either foreign or global. >9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil >INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy >It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an >old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology >and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our >cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and >"balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. >10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform >INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform >The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at >best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most >Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add >the word "frivolous." >11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer >INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer >It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so >favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also >known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing >commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to >get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury >lawyers." >12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency >INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability >I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the >financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you >asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher >priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what >transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands >accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. >13. NEVER SAY School Choice >INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education >Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" >in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the >right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is >almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the >issue right and you get the support you need. >14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" >INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" >This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost >all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, >doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer >Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, >the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the >prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it >offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too >many senior citizens. > > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 14:29:24 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:29:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51EF1.2E273440.shovland@mindspring.com> If it's real it's a significant security breach- like getting the other side's playbook. As a left-wing propagandist I do know that propaganda needs an element of truth. I think this is one reason why Bush's effort to "reform" Social Security is failing- he started out with a big lie and has no fall-back. Although I agree that the current leadership of the Democrats has been totally corrupted by campaign money, I think that the right has now been saying the same things for so long that they have become mindless and reactive. When I assert my positions in ThePoliticalSpinRoom I do not get any orderly arguments in return- just a lot of name calling. It remains to see if the Democrats will pick up the opportunities. Nancy Pelosi has such a low leadership profile that she is almost invisible. Harry looks frail. I hear that the Governor of Iowa has a lot of charisma. Here's my take on applying the 14 words from the leftwing perspective. Warning, it may be upsetting. Privatizing Our Retirement Outsourcing Our Future Tax Simplification for the Rich Estate Tax Haven Global Oppression Economy Aliens Hold Down Wages Foreign Trade 'til It Hurts Tort Reform Pays For Campaigns No Defense For The People Corporations First Privileged Education Health Care For Some Washington Looters Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:34 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Ah, so you are one of the twenty-three people who listen to Air America! What a pleasure it is to know you! I thought it was a pretty good example of branding and positioning. What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be some value and truth underlying the branding or the effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive. The energy from the Right comes from the huge turnaround, in terms of articles, think tanks, and books. Actually, Harry Reid did some interesting positioning when he said that a baby born today is born with a $35k (or whatever number) "birth tax." That is memorable. The notion that the Left is now concerned about deficit and Right isn't, is a delicious irony, since it was traditionally the Left that was into deficits. But it does represent a visionary position. Reid may be more of an asset than meets the eye. Steve Hovland wrote: >I heard about this on Air America about 3 am and >jumped out of bed to find this. So as far as I know >this is real. There is also a pdf of a 160 page >briefing book supposedly from Luntz. > >This is the page: > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/3244/72156 > >The link to the briefing book download is the word >"Republicans" in orange. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:23 PM >To: Steve Hovland >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say > >Source??? > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other >>times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a >>paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared >>exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, >>a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular >>demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively >>communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words >>and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. >>So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, >>these are the words never to say again. >>1. NEVER SAY Government >>INSTEAD SAY: Washington >>The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up >>their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation >>services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about >>Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington >>bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind >>voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's >>responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to >>ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and >>improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the >>context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve >>their lives, not try to run their lives." >>2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts >>INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts >>Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" >>it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security >>while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social >>Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while >>privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH >>PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) >>3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform >>INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification >>While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, >>one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in >>taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans >>believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was >>simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about >>the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, >>something should be done to simplify the tax code. >>4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax >>INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax >>While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, >>fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority >>would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would >>repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death >>tax. >>5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism >>INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy >>More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even >>privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, >>something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans >>like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the >>more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of >>globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market >>economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic >>competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free >>market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. >>6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing >>INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education >>When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting >>their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the >>word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the >>practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we >>should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire >>"the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, >>over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality >>education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. >>7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers >>INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens >>The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. >>Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing >>"immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking >>about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has >>universal support. >>8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade >>INSTEAD SAY: International Trade >>For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up >>negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign >>products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept >>than either foreign or global. >>9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil >>INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy >>It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an >>old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology >>and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our >>cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and >>"balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. >>10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform >>INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform >>The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at >>best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most >>Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add >>the word "frivolous." >>11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer >>INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer >>It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so >>favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also >>known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing >>commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to >>get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury >>lawyers." >>12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency >>INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability >>I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the >>financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you >>asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher >>priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what >>transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands >>accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. >>13. NEVER SAY School Choice >>INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education >>Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" >>in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the >>right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is >>almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the >>issue right and you get the support you need. >>14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" >>INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" >>This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost >>all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, >>doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer >>Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, >>the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the >>prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it >>offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too >>many senior citizens. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > << File: ATT00008.html >> From Thrst4knw at aol.com Wed Mar 2 16:48:35 2005 From: Thrst4knw at aol.com (Thrst4knw at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:48:35 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Message-ID: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 17:50:57 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:50:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Message-ID: <01C51F0D.5619BB50.shovland@mindspring.com> The idea that the left is aligned with radical islam is an example of a big lie. The frame is that since we don't support the imperialist ambitions of the Neo Cons, we must be supporting the bad guys. Supporting the Baathists was the official policy of the US for most of the years that Saddam was in power. It is a right-wing President who has done more than anyone before him to create a theocratic state in America, making us more like Iran. I think the real purpose of the war was to install a new puppet regime and retain control of the oil, which is perfectly easy to understand on a practical basis, even if it is morally decrepit. My "Democratic Family Values" piece was an attempt to formulate a vision. I send faxes to Congress almost every day in order to shift their conscious toward my positions. I recently heard that circa 1974 the Republican party was in such bad shape that they weren't making the mortgage payments on their headquarters. A similar renaissance is starting on the left, but don't expect to hear about it on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC or any of the corporate media. It's at the level of the committee's of correspondence and the pamphleteers of the American revolution. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:58 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Here is a thought provoking piece. Steve, you have some real talents, and I wonder if you could help the Left formulate real programs instead of, as Soderberg does, just hoping Bush will fail. This is NOT the party of FDR, of Harry Truman, and clearly is not the party of JFK. They had a foreign policy vision. There is nothing on the left that is equivalent to the American Century project. Three years ago I was saying that the real reason to invade Iraq is to create a foothold for democracy in the middle east, and now it is happening. The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam). You could play a key role in helping your fellow leftists formulate some transcendent vision. The Right will need a stronger Left if America is to flourish, since power corrupts and it is vital to have dialog. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:11:06 -0500 From: OpinionJournal Reply-To: OpinionJournal To: botw at djoj.opinionjournal.com OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 By JAMES TARANTO 'But as an American . . .' We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of " The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471656836.html " (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it: *** QUOTE *** Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes. *** END QUOTE *** We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top). She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545 . Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006355 puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues. Revolution Watch Two mostly Muslim ex-Soviet states may be joining the democratic revolution, reports the Times of London: "Western observers denounced Sunday's polls in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, although monitors from former Soviet states said that they were fair." In consonant-deprived Kyrgyzstan, opposition candidates allegedly won only three seats in the parliamentary vote. "Opposition supporters have begun protests to disrupt the second round of voting--to be held on March 13 in more than half of the constituencies. Many are calling for a 'tulip' or 'lemon' revolution comparable to Ukraine's Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003." In Tajikstan, where the ruling party supposedly won 80% of Sunday's vote, "a coalition of opposition parties is threatening to boycott the Government and parliament unless new elections are held, but is thought to be too weak to overturn the results." Hearts and Minds *** QUOTE *** "Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."-- Ted Kennedy http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=kennedy.senate.gov/ %7Ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html&d=7108E33F86&icp=1&.intl=us , Jan. 27 "Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "-- Associated Press http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_re_mi_ ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480 , March 1 *** END QUOTE *** Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. Mike Godwin, Meet Robert Byrd http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebyrd/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_march/by rd_speeches_03012005.html Despite their diminishing numbers, Senate Democrats still seem determined to use a procedure called "cloture," whereby 41 senators can filibuster and prevent a vote, to prevent the Senate from acting on numerous judicial nominees who have the support of a Senate majority. Republicans are considering a change in the Senate rules to do away with the requirement for cloture in judicial nominations, a change Trent Lott infelicitously dubbed the "nuclear option." Yesterday Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, former Ku Klux Klansman and the Senate's longest-serving member, took to the floor to denounce the idea, in terms that were overheated to say the least: *** QUOTE *** We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded. Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the state: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. . . . For the temporary gain of a handful of "out of the mainstream" judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate. *** END QUOTE *** Byrd went on to extol the filibuster as a way in which "the minority can challenge, agitate, and question," and a measure that vindicates "the power of even a single individual through the device of extended debate." Of course, this is no longer true. Although once a single senator could block action through extended debate, today 60 can cut off debate and force a vote. It used to take a two-thirds vote, as Byrd should know from his own experience. Byrd's characterization of "extended debate" as a way to preserve minority rights is curious in light of his own history, which the Senate Web site http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibus ter_Ended.htm details: *** QUOTE *** At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate. . . . Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. *** END QUOTE *** The final vote to end debate was 71-29, just four more than necessary to cut off debate. Nine days later the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. So the device of extended debate--used by Byrd among others--was an important reason it took nearly a century after the ratification of the 14th Amendment for Congress to make good on the amendment's promise of equal protection for minorities. To say the least, Byrd would not seem the best spokesman for the filibuster as a means of vindicating minority rights. And what about this Hitler stuff? Is this another example of the paranoid style of politics? We suppose we could argue this either way. Certainly we've heard folks on the Angry Left invoke Nazi Germany in a paranoid vein, and it does fit with Richard Hofstadter http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/t he_paranoid_style.html 's characterization of the paranoid's mentality: "What is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil." On the other hand, sometimes the invocation of Hitler reflects mere intellectual laziness, not paranoia. And perhaps Byrd doesn't understand why comparing his domestic foes to Hitler is inappropriate. After all, the man is 87. Maybe he's just too old to remember the horrors of Nazi Germany. Fool and the Gang America-hating "ethnic studies" professor Ward Churchill finally managed to dodge disinvitation and give a speech on a college campus last night. The venue was the University of Wisconsin's Whitewater campus, and Churchill's hometown paper, the Rocky Mountain News, carried a prespeech report yesterday. Noteworthy are the contrasting responses of the College Republicans and the College Democrats: *** QUOTE *** The school's College Republicans are hosting a vigil this afternoon in honor of Sept. 11 victims outside the hall where Churchill will speak. "He's engaging in hate speech," said freshman Greg Torres. "If you want to stand and yell that stuff on a street corner, that's one thing. But this is no different than bringing in the Ku Klux Klan." . . . Also, just prior to Churchill's address, a student rally celebrating free speech--and Churchill's appearance--will take place on campus, sponsored by the College Democrats, the campus Green Party and the Whitewater United for Peace Party. *** END QUOTE *** Last month, as we noted http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006306#dean , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean demanded the resignation of a local Republican official who had called the Democrats the party of Lynne Stewart. Will he make a similar demand of the Whitewater College Democrats for calling them the party of Ward Churchill? Same Reporter, Different Kerfuffle A clarification is in order of a point in our Monday item http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006354 about the Valerie Plame kerfuffle and the New York Times. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is demanding the phone records of two Times reporters not in the Plame case but in a different investigation. Not Even Brian May? "Queen Doesn't Recognize Famous Guitarists"--headline, Associated Press, March 2 Spot the Idiot Yes, it's the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Daily Collegian again. Fish in a barrel, we know, but they keep writing 'em. This one is from Amelia Sabadini: *** QUOTE *** Is doing something like forcing a 42-year-old waitress who just accidentally got pregnant and already has two teenage kids, no husband, no health care and osteo-arthritis to carry to term worth sacrificing the safety and freedom of yourself and everyone you know? Do you really have such a need to stop two consenting adults from getting married just because you don't consider their relationship to be legitimate, proper or anything other than something you watch on cable after dark, that you're willing to risk a biblical execution (stoning, burning or hanging) over it? There's just no way to oppress someone without ultimately oppressing yourself as well. You can't have your self-righteous cake and the freedom to eat it in a relatively safe, sane democratic society too. *** END QUOTE *** An Automotive Fetality "A San Jose man may face manslaughter or murder charges after a hit-and-run crash involving a pregnant 15-year-old girl," reports the San Jose Mercury News; *** QUOTE *** The girl, who was a passenger in the car allegedly driven by Louis Vincent Brackett, 19, Friday evening, delivered a stillborn 31-week-old fetus Monday. . . . On Friday, Brackett was arrested and booked into Santa Clara County Jail on suspicion of felony drunken driving and felony hit-and-run. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case to determine whether Brackett should be charged with manslaughter or murder in the death of the fetus. *** END QUOTE *** We are getting very close now to pinpointing the exact moment when a fetus turns into a child. In last week's article about the karlrovian conspiracy http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006336#fetuses against Australian women, Greg Barns http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/213105_abortion23.html put it at somewhere between 22 and 32 weeks after conception: *** QUOTE *** Other groups, to support their case for a ban on late-term abortion, have taken to highlighting two rare and extreme cases in which a 32-week-old child with suspected dwarfism was aborted at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne and a 22-week-old fetus was aborted in the Northern Territory and lived for 80 minutes. *** END QUOTE *** Thanks to the San Jose Mercury News, we now know that a fetus is still just a fetus at 31 weeks, so the transformation into a baby occurs sometime in the 32nd week of pregnancy. Yet note that whereas according to Barns an Australian child can be "aborted," in California Brackett may be charged with "manslaughter" or "murder" for "killing" a mere fetus. We guess Australia just has a more enlightened attitude about reproductive rights. (Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to J.T. Kurth, Drew Anderson, Stephen Henry, Barak Moore, Betty Bliss, Samuel Walker, Ron Ackert, Tom Jackson, Tom Maguire, Jonathan Hutchinson, Thomas Dillon and Teresa Hanson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal at wsj.com , and please include the URL.) ~~~~~~~ Today on OpinionJournal: - Review & Outlook http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006361 : The Supreme Court continues its liberal social activism. - Gabriel Schoenfeld http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006359 : How is it that America's intelligence analysts don't recognize ham and think bin Laden is "gentle"? - Barrymore Laurence Scherer http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006360 : The West Point band plays more than Sousa marches. _____ ADVERTISEMENT Whether you're moving up, relocating, seeking a new neighborhood or merely curious about your current home's market value, you'll find answers at RealEstateJournal.com, a free site from The Wall Street Journal. It offers a complete online guide to buying, selling and maintaining a residential property, and includes 1.5 million active home listings, as well as content from many top real-estate information providers. Please take a minute to visit RealEstateJournal.com today. http://RealEstateJournal.com http://RealEstateJournal.com _____ >From time to time Dow Jones may send you e-mails with information about new features and special offers for selected Dow Jones products. If you do not wish to receive these emails in the future, you may visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/email_acct.html. You can also unsubscribe at the same link. You can also review OpinionJournal's privacy policy at http://opinionjournal.com/about/privacy.html If you have been forwarded this email and wish to subscribe visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/get_email_page.html. Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Published by Dow Jones & Co., Inc., U.S. Route 1 at Ridge Rd., South Brunswick, N.J. 08852 << File: ATT00011.html >> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 19:00:19 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:00:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Message-ID: <01C51F17.06C0BA90.shovland@mindspring.com> I was amused to see the left described as "redistributionist." The right is also redistributionist. Only the direction is different. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:58 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Here is a thought provoking piece. Steve, you have some real talents, and I wonder if you could help the Left formulate real programs instead of, as Soderberg does, just hoping Bush will fail. This is NOT the party of FDR, of Harry Truman, and clearly is not the party of JFK. They had a foreign policy vision. There is nothing on the left that is equivalent to the American Century project. Three years ago I was saying that the real reason to invade Iraq is to create a foothold for democracy in the middle east, and now it is happening. The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam). You could play a key role in helping your fellow leftists formulate some transcendent vision. The Right will need a stronger Left if America is to flourish, since power corrupts and it is vital to have dialog. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:11:06 -0500 From: OpinionJournal Reply-To: OpinionJournal To: botw at djoj.opinionjournal.com OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 By JAMES TARANTO 'But as an American . . .' We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of " The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-04 71656836.html " (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it: *** QUOTE *** Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes. *** END QUOTE *** We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top). She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545 . Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006355 puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues. Revolution Watch Two mostly Muslim ex-Soviet states may be joining the democratic revolution, reports the Times of London: "Western observers denounced Sunday's polls in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, although monitors from former Soviet states said that they were fair." In consonant-deprived Kyrgyzstan, opposition candidates allegedly won only three seats in the parliamentary vote. "Opposition supporters have begun protests to disrupt the second round of voting--to be held on March 13 in more than half of the constituencies. Many are calling for a 'tulip' or 'lemon' revolution comparable to Ukraine's Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003." In Tajikstan, where the ruling party supposedly won 80% of Sunday's vote, "a coalition of opposition parties is threatening to boycott the Government and parliament unless new elections are held, but is thought to be too weak to overturn the results." Hearts and Minds *** QUOTE *** "Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."-- Ted Kennedy http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=kennedy.senate.gov/ %7Ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html&d=7108E33F86&icp=1&.intl=us , Jan. 27 "Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "-- Associated Press http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_re_mi_ ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480 , March 1 *** END QUOTE *** Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. Mike Godwin, Meet Robert Byrd http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebyrd/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_march/by rd_speeches_03012005.html Despite their diminishing numbers, Senate Democrats still seem determined to use a procedure called "cloture," whereby 41 senators can filibuster and prevent a vote, to prevent the Senate from acting on numerous judicial nominees who have the support of a Senate majority. Republicans are considering a change in the Senate rules to do away with the requirement for cloture in judicial nominations, a change Trent Lott infelicitously dubbed the "nuclear option." Yesterday Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, former Ku Klux Klansman and the Senate's longest-serving member, took to the floor to denounce the idea, in terms that were overheated to say the least: *** QUOTE *** We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded. Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the state: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. . . . For the temporary gain of a handful of "out of the mainstream" judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate. *** END QUOTE *** Byrd went on to extol the filibuster as a way in which "the minority can challenge, agitate, and question," and a measure that vindicates "the power of even a single individual through the device of extended debate." Of course, this is no longer true. Although once a single senator could block action through extended debate, today 60 can cut off debate and force a vote. It used to take a two-thirds vote, as Byrd should know from his own experience. Byrd's characterization of "extended debate" as a way to preserve minority rights is curious in light of his own history, which the Senate Web site http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibus ter_Ended.htm details: *** QUOTE *** At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate. . . . Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. *** END QUOTE *** The final vote to end debate was 71-29, just four more than necessary to cut off debate. Nine days later the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. So the device of extended debate--used by Byrd among others--was an important reason it took nearly a century after the ratification of the 14th Amendment for Congress to make good on the amendment's promise of equal protection for minorities. To say the least, Byrd would not seem the best spokesman for the filibuster as a means of vindicating minority rights. And what about this Hitler stuff? Is this another example of the paranoid style of politics? We suppose we could argue this either way. Certainly we've heard folks on the Angry Left invoke Nazi Germany in a paranoid vein, and it does fit with Richard Hofstadter http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/t he_paranoid_style.html 's characterization of the paranoid's mentality: "What is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil." On the other hand, sometimes the invocation of Hitler reflects mere intellectual laziness, not paranoia. And perhaps Byrd doesn't understand why comparing his domestic foes to Hitler is inappropriate. After all, the man is 87. Maybe he's just too old to remember the horrors of Nazi Germany. Fool and the Gang America-hating "ethnic studies" professor Ward Churchill finally managed to dodge disinvitation and give a speech on a college campus last night. The venue was the University of Wisconsin's Whitewater campus, and Churchill's hometown paper, the Rocky Mountain News, carried a prespeech report yesterday. Noteworthy are the contrasting responses of the College Republicans and the College Democrats: *** QUOTE *** The school's College Republicans are hosting a vigil this afternoon in honor of Sept. 11 victims outside the hall where Churchill will speak. "He's engaging in hate speech," said freshman Greg Torres. "If you want to stand and yell that stuff on a street corner, that's one thing. But this is no different than bringing in the Ku Klux Klan." . . . Also, just prior to Churchill's address, a student rally celebrating free speech--and Churchill's appearance--will take place on campus, sponsored by the College Democrats, the campus Green Party and the Whitewater United for Peace Party. *** END QUOTE *** Last month, as we noted http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006306#dean , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean demanded the resignation of a local Republican official who had called the Democrats the party of Lynne Stewart. Will he make a similar demand of the Whitewater College Democrats for calling them the party of Ward Churchill? Same Reporter, Different Kerfuffle A clarification is in order of a point in our Monday item http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006354 about the Valerie Plame kerfuffle and the New York Times. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is demanding the phone records of two Times reporters not in the Plame case but in a different investigation. Not Even Brian May? "Queen Doesn't Recognize Famous Guitarists"--headline, Associated Press, March 2 Spot the Idiot Yes, it's the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Daily Collegian again. Fish in a barrel, we know, but they keep writing 'em. This one is from Amelia Sabadini: *** QUOTE *** Is doing something like forcing a 42-year-old waitress who just accidentally got pregnant and already has two teenage kids, no husband, no health care and osteo-arthritis to carry to term worth sacrificing the safety and freedom of yourself and everyone you know? Do you really have such a need to stop two consenting adults from getting married just because you don't consider their relationship to be legitimate, proper or anything other than something you watch on cable after dark, that you're willing to risk a biblical execution (stoning, burning or hanging) over it? There's just no way to oppress someone without ultimately oppressing yourself as well. You can't have your self-righteous cake and the freedom to eat it in a relatively safe, sane democratic society too. *** END QUOTE *** An Automotive Fetality "A San Jose man may face manslaughter or murder charges after a hit-and-run crash involving a pregnant 15-year-old girl," reports the San Jose Mercury News; *** QUOTE *** The girl, who was a passenger in the car allegedly driven by Louis Vincent Brackett, 19, Friday evening, delivered a stillborn 31-week-old fetus Monday. . . . On Friday, Brackett was arrested and booked into Santa Clara County Jail on suspicion of felony drunken driving and felony hit-and-run. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case to determine whether Brackett should be charged with manslaughter or murder in the death of the fetus. *** END QUOTE *** We are getting very close now to pinpointing the exact moment when a fetus turns into a child. In last week's article about the karlrovian conspiracy http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006336#fetuses against Australian women, Greg Barns http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/213105_abortion23.html put it at somewhere between 22 and 32 weeks after conception: *** QUOTE *** Other groups, to support their case for a ban on late-term abortion, have taken to highlighting two rare and extreme cases in which a 32-week-old child with suspected dwarfism was aborted at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne and a 22-week-old fetus was aborted in the Northern Territory and lived for 80 minutes. *** END QUOTE *** Thanks to the San Jose Mercury News, we now know that a fetus is still just a fetus at 31 weeks, so the transformation into a baby occurs sometime in the 32nd week of pregnancy. Yet note that whereas according to Barns an Australian child can be "aborted," in California Brackett may be charged with "manslaughter" or "murder" for "killing" a mere fetus. We guess Australia just has a more enlightened attitude about reproductive rights. (Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to J.T. Kurth, Drew Anderson, Stephen Henry, Barak Moore, Betty Bliss, Samuel Walker, Ron Ackert, Tom Jackson, Tom Maguire, Jonathan Hutchinson, Thomas Dillon and Teresa Hanson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal at wsj.com , and please include the URL.) ~~~~~~~ Today on OpinionJournal: - Review & Outlook http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006361 : The Supreme Court continues its liberal social activism. - Gabriel Schoenfeld http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006359 : How is it that America's intelligence analysts don't recognize ham and think bin Laden is "gentle"? - Barrymore Laurence Scherer http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006360 : The West Point band plays more than Sousa marches. _____ ADVERTISEMENT Whether you're moving up, relocating, seeking a new neighborhood or merely curious about your current home's market value, you'll find answers at RealEstateJournal.com, a free site from The Wall Street Journal. It offers a complete online guide to buying, selling and maintaining a residential property, and includes 1.5 million active home listings, as well as content from many top real-estate information providers. Please take a minute to visit RealEstateJournal.com today. http://RealEstateJournal.com http://RealEstateJournal.com _____ >From time to time Dow Jones may send you e-mails with information about new features and special offers for selected Dow Jones products. If you do not wish to receive these emails in the future, you may visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/email_acct.html. You can also unsubscribe at the same link. You can also review OpinionJournal's privacy policy at http://opinionjournal.com/about/privacy.html If you have been forwarded this email and wish to subscribe visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/get_email_page.html. Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Published by Dow Jones & Co., Inc., U.S. Route 1 at Ridge Rd., South Brunswick, N.J. 08852 << File: ATT00011.html >> From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 2 19:28:45 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> Message-ID: <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewsa at newpaltz.edu Wed Mar 2 20:41:58 2005 From: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu (Alice Andrews) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 20:43:38 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] framing In-Reply-To: <200503021919.j22JJYh00314@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be some value and truth underlying the branding or the effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<< --Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to make all that branding and framing seem moral and honest. Then you can say out of one side of your mouth "I have Christian values" and out of the other side of your mouth call your opponent names and trash their reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such tactics before they started. A phony one would use them covertly while appearing untainted in public. I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you know the mic is on. As long as you have a golden tongue, nobody bothers to look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction. In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to your level and get caught calling you names and using fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground. If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more alienated from the two party system. What I really want is something other than liberals and conservatives. People who have some values on each side of the fence and are willing to hammer out agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met. It would help a great deal if people had more direct input as to where their tax money goes, since the bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is angry, it's angry because it feels forced to contribute its money to a system which they feel doesn't have their interests at heart. And it becomes dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds over into other issues and colors them, prevents them from being made clear in discussion. When someone resents paying taxes, their views on social security might be just a little bit biased in the direction of ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. Views on military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged resentment over paying taxes to support military contractors. The issue of resentment over taxation should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with on a more honest plane. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 20:56:01 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <200503021919.j22JJYh00314@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth on cable news programming and the Internet is enough to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an independent economics expert, a civic-minded individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded front group? If you're having trouble keeping track of all the players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, among other pro-business groups. It shares its executive director Derrick Max and a number of its members with the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded lobbying group that recently changed its name to USANext. The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private investment accounts." To oversee the operation, USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the "spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been following. Progress for America, after raising $38 million last year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable television, including a spot that invokes the legacy of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed the legislation creating the retirement system," the Houston Chronicle reported. PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed $50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is also lobbying for Social Security privatization and expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's Social Security Project. "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization - 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average workers and their families are not left penniless, out in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or edit any article in our collaborative database of people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of online citizen journalists, using their web research skills to expose the fake reporter and the White House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to ask the President a question. We do the same thing at SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections between corporate trade associations, astroturf groups, and the White House. Want to cover the newly minted website Generations Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles and for research using the Web, plus advise from experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front group. http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 2 20:56:10 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewsa at newpaltz.edu Thu Mar 3 00:07:47 2005 From: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu (Alice Andrews) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:07:47 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <088d01c51f85$23a9a900$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Gerry, It appears from my search (though I could be wrong) that Michael is the author of the first paragraph and you are the author of the second paragraph. As for enlightening you about what Todd has to say, I'd rather leave that up to him. Though I am confused as to what you are not seeing here. It is a social psychological phenomenon which evolutionary theory helps to explain a bit better. One of the problems may be linguistic.When I wrote earlier that I thought your question to Michael's point might be found in evolutionary theories of commitment, I never invoked terms such as 'moderate'. I was merely answering why I thought some people might "reject people who cannot plop into either the liberal camp or the conservative camp." Moderates could be included in this group, perhaps, but they could also not be included in this group. I was referring to the class of people who were 'beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy'. And, in fact, I had in mind people who transcend and defy labels...who are sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes moderate, etc., depending on specifics/contexts, etc. I think people who are admixtures of political ideologies do tend to be viewed as threatening, as per Michael's and Todd's and my points. But okay...a moderate could also be viewed as 'a problem' for those who tend to be more black-and white in their thinking and more politically polarized, because in some ways it signals a lack of major commitment and passion and conviction of principle...(perhaps). I could get into it more, but this isn't a big interest of mine, so I think I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Alice ps These are just views of how others might view things and do not reflect how I personally view things. ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Alice Andrews Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 00:57:12 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:57:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> <088d01c51f85$23a9a900$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <046401c51f8b$f0cc8e60$9603f604@S0027397558> Alice, Yes, you are absolutely correct: Michael Christopher anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 16:19:00 MST 2005 is author of the post and the title is: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 It would be nice if Todd tries to explain what he means. As far as evolutionary-theory being able to explain a social psychological phenomenon, possibly the culprit is the theory itself. In common sense terminology, I can't understand what is being proposed. It would appear that the entire theoretical foundation has been turned upside down. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, It appears from my search (though I could be wrong) that Michael is the author of the first paragraph and you are the author of the second paragraph. As for enlightening you about what Todd has to say, I'd rather leave that up to him. Though I am confused as to what you are not seeing here. It is a social psychological phenomenon which evolutionary theory helps to explain a bit better. One of the problems may be linguistic.When I wrote earlier that I thought your question to Michael's point might be found in evolutionary theories of commitment, I never invoked terms such as 'moderate'. I was merely answering why I thought some people might "reject people who cannot plop into either the liberal camp or the conservative camp." Moderates could be included in this group, perhaps, but they could also not be included in this group. I was referring to the class of people who were 'beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy'. And, in fact, I had in mind people who transcend and defy labels...who are sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes moderate, etc., depending on specifics/contexts, etc. I think people who are admixtures of political ideologies do tend to be viewed as threatening, as per Michael's and Todd's and my points. But okay...a moderate could also be viewed as 'a problem' for those who tend to be more black-and white in their thinking and more politically polarized, because in some ways it signals a lack of major commitment and passion and conviction of principle...(perhaps). I could get into it more, but this isn't a big interest of mine, so I think I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Alice ps These are just views of how others might view things and do not reflect how I personally view things. ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Alice Andrews Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 02:58:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: my day off Message-ID: <01C51F59.DF6E5EF0.shovland@mindspring.com> What is the Islamic radical position on National Health Care in the US? What do they think about our trade deficit? If the left is aligned with the jihadists then obviously Rumsfeld is aligned with the Baathists because we have a photograph of him with Hussein. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:39 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: my day off Hey, steve, brush up on your definitions. Hee hee hee De facto: adjective: existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not (Example: "De facto segregation is as real as segration imposed by law") Anyway, I looked at your daily kos website. Pretty hateful stuff. I don't know a right wing site with quite so much hate speech, I was appalled. Bad form and all of that. I have been looking for a left wing equivalent to www.townhall.com or www.opinionjournal.com. I keep finding hate speech (which I view as mindless and therefore boring). What would you recommend? Opposite of fantasy. Steve Hovland wrote: >de facto = inferred = not factual = fantasy > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM >To: Steve Hovland >Subject: left/islam? > >Well, I need to read Horowitz' book myself. I read the Radical Son book, >and the man is meticulous about his citations. If he says there is an >alliance, particularly a de facto one, I would be inclined to give that >considerable weight. If you can read the book, I would be interested in >trading impressions with you. >Lynn > << File: ATT00002.html >> > > > > << File: ATT00004.html >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 03:25:33 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:25:33 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422683AD.3060203@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no light. What is your intention in publishing it? I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). Usual alternatives: 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke (hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume almost all of the federal budget. 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the 50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. 5. Michael's solution???? Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late 1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at any time, in any way. Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my children, can we get out of the corner we are in. I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any other solution. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >Privatization > >The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >independent economics expert, a civic-minded >individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >front group? > >If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >among other pro-business groups. It shares its >executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >lobbying group that recently changed its name to >USANext. > >The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >following. > >Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >the legislation creating the retirement system," the >Houston Chronicle reported. > >PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >Social Security Project. > >"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >existing Social Security system, a politically >sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >for privatization of the system. The article argued >that companies that stand to profit from privatization >- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" > >Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >workers and their families are not left penniless, out >in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >edit any article in our collaborative database of >people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. > >The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >online citizen journalists, using their web research >skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >between corporate trade associations, astroturf >groups, and the White House. > >Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? > >So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >and for research using the Web, plus advise from >experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >group. > >http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 04:19:48 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:19:48 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] framing In-Reply-To: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42269064.1010406@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This was quite interesting, and I enjoyed trying to respond. I hope I don't further agitate you. I actually am seeking a real dialog. A few comments follow: Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be >>> >>> >some value and truth underlying the branding or the >effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the >Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<< > >--Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to >make all that branding and framing seem moral and >honest. > This sentence doesn't make sense. The word "hijack" seems out of place in a discussion about branding and positioning. Perhaps I stirred up some anger in you, but I am reporting a very serious perception. The right now sees the left as idiots who don't know history. There is a good deal of discussion on the right about how the left has become a reactionary force, against all change. I actually am quite sympathetic about that view, as you see below. >Then you can say out of one side of your mouth >"I have Christian values" and out of the other side of >your mouth call your opponent names and trash their >reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such >tactics before they started. > I didn't see anyone saying "I have Christian values." I didn't see where anyone was trashing reputations. The idea about branding is to associate a service or product with an easy-to-remember word or image. It has to be positive, not negative. Paul the Apostle said, "I become all things to all people so that I may by some means bring some to Christ." The story in Acts about Mars Hill is a classic. You may already know that the KJV translation is completely wrong. "Ye men of Athens, I see that ye are too superstitious" Wrong. The Greek word for superstition and religion are the same. The context shows what Paul meant; he was complimenting the Greeks on their devotions. "Ye are very religious" is the right translation, and modern translations and foreign language translations I have read have that meaning. So Paul was positioning himself so that he'd be listened to. >A phony one would use >them covertly while appearing untainted in public. >I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you >know the mic is on. > > Again, I don't understand the anger here. Christians are "men of passions" which again is an allusion to the book of Acts. As Paul says, we wish to do good and we do evil; we wish to avoid evil and we do good (Romans, around chapter 8). So a Christian might call someone a name, like Bush did during the first campaign about the NYT reporter. It is not right, and he should repent, and probably did. Christianity is for flawed people; perfect people don't need it. What is your point? >As long as you have a golden tongue, > who? Bush? Ha! >nobody bothers to >look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric >becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction. > Actually I have thought this is exactly what is lacking in the Left. I read DailyKos today and was repelled by the reliance on rhetoric and the flimsy data. Perhaps I am wrong, but when I try to read Left sites, it seems they are full of heat, not light. I actually would like to see some good ideas from the Left, as I believe in dialog, but instead I see a lot of ad hominum and guilt-by-association stuff. I see some on the right, but when I read townhall.com, I see more reasoned arguments. >In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth >that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by >the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to >your level and get caught calling you names and using >fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If >Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by >Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely >Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground. >If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep >namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more >alienated from the two party system. > > Again, I am not seeing the problem here. The Right has some ideas that they genuinely believe will help society, reduce unemployment, reduce poverty, empower individuals, and raise the standard of living. They try to make those ideas sound as appealing and positive as possible. The Democrats see Bush as a bad president, and hope for his failure. Check out today's opinion journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Rather good dialog on this. Please read Horowitz' Radical Son, where he talks toward the end of the book about how tolerant the right turned out to be of diversity, dissent, and dialog. He was astonished, since as a leftist he had always thought the opposite was true. Who specifically called whom a name? Who specifically is using fuzzy logic (which I thought was a type of artifical intelligence used in computers)? Please give me an example. >What I really want is something other than liberals >and conservatives. People who have some values on each >side of the fence and are willing to hammer out >agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met. > Many Republicans are moderates. I would suggest that the Democrats have driven many moderates out of their party, which I think has been a huge mistake. Zell Miller. Sam Nunn. JFK and Truman wouldn't fit in today's Democratic Party. I don't see how Harry Reid can be a Democrat, but he is at least trying to reduce the Democrat=Abortion linkage. >It would help a great deal if people had more direct >input as to where their tax money goes, since the >bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against >taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is >angry, it's angry because it feels forced to >contribute its money to a system which they feel >doesn't have their interests at heart. > I actually just finished a book on anger - I mean, I wrote it - and I would differ here. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own emotional state. To blame it on outside forces is unreasonable and disempowering. Anger reduces one's ability to think - see Barbara Fredrickson's work at the U. Michigan. "If you can keep your head when all about you . . . " >And it becomes >dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds >over into other issues and colors them, prevents them >from being made clear in discussion. When someone >resents paying taxes, their views on social security >might be just a little bit biased in the direction of >ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has >to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. > Again, I don't follow. There is a serious demographic problem with social security. I don't hear anyone wanting to end it. >Views on >military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged >resentment over paying taxes to support military >contractors. > Are you referring to the anti-war left? >The issue of resentment over taxation >should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in >other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with >on a more honest plane. > >Michael > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 05:05:00 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:05:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are saying that. The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus increasing the size of the economy by increasing the velocity of money. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization Michael, This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no light. What is your intention in publishing it? I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). Usual alternatives: 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke (hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume almost all of the federal budget. 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the 50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. 5. Michael's solution???? Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late 1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at any time, in any way. Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my children, can we get out of the corner we are in. I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any other solution. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >Privatization > >The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >independent economics expert, a civic-minded >individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >front group? > >If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >among other pro-business groups. It shares its >executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >lobbying group that recently changed its name to >USANext. > >The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >following. > >Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >the legislation creating the retirement system," the >Houston Chronicle reported. > >PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >Social Security Project. > >"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >existing Social Security system, a politically >sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >for privatization of the system. The article argued >that companies that stand to profit from privatization >- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" > >Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >workers and their families are not left penniless, out >in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >edit any article in our collaborative database of >people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. > >The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >online citizen journalists, using their web research >skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >between corporate trade associations, astroturf >groups, and the White House. > >Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? > >So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >and for research using the Web, plus advise from >experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >group. > >http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 06:15:19 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:15:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> I looked up the definition of hate speech, and yes, many of us on the left do practice hate speech against him. Unapologetically. We hate him from the very core of our DNA, and I think it is because we sense that he is harming our collective interests. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 3 10:29:56 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:29:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: This is further evidence that politics has become part of the entertainment industry. There is no more difference among politicians and football teams than between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. On 2005-03-02, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]: > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:15:19 -0800 > From: Steve Hovland > Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list > To: "paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail)" > Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > > I looked up the definition of hate speech, > and yes, many of us on the left do practice > hate speech against him. > > Unapologetically. > > We hate him from the very core of our DNA, > and I think it is because we sense that he > is harming our collective interests. From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 11:42:13 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 03:42:13 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans Message-ID: <01C51FA2.FD8768C0.shovland@mindspring.com> By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER Published: March 3, 2005 Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. rest of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html?th Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 14:58:14 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:58:14 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> You know, some hated Clinton also, and some hated Reagan, and lots of people still hate Carter. It is silly. Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the treatment. Perhaps there is a better way. Steve Hovland wrote: >I looked up the definition of hate speech, >and yes, many of us on the left do practice >hate speech against him. > >Unapologetically. > >We hate him from the very core of our DNA, >and I think it is because we sense that he >is harming our collective interests. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 21:00:45 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:00:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <014301c52034$12eedf40$6e00f604@S0027397558> Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara > Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, > mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the > treatment. Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:39:03 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:39:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] slandering the Left In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam).<< --Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam or Baathists?? Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:43:15 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303224315.92496.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Todd says: >>Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed.<< --It's because they don't position themselves squarely within the group, and may therefore expose things the group doesn't want exposed, such as the common rift between rhetoric and behavior. Only those who are bonded to the group will overlook cognitive dissonance between what the group stands for and what it actually does. In intense polar conflicts, both sides will usually develop a significant amount of dissonance between ideals and actions. Us/Them games typically punish people who are too honest. In any polar system, there will be guilt on both sides because both will cut corners in order to win. "Fence-sitters" are traitors by default, including women or gays who penetrate all-male groups and don't bond over shared mischief. They are always viewed with suspicion. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:45:00 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:45:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] guilt by association In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303224501.10860.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis.<< --I find that statement rather astonishing, given you also posted something linking the Left (very non-specific, implies anyone left of center) with Baathists and radical Islam. Pot, meet kettle? Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 23:11:08 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:11:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bias In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303231108.2197.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>The right now sees the left as idiots who don't know history.<< --I hope you don't think in such shallow, simplistic and venomous terms. >>I didn't see anyone saying "I have Christian values." I didn't see where anyone was trashing reputations. The idea about branding is to associate a service or product with an easy-to-remember word or image. It has to be positive, not negative.<< --You didn't see anyone trashing Kerry, or liberals in general? Perhaps you have one of those filters that allows you to notice only when your guy is being trashed? Do you really think there was no effort made to associate Bush with Christianity? I find that hard to believe. It's like saying Democrats make no effort to appeal to labor, that they just naturally speak the language. Branding can indeed be negative. Some advertisements use that technique, specifically "un-branding" a rival product. Politicians use it very deliberately and systematically, as do propagandists on either side, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore. >>Paul the Apostle said, "I become all things to all people so that I may by some means bring some to Christ."<< --Yes, he was what is now described as a "social chameleon". Similar to corporate PR people who learn all they can about various subcultures (hiphop, for example) and then use the language of the group to associate their product to the values and ideals of the group. Not to suggest Paul was "selling" Christianity in a cynical way. I'm sure he believed in his product. >>So a Christian might call someone a name, like Bush did during the first campaign about the NYT reporter. It is not right, and he should repent, and probably did.<< --How do you know he probably did? I'm certain he repented of saying it on mic. I have no idea whether he repented of the actual sentiment. Should it be assumed that outspoken Christians have "repented" of their sins, while non-Christians have not? Seems like a bit of an unlevel playing field if that's the case. Bill Clinton is a Christian, and a lot of Conservatives seem convinced he never sincerely repented. I'd hate to think that kind of judgment is political and not spiritually motivated. >>Perhaps I am wrong, but when I try to read Left sites, it seems they are full of heat, not light.<< --Which sites, specifically? I could easily find Right-leaning sites to match the tone of any Left-leaning site you can find. There are passionate but ignorant people on both sides, for example the astonishingly large number of Republican voters who still think Saddam was involved in 911 or that the 911 hijackers were Iraqis. I don't like misinformation, regardless of who spreads it. I've seen both sides use email rumors to slander the other side. Fact-checkers are always needed. >>Please read Horowitz' Radical Son, where he talks toward the end of the book about how tolerant the right turned out to be of diversity, dissent, and dialog. He was astonished, since as a leftist he had always thought the opposite was true.<< --If you walk into ANY group and treat them in a decent way, they will usually treat you just as decently, even if your politics differ. Conversely, it's easy to get people to associate bad personal behavior with political or religious beliefs, as when a Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, feminist (etc) gets judgmental and soap-boxy and is rejected by a group which then goes on to say "Environmentalists/feminists/Christians/whatever are always acting like that, they have no manners". Those who agree with the group politically but act just as obnoxiously are categorized differently. In that case, the political belief does not get associated with the behavior. So you end up with Muslims thinking all Christians are hypocrites, Christians thinking all environmentalists are hypocrites, etc. Each group is associating bad behavior with the opposite political belief, and the fallacy is rarely noticed by the group. >>Many Republicans are moderates. I would suggest that the Democrats have driven many moderates out of their party, which I think has been a huge mistake. Zell Miller. Sam Nunn. JFK and Truman wouldn't fit in today's Democratic Party.<< --I'd say a number of Republican moderates are being alienated by their party. Are you REALLY calling Zell Miller a moderate?? >>Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own emotional state.<< --I agree. Blaming video games, music, movies, porn or drugs for people's emotional state erodes personal responsibility. I've seen members of both parties blame one or more of the above for various social ills. >>Views on military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged resentment over paying taxes to support military contractors. Are you referring to the anti-war left?<< --Either the anti-war Left, or the part of the Left that is not anti-war but believes war is being waged in a sloppy, amoral or unintelligent way. Or moderates who worry about military contractors becoming part of the policy loop, leading to conflicts of interest. It would, of course, be a fallacy to portray everyone who feels a particular war is being waged wrongly as "anti-war". A number of Republicans were skeptical of Clinton's use of troops, for example. They were not anti-war, just not happy with Clinton's particular actions. Of course, it makes political sense for each party to lump the other party in with its most extreme element, so Republicans will be portrayed as religious zealots who want to dismantle government programs for the poor and set off Armageddon, and Democrats will be portrayed as socialists who are naive about war and want to burn Bibles. Neither perception is correct, but they're both pretty common. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 4 02:11:02 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:11:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard In-Reply-To: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4227C3B6.1090801@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue. But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September, meticulously documented, as is his wont. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15221 this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want. Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street Journal) yesterday: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg. Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east. My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead. Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste, I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the 1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many. But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security? Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on >>> >>> >supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com >and look at the discussions about the alliance between >the left and radical islam).<< > >--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that >include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam >or Baathists?? > >Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright >slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some >fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats >or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:29:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:29:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C5201E.FC42C870.shovland@mindspring.com> During the first Bush term I ultimately found that he raised my satire IQ. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:58 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush You know, some hated Clinton also, and some hated Reagan, and lots of people still hate Carter. It is silly. Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the treatment. Perhaps there is a better way. Steve Hovland wrote: >I looked up the definition of hate speech, >and yes, many of us on the left do practice >hate speech against him. > >Unapologetically. > >We hate him from the very core of our DNA, >and I think it is because we sense that he >is harming our collective interests. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:31:27 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:31:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C5201F.3706BA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Unconscious emotions of any kind can reduce your operational intelligence. When you know what you feel you can tap any emotion as a source of power. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:01 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara > Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, > mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the > treatment. Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:40:14 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:40:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard Message-ID: <01C52020.710A4D30.shovland@mindspring.com> The left is justified in minimizing the Social Security issue because the Congressional Budget Office says the system can continue to pay the current level of benefits until 2052. Rumsfeld had a relationship with Hussein. Now he is a Neo-Con. Therefore the Neo-Cons are allied with the Baathists. There are an increasing number of people who proudly identify themselves as liberals. You may not see us on the news, but we are here, we are speaking up, and we on the attack. Hillary is irrelevant. She was sucked in by Bush and now, like every other Democrat who voted to abdicate the Congressional power to declare war, she has no future beyond her current position. She will be lucky if she doesn't lose to an anti-war candidate. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:11 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard Michael, This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue. But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September, meticulously documented, as is his wont. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15221 this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want. Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street Journal) yesterday: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg. Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east. My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead. Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste, I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the 1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many. But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security? Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on >>> >>> >supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com >and look at the discussions about the alliance between >the left and radical islam).<< > >--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that >include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam >or Baathists?? > >Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright >slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some >fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats >or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00035.html >> << File: ATT00036.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 4 02:43:42 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:43:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] and now for something completely different Message-ID: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> Have you all seen this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ fabulous! From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Mar 4 12:42:59 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:42:59 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] and now for something completely different In-Reply-To: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> References: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050304073728.01dec118@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:43 PM 3/3/2005, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: >Have you all seen this: >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ > >fabulous! Hi, Lynn! I just scanned it, since there is an important area of mathematics I needed to become more updated with -- the qualitative theory of partial differential equation systems. This is a well-recognized area in math; Walter A. Strauss of Brown University, one of its most important players, is editor-in-chief of one of the journals, and so on. But the entire area does not show up at all on the Mathematica site. All I found was a listing of a few methods for analytical solution. (When I searched under partial differential equations.) A bit odd, since the Mathematica people really should be aware of the basics of the new world we live in (where analytical solutions have value, but a combination of qualitative proofs and numerical methods are what the world really depends upon, in everything from engineering to quantum foundations). Have a few related thoughts, but this is enough for now. Back to the job. Best, Paul >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 4 18:53:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:53:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C5201F.3706BA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <010c01c520eb$79bc3cb0$2303f604@S0027397558> Which IQ better registers on SAT or ACT.....Satire IQ or general IQ? Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > Unconscious emotions of any kind can > reduce your operational intelligence. > > When you know what you feel you can > tap any emotion as a source of power. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:01 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > >> Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at >> Barbara >> Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, >> mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the >> treatment. > > Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you > into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left > and extreme Right meld on the other side of the > circle > with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate > with equal intensity....the only difference being the > object of their wrath. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 4 18:57:34 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:57:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> <014301c52034$12eedf40$6e00f604@S0027397558> <4227CA78.3020707@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <011c01c520ec$07d64220$2303f604@S0027397558> Lynn writes: > Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old > political science prof who saw political ideologies > as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian > governments, with communism on the left side of the > vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are > mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the > more we hate. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with vertical axis) rather than a circle. Gerry Reinhart-Waller From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 19:50:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:50:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and bias In-Reply-To: <200503041918.j24JIkB23839@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050304195006.54678.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot.<< --Indeed it does. Not because it alters intellect, but because it limits the ability to apply intellect to polarized contexts. So a person who is perfectly capable of playing a good chess game may become, as you say, a bumbling idiot in a context where people are flinging stereotypes, strawman and other ad hominem attacks. Herd magnetism is strong, whichever side of the fence you're on, and few can resist the political correctness that says "all the extremists are on THEIR side, while we are reasonable and sane." The idea that PC exists in liberal academia and Hollywood alone is nonsense. It's universal, and nobody can see it on their side because the brain categorizes ideas along with people, compartmentalizing ideas and issues artificially to match social divisions. So it's no longer "I support issue X" but "I have values". Attaching a party to abstract virtues (the capital letter ones like Freedom, Justice, Patriotism, Faith) is insane. It's a confusion between the map (language) and the territory (complex social, political and economic realities). Instead of saying "I believe policy X will have a beneficial effect on the system" people can say "I support values and freedom, therefore you must agree with policy X or you're against cherished ideals". They don't say it that openly, of course. I wish they would. >>Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath.<< --Well said. And it's easy for any party to portray the other by association with their extremists, while discounting extremists on its own side. Examples: "Christians who are pushy, bullying or violent aren't REAL Christians. It's the environmentalists and academics who are extreme." "Real liberals don't bully people into conforming. It's religion that does that." "The real terrorists are the US and Israel. Palestinians who resort to suicide bombings are only reacting to the occupation." "Islam is oppressive and violent. Just look at its history. Empires under Chrsitianity weren't really Christian, so it's unfair to saddle Christianity with a violent history." "Environmentalists manipulate science to fit their bias. Corporate-funded scientists may show bias once in a while, but not like environmentalists." Such statements, either expressed or implied, are painfully common. It's a manipulation of the brain's filtering mechanisms which categorize exceptions to rules differently depending on whether the exception sides with one's own group or belief, or an alien group or belief. Because of that schism in the brain, we are somewhat schizophrenic as a culture in how we organize and respond to issues (legal and illegal drugs being classified according to social acceptability rather than their health effects is one example). We can say with a straight face, "Marijuana should be banned, it causes disease. But anti-tobacco laws are unfair and hurt restaurant and bar owners." Or "Gay marriage would erode the foundation of civilization, the family. Global warming is mere hysteria, based on inaccurate modeling of events." Different standards are applied in different categories, and the distinguishing factor is not reason but affiliation and loyalty to a group perception. So logic can be skewed beyond recognition in order to fit the prevailing political reality. The only way to be beyond all that is to not take money or gifts from any group or industry you're supposed to be regulating or balancing with other interests, and not to have exclusive affiliation (friendships, business partnerships etc) with one group over another. Few people have an equal number of liberal and conservative friends, few people are powerful in politics without being indebted to special interest groups (executives and labor unions being one fixture in the 2-party system). Cialdini mentions reciprocity as one of the "click-whirr" responses, and says it's unreasonable to think people in power can receive gifts from groups affected by policy shifts and not be influenced. Yet it's common for people to say "Sure, I worked for X, or took money from Y, but that's not going to change how I make policy decisions". As the President once said, you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps, and in my opinion, leaders should be people with no prior affiliation or loyalty to interest groups in a polarized system. We need people who can stand on their own feet, and who have nothing to gain by favoring one interest group above others. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 20:20:40 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:20:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] party bias In-Reply-To: <200503041918.j24JIkB23839@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050304202040.85419.qmail@web30809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue.<< --I'm not sure the Left does ignore Social Security. They seem to just believe that there are better ways to save it than privatization. Some would argue that conservatives ignore the trade deficit or national debt. Similar argument. >>But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam.<< --Progressives aren't anti-capitalist, by definition. I don't think I've ever met a socialist who was happy with the Democratic party, and I don't think I've met anyone who supported radical Islam among the American Left. Granted, I'm just one person and can only speak from a limited number of contacts, but I think you were unfairly broad in your characterization of the Left. You just modified it to "radical left" which is more specific and less inaccurate. But I still haven't met a single radical Leftist, and I've known a few, who supported radical Islam. At worst they ignored the issue of fascism within the radical Islamic world, or portrayed the US as a terrorist nation. The latter is a rare view among Democrats, regardless of the Right's tendency to resort to such an ad hominem stereotype. It's unfair, "bearing false witness against your neighbor" to use the Biblical phrase. The association between non-profit organizations (a pretty broad category) and groups which siphon money to terrorists is incredibly shallow on Horowitz's part. To imply that groups which oppose aspects of the Patriot act are somehow in bed with terrorists is wrong, logically and morally. At worst, accuse them of being naive about the need to circumvent due process in times of emergency. That point is debatable, but less extreme as an ad hominem argument. It is, of course, reasonable to debate whether our society's freedoms make us vulnerable. That is not the same as arguing that people who side with freedom over security (or who believe that compromise is a false dichotomy) are in alliance with terrorists. You may accuse liberals of allowing freedom to take precedence, and in some cases you'll be right. But don't accuse them of things they're not actually doing. >>It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists.<< --That's like associating conservatives with radical Reconstructionist Christians who want the death penalty for gays. It's a few steps beyond reason, into deliberate smearing. >>I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want.<< --I'm not about to pay money for it, and I'm not sure I can categorize myself as a "liberal". My views are a mixture of pragmatism (including pragmatic use of military force) and social liberalism (I have no problem with gay marriage or marijuana decriminalization, and oppose strict anti-tobacco laws when they interfere with the rights of restaurant owners). So I probably can't help you with a "liberal's view". I'm pretty progressive, and I don't mind that label. >>The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir.<< --That I agree with. I am not a traditional Leftist, by any means. But most of the people I meet on the Left aren't either. The marketing strategy of the Left, and that of Democrats, has been pretty lame, no argument there. >>Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool.<< --Yes, she is quite conservative at times. Hardly a liberal pacifist. >>She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win.<< --Did Kerry say something "dovish" that I missed? I thought he supported the war too, and only disagreed with the way it was carried out, with holes in diplomacy, and with the lack of accountability over bad use of intelligence. None of those are "dove" issues, there are plenty of hard-headed military pragmatists who think Bush has made serious errors, and that in no way puts them in the pacifist category. I believe Dean was anti-war, if I remember properly (I wasn't paying that much attention to the primaries). Kerry was not. But if Kerry said something reminiscent of Gandhian nonviolence, let me know. >>But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead.<< --I think the anti-liberal phase is a pendulum shift, and that it has already peaked. We'll see in the next few elections and in the national debate over social, economic and military progress. Democrats did indeed fail to see what the Right saw. I think the Right is missing a few things as well. >>Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad?<< --Amen to that. Neither party has impressed me. >>In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party.<< --Still are. Hillary hasn't been hurt by her hawkish stance. Clinton was accused by some Republicans of "wagging the dog", i.e. being too quick to go to war to distract the public. Dean lost the primaries. I don't see Kucinich being hailed as the voice of the Democratic party. As far as I can tell, the doves are marginalized. >>But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security?<< --I'm not sure you can fairly accuse the Democratic party of being the only party to appeal to raw emotion. I'm also not sure you can call it "obstructionism" to be opposed to policies you feel would harm the country. There is room for debate on whether privatization would be beneficial, and if so, beneficial to whom. But accusing Democrats of appealing to fear makes no sense when the GOP is using a catastrophic argument to support its position. I don't know if social security is doomed or not as it stands, but it does seem a bit skewed to say Democrats are the ones appealing to raw emotion. A few Democratic wonks might play on the idea that greedy Wall Street bankers will benefit while playing up the risk of investing in private accounts. But I could point to several equally emotional arguments on the Right, and the idea that Democrats rely more on emotional appeals doesn't hold up for me, being neither a Republican nor a Democrat. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 01:40:01 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:40:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C520E1.32267A00.shovland@mindspring.com> I would certainly agree that the Bushies have more in common with Bin Laden than they do with me :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Lynn writes: > Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old > political science prof who saw political ideologies > as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian > governments, with communism on the left side of the > vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are > mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the > more we hate. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with vertical axis) rather than a circle. Gerry Reinhart-Waller _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 5 03:57:53 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:57:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C520E1.32267A00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <049b01c52137$a8b5ece0$2303f604@S0027397558> Sorry to have to say this Steve but what you are presenting is absolutely absurd. I can also agree that the Bushies are linked arm in arm with Mephistopheles. Just because I make the statement doesn't mean it is true. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush >I would certainly agree that the Bushies > have more in common with Bin Laden > than they do with me :-) > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM > To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > > Lynn writes: > >> Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old >> political science prof who saw political ideologies >> as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian >> governments, with communism on the left side of the >> vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are >> mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the >> more we hate. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci > prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with > vertical axis) rather than a circle. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 05:30:30 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:30:30 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> They are both world class power and money players. The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:58 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Sorry to have to say this Steve but what you are presenting is absolutely absurd. I can also agree that the Bushies are linked arm in arm with Mephistopheles. Just because I make the statement doesn't mean it is true. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush >I would certainly agree that the Bushies > have more in common with Bin Laden > than they do with me :-) > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM > To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > > Lynn writes: > >> Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old >> political science prof who saw political ideologies >> as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian >> governments, with communism on the left side of the >> vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are >> mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the >> more we hate. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci > prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with > vertical axis) rather than a circle. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 5 16:49:21 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:49:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007f01c521a3$496a0d40$3503f604@S0027397558> The bin Ladens are a huge family. It is my understanding that the Bushes involvement is not with Osama bin Laden but with other members of his Saudi family. Simply because Osama bin Laden is a villain doesn't make all members of his family evil. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > They are both world class power and money players. > > The Bush's have a documented business relationship > with the Bin Ladens going back decades. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 17:47:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Birth Debt Message-ID: <01C52168.654A4A10.shovland@mindspring.com> Every baby born in America is deeply in debt at the moment of birth. The Republicans want to increase this by borrowing trillions of dollars to finance their plan to privatize our retirement. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 5 21:23:05 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:23:05 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A2339.6060503@solution-consulting.com> Daniel Shorr says: >The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. >During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region." >He may have had it right. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 22:52:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:52:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C52192.F99B6620.shovland@mindspring.com> I think the "liberation" of Iraq shows how easy it is to turn a disaster into a slaughterhouse. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:23 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Daniel Shorr says: >The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. >During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region." >He may have had it right. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 01:13:45 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:13:45 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A5949.9080606@solution-consulting.com> Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 01:25:56 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:25:56 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Positive emotions Message-ID: <422A5C24.7070007@solution-consulting.com> Lately we have had some discussion about positive emotions (left frontal lobe activity) vs. negative emotions (limbic system activity). Fredrickson argues here (and elsewhere) that the positive spectrum of emotions is related to broader intellect, and the negative ones with a constricted intellect. Here is a very important article on this topic, or at least the abstract. If anyone wants a PDF of this, I can provide it. American Psychologist ? 2001 by the American Psychological Association March 2001 Vol. 56, No. 3, 218-226 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions Barbara L. Fredrickson Department of Psychology, University of Michigan Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan ABSTRACT In this article, the author describes a new theoretical perspective on positive emotions and situates this new perspective within the emerging field of positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory posits that experiences of positive emotions broaden people's momentary thought-action repertoires, which in turn serves to build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources. Preliminary empirical evidence supporting the broaden-and-build theory is reviewed, and open empirical questions that remain to be tested are identified. The theory and findings suggest that the capacity to experience positive emotions may be a fundamental human strength central to the study of human flourishing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 02:03:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:03:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> If you're going to rely on authority, why not listen to the people who are really knowledgeable about this: Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 03:03:50 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:03:50 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A7316.7020600@solution-consulting.com> good research, Steve. Thanks. Did you read those reports, or just paste the links? I can't make heads or tails of the SSA stuff. CBO was much clearer. I read: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6068&sequence=0 CBO testimony: Quote: If current spending and tax policies do not change, the aging of the baby-boom generation, combined with rising health care costs, will cause a historic shift in the United States' fiscal situation. Consistently large annual budget deficits would probably lead to an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public. As the government claimed an increasing share of national savings, the private sector would have less to invest in creating new business equipment, factories, technology, and other capital. That "crowding out" would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy. Although placing federal fiscal policy on a sustainable path will not be easy, the sooner that policymakers act to do so, the less difficult it will be to make economic and budgetary adjustments. End quote Well, sounds like a problem to me! Shows in Figure 1 the shift into the red around 2018. They say 2020. Quote:To pay full benefits, the Social Security system will rely on interest on, and ultimately the redemption of, government bonds held in its trust funds. At that point, the Treasury will have to find the money to cover those obligations. Policymakers can provide that money in three ways: by cutting back other spending in the budget, by raising taxes, or by increasing government borrowing. End quote You see, Steve, CBO says we have to redeem the IOUs. Where do we get the money? (Republcans and Democrats greedily spent the surplus money. Left and Right are equally short-sighted.) By 2050 we HAVE to cut benefits severely. What do we say to our children? (See Figure 1 and testimony) Quote: In the absence of other changes, the redemption of bonds can continue until the trust funds are exhausted. In the Social Security trustees' projections, that happens in 2042; in CBO's projections, it occurs about a decade later, largely because CBO projects higher real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates and slightly lower benefits for men than the trustees do. Once the trust funds are exhausted, the program will no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. As a result, it will have to reduce payments to beneficiaries to match the amount of revenue coming into the system each year. Although there is some uncertainty about the size of that reduction, benefits would probably have to be cut by 20 percent to 30 percent to match the system's available revenue. The key message is that some form of the program is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely. With benefits reduced annually to match available revenue (as they will be under current law when the trust funds run out), the program can be continued forever. Of course, many people may not consider a sudden cut in benefits of 20 percent to 30 percent to be a desirable policy. In addition, the budgetary demands of filling the gap between benefits and dedicated revenues in the years before the cut may prove onerous. But the program is sustainable from a financing perspective. What is not sustainable is continuing to provide the present level of scheduled benefits (those based on the benefit formulas that exist today) given the present financing. Under current formulas, outlays for scheduled benefits are projected to exceed available revenues indefinitely after about 2020 (see Figure 2 ). That gap cannot be sustained without continual--and substantial--injections of funds from the rest of the budget. End quote We have a serious problem. Where is the solution? One is private accounts. What other model will actually work? Steve Hovland wrote: >If you're going to rely on authority, why >not listen to the people who are really >knowledgeable about this: > >Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html > >CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 03:09:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:09:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C521B6.E842E5F0.shovland@mindspring.com> The Government is a drain on the economy. The Defense Department is part of the Government. Therefore the Defense Department is a drain on the economy and should be replaced by a faith-based initiative. Engaging in a discussion of what to do about Social Security involves accepting the notion that there is a crisis that needs to be dealt with. I do not accept the notion that there is a crisis. If there are problems with Social Security, they can be dealt with by minor adjustments in the base and in the retirement age. If private accounts are such a wonderful thing then we should just increase the amount that people can put into their IRA's. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:19:08 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:19:08 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <7e.64c489b2.2f5bfadc@aol.com> In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: Mark: This is amazing! And hilarious, when it gets to the bit about writers. I'm going to send this to my friend Howard Blooom, because it fits in with his theory. An average of almost 4 years of life added to life expectancy awarded to winners among 762 individuals I'd say is statistically significant. Of course we run into that same old correlation-is-not-causation problem: How do we know people who are naturally "vivacious" aren't more likely to win Oscars and live longer? Maybe vivacious people tend to exercise more, live longer, and win more Oscars. Judith Rich Harris, who wrote "The Nurture Assumption", talks about this in terms of broccoli. She says an article will come out: "Broccoli eaters live 7 years longer!" So reader assumes: "Broccoli can extend my life." She points out that this is faulty logic. Maybe people who eat broccoli also tend to be people who jog and don't smoke, and broccoli has nothing to do with extending life. She says that when these kind of correlations confirm existing biases, they are published as if they prove something. But when a correleation is demonstrated that contradicts existing biases, like, say, "Prayed for outlive other cancer patients" or "Adopted kids more violent if biological parent was violent," then we all say, "Well, that doesn't mean... " Still, a great little study report. Thanks for sending it. The question is, if I stop writing now, will it extend my life? See what I mean? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark L." To: joe at quirk.net Subject: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:17:57 -0800 I read the following article... and nearly pee'd myself laughing at the middle when I got to the part about the cruel but predictably cosmically ironic fate of Oscar winning writers. You know, I would never want to be an Oscar winning actor - I value my sanity, privacy and introversion too much... but it thought it might be nice to win an Oscar in writing... till I read below...;) -mark. ______________ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i 174807S72.DTL&type=printable www.sfgate.com ____________________________________ _Study: Oscar Winners Outlive Other Actors_ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i174807S72.DTL) - By ROB GILLIES, Associated Press Writer Saturday, February 26, 2005 (02-26) 17:48 PST TORONTO, Canada (AP) -- A Canadian professor of medicine argues that actors who win Academy Awards on Sunday night won't only boost their chances of other box-office hits, but will likely live longer than their fellow nominees. Dr. Donald Redelmeier, a professor at the University of Toronto, says his research shows that Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than other actors. And multiple winners, he says, live an average of six years longer. Want proof? Katharine Hepburn, who won a record four acting prizes, lived to the ripe old age of 96. Redelmeier says the study proves that Oscar success has a powerful influence on a person's health and longevity. "Once you've got that statuette on your mantelplace, it's an uncontested sign of peer approval that nobody can take away from you, so that any subsequent harsh reviews, it leaves you more resilient," Redelmeier said. "It doesn't quite get under your skin. The normal stresses and strains of everyday life do not drag you down." The study, funded by the Canadian Institute of Health and Ontario Ministry of Health, included all 762 actors and actresses ever nominated for an Academy Award in a leading or supporting role. For each nominee, researchers also identified an actor of the same gender and roughly the same age who appeared in the same film as the nominee. On average, award winners lived to the age of 79.7, while non-winners lived to be 75.8. "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." An extra average of 3.9 years of life is significant, says Redelmeier, adding that if all cancer patients in North America were cured, life expectancy would grow by only 3.5 years. The ongoing study, which was initially published four years ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also found that the effect of winning an Academy award is about the same for men and women, comedies and dramas, and leading and supporting role winners. The only Oscar winners that don't get the benefit of longevity are screenwriters. In fact, the reverse is true. The tortured souls live on average 3.6 years fewer than those who don't win. "We find a survival gain for the actors, the directors but we find a survival loss for the writers," said Redelmeier, who suggests that writers aren't coddled and are prone to bad habits, such as smoking and drinking. "Writers do not lead such exemplary lives. They don't have to eat properly, sleep properly or exercise at all so, as a consequence of that they don't receive any of the monitoring that other notable individuals do." Redelmeier said he was inspired to study the movie industry after watching the Oscars on television. He noticed the people on stage looked nothing like his patients. "It's not just the wardrobe and the plastic surgery and makeup, it's the way they walk and speak, they seem so much more vivacious, much more than just skin deep," he said. "So I thought, this is really an amazing way to look at social gradations at the upper echelons of society." URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i174807S72.DTL ____________________________________ ?2005 Associated Press ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Joe Quirk" Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:08:22 -0800 Size: 8948 URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:20:57 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:20:57 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl Bloom writes: In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: HowlBloom at aol.com Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST Size: 10098 URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:30:52 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:30:52 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <74.4ee116c6.2f5bfd9c@aol.com> In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:31:40 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:31:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C5221E.8A304670.shovland@mindspring.com> Taxing and spending policies can change. We can get the money by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich and by shrinking the Empire. We can require the DOD to account for the money they get, which could result in more bang for the buck. You may recall the during the campaign we were told that they can't account for about $1 trillion. There was also a recent estimate that many of the dollars spent on "health care" are wasted. If we shift back to the policies that produced a budget surplus during the Clinton years, we could begin to retire the public debt including those bonds held by the SS trust fund. Some of this discussion seems to forget that the Boomers will be dying off over this time. My older brother, on the leading edge of the Boomer Generation (1944), will be eligible to retire in 2-3 years. With an average life expectancy of 77 years in the us, he is likely to be gone by 2020, and most Boomers will be gone by 2040, with large number dying in the 2030's. I don't think it's correct to say it will shift into the red in 2018 or 2020. That may be the year when money from the trust fund will be needed, but it's different than a business "going into the red." That's why the trust was created years ago- they could see the problem coming. I do not see how private accounts by themselves solve this problem. I would classify that as magical thinking. The real solution will be the hard one- adjusting tax and spending policies to redeem the bonds. Probably increasing the retirement age. Bush said he was willing to spend the political capital to get the job done right. So far he hasn't delivered. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:04 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization good research, Steve. Thanks. Did you read those reports, or just paste the links? I can't make heads or tails of the SSA stuff. CBO was much clearer. I read: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6068&sequence=0 CBO testimony: Quote: If current spending and tax policies do not change, the aging of the baby-boom generation, combined with rising health care costs, will cause a historic shift in the United States' fiscal situation. Consistently large annual budget deficits would probably lead to an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public. As the government claimed an increasing share of national savings, the private sector would have less to invest in creating new business equipment, factories, technology, and other capital. That "crowding out" would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy. Although placing federal fiscal policy on a sustainable path will not be easy, the sooner that policymakers act to do so, the less difficult it will be to make economic and budgetary adjustments. End quote Well, sounds like a problem to me! Shows in Figure 1 the shift into the red around 2018. They say 2020. Quote:To pay full benefits, the Social Security system will rely on interest on, and ultimately the redemption of, government bonds held in its trust funds. At that point, the Treasury will have to find the money to cover those obligations. Policymakers can provide that money in three ways: by cutting back other spending in the budget, by raising taxes, or by increasing government borrowing. End quote You see, Steve, CBO says we have to redeem the IOUs. Where do we get the money? (Republcans and Democrats greedily spent the surplus money. Left and Right are equally short-sighted.) By 2050 we HAVE to cut benefits severely. What do we say to our children? (See Figure 1 and testimony) Quote: In the absence of other changes, the redemption of bonds can continue until the trust funds are exhausted. In the Social Security trustees' projections, that happens in 2042; in CBO's projections, it occurs about a decade later, largely because CBO projects higher real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates and slightly lower benefits for men than the trustees do. Once the trust funds are exhausted, the program will no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. As a result, it will have to reduce payments to beneficiaries to match the amount of revenue coming into the system each year. Although there is some uncertainty about the size of that reduction, benefits would probably have to be cut by 20 percent to 30 percent to match the system's available revenue. The key message is that some form of the program is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely. With benefits reduced annually to match available revenue (as they will be under current law when the trust funds run out), the program can be continued forever. Of course, many people may not consider a sudden cut in benefits of 20 percent to 30 percent to be a desirable policy. In addition, the budgetary demands of filling the gap between benefits and dedicated revenues in the years before the cut may prove onerous. But the program is sustainable from a financing perspective. What is not sustainable is continuing to provide the present level of scheduled benefits (those based on the benefit formulas that exist today) given the present financing. Under current formulas, outlays for scheduled benefits are projected to exceed available revenues indefinitely after about 2020 (see Figure 2 ). That gap cannot be sustained without continual--and substantial--injections of funds from the rest of the budget. End quote We have a serious problem. Where is the solution? One is private accounts. What other model will actually work? Steve Hovland wrote: >If you're going to rely on authority, why >not listen to the people who are really >knowledgeable about this: > >Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html > >CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:38:00 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:38:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C5221F.6CFD0920.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't think reducing our military costs to a lower level will result in conquest by Islam. Most Moslems, like most Christians, are moderates, and have more interest in raising their families than they do in converting us. Our army isn't actually that big, and Rumsfeld is the main proponent of using smaller forces. Iraq is an operation designed according to his model. These days my personal definition for how big the military needs to be is "big enough to do our share." I don't think we need to be #1. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:40 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization I am off list now because I think this discussion will be boring to the rest of the list. I am enjoying it, though. I do hope you will read the CBO link I sent back. There is clearly a large and perplexing crisis. Just asserting there is not a crisis is not intellectually honest. The CBO testimony made that very clear. I do agree that Defense is a drain. For years Costa Rica was epynomously the richest place in Central America. While other countries created large armies, CR didn't and prospered. Europe is maintaining what prosperity it has by essentially giving up any real Army. Canada also. But traditionally and constitutionally defense is a legitimite aim of the Federal Government. So we are in a bind. I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque. Steve Hovland wrote: >The Government is a drain on the economy. >The Defense Department is part of the Government. >Therefore the Defense Department is a drain on the economy >and should be replaced by a faith-based initiative. > >Engaging in a discussion of what to do about >Social Security involves accepting the notion >that there is a crisis that needs to be dealt >with. I do not accept the notion that there is a >crisis. > >If there are problems with Social Security, >they can be dealt with by minor adjustments >in the base and in the retirement age. > >If private accounts are such a wonderful thing then >we should just increase the amount that people >can put into their IRA's. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:56:45 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:56:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <01C52222.0BB968E0.shovland@mindspring.com> In Clint Eastwood we someone doing well and rising to do better. I found myself wondering what he was doing at midlife. He was making stinkers like "Heartbreak Ridge." Then, with "Unforgiven" something happened. My shrink says he let his shadow material come through. The possible difference between Eastwood and some of the rock stars who because world famous at a young age is that Eastwood has had to work his way up over many years. He is now a master craftsman who can produce good work day in and day out, with some of it being brilliant enough to win an Oscar. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:31 PM To: joe at quirk.net; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00012.html >> << File: ATT00013.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:59:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:59:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <01C52222.6F2511E0.shovland@mindspring.com> One reason why some kids would be more successful is that they are well-attached and see the world as a safe place. They will try things that fearful children will not do, which inclines them toward success. This has to do with nurture in the early years, and no class has a monopoly on good nurture. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:21 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl Bloom writes: In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00009.html >> << Message: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... >> << File: ATT00011.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 16:59:03 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:59:03 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) In-Reply-To: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> References: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> Message-ID: <422B36D7.2090303@solution-consulting.com> Howard, Appros of this, Sal Maddi argues that such resilience can be taught to adults. He postulates three belief structures, committment, control and challenge. I throw in a paragraph from the article below the header. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research ? 1999 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology Spring 1999 Vol. 51, No. 2, 117-124 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Hardy Organization Success by Turning Change to Advantage Salvatore R. Maddi University of California, Irvine Deborah M. Khoshaba The Hardiness Institute Arthur Pammenter Executive Development Group ABSTRACT Our turbulent times require organizations that are hardy in the sense of having cultures, climates, structures, and workforces capable of turning potentially disruptive changes into opportunities. At the individual, or workforce, level, hardiness involves the attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge and the complementary skills of coping and social support. At the organizational level, the isomorphic counterparts of hardy attitudes are the cultural values of cooperation, credibility, and creativity. Furthermore, an organization is hardy if these cultural values are indeed expressed on an everyday basis through its climate and if its structure involves the matrix management scheme of semi-autonomous work teams rather than the more traditional hierarchical arrangement. This article also considers the assessment and consulting functions that can increase the hardiness of organizations. Quote: What is this dispositional hardiness that has such beneficial effects? At the individual level, we have emphasized hardiness as a particular system of attitudes and skills that facilitates managing circumstances that are stressful and potentially debilitating because they constitute disruptive changes or chronic conflicts (e.g., Maddi, 1994 , 1998 ; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989 ; Weibe, 1991 ). The HardiAttitudes are the "3 Cs" of commitment, control, and challenge (e.g., Kobasa, Maddi,&Kahn, 1982 ). To be strong in commitment means believing that being involved with tasks, people, and contexts is the best way to find meaningful purpose in life. You will be infinitely curious about what is going on around you, and this will lead you to find interactions with people and situations stimulating and meaningful. Feeling alienated and isolated will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in control involves believing that, through personal struggle, you can usually influence the directions and outcomes going on around you. Lapsing into powerlessness and passivity will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in challenge means believing that personal improvement and fulfillment come through the continual process of learning from both negative and positive experiences. It will seem not only unrealistic but also stultifying to simply expect comfort and security to be handed to you. End I can send the text of the entire article if you are interested. Maddi applies his ideas to organizations, improving the resilience of groups of people. Lynn HowlBloom at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl > Bloom writes: > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even > if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an > entourage that's also heavily invested in your > reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping > properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly > every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of > resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with > single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very > successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find > mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more > successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, > an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most > tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an > attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social > instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that > make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature > or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness > and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian > researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb > showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin > managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central > chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a > corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside > word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. > When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting > to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an > opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its > old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a > stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there > some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small > gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical > kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind > From The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York > University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board > member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The > Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New > York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement > of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political > Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International > Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: > Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from > the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... > From: > HowlBloom at aol.com > Date: > Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST > To: > joe at quirk.net, emdls at pacbell.net > > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if > you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage > that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said > Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, > eating well, exercising regularly every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient > kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, > drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What > do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to > whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful > because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally > meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this > lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor > because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of > self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find > others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or > due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming > insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular > sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a > battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the > living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was > shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of > the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, > the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a > stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the > stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old > uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a > danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some > gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke > exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cite.gif Type: image/gif Size: 117 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 17:49:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:49:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) Message-ID: <01C52231.D264CB10.shovland@mindspring.com> These days many mature corporation are not hardy, by the definitions given below. Making them hardy will involve large internal changes by the people who run them. As Jesus said, a camel can pass through the eye of a needle much easier. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:59 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) Howard, Appros of this, Sal Maddi argues that such resilience can be taught to adults. He postulates three belief structures, committment, control and challenge. I throw in a paragraph from the article below the header. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research ? 1999 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology Spring 1999 Vol. 51, No. 2, 117-124 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Hardy Organization Success by Turning Change to Advantage Salvatore R. Maddi University of California, Irvine Deborah M. Khoshaba The Hardiness Institute Arthur Pammenter Executive Development Group ABSTRACT Our turbulent times require organizations that are hardy in the sense of having cultures, climates, structures, and workforces capable of turning potentially disruptive changes into opportunities. At the individual, or workforce, level, hardiness involves the attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge and the complementary skills of coping and social support. At the organizational level, the isomorphic counterparts of hardy attitudes are the cultural values of cooperation, credibility, and creativity. Furthermore, an organization is hardy if these cultural values are indeed expressed on an everyday basis through its climate and if its structure involves the matrix management scheme of semi-autonomous work teams rather than the more traditional hierarchical arrangement. This article also considers the assessment and consulting functions that can increase the hardiness of organizations. Quote: What is this dispositional hardiness that has such beneficial effects? At the individual level, we have emphasized hardiness as a particular system of attitudes and skills that facilitates managing circumstances that are stressful and potentially debilitating because they constitute disruptive changes or chronic conflicts (e.g., Maddi, 1994 , 1998 ; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989 ; Weibe, 1991 ). The HardiAttitudes are the "3 Cs" of commitment, control, and challenge (e.g., Kobasa, Maddi,&Kahn, 1982 ). To be strong in commitment means believing that being involved with tasks, people, and contexts is the best way to find meaningful purpose in life. You will be infinitely curious about what is going on around you, and this will lead you to find interactions with people and situations stimulating and meaningful. Feeling alienated and isolated will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in control involves believing that, through personal struggle, you can usually influence the directions and outcomes going on around you. Lapsing into powerlessness and passivity will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in challenge means believing that personal improvement and fulfillment come through the continual process of learning from both negative and positive experiences. It will seem not only unrealistic but also stultifying to simply expect comfort and security to be handed to you. End I can send the text of the entire article if you are interested. Maddi applies his ideas to organizations, improving the resilience of groups of people. Lynn HowlBloom at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl > Bloom writes: > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even > if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an > entourage that's also heavily invested in your > reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping > properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly > every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of > resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with > single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very > successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find > mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more > successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, > an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most > tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an > attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social > instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that > make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature > or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness > and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian > researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb > showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin > managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central > chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a > corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside > word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. > When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting > to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an > opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its > old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a > stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there > some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small > gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical > kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind > From The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York > University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board > member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The > Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New > York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement > of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political > Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International > Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: > Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from > the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... > From: > HowlBloom at aol.com > Date: > Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST > To: > joe at quirk.net, emdls at pacbell.net > > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if > you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage > that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said > Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, > eating well, exercising regularly every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient > kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, > drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What > do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to > whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful > because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally > meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this > lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor > because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of > self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find > others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or > due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming > insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular > sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a > battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the > living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was > shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of > the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, > the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a > stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the > stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old > uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a > danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some > gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke > exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > << File: ATT00001.html >> << File: cite.gif >> << File: ATT00002.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 18:12:44 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:12:44 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] China Pledges to Increase Use Of Alternative Energy Sources Message-ID: <01C52235.0A6724B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Mark Landler. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 5, 2004. p. C.3 China, which has rattled energy markets with its ravenous appetite for oil, declared on Friday that it would generate 10 percent of its power through renewable sources by 2010. The pledge, made at a conference on renewable energy held here, surprised experts with its ambition. If China achieves its goal, they said, it will become a world leader in developing alternatives to fossil fuels, rather than just a world-class consumer. ''The Chinese want to do this on a massive scale,'' said Christopher Flavin, the president of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization in Washington. ''They're very serious about it.'' China faces an urgent need to diversify beyond oil and coal, he said. There are already sporadic power shortages in its teeming cities. The bill for Chinese oil imports is skyrocketing, as its economy grows at nearly double-digit rates and cars and trucks choke Chinese streets. ''China is saying that it sees the rapid development of renewable energy as being in its strategic interest,'' Mr. Flavin said. China's initiative is part of a draft law on the use of renewable energy. In setting a numeric goal, Beijing has lined up with the European Union, which has pledged to generate 22 percent of its electricity, and 12 percent of all its energy, from renewable sources by 2010. The United States rejects benchmarks for the adoption of renewable energy, and the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the environmental treaty that imposes strict reductions on greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. Critics note that these targets are purely voluntary, with no sanctions if they are missed and no well-established review process to determine how well they are being met. The European Union warned recently that its 25 member states might fall short of their target for 2010. Moreover, energy consumption in China is rising so rapidly that even a national campaign to build windmills or solar-powered houses will barely reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels. The Chinese government said it planned to generate 60 gigawatts of energy from renewable sources by 2010 -- most from small-scale hydroelectric projects -- and 121 gigawatts by 2020. But the share of total electricity from renewable sources will rise to only 12 percent, from 10 percent. ''This is a problem in all industrializing countries,'' said Janet L. Sawin, a research associate at Worldwatch. ''We haven't been doing as much with energy efficiency as with energy production.'' Still, China's announcement allowed the German officials who played host at the conference to claim a victory. ''This commitment was amazing,'' said the minister for economic cooperation and development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul. The timing of the conference could not have been more propitious. Crude oil prices surged to highs this week after a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, while ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries held an emergency meeting to lift production quotas. But amid a recognition that renewable energy ought to be a priority again, there were troubling signs. The International Energy Agency released a study that showed renewable energy actually lost ground, as a percentage of the total supply of power, from 1970 to 2001. And while some countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have made big strides in wind energy, the progress has not spread widely. In 2001, about 86 percent of the world's capacity for wind generation was in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States, the report said. The German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, announced 500 million euros ($610 million) in low-interest loans to support renewable-energy projects and energy efficiency in developing countries. The World Bank said it would increase lending for projects by 20 percent a year over the next five ye ars. The United States kept a low profile, sending an assistant energy secretary, while most countries sent ministers. It promised research money to make solar and geothermal energy more cost-efficient. If the United States is not a favored guest at such gatherings, however, it is also no longer a pariah. Most delegates avoided criticizing the Bush administration -- at least outside of hallway chatter -- and German officials said the American delegation played a ''constructive role.'' "We heard many pieces of advice, 'leave them out of it, and we'll go our own way,'" said Jurgen Trittin, the environment minister. "Germany should play a pioneering role, but it should take hesitant players along with it." From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 19:30:08 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:30:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east In-Reply-To: <200503051937.j25Jb8B15302@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050306193008.69690.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades.<< --I'm not sure it works to associate Bush with Bin Laden. Obviously the Bushes have been connected to the Bin Ladens through business, but there's no solid evidence that the Bin Ladens are deeply involved with Osama. There IS, however, the issue of reliance on Saudi oil, and the connections between US policitians and the Saudis in general. The Royal Family is widely seen as corrupt, and there is likely some connection between *some* Saudi officials and terrorism, through the madrasas and hidden agreements with anti-American groups. We aren't likely to call for Democracy in Saudi, given the likelihood of an anti-American elected government using oil to punish the US. So we have to do two things: pressure the Saudis to eliminate any links between Saudi officials and anti-US groups (Al Qaeda attacks within the country will probably do more for that than we could), and explain the reason we pragmatically support an authoritarian government while calling for Democracy elsewhere. Supporting the Saudi Royals makes sense given the alternatives, and it is also an ethical compromise. It might be difficult for Bush to be honest with the public on the issue, but if he has integrity he should make the effort. More likely he will ignore the Saudis, take credit for Syria leaving Lebanon (the assassination might have more to do with it, but pressure from the US and other countries helps) and work on Iran. But at some point, Saudi is going to go through some bumpy changes, and we don't seem to have much of a plan for dealing with it because it's such a hard sell, opposing a democratic movement against a corruption-plagued authoritarian government. The attitude of many Conservatives seems to be "the public doesn't understand these things. You can't explain all the complexities," which I think is rather belittling. The public should know as much as possible about its foreign policy and should not have to rely on simplistic talk of "eliminating evil". Many people still believe there was a link between Saddam and 911, and use the fallacious "prove there ISN'T a link" argument to avoid dealing with the misinformation. That's not encouraging, given the complexity of the long-term war on terrorism. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 19:43:59 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:43:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <200503061918.j26JHxB05772@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque.<< --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have the power to force Americans into mosques? They want to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care less if we go to mosque or not. If we rely on military power without looking at our economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. The Soviets could not maintain a presence in Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military victory but on systematically draining the US of resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as possible while the dollar declines. If we are overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good option (it would weaken support for the war considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number of resistors) and one can only rely so much on superior technology before the human element and economics become more relevant in success or failure. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 21:38:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:38:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east Message-ID: <01C52251.D59DA160.shovland@mindspring.com> Can we cherry pick who gets democracy and who doesn't when we are spending blood in Iraq? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:30 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east >>The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades.<< --I'm not sure it works to associate Bush with Bin Laden. Obviously the Bushes have been connected to the Bin Ladens through business, but there's no solid evidence that the Bin Ladens are deeply involved with Osama. There IS, however, the issue of reliance on Saudi oil, and the connections between US policitians and the Saudis in general. The Royal Family is widely seen as corrupt, and there is likely some connection between *some* Saudi officials and terrorism, through the madrasas and hidden agreements with anti-American groups. We aren't likely to call for Democracy in Saudi, given the likelihood of an anti-American elected government using oil to punish the US. So we have to do two things: pressure the Saudis to eliminate any links between Saudi officials and anti-US groups (Al Qaeda attacks within the country will probably do more for that than we could), and explain the reason we pragmatically support an authoritarian government while calling for Democracy elsewhere. Supporting the Saudi Royals makes sense given the alternatives, and it is also an ethical compromise. It might be difficult for Bush to be honest with the public on the issue, but if he has integrity he should make the effort. More likely he will ignore the Saudis, take credit for Syria leaving Lebanon (the assassination might have more to do with it, but pressure from the US and other countries helps) and work on Iran. But at some point, Saudi is going to go through some bumpy changes, and we don't seem to have much of a plan for dealing with it because it's such a hard sell, opposing a democratic movement against a corruption-plagued authoritarian government. The attitude of many Conservatives seems to be "the public doesn't understand these things. You can't explain all the complexities," which I think is rather belittling. The public should know as much as possible about its foreign policy and should not have to rely on simplistic talk of "eliminating evil". Many people still believe there was a link between Saddam and 911, and use the fallacious "prove there ISN'T a link" argument to avoid dealing with the misinformation. That's not encouraging, given the complexity of the long-term war on terrorism. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 21:40:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:40:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> In spite of all the propaganda about al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, the truth is that the insurgency is being led by the professionals of Iraq's old army. They are fighting a war of attrition and they have the British cemetary in Baghdad as proof that they did it once and can do it again. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:44 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque.<< --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have the power to force Americans into mosques? They want to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care less if we go to mosque or not. If we rely on military power without looking at our economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. The Soviets could not maintain a presence in Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military victory but on systematically draining the US of resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as possible while the dollar declines. If we are overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good option (it would weaken support for the war considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number of resistors) and one can only rely so much on superior technology before the human element and economics become more relevant in success or failure. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 6 23:34:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:34:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more References: <74.4ee116c6.2f5bfd9c@aol.com> Message-ID: <024301c522a4$fd9860d0$d106f604@S0027397558> Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 7 01:00:19 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:00:19 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050306195208.01df4ae8@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:40 PM 3/6/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >In spite of all the propaganda about al Qaeda >leadership in Iraq, the truth is that the insurgency >is being led by the professionals of Iraq's >old army. > >They are fighting a war of attrition and they have >the British cemetary in Baghdad as proof that they >did it once and can do it again. We have occasionally commented on the way in which wishful thinking and narcissism have caused less than optimal policies by the current Administration -- and on pobbilities to be more effective. But Bush is certainly not the only human being in this situation. As I understand it, the Baathist leadership and Al Queida are engaged in a very ancient kind of "dance," in the spirit of old Fu Manchu movies. Each thinks it has the longest knife ready to strike into the back of the other, unseen and unprepared for. In my view, the Al Quieda and its allies have the longer knives, in places where the Baathists would never see them until too late. It is a shame, in a way, because the original premises of the baathists seemed a lot more progressive that a lot of what we see now in the area, in certain key respects. They might have a lot to contribute as a PART of a democratic state, if some of the corruption of recent decades could be cleansed/reduced. But corruption is hard to recover from quickly after many, many years. My suggestion of an "Iraqi Sovereignty Recognition Act," as a way of ADDRESSING the Sunni request for a definite withdrawal timetable, might have helped in the recovery. Whatever. Best of luck to us all... Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:44 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > > >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >compulsory services in the Mosque.<< > >--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >less if we go to mosque or not. > >If we rely on military power without looking at our >economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. >The Soviets could not maintain a presence in >Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the >advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows >what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military >victory but on systematically draining the US of >resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as >possible while the dollar declines. If we are >overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good >option (it would weaken support for the war >considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number >of resistors) and one can only rely so much on >superior technology before the human element and >economics become more relevant in success or failure. > >Michael > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 01:44:58 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:44:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <02c201c522b7$46aed670$d106f604@S0027397558> I have taken the liberty of posting below both of Howard's replies to Joe Quirk's commentary: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." In the first is presented a scenario in which 90% of kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up unsuccessful yet the remaining 10% are able to attain success due to their bonding with suitable mentors. Howard then offers some examples including one twin attaining BigMan status in womb while the other is relegated to the closet with his title: Loser in Womb Wars. I doubt if these studies by an Italian researcher have followed the nurturing process throughout adolescence and into middle age. Nature allowed, possibly by chance, prime real estate for one twin but whether that twin is able to maintain the family farm is another question. In his second reply Howard has offered all of us the fear of success scenario whereby someone who attains early acolades "would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly." Take your pick....but I'll guess that receiving an Oscar for best director at a ripe old age of 75 was an honor much appreciated by Clint Eastwood. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ***************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ***************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 7 15:10:05 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:10:05 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Michael Christopher wrote: >>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army > > unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend > compulsory services in the Mosque.<< > > --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have > the power to force Americans into mosques? They want > to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from > the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care > less if we go to mosque or not. I have been forced to learn English. Christian From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 15:47:42 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:47:42 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] fish feel pain in a similar way to humans and other mammals Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307104731.036feea0@mail.earthlink.net> Does she have feelings, too? (Filed: 02/03/2005) the idea that fish feel pain in a similar way to humans and other mammals has split scientists A fierce debate is raging about whether fish are sentient beings that feel pain. Sanjida O'Connell reports The goldfish might have a reputation for having a three-second memory, but scientists are realising that fish are much smarter than most of us give them credit for. Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish can suffer as much as birds and many mammals. The claim of Professor Ian Duncan of Guelph University, Canada, will attract praise and condemnation in equal measure. Supporters include the organiser of the conference, the Compassion in World Farming Trust, which is concerned about the welfare of farmed fish, its agenda being to achieve wider recognition of farm animals as sentient beings. Some animal rights groups go further. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, says: "Many people never consider the terror and suffering that fish endure when they're impaled by a hook and pulled out of the water. In fact, if anglers treated cats, dogs, cows or pigs the way they treat fish, they would be thrown in prison on charges of cruelty to animals." The angling community dismisses such claims as "debate driven by prejudice and sentiment". Charles Jardine, director of the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Angling, denies that fish can feel pain, adding: "I have spent my whole life fishing and I wouldn't do it if I thought it was cruel." Although scientists have spent years examining cognition in other animals, fish have been neglected. Now, according to Dr Keven Laland of the University of St Andrews, fish are thought to have long-term memories and some can even be compared to non-human primates in terms of their social skills. What is important, according to Prof Duncan, is how an animal feels. He says: "We assume human beings have a worse time than animals do because we have the cognitive ability to imagine all the different things that can go wrong in our lives. But the converse might be true." Imagine, for instance, a person with a broken arm and a fish with a torn fin. "The pain may be extremely severe in both cases. However, the human being's cognitive ability might help her `think about other things'." But because animals such as fish cannot think like us, their pain might be all-consuming. How do we know fish feel pain? In 2003 Dr Lynne Sneddon of the University of Liverpool published the first evidence that fish have pain receptors like ours. Nociception is the ability to detect painful stimuli. Dr Sneddon showed that fish, like humans and other higher vertebrates, have nociceptors that respond to chemicals, heat and pressure. However, sceptics, such as Dr James Rose of the University of Wyoming, Laramie, author of a scientific paper on fish pain, think this does not show that fish suffer. Dr Rose says: "The presence of nociceptors in fish makes sense, but nociception is not the same thing as pain and can occur without pain. Consequently, the presence of nociceptors is not proof that fish are capable of experiencing pain." In other words, if you touch a hot stove, your nociceptors will fire and trigger a reflex action - you'll snatch your hand away. You will then feel pain; what Dr Rose argues is that fish have reflex actions that prevent them from being injured, but feel nothing. Dr Sneddon has just published some work that many believe refutes the sceptics. She injected rainbow trout either with a salt solution, which was unlikely to cause them any discomfort after the initial injection, or with bee venom. The ones injected with the saline solution continued to feed and behave as normal. The others stopped feeding for almost three hours, rocked from side to side and rubbed their lips against the gravel and sides of their tank. The breathing rate of the venom-injected fish also doubled, like a person in pain might hyperventilate. "These complex behaviours have not been recorded in fish before and may be pain-coping strategies." Dr Rose disagrees. He suggests that her study shows the opposite - that trout have a remarkable tolerance of trauma, since the fish resumed feeding in just less than three hours. "The most impressive thing about the venom injections was the relative absence of behavioural effects, given the magnitude of the toxic injections. How many humans would show little change in behaviour or be ready to eat less than three hours after getting a lemon-sized bolus of bee venom in their lip? Moreover, the behaviour described may have been nociceptive responses, but there is no reason to believe they reflected conscious pain." Dr Sneddon retorts: "Dr Rose doesn't understand how these things work - he doesn't work on pain, he just wrote a review about pain in fish. The bee venom causes an acute short-lasting stimulus that in other animals and humans has an effect that lasts for three hours. So the fish show quite an intense response at the start and then the physiological effect subsides over three hours, the same as it does in humans." The second part of Dr Sneddon's study consisted of giving the trout morphine. Almost immediately, the trout that first had the venom started to feed. She concludes: "The trout's behaviour and responses were affected by the venom. They have the same pain-sensing apparatus that we have. The bee venom would be painful to us, so therefore it's likely that it was painful to the fish." She admits the study is controversial, adding: "We can never tell what an experience is like for another animal. No one has ever been a fish, so we don't know what it is like." Dr Rose remains to be convinced. His argument centres on how the brain processes pain. He argues that in humans pain perception is computed by the neocortex, the outer layer of the brain. "Fish have no brain regions even remotely comparable to these human neocortical regions," he says. "Consequently, this is a simple hardware question - fish don't have the brain hardware necessary for either consciousness or pain." John Webster, an emeritus professor at the University of Bristol, whose book Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden has just been published, says: "A powerful portfolio of physiological and behavioural evidence now exists to support the case that fish feel pain and that this feeling matters. In the face of such evidence, any argument to the contrary based on the claim that fish 'do not have the right sort of brain' can no longer be called scientific. It is just obstinate." It is debatable whether fish can suffer, but if they do feel pain, should that alter how we treat them? Three studies record an 80 per cent mortality rate for fish such as mackerel and sole caught by trawlers and thrown back into the sea. If fishermen hook fish in the skin or the mouth, the majority recover, but if the fish swallows the hook or it catches any other part of its anatomy, it will subsequently bleed to death. Currently, two main types of hooks are used by anglers - octopus hooks and circular hooks. Circular hooks cause less damage: if the hook is easy to remove, 95 per cent of fish survive, whereas 15 per cent more die when an octopus hook is used. Dr Sneddon says: "People should think more clearly about how they handle fish and what they subject them to. It's up to individuals whether they eat fish, but it's an important food so the government should invest money in equipment to make the experience of being caught less invasive for fish. As for fishermen, they should know that what they do causes fish pain and it's up to them to decide whether they want to continue angling." The Compassion in World Farming conference on animal sentience is in London from March 17-18; http://www.animalsentience.com/ 12 October 2004: QED: fishy business [fish are not clever] 6 October 2004: Fast-learning fish have memories that put their owners to shame ---- Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 16:01:41 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:01:41 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Did animals sense Tsunami was coming? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307105948.03704bf8@mail.earthlink.net> Did animals sense Tsunami was coming? http://www.animalsentience.com/news/2005-01-15.htm From unstasis at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 23:17:39 2005 From: unstasis at gmail.com (Stephen Lee) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and other miscellaneous Howard Bloom news Message-ID: <951ad07050307151723c63f83@mail.gmail.com> Hello All, Just wanted to send out a quick email informing you all that a first draft of Howard Bloom's next book, "Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul into the Machine: A Quick Revision of Western Civilization" is now on sale on E-Bay!!! You can get there via this link or just search for Reinventing Capitalism on E-Bay over the next week. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4532507022&fromMakeTrack=true Also just to let you all know that Howard will be at 4 different events in May. Lecture at Yale, Give dates and titles for each of these vents?no need to get into anything beyond that.. A premiere of a short film and talk at the Knitting factory (knittingfactory.com), Also a statue unveiling And finally an award for lifetime achievement All in the week of May 7 to 14th. -- >From all of us at Team Bloom (care of Howard's assistant Stephen Lee) From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 23:53:50 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:53:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> Christian Rauh writes: > I have been forced to learn English. When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American citizen and having to speak English, are you? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 00:08:57 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:08:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain In-Reply-To: <200503071937.j27JbXB21282@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish can suffer as much as birds and many mammals.<< --I think for the purposes of empathy, that's true. If we go by IQ, then low-IQ humans are somehow less sentient or less human. If we go by the ability to suffer, then we have to include animals. We may eventually be forced to confront our somewhat compartmentalized attitudes toward animals. Most people have no problem eating a cow, but would feel more than a slight twinge of guilt eating a dolphin or chimpanzee. It's similar to our attitudes toward drugs, which are based on unthinking perceptions of risk and social acceptability, rather than solid information. In the case of animals and pain, we have to ask "why are we asking the question?" Why does it matter to us if animals, or other people, for that matter, feel pain? The answer might give us some clues as to where to draw the line. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 8 02:04:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:04:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C52340.240EDC80.shovland@mindspring.com> I guess he's from someplace in Europe. And yes, English is today's global language and you have to speak it to be in the game. In the time of Christ, it was Aramaic, and Swahili is understood all over Africa. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:54 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Christian Rauh writes: > I have been forced to learn English. When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American citizen and having to speak English, are you? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 8 02:27:07 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:27:07 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <422D0D7B.3090607@solution-consulting.com> Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image. That is their history, and it is Bin Laden's goal. Islam sees the world as Dar al Islam (land of peace/submission) and Dar al Harb (land of war). Consider that radical Islam may be our enemy. Respect for the enemy means being able to see the world through the enemy's eyes, and not project onto the enemy our own motivations and world-view. Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >Michael Christopher wrote: > > >>>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >>>> >>>> >>unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >>compulsory services in the Mosque.<< >> >>--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >>the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >>to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >>the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >>less if we go to mosque or not. >> >> > >I have been forced to learn English. > >Christian >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 8 03:52:57 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:52:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and othermiscellaneous Howard Bloom news References: <951ad07050307151723c63f83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <035f01c52392$51cb1bf0$7f03f604@S0027397558> Hi, I'm just curious why you think Howard's new book will be a hit on e-bay? It certainly should be, but what are reasons you have elected to place it there? I'm thinking that a few readers who liked Howard's other books might wait until his next one is released. Then purchase. That's what I'd do. Always curious, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Lee" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:17 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and othermiscellaneous Howard Bloom news > Hello All, > > Just wanted to send out a quick email informing you > all that a first draft of Howard Bloom's next book, > "Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul into the > Machine: A Quick Revision of Western > Civilization" is now on sale on E-Bay!!! > > You can get there via this link or just search for > Reinventing Capitalism on E-Bay over the next week. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4532507022&fromMakeTrack=true > > Also just to let you all know that Howard will be at > 4 > different events in May. > > Lecture at Yale, Give dates and titles for each of > these vents?no need to get into anything beyond > that.. > > A premiere of a short film and talk at the Knitting > factory > (knittingfactory.com), > > Also a statue unveiling > > And finally an award for lifetime achievement > > All in the week of May 7 to 14th. > > -- >>From all of us at Team Bloom > (care of Howard's assistant Stephen Lee) > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 8 05:11:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:11:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C5235A.43B9B540.shovland@mindspring.com> They may be our enemy, but that doesn't mean that hordes of sword-waving crazies on horseback will be coming over the border. They are kidding themselves if they think they will conquer us, and we are paranoid if we think that. Bin Laden is mostly motivated by anger about the permanent US bases in Saudi. I have previously advocated using intelligence and police methods to decapitate Islamic radicalism. The sort of mass slaughter we are conducing in Iraq is only making them stronger. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 6:27 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image. That is their history, and it is Bin Laden's goal. Islam sees the world as Dar al Islam (land of peace/submission) and Dar al Harb (land of war). Consider that radical Islam may be our enemy. Respect for the enemy means being able to see the world through the enemy's eyes, and not project onto the enemy our own motivations and world-view. Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >Michael Christopher wrote: > > >>>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >>>> >>>> >>unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >>compulsory services in the Mosque.<< >> >>--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >>the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >>to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >>the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >>less if we go to mosque or not. >> >> > >I have been forced to learn English. > >Christian >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 02:12:17 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] US and Islam In-Reply-To: <200503081947.j28JllB13797@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050309021217.43784.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image.<< --If Bin Laden seriously thinks he can force America to accept Islam as its official religion, then he's a lot less intelligent than I give him credit for. Running the US into economic turmoil and stretching its military too thin is within the realm of possibility. Converting the US to Islam is not. Obviously every Muslim and Christian on the planet would rejoice if everyone converted to their belief. Both religions predict the destruction of everyone who doesn't share the faith. But wishful thinking is not the same thing as plausible strategy. I worry a lot more about Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into Al Qaeda's hands in the event of a coup, than about being forced to convert to Islam. Even converting the French to Islam would be impossible, let alone Americans. At mose, radical Muslims may be able to cow a few European countries into advancing the interests of their Islamic minorities. But more likely, they'll just anger mainstream Muslims as they increasingly target Muslims who do not share their politics. It will be that latter fact that turns the tide, and we are already seeing reactions by Muslims against the tactics of Al Qaeda when it targets Muslims along with "infidels". As long as radical Islam targeted Americans and Israelis, it had a media advantage. Now that it's routinely killing Muslims, that is changing, and we should do whatever we can to help moderate Muslims gain a voice, organize through internet and cell phones, and form a street presence to compete with Hezbollah and other radical groups. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:02:37 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:02:37 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain In-Reply-To: <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200503071937.j27JbXB21282@tick.javien.com> <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308215545.038784a8@mail.earthlink.net> Yes Michael, thank you best, karen At 07:08 PM 3/7/2005, you wrote: > >>Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in >domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what >really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish >can suffer as much as birds and many mammals.<< > >--I think for the purposes of empathy, that's true. If >we go by IQ, then low-IQ humans are somehow less >sentient or less human. If we go by the ability to >suffer, then we have to include animals. We may >eventually be forced to confront our somewhat >compartmentalized attitudes toward animals. Most >people have no problem eating a cow, but would feel >more than a slight twinge of guilt eating a dolphin or >chimpanzee. It's similar to our attitudes toward >drugs, which are based on unthinking perceptions of >risk and social acceptability, rather than solid >information. In the case of animals and pain, we have >to ask "why are we asking the question?" Why does it >matter to us if animals, or other people, for that >matter, feel pain? The answer might give us some clues >as to where to draw the line. > >Michael From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:08:51 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308220505.036dd298@mail.earthlink.net> then on another note: just how stupid are these people? - do we really need to spend money on tests like these ? Is this the fate of all people who have a total disconnect from their oral tradition? Aren't there stories from the ages that tell how smart the monkey is? what the f*-k k From: "Ian Pitchford" Subject: Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Public release date: 7-Mar-2005 [ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ] Contact: Heidi Hardman hhardman at cell.com 1-617-397-2879 Cell Press Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Researchers Jonathan Flombaum and Dr. Laurie Santos, both from Yale University, have found that rhesus monkeys consider whether a competitor can or cannot see them when trying to steal food. Working with semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys on the island of Cayo Santiago in Puerto Rico, Flombaum and Santos set up a food competition game: Lone monkeys were approached by two human "competitors." Each competitor had a grape affixed to a platform by his feet. In each experiment, one of the competitors could see the monkey in front of them, but the other could not. For example, in Experiment 1, one of the competitors stood with his back to the monkey subject, while the other stood facing the subject. Monkeys in this experiment spontaneously chose to approach and steal a grape from only the competitor with his back toward the monkey. In five more experiments, the monkeys revealed similar preferences for an experimenter who could not see them, rather than one who could. Most notably, they reliably stole food from a competitor with only his eyes averted, rather than one facing perfectly forward, as well as an experimenter with a piece of cardboard over his eyes rather than one with cardboard over his mouth. Together, these results reveal not only that rhesus monkeys prefer to steal food from a competitor who cannot see them, but also that they know exactly how blocking or averting one's eyes can render one unable to see. Thus, even without any training, these monkeys were able to accurately consider the visual perspective of others when deciding from whom to steal. In previous studies, rhesus monkeys (and other primates) were thought to do no more than merely follow the gaze of others. Primates have typically failed in other, noncompetitive experiments that require surmising what other individuals know or see from where they are looking. In one famous case, for example, rhesus monkeys were unable to find food under a hidden location when the human experimenter who hid the food preferentially looked at the hidden location. These results suggest that competition-like situations may bring out the primates' abilities more than experiments that don't involve competition. These latest results, however, suggest that rhesus monkeys can do much more than just follow the gaze of others; they can also deduce what others see and know, based only on their perception of where others are looking. These data potentially push back the time during which our own abilities to "read the minds of others" must have evolved. Moreover, they suggest strongly a reason why these abilities may have evolved in the first place, namely for competitive interactions with others. Finally, these results lay the groundwork for investigating the neural basis for this kind of social reasoning in a readily available laboratory animal - an urgent endeavor for developing a better neural understanding of diseases such as autism, in which this kind of social reasoning appears impaired. ### Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos: "Rhesus Monkeys Attribute Perceptions to Others" The other members of the research team include Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos from Yale University. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship to J.I.F. and the Yale University Moore Fund grant to L.R.S. The Cayo Santiago Field Station was supported by the National Institutes of Health (National Center for Research Resources grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 award to the Caribbean Primate Research Center) and the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus. Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 5, March 8, 2005, pages 447-452. http://www.current-biology.com http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cp-rmc030305.php From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:11:56 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:11:56 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308221129.038784a8@mail.earthlink.net> Synaesthete makes sweet music News Published online: 2 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050228-9 Synaesthete makes sweet music Ruth Francis Professional musician distinguishes intervals with her tongue. A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with her ability to taste differences in the intervals between notes. The condition in which the brain links two or more of the senses is known as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are relatively common. But this is the first time that the ability has been found to help in performing a mental task, such as identifying a major third. Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first noticed that she saw colours while hearing music. She realized that the same was not true of her peers, although linkage of tone and colour is a known synaesthetic combination. As she began to learn music more formally, she found that when hearing particular tone intervals she experienced a characteristic taste on her tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to her, whereas a minor sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the tastes to help her recognize different chords. Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had the synaesthesia, but really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started to use it for the tone-interval identification. I could first check it by counting the space between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my tongue." The taste of music Lutz J?ncke, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, works with musicians who report unusual qualities or skills. Thanks to a student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced to the recorder-playing Sulston. To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues played tone intervals while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They used either the same taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a clashing one. They found that she was able to identify the intervals much more quickly when the taste matched the one that she says she normally associates with it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, J?ncke says. He reports the results in Nature1. "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than other musicians; she is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The synaesthesia is kind of boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, but the difference was in the reaction times." Full Text at Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html Comment: The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, bitter and salt. Most of her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the girl also reports 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and 'low fat cream'. These could be combinations and relative intensities of the taste bud sensations, or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would be considerably more complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that taste alone is involved, and that interpretations of taste a subconscious associations acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 9 14:41:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:41:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain Message-ID: <01C52473.089B6D90.shovland@mindspring.com> I have known some humans who would fail these tests :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:09 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] animals and pain then on another note: just how stupid are these people? - do we really need to spend money on tests like these ? Is this the fate of all people who have a total disconnect from their oral tradition? Aren't there stories from the ages that tell how smart the monkey is? what the f*-k k From: "Ian Pitchford" Subject: Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Public release date: 7-Mar-2005 [ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ] Contact: Heidi Hardman hhardman at cell.com 1-617-397-2879 Cell Press Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Researchers Jonathan Flombaum and Dr. Laurie Santos, both from Yale University, have found that rhesus monkeys consider whether a competitor can or cannot see them when trying to steal food. Working with semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys on the island of Cayo Santiago in Puerto Rico, Flombaum and Santos set up a food competition game: Lone monkeys were approached by two human "competitors." Each competitor had a grape affixed to a platform by his feet. In each experiment, one of the competitors could see the monkey in front of them, but the other could not. For example, in Experiment 1, one of the competitors stood with his back to the monkey subject, while the other stood facing the subject. Monkeys in this experiment spontaneously chose to approach and steal a grape from only the competitor with his back toward the monkey. In five more experiments, the monkeys revealed similar preferences for an experimenter who could not see them, rather than one who could. Most notably, they reliably stole food from a competitor with only his eyes averted, rather than one facing perfectly forward, as well as an experimenter with a piece of cardboard over his eyes rather than one with cardboard over his mouth. Together, these results reveal not only that rhesus monkeys prefer to steal food from a competitor who cannot see them, but also that they know exactly how blocking or averting one's eyes can render one unable to see. Thus, even without any training, these monkeys were able to accurately consider the visual perspective of others when deciding from whom to steal. In previous studies, rhesus monkeys (and other primates) were thought to do no more than merely follow the gaze of others. Primates have typically failed in other, noncompetitive experiments that require surmising what other individuals know or see from where they are looking. In one famous case, for example, rhesus monkeys were unable to find food under a hidden location when the human experimenter who hid the food preferentially looked at the hidden location. These results suggest that competition-like situations may bring out the primates' abilities more than experiments that don't involve competition. These latest results, however, suggest that rhesus monkeys can do much more than just follow the gaze of others; they can also deduce what others see and know, based only on their perception of where others are looking. These data potentially push back the time during which our own abilities to "read the minds of others" must have evolved. Moreover, they suggest strongly a reason why these abilities may have evolved in the first place, namely for competitive interactions with others. Finally, these results lay the groundwork for investigating the neural basis for this kind of social reasoning in a readily available laboratory animal - an urgent endeavor for developing a better neural understanding of diseases such as autism, in which this kind of social reasoning appears impaired. ### Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos: "Rhesus Monkeys Attribute Perceptions to Others" The other members of the research team include Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos from Yale University. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship to J.I.F. and the Yale University Moore Fund grant to L.R.S. The Cayo Santiago Field Station was supported by the National Institutes of Health (National Center for Research Resources grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 award to the Caribbean Primate Research Center) and the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus. Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 5, March 8, 2005, pages 447-452. http://www.current-biology.com http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cp-rmc030305.php _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 9 14:42:47 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42:47 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Message-ID: <01C52473.35755C90.shovland@mindspring.com> Making music must be a totally ecstatic experience for her. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:12 PM To: paleo Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Synaesthete makes sweet music News Published online: 2 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050228-9 Synaesthete makes sweet music Ruth Francis Professional musician distinguishes intervals with her tongue. A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with her ability to taste differences in the intervals between notes. The condition in which the brain links two or more of the senses is known as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are relatively common. But this is the first time that the ability has been found to help in performing a mental task, such as identifying a major third. Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first noticed that she saw colours while hearing music. She realized that the same was not true of her peers, although linkage of tone and colour is a known synaesthetic combination. As she began to learn music more formally, she found that when hearing particular tone intervals she experienced a characteristic taste on her tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to her, whereas a minor sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the tastes to help her recognize different chords. Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had the synaesthesia, but really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started to use it for the tone-interval identification. I could first check it by counting the space between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my tongue." The taste of music Lutz Jancke, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, works with musicians who report unusual qualities or skills. Thanks to a student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced to the recorder-playing Sulston. To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues played tone intervals while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They used either the same taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a clashing one. They found that she was able to identify the intervals much more quickly when the taste matched the one that she says she normally associates with it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, Jancke says. He reports the results in Nature1. "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than other musicians; she is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The synaesthesia is kind of boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, but the difference was in the reaction times." Full Text at Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html Comment: The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, bitter and salt. Most of her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the girl also reports 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and 'low fat cream'. These could be combinations and relative intensities of the taste bud sensations, or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would be considerably more complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that taste alone is involved, and that interpretations of taste a subconscious associations acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 16:45:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:45:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses References: <01C52473.35755C90.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007401c524c7$6bb78bd0$c503f604@S0027397558> A regular gourmand feast. What a marvelous diet! Gerry Reinhart-Waller http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:42 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] the senses > Making music must be a totally ecstatic experience > for her. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:12 PM > To: paleo > Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses > > Synaesthete makes sweet music > > News > > > Published online: 2 March 2005; | > doi:10.1038/news050228-9 > Synaesthete makes sweet music > Ruth Francis > Professional musician distinguishes intervals > with her tongue. > > > A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with > her ability to taste > differences in the intervals between notes. > > The condition in which the brain links two or more of > the senses is known > as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are > relatively common. But > this is the first time that the ability has been > found to help in > performing a mental task, such as identifying a major > third. > > Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first > noticed that she saw colours > while hearing music. She realized that the same was > not true of her peers, > although linkage of tone and colour is a known > synaesthetic combination. > > As she began to learn music more formally, she found > that when hearing > particular tone intervals she experienced a > characteristic taste on her > tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to > her, whereas a minor > sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the > tastes to help her > recognize different chords. > > Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had > the synaesthesia, but > really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started > to use it for the > tone-interval identification. I could first check it > by counting the space > between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my > tongue." > > The taste of music > > Lutz Jancke, a neuroscientist at the University of > Zurich, Switzerland, > works with musicians who report unusual qualities or > skills. Thanks to a > student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced > to the > recorder-playing Sulston. > > To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues > played tone intervals > while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They > used either the same > taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a > clashing one. > > They found that she was able to identify the > intervals much more quickly > when the taste matched the one that she says she > normally associates with > it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, > Jancke says. He > reports the results in Nature1. > > "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than > other musicians; she > is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The > synaesthesia is kind of > boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, > but the difference was > in the reaction times." > > Full Text at Nature > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html > > Comment: > The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, > bitter and salt. Most of > her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the > girl also reports > 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and > 'low fat cream'. These > could be combinations and relative intensities of the > taste bud sensations, > or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would > be considerably more > complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that > taste alone is > involved, and that interpretations of taste a > subconscious associations > acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Thu Mar 10 19:43:55 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:43:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Gerry, I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the street. That's economic pressure. And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you will have to face the individual consequences. As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards "spreading freedom". G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian Rauh writes: > >> I have been forced to learn English. > > > When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? > France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American > citizen and having to speak English, are you? > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 10 20:24:21 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in Connecticut?" Are you also a U.S. citizen? They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for Brazilian citizens"? People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn > english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a > decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing > having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to > learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they > otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other > places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a > deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning > the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as > troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the > individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you > always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to > mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, > American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure > that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in > general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that > foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> Christian Rauh writes: >> >>> I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a >> heinous thing? >> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about >> being an American >> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > From ross.buck at uconn.edu Thu Mar 10 20:29:20 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Ross Buck) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:29:20 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Christian: Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. Ross Ross Buck, Ph. D. Professor of Communication Sciences and Psychology Communication Sciences U-1085 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-1085 860-486-4494 fax 860-486-5422 Ross.buck at uconn.edu http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Gerry, I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the street. That's economic pressure. And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you will have to face the individual consequences. As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards "spreading freedom". G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian Rauh writes: > >> I have been forced to learn English. > > > When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? > France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American > citizen and having to speak English, are you? > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From kendulf at shaw.ca Thu Mar 10 22:41:14 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:41:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Friends, When I learned Russian everyone about me spoke it, and my aunt praised me for speaking with the accent of a Muscovite. When I learned German I was discouraged from speaking Russian, as it was not safe and even a six-year old can sense it among red and black banners and arms raised in "Heil Hitler". When I learned English and French, it was because my class learned it as it was part of the curriculum - full stop! When I lost my French it was because my high school French teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, spoke the language less well than I did, and I had nobody to talk to. My Quebecoise grandchildren speak French fluently, and I have not been able to re-learn, courtesy of nobody to talk to here in the boonies in the west. English is my primary language now, and German colleagues are envious because I can so readily publish in English. However, I am angered and saddened by their denial of their German as so much that is relevant in my interests is found only in German. And I appreciate as an author the strengths and weaknesses of German and of English. I could not function without the latter in the modern world, but imperialism? I never saw it that way. If I could get a bit more time I would gladly learn another language, provided I can live in it and imbibe the culture that goes with it. And when I get mad at the USA, and that happens ever so often, I think back to the GI who sat down on the edge of my bed the day the Sherman tanks raced into our village, pulled out his K-rations and gave me something to eat. And the care packages that brightened our days and in the uncertainty gave us hope for a better world. And I am not surprised that the first choice of many Palestinians is to emigrate to the United States, and barring that....... Sincerely, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Buck" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:29 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Christian: > > Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better > appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object > of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. > > Ross > > Ross Buck, Ph. D. > Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology > Communication Sciences U-1085 > University of Connecticut > Storrs, CT 06269-1085 > 860-486-4494 > fax 860-486-5422 > Ross.buck at uconn.edu > http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM > To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> Christian Rauh writes: >> >>> I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/2005 > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Thu Mar 10 22:45:08 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:45:08 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] English In-Reply-To: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> References: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050310172616.01d7ae98@incoming.verizon.net> Hi, folks! Certainly there are times when the US is like a blind elephant that really needs to work on its vision. And there are areas of science where Brazil offers opportunities to US folks just as much as vice-versa. But.. The English language is a totally different matter! To begin with, the US doesn't own that language. There was a time when Latin was the lingua franca of intelligent work in Europe. It wasn't because of the great pressure exerted by dead Roman emperors. It was because standards and conventions are critical to universal communication. It is often said these days that "Bad English is the universal language of science." Have you seen people in Budapest who complained why all Americans did not learn Hungarian? And then turned around and used English themselves to talk to visiting Rumanians or Chinese? We can't learn all the languages. -------- On the other hand, I personally believe that Arabic (not counting the alphabet) does have a kind of special logical status. The Russian linguist Sapir had some very deep and valid empirical insights into the evolution of language. Like Freud, he didn't frame his concepts in the most precise mathematical way, and he did hit a few distracting hot buttons (like Freud and like E.O. Wilson.) But we are deeply impoverished when we do not learn what we can from his observations -- and reinterpret it in a more modern context. Basically -- the modern western European languages are really very, very close in terms of the world view they impose. Some US theorists imagine that Western grammatical structures are hard-wired into the genes of all humans -- but I hear that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has had some very intense discussions about the weirdness of "scientists" who postulate that English grammar is wired into even their genes! (I have heard a lot more about those discussions...). Yes, there is some special colorful vocabulary in each Western language, but the underlying structures are very similar, in a way that Sapir noticed. And, as Max Weber suggested... these structures of thought may owe more to Plato than to DNA. We underestimate Plato's influence (and Socrates'..) because of how thoroughly we have absorbed it, in the West. But... for humanity as a whole... Arabic and Chinese represent a major flowering of a different way of phrasing things. If we were trying to be truly cosmopolitan, maybe everyone would learn English, Arabic and Chinese. But maybe we would have computers and courses to make this easier for people, and do some other fixes in the meantime. (Maybe enlarging some vocabularies a bit?) Long ago, I remember suggesting... that in a rational world... we would make a Great Bargain, perhaps in the European community or even OECD. English would get greater status as a common official language... IN RETURN for fixing up the spelling, to make it truly phonetic. And the English would agree to drive on the right side of the road, and the US to fully adopt the metric system. And with Chinese, computers would have a very special role... But... long enough, this email is already. On the Irish side of my family, there were people who fought very hard to resist English imperialism. Their feelings about it were not restrained. But they never fought the English language. They felt that they could speak it and write it better than the English, and that doing so would be a stronger path for them. (They spoke some Gaelic in school... but never tried to take it further.) Best, Paul From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 01:56:12 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:56:12 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] theory of everything? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050310205521.0387a8f0@mail.earthlink.net> Evidence of Cosmic Strings Found? http://www.rednova.com/news/space/132303/finding_the_ultimate_theory_of_everything/index.html Finding the Ultimate Theory of Everything Could two lookalike galaxies, barely a whisker apart in the night sky, herald a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics? Some physicists believe that the two galaxies are the same - its image has been split into two, they maintain, by a "cosmic string"; a San Andreas Fault in the very fabric of space and time. If this interpretation is correct, then CSL-1 - the name of the curious double galaxy - is the first concrete evidence for "superstring theory": the best candidate for a "theory of everything", which attempts to encapsulate all the phenomena of nature in one neat set of equations. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 02:24:14 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:24:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <039101c525e1$6c930190$1903f604@S0027397558> Dear Val and all, I found your post so moving that I've decided to post it to my Language-Origins group. Possibly rather than looking for "origins", members might be understand the historical implication for language. Language is definitely NOT a closed system as some scientists might wish to explain. I thank you for this reply. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Val Geist" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Dear Friends, > > When I learned Russian everyone about me spoke it, > and my aunt praised me for speaking with the accent > of a Muscovite. When I learned German I was > discouraged from speaking Russian, as it was not safe > and even a six-year old can sense it among red and > black banners and arms raised in "Heil Hitler". When > I learned English and French, it was because my class > learned it as it was part of the curriculum - full > stop! When I lost my French it was because my high > school French teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, spoke > the language less well than I did, and I had nobody > to talk to. My Quebecoise grandchildren speak French > fluently, and I have not been able to re-learn, > courtesy of nobody to talk to here in the boonies in > the west. English is my primary language now, and > German colleagues are envious because I can so > readily publish in English. However, I am angered and > saddened by their denial of their German as so much > that is relevant in my interests is found only in > German. And I appreciate as an author the strengths > and weaknesses of German and of English. I could not > function without the latter in the modern world, but > imperialism? I never saw it that way. If I could get > a bit more time I would gladly learn another > language, provided I can live in it and imbibe the > culture that goes with it. And when I get mad at the > USA, and that happens ever so often, I think back to > the GI who sat down on the edge of my bed the day the > Sherman tanks raced into our village, pulled out his > K-rations and gave me something to eat. And the care > packages that brightened our days and in the > uncertainty gave us hope for a better world. And I am > not surprised that the first choice of many > Palestinians is to emigrate to the United States, and > barring that....... > > Sincerely, Val Geist > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ross Buck" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:29 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Christian: >> >> Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that >> needs to be better >> appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand >> why we are the object >> of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. >> >> Ross >> >> Ross Buck, Ph. D. >> Professor of Communication Sciences >> and Psychology >> Communication Sciences U-1085 >> University of Connecticut >> Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >> 860-486-4494 >> fax 860-486-5422 >> Ross.buck at uconn.edu >> http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >> [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf >> Of Christian Rauh >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM >> To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> Gerry, >> >> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn >> english because >> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >> decent job in this world. >> >> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >> having to learn arabic >> or going to mosques when other people are having to >> learn english. What >> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >> otherwise would not. >> >> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other >> places, people have >> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >> deliberate and >> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning >> the language, the >> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive >> as troops on the >> street. That's economic pressure. >> >> And to the counter-argument that you always have the >> individual choice >> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you >> always have the >> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to >> mosques. But you >> will have to face the individual consequences. >> >> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, >> American citizens >> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >> that the US exerts in >> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in >> general, most >> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >> foreigners have towards >> "spreading freedom". >> >> >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> Christian Rauh writes: >>> >>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>> >>> >>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such >>> a heinous thing? >>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>> about being an American >>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>> >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >> >> -- From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 02:33:00 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:33:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] English References: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu><200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050310172616.01d7ae98@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <039701c525e2$a66487d0$1903f604@S0027397558> Thanks Paul for this reply and for your historical rendition. I have taken the liberty of posting this to my language-origins group because I believe your interpretation of what's needed in understanding language is "spot on". Language is not only the words or sentence structure we use; it also encompasses the "sense" of what we are trying to say. I totally agree that for anyone to have a Worldly View, one needs to be versant in Arabic, Chinese and English. Only then will a scholar have a handle on language. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul J. Werbos, Dr." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] English > > Hi, folks! > > Certainly there are times when the US is like a blind > elephant that really needs to work > on its vision. And there are areas of science where > Brazil offers opportunities to US folks > just as much as vice-versa. > > But.. > > The English language is a totally different matter! > > To begin with, the US doesn't own that language. > > There was a time when Latin was the lingua franca of > intelligent work in Europe. It wasn't because of the > great pressure > exerted by dead Roman emperors. It was because > standards > and conventions are critical to universal > communication. > It is often said these days that "Bad English is the > universal language > of science." > > Have you seen people in Budapest who complained why > all Americans did not learn > Hungarian? And then turned around and used English > themselves to talk to visiting > Rumanians or Chinese? We can't learn all the > languages. > > -------- > > On the other hand, I personally believe that Arabic > (not counting the alphabet) does > have a kind of special logical status. The Russian > linguist Sapir had some very deep and > valid empirical insights into the evolution of > language. Like Freud, he didn't frame his > concepts in the most precise mathematical way, and he > did hit a few distracting hot buttons > (like Freud and like E.O. Wilson.) But we are deeply > impoverished when we do not > learn what we can from his observations -- and > reinterpret it in a more modern context. > > Basically -- the modern western European languages > are really very, very close in terms > of the world view they impose. Some US theorists > imagine that Western grammatical > structures are hard-wired into the genes of all > humans -- but I hear that the Chinese > Academy of Sciences has had some very intense > discussions about the weirdness > of "scientists" who postulate that English grammar is > wired into even their genes! > (I have heard a lot more about those discussions...). > Yes, there is some special colorful vocabulary in > each Western language, but the underlying structures > are very similar, in a way that Sapir noticed. > And, as Max Weber suggested... these structures of > thought may owe more to Plato than to DNA. > We underestimate Plato's influence (and Socrates'..) > because of how thoroughly we have absorbed it, in the > West. > > But... for humanity as a whole... Arabic and Chinese > represent a major flowering of a different > way of phrasing things. If we were trying to be truly > cosmopolitan, maybe everyone would > learn English, Arabic and Chinese. But maybe we would > have computers and courses to make this easier for > people, and do some other fixes in the meantime. > (Maybe enlarging some vocabularies a bit?) > > Long ago, I remember suggesting... that in a rational > world... we would make a > Great Bargain, perhaps in the European community or > even OECD. English would get greater > status as a common official language... IN RETURN for > fixing up the spelling, > to make it truly phonetic. And the English would > agree to drive on the right side of the road, > and the US to fully adopt the metric system. > > And with Chinese, computers would have a very special > role... > > But... long enough, this email is already. > > On the Irish side of my family, there were people who > fought very hard to > resist English imperialism. Their feelings about it > were not restrained. > But they never fought the English language. They felt > that they could speak it > and write it better than the English, and that doing > so would be a stronger path > for them. (They spoke some Gaelic in school... but > never tried to take it further.) > > Best, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:35:31 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:35:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Pilots give aviation security efforts low grades Message-ID: <01C525A8.52DE9720.shovland@mindspring.com> Reuters News Service WASHINGTON -- A group of airline pilots gave the U.S. government failing grades today in several areas of aviation security including the screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from shoulder-fired missiles. ADVERTISEMENT The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association released its Aviation Security Report Card that showed aviation security gets average to failing grades in over a dozen subject areas. The trade group gave failing "F" grades to the government in five areas -- screening of employees, screening of cargo, high-tech credentialing of crew members, self-defense training for crew and the plan for countering shoulder-fired missiles. The group gave good grades to the government on improved bag screening and on reinforcing cockpit doors on commercial airplanes. Jon Safley, president of CAPA, said filling some of the "gaping holes" in aviation security will require major changes in the way the airlines and airports do business, and in the way the government manages airline security. "The technology exists, or could be updated http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3078169 From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:37:40 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:37:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism (commentary by Russell Hoffman, October 22nd, 2001) Message-ID: <01C525A8.A01A51A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism (commentary by Russell Hoffman, October 22nd, 2001) To: listen at ajc.com From: "Russell D. Hoffman" Subject: Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism To: Editor, Atlantic Journal-Constitution From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad CA Subject: Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism Date: October 22nd, 2001 To The Editor: Regarding the opinion piece published in your paper yesterday (and shown below), posting National Guard troops around our nuclear power plants would only be of limited value. What we need are much better physical barriers (earthen berms, concrete gates, etc.), more firepower for the defenders (perhaps National Guard troops) including anti-aircraft missiles, we need absolute enforcement of a no-fly zone around each plant (at least 25 miles in radius -- that gives you about 2 minutes unless the terrorists have hijacked a Concorde), and the plants need to all be shut down permanently because they are much more robust once the control rods are inserted, and over time they become more and more resistant to terrorist acts, or acts of God for that matter. Each plant is operating at risk of catastrophic failures, from earthquakes, from tsunamis for the coastal plants, from tornados, operator error, embrittlement and many other things. NONE of them have proper protections. For example tsunamis are known to reach heights of 200 feet regularly, even 1800 feet, but the tsunami wall at my local nuclear power plant (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station) is only 35 feet tall. Similarly, it's design basis is a 7.0 earthquake but new evidence suggests that 7.6 earthquakes are possible here. Please read some of the essays I've posted online regarding the many reasons we need to switch NOW to renewable energy solutions. Thank you. Russell Hoffman Concerned Citizen P.O. Box 1936 Carlsbad CA 92018 Essays on nuclear power: From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:40:34 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:40:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Chemical plants and terrorism (google terms) Message-ID: <01C525A9.078BF280.shovland@mindspring.com> Fast Facts Last update: June 19, 2002 In brief: According to the U.S. EPA, 123 chemical facilities in the United States each threaten a million or more nearby residents. More than 700 plants could put at least 100,000 people at risk, and more than 3,000 facilities have at least 10,000 people nearby. (Source: Washington Post ) Common facilities using chemicals that pose the greatest threats to local populations include chemical manufacturers (chlorine and a range of other chemicals), water treatment facilities (chlorine), oil refineries (chlorine and a range of other chemicals) and fertilizer manufacturers (ammonia). (Source: Jeremiah Baumann, U.S. Public Interest Research Group) Public interest groups like Greenpeace, U.S. PIRG and Environmental Defense advocate improving "inherent safety" at chemical plants and water treatment facilities by replacing especially hazardous chemicals with safer ones. Advocates for "inherent safety" argue that virtually all of the ultra-hazardous chemicals used in the United States have safer substitutes. A number of facilities have demonstrated that it's possible to change operations or chemicals to improve safety. One example: after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant near Washington, D.C., stopped using chlorine in a matter of weeks, substituting a much less toxic disinfectant. (Source: Washington Post ) A chemical release could endanger millions of Americans: A terrorist attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could result in up to 2.4 million casualties, according to an October study by the U.S. Army surgeon general. (Source: Global Security Newswire ) Copies of U.S. chemical trade publications were found in an Osama bin Laden hideout in December 2001. (Source: Washington Post ) According to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard, a large leak of chlorine gas can travel two miles in only 10 minutes and remain acutely toxic to a distance of about 20 miles. (Source: Greenpeace ) Only 10 parts per million of chlorine is needed to reach the IDLH ("immediately dangerous to life or health") level established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ) Chemical plant disaster scenarios documented by the U.S. EPA, as reported in December 2001 by the Washington Post : A suburban California chemical plant routinely loads chlorine into 90-ton railroad cars that, if ruptured, could poison more than 4 million people in Orange and Los Angeles counties, depending on wind and weather conditions. A Philadelphia refinery keeps 400,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride that could asphyxiate nearly 4 million nearby residents. A South Kearny, N.J., chemical company's 180,000 pounds of chlorine or sulfur dioxide could form a cloud that could threaten 12 million people. The West Virginia sister plant of the infamous Union Carbide Corp. factory in Bhopal, India, keeps up to 200,000 pounds of methyl isocyanate that could emit a toxic fog over 60,000 people near Charleston. The Atofina Chemicals Inc. plant outside Detroit projects that a rupture of one of its 90-ton rail cars of chlorine could endanger 3 million people. the link: http://www.ems.org/chemical_plants/facts.html From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:52:38 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:52:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Immortality is within our grasp Message-ID: <01C525AA.B7098690.shovland@mindspring.com> Immortality is within our grasp . . . In Fantastic Voyage, high-tech visionary Ray Kurzweil teams up with life-extension expert Terry Grossman, M.D., to consider the awesome benefits to human health and longevity promised by the leading edge of medical science--and what you can do today to take full advantage of these startling advances. Citing extensive research findings that sound as radical as the most speculative science fiction, Kurzweil and Grossman offer a program designed to slow aging and disease processes to such a degree that you should be in good health and good spirits when the more extreme life-extending and life-enhancing technologies--now in development--become available. This bridge to the future will enable those who dare to make the journey from this century to the next . . . and beyond. http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Fri Mar 11 15:44:23 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> Gerry, I don't see your point. My first point is that there is (mostly economic) pressure to conform to US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from some other place people will conform to the strongest. My second point is that people in the US are unaware of this pressure. But at the same time fear any outside pressure from another source themselves. For example, an international court or an arabic country. There is no pressure for the US academician to learn portuguese. He may do it, but solely because he chooses that. I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that it can be eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a > Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in > Connecticut?" > > Are you also a U.S. citizen? > > They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get > a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for > Brazilian citizens"? > > People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If > and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a > ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" > > To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Gerry, >> >> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because >> without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. >> >> My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic >> or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What >> they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. >> >> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have >> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and >> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the >> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the >> street. That's economic pressure. >> >> And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice >> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the >> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you >> will have to face the individual consequences. >> >> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens >> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in >> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most >> Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards >> "spreading freedom". >> >> >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> Christian Rauh writes: >>> >>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>> >>> >>> >>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>> >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >> >> -- >> >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> ~ P E A C E ~ >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> > > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Fri Mar 11 15:54:54 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:54:54 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4231BF4E.2030808@uconn.edu> Ross, The role of pointing out the foreign perspective has fallen upon me on the list without conscious action on my part. It is not surprising that that has happened though. Many times, however, I try to refrain from such comment not to be labeled the grumpy outsider. :-) Christian Ross Buck wrote: > Christian: > > Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better > appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object > of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. > > Ross > > Ross Buck, Ph. D. > Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology > Communication Sciences U-1085 > University of Connecticut > Storrs, CT 06269-1085 > 860-486-4494 > fax 860-486-5422 > Ross.buck at uconn.edu > http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM > To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >>Christian Rauh writes: >> >> >>>I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >>When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>Independent Scholar >>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 19:21:25 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:21:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <039101c525e1$6c930190$1903f604@S0027397558> <002801c525f5$4a2c4e40$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <018501c5266f$85f812e0$aa00f604@S0027397558> Dear Val, I'm always pleased to answer considerate emails like the kind you write and I will do my best to try solving your puzzle. Yes, I can relate to the emotional rush you feel when you read Russian or listen to Russian folk songs. The same thing happens to me when I recall the East Coast, particularly Massachusetts where I was born, and educated and the place where I raised my daughter. When I hear a song from my teen or college years and later, I undergo horrible pangs of nostalgia. Now I rarely listen to stereo or radio. A life without music for me is both dismal and depressing. When I watch young mothers walk hand in hand with their children.....I recall the play groups or afternoons at the beach that my daughter and I would spend together building forts and castles in the sand. I watch in envy as these new moms gather together in play groups or stroller exercise classes and wonder what it must be like raising an infant in our apartment compound. My friends and family continue residing back East but after my father's death, our family lost contact so other than visiting an old friend in Cambridge, I have no need to make contact with them. When I search Public Library shelves for a text, I recall my educational training and the many years I spent hanging out in the numerous uni. libraries back east. There are times when the loneliness is so powerful that I need to leave the library as quickly as possible. I do live close to a major private university here in California but their libraries actually contain very few books....lots of computer terminals though. Each day I wait for a change in the weather but other than cloudy mornings most of the year is bright sunshine with the same boring places to walk or drive to. On the days I go grocery shopping I spend a brief while planning a menu for the week and that's when I can actually taste treats from back East....pastrami on rye with a sour pickle or deep fried clams or shrimp always pop into my head. So does an evening ice cream cone from the local dairy stand. I then sink so low that it takes a good while to raise my spirits before I trek to the market. For you my advice would be to spend time in Moscow and reacquaint yourself with the area. Maybe you could find some type of employment or if you are in retirement, a place to volunteer or an institution with which to affiliate. For me, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my daughter soon will graduate in her PhD program here and will be looking for a job.....once that has been settled, I can better gain a glimpse into my future. Hope this helps. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Val Geist" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Dear Garry, > > Thank you very much for your kind e-mail. Your really > touched a nerve, one that has been touchy for nearly > four decades as I am groping for an answer. You are > more likely than anyone to relate to it and explain > something that is a puzzle to me. > > As you are aware, Russian was my first and only > language, which I spoke fluently till six years of > age. German followed to the total exclusion of > Russian, and I lost it. At the age of 23, in Canada, > doing my PhD dissertation research, I was isolated > for two years hermit-like in the mountain wilderness > of Northern British Columbia. I studied Stone's sheep > and other large mammals and saw no other humans for > months on end, as my closest neighbors were 40 miles > away. That's two days by dog sled one way! We had > built a nice warm cabin, and during winter at that > latitude just short of 60 the nights are very long. > What better time to re-learn my Russian? I had > obtained the three-volume set of lessons from the > Moscow foreign languages publishing house. And so, I > began. There were 32 chapters to go through, but I > only went to 16 because by that time matters were > flooding back and I began to read Trotsky and Pushkin > and Tolstoy. To my surprise I could understand > sentences even though I did not know specific words. > And I was so eager to read, as I understood, and I > enjoyed it. I re-learned well enough to read original > Russian for my PhD dissertation, but soon discovered > that the east Germans had translated virtually > everything I was interested in and I lost my Russian > as second time. However, that's not what I am > concerned about. I soon discovered in reading Russian > that my ability to read had limits, because I would > suddenly be sitting in tears. And I could not control > it. Here I sat trying to figurer out why I was > crying. It made no sense, and it would stop only if I > laid down the books and did something else. Ditto > with Russian folk songs. I can get past the first > verse, more or less, but must quite on the second and > definitely by the third. And that has haunted me for > four decades. I loved the novels I read then, I love > the folksongs, but invariably something turns on the > spouts and I cannot proceed. Any answers? > > Sincerely, Val Geist From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 19:38:23 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:38:23 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] university employment for non U.S. citizens References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com><422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu><02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558><4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu><01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> Christian writes: > I don't see your point. Let's see if I can post it again: >> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make >> is "why is a >> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state >> university in >> Connecticut?" Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you lived in America and taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone without citizenship able to slot into a full time teaching job at good University when an equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was taught to think. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "Lista Paleopsych" Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Gerry, > > I don't see your point. > > My first point is that there is (mostly economic) > pressure to conform to > US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from > some other place > people will conform to the strongest. > > My second point is that people in the US are unaware > of this pressure. > But at the same time fear any outside pressure from > another source > themselves. For example, an international court or an > arabic country. > > There is no pressure for the US academician to learn > portuguese. He may > do it, but solely because he chooses that. > > I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that > it can be > eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. > > Christian > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make >> is "why is a >> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state >> university in >> Connecticut?" >> >> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >> >> They might further comment: "If I learned >> Portuguese, would I then get >> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such >> positions reserved for >> Brazilian citizens"? >> >> People learn English usually because it guarantees >> them employment. If >> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and >> lifeways become a >> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will >> learn Arabic. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >> >> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; >> "Lista Paleopsych" >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> >>> Gerry, >>> >>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn >>> english because >>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >>> decent job in this world. >>> >>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >>> having to learn arabic >>> or going to mosques when other people are having to >>> learn english. What >>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >>> otherwise would not. >>> >>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other >>> places, people have >>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >>> deliberate and >>> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning >>> the language, the >>> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive >>> as troops on the >>> street. That's economic pressure. >>> >>> And to the counter-argument that you always have >>> the individual choice >>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you >>> always have the >>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going >>> to mosques. But you >>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>> >>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, >>> American citizens >>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >>> that the US exerts in >>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, >>> in general, most >>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >>> foreigners have towards >>> "spreading freedom". >>> >>> >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>> >>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such >>>> a heinous thing? >>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>>> about being an American >>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> Independent Scholar >>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 01:11:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <200503112012.j2BKBpE07459@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Christian says: >>My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not.<< --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much influence we have, to the point of making life impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist that everyone live in it with you. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:23:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:23:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Passage from "Fantastic Voyage" Message-ID: <01C5265F.13525A80.shovland@mindspring.com> Do we have the knowledge and the tools today to live forever? If all science and technology development suddenly stopped, the answer would have to be no. We do have the means to dramatically slow disease and the aging process far more than most people realize, but we do not yet have all the techniques we need to indefinitely extend human life. However, it is clear that far from halting, the pace of scientific and technological discovery is accelerating. According to models that Ray has created, our paradigm-shift rate-the rate of technical progress-is doubling every decade, and the capability (price performance, capacity, and speed) of specific information technologies is doubling every year. So the answer to our question is actually a definitive yes-the knowledge exists, if aggressively applied, for you to slow aging and disease processes to such a degree that you can be in good health and good spirits when the more radical life-extending and life-enhancing technologies become available over the next couple of decades. Longevity expert and gerontologist Aubrey de Grey uses the metaphor of maintaining a house to explain this key concept. How long does a house last? The answer obviously depends on how well you take care of it. If you do nothing, the roof will spring a leak before long, water and the elements will invade, and eventually the house will disintegrate. But if you proactively take care of the structure, repair all damage, confront all dangers, and rebuild or renovate parts from time to time using new materials and technologies, the life of the house can essentially be extended without limit. The same holds true for our bodies and brains. The only difference is that while we fully understand the methods underlying the maintenance of a house, we do not yet fully understand all of the biological principles of life. But with our rapidly increasing comprehension of the human genome, the proteins expressed by the genome (proteome), and the biochemical processes and pathways of our metabolism, we are quickly gaining that knowledge. We are beginning to understand aging, not as a single inexorable progression but as a group of related biological processes. Strategies for reversing each of these aging progressions using different combinations of biotechnology techniques are emerging. Many scientists, including the authors of this book, believe that we will have the means to stop and even reverse aging within the next two decades. In the meantime, we can slow each aging process to a crawl using the methods outlined in this book. From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:31:05 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:31:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C52660.1B56B3B0.shovland@mindspring.com> They don't need to adapt our agenda in order to find English useful. The world has had global languages for thousands of years. Someday English will fade and something else will replace it. If the Euro is gaining strength against the Dollar, then it may be that the people who live in Euro countries will develop one language from their whole collection and that this language would ride out to rule the world along with the Euro. The people under the Euro fold do interract more with each other. Often two parties will know a smattering of each others language, and they will communicate using this smattering. It is their own language for these two people. Now imagine all the people in Euro-land talking to each other using smatterings. The sum of all these smatterings is Euro-speak. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:11 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] influence Christian says: >>My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not.<< --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much influence we have, to the point of making life impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist that everyone live in it with you. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:33:36 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:33:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fantastic Voyage: The Biotechnology Revolution Message-ID: <01C52660.75633900.shovland@mindspring.com> As we learn how information is transformed in biological processes, many strategies are emerging for overcoming disease and aging processes. We'll review some of the more promising approaches here, and then discuss further examples in the chapters ahead. One powerful approach is to start with biology's information backbone: the genome. With gene technologies, we're now on the verge of being able to control how genes express themselves. Ultimately, we will actually be able to change the genes themselves. We are already deploying gene technologies in other species. Using a method called recombinant technology, which is being used commercially to provide many new pharmaceutical drugs, the genes of organisms ranging from bacteria to farmyard animals are being modified to produce the proteins we need to combat human diseases. http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter2.htm From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:36:43 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:36:43 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fantastic Voyage- Bridge Three: Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence Message-ID: <01C52660.E4CFD9B0.shovland@mindspring.com> As we "reverse engineer" (understand the principles of operation behind) our biology, we will apply our technology to augment and redesign our bodies and brains to radically extend longevity, enhance our health, and expand our intelligence and experiences. Much of this technological development will be the result of research into nanotechnology, a term originally coined by K. Eric Drexler in the 1970s to describe the study of objects whose smallest features are less than 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter). A nanometer equals roughly the diameter of five carbon atoms. Rob Freitas, a nanotechnology theorist, writes, "The comprehensive knowledge of human molecular structure so painstakingly acquired during the 20th and early 21st centuries will be used in the 21st century to design medically active microscopic machines. These machines, rather than being tasked primarily with voyages of pure discovery, will instead most often be sent on missions of cellular inspection, repair, and reconstruction."35 http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter1.htm http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter2.htm http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter3.htm From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:42:04 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:42:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Link to Ray Kurzweil's AI Newsletter Message-ID: <01C52661.A458BF90.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=2 Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:45:53 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:45:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Link to Terry Grossman's longevity site Message-ID: <01C52662.2CF2B040.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.fmiclinic.com/ Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 02:04:57 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:04:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> Michael writes: > --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much > influence we have, to the point of making life > impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. > And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. > It > is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist > that everyone live in it with you. --How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as well as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with this stance is that it just might create another Civil War. Gerry From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 03:03:36 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:03:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language References: <01C52660.1B56B3B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <042d01c526b0$16ec6d60$aa00f604@S0027397558> > Now imagine all the people in Euro-land > talking to each other using smatterings. > The sum of all these smatterings > is Euro-speak. The only "Euro-speak" I know of is Esperanto and learning that takes as concerted an effort as one would need to learn French, Spanish or other foreign language. Please explain what you mean by Euro-speak. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 04:45:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:45:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> Eurospeak is a combination of all the languages in the area covered by the Euro. Many people there speak languages interchangeably, so one can argue that all of those languages could evolve into one. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > Now imagine all the people in Euro-land > talking to each other using smatterings. > The sum of all these smatterings > is Euro-speak. The only "Euro-speak" I know of is Esperanto and learning that takes as concerted an effort as one would need to learn French, Spanish or other foreign language. Please explain what you mean by Euro-speak. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 05:19:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:19:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Wellness Hour Message-ID: <01C52680.334EF890.shovland@mindspring.com> http://wellnesshour.com/index.html Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Mar 12 14:14:25 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our world -- and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on the spiritual level. At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Michael writes: >>--That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>influence we have, to the point of making life >>impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>that everyone live in it with you. > >--How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing >about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who has assumed a >leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows what leadership >means. It means that there will be supporters as well as those who >counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone say not too >long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it was our >president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with this >stance is that it just might create another Civil War. > >Gerry Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should all just shut up. That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or fate. But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and even irresponsible... and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To be fancy, you cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would prefer to be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... you wouldn't like such details here and now.) Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and "do their best" with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way they prefer. That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been the theme of struggles and pain on this world for as long as history goes back. In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being influenced ourselves. That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that it is profoundly irrational. Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in values, it is natural for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability distributions concerning our knowledge, of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person to be open to certain kinds of "influence." In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active effort to develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls in a China shop, may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of our intelligence.) One may even cultivated "being influenced." ---- Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists both "Christian" and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: "You don't use God. God uses you." That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them to pay more attention to. Best, Paul From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 12 14:36:05 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens In-Reply-To: <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4232FE55.2030901@uconn.edu> Gerry, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a >>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in >>> Connecticut?" > > Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you lived in America and > taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone without citizenship > able to slot into a full time teaching job at good University when an > equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? I am a grad student at UConn, currently in my third year. My assistanship is nothing but cushy and the reason why I am in this position is because there was no equally qualified person in the US. > Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was taught to think. Me too. And let me ask you another question: What do you think is the difference between an American unemployed academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? Christian > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" > > To: "Lista Paleopsych" > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Gerry, >> >> I don't see your point. >> >> My first point is that there is (mostly economic) pressure to conform to >> US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from some other place >> people will conform to the strongest. >> >> My second point is that people in the US are unaware of this pressure. >> But at the same time fear any outside pressure from another source >> themselves. For example, an international court or an arabic country. >> >> There is no pressure for the US academician to learn portuguese. He may >> do it, but solely because he chooses that. >> >> I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that it can be >> eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a >>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in >>> Connecticut?" >>> >>> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >>> >>> They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get >>> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for >>> Brazilian citizens"? >>> >>> People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If >>> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a >>> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >>> >>> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>> >>> >>>> Gerry, >>>> >>>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because >>>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this >>>> world. >>>> >>>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic >>>> or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What >>>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. >>>> >>>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have >>>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and >>>> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the >>>> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the >>>> street. That's economic pressure. >>>> >>>> And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice >>>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the >>>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you >>>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>>> >>>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens >>>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in >>>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most >>>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards >>>> "spreading freedom". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>>> >>>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>> Independent Scholar >>>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> ~ P E A C E ~ >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 15:50:57 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:50:57 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> hi, This is what the world of commerce is speaking. Linguisitics http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html see: Netglish "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the web are written in English. More than four fifths of all international organisations use English as either their main or one of their main operating languages. At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 16:37:24 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:37:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> <4232FE55.2030901@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <006d01c52721$c636c790$8d00f604@S0027397558> Christian, Ahhhh, so you are a grad student....that enplains it! >.... And let me ask you another question: > > What do you think is the difference between an > American unemployed > academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? Let's see.....maybe the size of the hole in his shoe? Nice chatting with you. Good luck and take care, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" Cc: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:36 AM Subject: Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens > Gerry, > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might >>>> make is "why is a >>>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at >>>> state university in >>>> Connecticut?" >> >> Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you >> lived in America and >> taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone >> without citizenship >> able to slot into a full time teaching job at good >> University when an >> equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? > > I am a grad student at UConn, currently in my third > year. My > assistanship is nothing but cushy and the reason why > I am in this > position is because there was no equally qualified > person in the US. > >> Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was >> taught to think. > > Me too. And let me ask you another question: > > What do you think is the difference between an > American unemployed > academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? > > Christian > >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >> >> To: "Lista Paleopsych" >> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> >>> Gerry, >>> >>> I don't see your point. >>> >>> My first point is that there is (mostly economic) >>> pressure to conform to >>> US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from >>> some other place >>> people will conform to the strongest. >>> >>> My second point is that people in the US are >>> unaware of this pressure. >>> But at the same time fear any outside pressure from >>> another source >>> themselves. For example, an international court or >>> an arabic country. >>> >>> There is no pressure for the US academician to >>> learn portuguese. He may >>> do it, but solely because he chooses that. >>> >>> I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or >>> that it can be >>> eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might >>>> make is "why is a >>>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at >>>> state university in >>>> Connecticut?" >>>> >>>> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >>>> >>>> They might further comment: "If I learned >>>> Portuguese, would I then get >>>> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such >>>> positions reserved for >>>> Brazilian citizens"? >>>> >>>> People learn English usually because it guarantees >>>> them employment. If >>>> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and >>>> lifeways become a >>>> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will >>>> learn Arabic. >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian >>>> Rauh" >>>> >>>> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; >>>> "Lista Paleopsych" >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gerry, >>>>> >>>>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to >>>>> learn english because >>>>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >>>>> decent job in this >>>>> world. >>>>> >>>>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >>>>> having to learn arabic >>>>> or going to mosques when other people are having >>>>> to learn english. What >>>>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >>>>> otherwise would not. >>>>> >>>>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In >>>>> other places, people have >>>>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >>>>> deliberate and >>>>> conscious pressure, however, to the person >>>>> learning the language, the >>>>> prospect of not having a decent job is as >>>>> coercive as troops on the >>>>> street. That's economic pressure. >>>>> >>>>> And to the counter-argument that you always have >>>>> the individual choice >>>>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that >>>>> you always have the >>>>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going >>>>> to mosques. But you >>>>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>>>> >>>>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in >>>>> general, American citizens >>>>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >>>>> that the US exerts in >>>>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, >>>>> in general, most >>>>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >>>>> foreigners have towards >>>>> "spreading freedom". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do >>>>>> such a heinous thing? >>>>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>>>>> about being an American >>>>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>>> Independent Scholar >>>>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 12 16:40:22 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:40:22 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: http://www.etymonline.com/ That said, here is a quiz: What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual What about someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual And what do we call someone who speaks one language? American Lynn -former trilingual fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. K.E. wrote: > hi, > > > This is what the world of commerce is speaking. > > Linguisitics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > > see: Netglish > > "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in > English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the > web are written in English. > > More than four fifths of all international organisations use English > as either their main or one of their main operating languages. > > At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next > biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " > > Karen Ellis > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 16:41:27 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:41:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: San Francisco? Message-ID: <01C526DF.48DB9600.shovland@mindspring.com> Genentech is the mother ship of biotech, and I know they have big efforts going on in terms of ERP, on-line training, and in documenting their systems. They are hiring people every day, as are other biotechs. The energy level is very high and they are rolling in money. Like other companies in the Bay Area they have an international staff. Amgen is also quite large, but based in Los Angeles, which is very polluted. There are about 100 biotechs on the peninsula and another 70 in the East Bay. Some of them are very small and some are probably fronts for Chinese spying. If you worked at Genentech for 5 years then you could take your pick of the other biotechs. Make sure you read my posts about the "Fantastic Voyage." It gives you some insight into the potential. Biotech is an industry, but nanotech is a technology. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about biotech being the next big thing. They can now grow proteins to do all kinds of things, and there are further levels to go. Right now they are working at the cell level, but in the future they will be working at the gene level. I think that after 50 years of rapid growth, the computer business has now reached maturity. I don't see anything coming in computers that will come close to matching the potential growth in biotech. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:43 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: San Francisco? Steve, My degree is a Ph.D. in communication sciences, new communication technologies to be more specific. Pretty much internet, media and marketing stuff. My masters is in computer science. I'm married and looking for a job in industry. My dream job would be managing a large media website or doing online marketing but any new tech developing/marketing job is fine. Many people have pointed that NY is the center of those activities but I can't stand the east cost any longer. And SF seems to be the most cultural city in the US, at least the type of culture I care for. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated although it may be a little too soon. Thanks for the attention, Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > What is your degree in? > > The reason I ask is that the Bay Area is the center > of the biotech industry, which is starting to take off > and will do well for many years. They are hiring > continuously. I have done several consulting > projects for biotechs and plan to concentrate on > them. > > A lot of those companies, including Genentech, > the biggest one, are in South San Francisco, which > is cheaper. There are also many in the East Bay. > > The cost of living is lower than it was a few years > ago because of the dot com crash. I have heard > that perhaps 100,000 people have left the area. > The cost of housing is also less in the East Bay. > > This means that you can now rent a room in an > apartment for $600-700 a month > > San Francisco has pretty good mass transit, > with an underground and buses. You can > live without a car here. Parking is difficult. > > But it has world-class culture, and people > from all over the world live here. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:46 AM > To: Steve Hovland > Subject: Re: San Francisco? > > I see. Well, as I get closer to a possible move there, I'll contact you > again about it. :-) > > Yours, > > Christian > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >>It's a great place but very expensive. >> >>Living in a world class city is important >>to me because of photography. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:04 AM >>To: Steve Hovland >>Subject: Re: San Francisco? >> >>Steve, >> >>Nice. I'm not from San Francisco, yet. It is one of the candidate cities >>for my next place to live once I finish my Ph.D. in about an year. >> >>How do you like it? Would you recommend the city? >> >>Christian >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >>>Mission District >>> >>>Steve Hovland >>>www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >>>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:11 AM >>>To: Steve Hovland >>>Subject: San Francisco? >>> >>>Steve, >>> >>>This is Christian Rauh from the paleopsych list. Are you from SF? >>> >>>Christian >> >> > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ???????????????????????????????$o$??????????????????????????????????? From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 17:31:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:31:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> And English is not pure, so it's an example of what world languages have always been. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: http://www.etymonline.com/ That said, here is a quiz: What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual What about someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual And what do we call someone who speaks one language? American Lynn -former trilingual fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. K.E. wrote: > hi, > > > This is what the world of commerce is speaking. > > Linguisitics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > > see: Netglish > > "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in > English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the > web are written in English. > > More than four fifths of all international organisations use English > as either their main or one of their main operating languages. > > At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next > biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " > > Karen Ellis > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 19:27:43 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:27:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace In-Reply-To: <200503121916.j2CJGkE23924@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world?<< --Depends on how you go about it. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 19:56:25 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:56:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Talking to the dead Message-ID: <01C526FA.84C9E2F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Whether or not they exist after their demise, it may be a good idea to talk to the dead. Their personal energy is still affecting things, although it is at a level that can't be measured. Yet Far from being crazy, having an imaginary conversation with a dead person could help you cope with your present life. http://print.google.com/print?id=lwI9ahWtNjkC&prev=http://print.google.c om/print%3Fq%3Dtalking%2Bto%2Bthe%2Bdead&pg=11&sig=EG25D0RATGa1lTLzjCr7- SEjL1k Far Shores: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/jd0125.htm Necromancy: http://www.premier1.net/~raines/necromancy.html 11 techniques for talking to the dead: http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jvplkl.htm Search string: talking to the dead Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 03:58:32 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:58:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace References: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> Most nations engaged in civil war have at least two sides represented....one side is the one agreed upon in U.S. as capable of fostering democratic rule. Shouldn't the quesion be "how does a country impose democracy upon another in which voters have no say?" I'm partial to the concept of democracy and like to think that a world in which all countries place their votes in a ballot box just might be the next step to some sort of world peace. I'm very pleased to see that Spain's Muslim population has issued a fatwa on Osama bin Laden. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" To: Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:27 AM Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace > > Gerry says: >>>How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a > leading role in bringing about reasonable peace > throughout the world?<< > > --Depends on how you go about it. > > Michael > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 05:41:33 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:33 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <4233D28D.2070301@earthlink.net> Thank you for the marvelous link. As far a speaking a language, what about someone who has knowledge of three but can only speak one? Does that sound like another American? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he > was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak > English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on > me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > >> hi, >> >> >> This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >> Linguisitics >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >> see: Netglish >> >> "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >> English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >> web are written in English. >> >> More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >> as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >> At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >> biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >> Karen Ellis >> >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> The Educational CyberPlayGround >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >> National Children's Folksong Repository >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >> Hot List of Schools Online and >> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >> 7 Hot Site Awards >> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 05:47:49 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> Paul writes: >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being influenced ourselves. That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that it is profoundly irrational. >> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our > world -- > and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on > the spiritual level. > > At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Michael writes: >> >>> --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>> influence we have, to the point of making life >>> impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>> And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>> is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>> that everyone live in it with you. >> >> >> --How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in >> bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who >> has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows >> what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as >> well as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't >> someone say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against >> us"? Maybe it was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only >> difficulty with this stance is that it just might create another >> Civil War. >> >> Gerry > > > Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should > all just shut up. > That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or > fate. > But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and > even irresponsible... > and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA > of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To > be fancy, you > cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would > prefer to > be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... > you wouldn't like such details here and now.) > > Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and > "do their best" > with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way > they prefer. > That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been > the theme of struggles and pain > on this world for as long as history goes back. > > In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being > influenced ourselves. > > That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see > that it is > profoundly irrational. > > Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in > values, it is natural > for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. > > But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability > distributions concerning our knowledge, > of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person > to be open to certain kinds of "influence." > > In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active > effort to > develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls > in a China shop, > may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of > our intelligence.) > One may even cultivated "being influenced." > > ---- > > Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists > both "Christian" > and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: > "You don't use God. God uses you." > > That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them > to pay more attention to. > > Best, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 13 13:02:55 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:02:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Paul writes: > > >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being > influenced ourselves. >That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that >it is >profoundly irrational. >> > >Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! Please forgive me for being less than clear. I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence others in some way. It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen so as to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane or spiritual. Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and threats to the larger system. >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > >>This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our >>world -- >>and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on the >>spiritual level. >> >>At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>Michael writes: >>> >>>>--That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>>>influence we have, to the point of making life >>>>impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>>>And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>>>is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>>>that everyone live in it with you. >>> >>> >>>--How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in >>>bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who >>>has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows >>>what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as well >>>as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone >>>say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it >>>was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with >>>this stance is that it just might create another Civil War. >>> >>>Gerry >> >> >>Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should >>all just shut up. >>That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or fate. >>But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and even >>irresponsible... >>and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA >>of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To be >>fancy, you >>cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would prefer to >>be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... >>you wouldn't like such details here and now.) >> >>Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and "do >>their best" >>with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way >>they prefer. >>That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been >>the theme of struggles and pain >>on this world for as long as history goes back. >> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>influenced ourselves. >> >>That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >>that it is >>profoundly irrational. >> >>Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in >>values, it is natural >>for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. >> >>But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability distributions >>concerning our knowledge, >>of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person >>to be open to certain kinds of "influence." >> >>In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active >>effort to >>develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls in a >>China shop, >>may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of our >>intelligence.) >>One may even cultivated "being influenced." >> >>---- >> >>Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists both >>"Christian" >>and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: >>"You don't use God. God uses you." >> >>That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them to >>pay more attention to. >> >>Best, >> >> Paul >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 13 18:17:14 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:17:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] An interesting juxtaposition Message-ID: <01C527B5.D461F300.shovland@mindspring.com> Seen on 24th Street in the Mission District in San Francisco- the Latino neighborhood: Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 117825 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 19:20:38 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:20:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> Paul writes: >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which just may be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to accept someone else's. It would appear that this so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe you are suggesting another modus operandi. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> >> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >> influenced ourselves. >> That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >> that it is >> profoundly irrational. >> >> >> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >> irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! > > > > Please forgive me for being less than clear. > > I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence > others in > some way. > > It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. > The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. > > In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if > untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous > filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. > > Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. > > It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen > so as > to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential > to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane > or spiritual. > Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and > threats to the larger system. > > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 13 19:51:27 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:51:27 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:20 PM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Paul writes: > >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> > >Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which just may >be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell >their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to >accept someone else's. It would appear that this so called asymmetry is >the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe you are suggesting another >modus operandi. I would say that people are generally born arational rather than irrational. They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even the ability to walk. They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but some learn faster than others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas than others. Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up unable to walk. Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist such perversions, and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have adopted Karl Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of power of living up to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... Ronald Reagan tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in mind, and is more rational, in my view. Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The words are too fuzzy to allow a simple answer. Best, Paul >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > >>At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>Paul writes: >>> >>> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>> influenced ourselves. >>>That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >>>that it is >>>profoundly irrational. >> >>> >>>Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >>>irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! >> >> >> >>Please forgive me for being less than clear. >> >>I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence others in >>some way. >> >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >>The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> >>In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if >>untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous >>filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. >> >>Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. >> >>It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen so as >>to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential >>to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane or >>spiritual. >>Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and >>threats to the larger system. >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 21:29:43 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:29:43 -0500 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> Lynn, better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com Linguistics http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ SEE: Irish American Vernacular English Etymology of JAZZ Sanas of Jazz find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. need latest version of acrobat to read Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. happy sunday afternoon reading, Karen Ellis At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: >A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English >is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a >meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the >common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >The Educational CyberPlayGround >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > >National Children's Folksong Repository >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > >Hot List of Schools Online and >Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > >7 Hot Site Awards >New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Mar 14 00:45:54 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:45:54 -0700 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> Thanks, interesting point. The online OED says "jazz" is of unknown origin. If you can't trust OED, whom can you? The idea that it may come from Irish is fascinating. My friend has nothing to do with the etomology site, that was a separate resource I thought people would enjoy. I have no influence over the site. For the OED link: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jazz?view=uk K.E. wrote: > Lynn, > > better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com > > WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass > > > Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com > > Linguistics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ > > SEE: Irish American Vernacular English > > Etymology of JAZZ > Sanas of Jazz > find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. > > need latest version of acrobat to read > > Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. > > happy sunday afternoon reading, > > Karen Ellis > > > At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: > >> A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >> English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he >> was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak >> English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great >> resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>> >>> >>> This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>> Linguisitics >>> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >> >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> The Educational CyberPlayGround >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >> National Children's Folksong Repository >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >> Hot List of Schools Online and >> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >> 7 Hot Site Awards >> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 02:56:31 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:56:31 -0500 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313214919.036b5f98@mail.earthlink.net> At 07:45 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: >Thanks, interesting point. The online OED says "jazz" is of unknown origin. yes it is also wrong. It's a fraternity - you'll read it over and over and over . . . everywhere Cause folks see it everywhere they think it must be true. > If you can't trust OED, whom can you? well, it's always a matter of scholarship, the fraternity of who is in charge of the "knowing" the gatekeepers, Facts exist outside the gatekeepers control. When they decide to update dictionaries is another story Jazz is an Irish word and it's a fact. Glad you enjoyed it. best, karen >The idea that it may come from Irish is fascinating. My friend has nothing >to do with the etomology site, that was a separate resource I thought >people would enjoy. I have no influence over the site. > >For the OED link: >http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jazz?view=uk > > >K.E. wrote: > >>Lynn, >> >>better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com >> >>WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass >> >> >>Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com >> >>Linguistics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ >> >>SEE: Irish American Vernacular English >> >>Etymology of JAZZ >>Sanas of Jazz >>find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. >> >>need latest version of acrobat to read >> >>Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. >> >>happy sunday afternoon reading, >> >>Karen Ellis >> >> >>At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: >> >>>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >>> http://www.etymonline.com/ >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>>> >>>>Linguisitics >>>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 04:05:04 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:05:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> Paul writes: I would say that people are generally born arational rather than irrational. They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even the ability to walk. GRW: Yes, yes, but are they all born with schizophrenia? That's what I meant by being irrational. They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but some learn faster than others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas than others. Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up unable to walk. Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist such perversions, and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of girl's feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, family, community, etc. As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have adopted Karl Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of power of living up to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... Ronald Reagan tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in mind, and is more rational, in my view. GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it is performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. Now we need to move ahead. Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The words are too fuzzy to allow a simple answer. GRW: Most certainly does capitalism allow freedom Why would you think otherwise? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 02:20 PM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE >> influenced. >> The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> >> >> Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which >> just may be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in >> mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others >> without having to accept someone else's. It would appear that this >> so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe >> you are suggesting another modus operandi. > > > I would say that people are generally born arational rather than > irrational. > They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even > the ability to walk. > > They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, > but some learn faster than > others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some > areas than others. > Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow > up unable to walk. > Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to > resist such perversions, > and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). > > As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to > have adopted Karl > Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image > of power of living up > to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... > Ronald Reagan > tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined > to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears > had in mind, > and is more rational, in my view. > > Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The > words are too fuzzy to allow > a simple answer. > > Best, > > Paul > > >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: >> >>> At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> Paul writes: >>>> >>>> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>>> influenced ourselves. >>>> That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can >>>> see that it is >>>> profoundly irrational. >> >>>> >>>> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >>>> irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please forgive me for being less than clear. >>> >>> I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence >>> others in >>> some way. >>> >>> It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >>> The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >>> >>> In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if >>> untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous >>> filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. >>> >>> Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. >>> >>> It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and >>> listen so as >>> to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential >>> to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, >>> mundane or spiritual. >>> Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and >>> threats to the larger system. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 14 15:12:36 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:12:36 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? The world language has always been the language of whoever is most influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire was always sunny, and now US English. But how does that world language change process occurs? Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? Has anyone studied these world language transitions? Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > And English is not pure, so it's an example of what > world languages have always been. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was > at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English > as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me > at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > > >>hi, >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >>see: Netglish >> >>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>web are written in English. >> >>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >>Karen Ellis >> >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >>National Children's Folksong Repository >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >>Hot List of Schools Online and >>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >>7 Hot Site Awards >>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 14 15:18:49 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:18:49 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace In-Reply-To: <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> References: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4235AB59.2040405@uconn.edu> To me Ukraine is the most recent example of how to go about "spreading democracy". There was intense western funding of democratic grassroots movements and later of the opposition. That was well-known. In this process some people were persecuted for that, some jailed, some were killed. There must also be a high awareness of conflict of interests and those should be avoided. All nations should have the same right for "freedom" independent of their natural resources of geostrategic positions. Nations "closer" to democracy should be acted upon first to maximize investment and buid a broader base before tackling the hard cases. Finally, spreading democracy may only work if no local militias get trained and funded to fight. These have always turned into the next democracy enemy, and US problem. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > Most nations engaged in civil war have at least two sides > represented....one side is the one agreed upon in U.S. as capable of > fostering democratic rule. Shouldn't the quesion be "how does a country > impose democracy upon another in which voters have no say?" I'm partial > to the concept of democracy and like to think that a world in which all > countries place their votes in a ballot box just might be the next step > to some sort of world peace. I'm very pleased to see that Spain's > Muslim population has issued a fatwa on Osama bin Laden. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" > > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:27 AM > Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace > > >> >> Gerry says: >> >>>> How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a >> >> leading role in bringing about reasonable peace >> throughout the world?<< >> >> --Depends on how you go about it. >> >> Michael >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 14 15:29:58 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:29:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next big thing Message-ID: <01C52867.A1055170.shovland@mindspring.com> In the 21st century, biotech will be what computers were in the 20th century. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 17:08:19 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:08:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> References: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4235C503.5030804@earthlink.net> Not being a scholar of world language changes, I could hazard a guess that the language used on the internet could become the dominant one. So far that language is English and the next closest is German as determined by the number of web sites is either of the two languages. I read somewhere that the number of German websites is less than 15% of total. About China, likely that country will become a major economic force in the next few decades but learning to read and write Mandarin is a fairly daunting task. My guess is that an easier language such as English will remain as the favored internet lingo. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that >process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? > >The world language has always been the language of whoever is most >influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French >when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire >was always sunny, and now US English. > >But how does that world language change process occurs? > >Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. >How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many >chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and >articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? > >Has anyone studied these world language transitions? > >Christian > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > >>And English is not pure, so it's an example of what >>world languages have always been. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language >> >>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>That said, here is a quiz: >> >>What do you call someone who speaks three languages? >> Trilingual >> >>What about someone who speaks two languages? >> Bilingual >> >>And what do we call someone who speaks one language? >> American >> >>Lynn >> -former trilingual >>fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally >>disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me >>at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. >> >>K.E. wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>hi, >>> >>> >>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>>Linguisitics >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>>see: Netglish >>> >>>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>>web are written in English. >>> >>>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >>> >>>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >>> >>>Karen Ellis >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 14 22:58:24 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:05 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: >Paul writes: >They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but >some learn faster than >others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas >than others. >Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up >unable to walk. >Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist >such perversions, >and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). > >GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of girl's >feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, family, >community, etc. Yes, I said "others try to do the same with the mind." >As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have >adopted Karl >Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of >power of living up >to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... >Ronald Reagan >tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined >to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in >mind, >and is more rational, in my view. > >GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it is >performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. >Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. >Now we need to move ahead. The word "capitalism" is used with different definitions by different people, and is doubly fuzzy (multiple meanings and a broad "membership function") even as used by most individual people. ANY word with such fuzziness needs to handled with great care. Examples of that principle -- The word "consciousness" has been a great toy for those who try to use words to liberate them from objective reality. Picture the person saying: "Consciousness.. it is all about illumination and coherence. So of course the physical basis of consciousness must be zillions of tiny lasers in the brain, emitting coherent light.." (People really believe that kind of stuff..) Or: "I support capitalism, the all-America principle of freedom laid down for generations. And of course, since capitalism means that monopolies rule, as explained by that all-American capitalist Groucho Marx, it is fair that we trade on the free market for Congressmen, in order to buy subsidies and regulations and special tax breaks and plus ups and pass laws to make it illegal for people to shirk on their duty to be always obedient to their overlords..." I really do not think that the core values of the Quakers are out of date. They are part of the real weltanschaung (sp?) of this civilization... they are the kind of values the rejection of which would be an example of what Spengler called the transition from Culture to Civilization. I hope we can be conscious enough to choose to not do that. But if instead we trust in teeny tiny lasers implanted in the brain... well, in that case, "God help us" (though would he?). Best, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 14 23:10:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:10:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> I think that because of the web English is becoming even more entrenched. Chinese has an inefficient written language. I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:13 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? The world language has always been the language of whoever is most influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire was always sunny, and now US English. But how does that world language change process occurs? Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? Has anyone studied these world language transitions? Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > And English is not pure, so it's an example of what > world languages have always been. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was > at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English > as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me > at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > > >>hi, >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >>see: Netglish >> >>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>web are written in English. >> >>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >>Karen Ellis >> >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >>National Children's Folksong Repository >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >>Hot List of Schools Online and >>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >>7 Hot Site Awards >>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ???????????????????????????????$o$??????????????????????????????????? _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 00:30:50 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:30:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42362CBA.2030808@earthlink.net> *Hi Paul, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 11:05 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more >> rational, but some learn faster than >> others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some >> areas than others. >> Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow >> up unable to walk. >> Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to >> resist such perversions, >> and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). >> >> GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of >> girl's feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, >> family, community, etc. > > > Yes, I said "others try to do the same with the mind." *GRW: Now we are in agreement. I must have missed your second point when I first read the post. > > >> As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to >> have adopted Karl >> Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image >> of power of living up >> to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... >> Ronald Reagan >> tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined >> to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears >> had in mind, >> and is more rational, in my view. >> >> GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it >> is performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. >> Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. >> Now we need to move ahead. > > > The word "capitalism" is used with different definitions by different > people, > and is doubly fuzzy (multiple meanings and a broad "membership function") > even as used by most individual people. ANY word with such fuzziness > needs to handled with great care. *GRW: If you have ever done an etymological study of words that have existed for say at least a thousand years, you would see that most terms end up being "fuzzy" because their meanings are in constant change, especially words that have a political sense like "state" or in this instance "capitalism". > > Examples of that principle -- > > The word "consciousness" has been a great toy for those who try to use > words to > liberate them from objective reality. Picture the person saying: > "Consciousness.. > it is all about illumination and coherence. So of course the physical > basis of consciousness must > be zillions of tiny lasers in the brain, emitting coherent light.." > (People really believe that kind of stuff..) *GRW: I don't have immediate access to the OED but I'll wager that there are lots of definitions for the terms "consciousness" so I don't doubt in the least what you are saying. > > Or: "I support capitalism, the all-America principle of freedom laid > down for generations. > And of course, since capitalism means that monopolies rule, as > explained by that all-American > capitalist Groucho Marx, it is fair that we trade on the free market > for Congressmen, in order to > buy subsidies and regulations and special tax breaks and plus ups and > pass laws to > make it illegal for people to shirk on their duty to be always > obedient to their overlords..." *GRW: I know that you and Howard Bloom have been in communication. You might glance at his "Reinventing Capitalism" . The first draft of this manuscript just sold on eBay for $100. Here's a link: http://www.*howard**bloom*.net/*reinventing*_*capitalism*/ > > I really do not think that the core values of the Quakers are out of > date. > They are part of the real weltanschaung (sp?) of this civilization... > they > are the kind of values the rejection of which would be an example > of what Spengler called the transition from Culture to Civilization. > I hope we can be conscious enough to choose to not do that. > But if instead we trust in teeny tiny lasers implanted in the brain... > well, > in that case, "God help us" (though would he?). *GRW: Which values of the Quakers are you speaking about? My only encounter with Quakerism is from lower school study of Puritans, Pilgrims, and all.... and the following ditty: "Quaker's meeting has begun, no more laughing, no more fun. If you show your teeth or tongue you shall pay a forfeit". Possibly you might wish to elaborate. Regards, Gerry > > Best, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 00:40:28 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:28 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42362EFC.900@earthlink.net> "I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past." -- On what are you basing this assumption? Can't be our failure to engage many European countries in democratizing Iraq. Can't be our inability to gain Putin as our ally in democratizing the world. Even Canada and our southerly neighbors are not running to our (U.S.) assist. The only major power left is that of China and I don't see olive branches being extended in either direction. Gerry Reinhart-Waller From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 01:02:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanobacteria Message-ID: <01C528B7.A7BC2A20.shovland@mindspring.com> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66861,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Olavi Kajander didn't mean to discover the mysterious particles that have been called the most primitive organisms on Earth and that could be responsible for a series of painful and sometimes fatal illnesses. He was simply trying to find out why certain cultures of mammalian cells in his lab would die no matter how carefully he prepared them. So the Finnish biochemist and his colleagues slipped some of their old cultures under an electron microscope one day in 1988 and took a closer look. That's when they saw the particles. Like bacteria but an astonishing 100 times smaller, they seemed to be thriving inside the dying cells. Believing them to be a possible new form of life, Kajander named the particles "nanobacteria," published a paper outlining his findings and spurred one of the biggest controversies in modern microbiology. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether nanobacteria could actually be a new form of life. To this day, critics argue that a particle just 20 to 200 nanometers in diameter can't possibly harbor the components necessary to sustain life. The particles are also incredibly resistant to heat and other methods that would normally kill bacteria, which makes some scientists wonder if they might be an unusual form of crystal rather than organisms. From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 01:05:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:05:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> When the US can no longer afford the pretense of being the world cop, we may move more toward group security. As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up with blather about democracy. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:40 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change "I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past." -- On what are you basing this assumption? Can't be our failure to engage many European countries in democratizing Iraq. Can't be our inability to gain Putin as our ally in democratizing the world. Even Canada and our southerly neighbors are not running to our (U.S.) assist. The only major power left is that of China and I don't see olive branches being extended in either direction. Gerry Reinhart-Waller _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 02:06:16 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:06:16 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested in Democracy. That's good enough for me. Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: >When the US can no longer afford the pretense >of being the world cop, we may move more toward >group security. > >As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >with blather about democracy. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 02:51:26 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:51:26 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't think any one country should be world cop. Since we have started two wars in recent years, it is hard to see us as agents of peace. I think our defense posture should be "strong enough to do our share," not "stronger than anyone." Insisting on being number one is the path to exhaustion and destruction. The last I heard the effort to form a new government in Iraq had broken down. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:06 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested in Democracy. That's good enough for me. Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: >When the US can no longer afford the pretense >of being the world cop, we may move more toward >group security. > >As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >with blather about democracy. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 02:56:34 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:56:34 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> No world cop. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it > to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American > dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at > playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not > because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. > > The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested > in Democracy. That's good enough for me. > Gerry > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >> group security. >> >> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >> with blather about democracy. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 03:59:37 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] capitalism and influence In-Reply-To: <200503141944.j2EJhrE23402@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to accept someone else's.<< --Impossible to sell any product without being influenced. You have to be influenced by the needs of consumers (psychological needs if not physical needs) in order to know HOW to sell to them. You have to be influenced by shareholders if you work for a big company. You are influenced by the media you use to advertise, by the companies you hire to do your public relations, by the economic textbooks you read in business school... the list goes on and on. Those who don't let themselves be influenced, don't make it very far. Even the President, who marketed himself as a man who didn't listen to opinion polls or focus groups, must have people around him who pay attention to polls and focus groups, in order to sell his message. >>It would appear that this so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business.<< --Not at all. Capitalism is a flow of energy, in all directions. Sometimes an exchange leaves one party feeling less happy about it than the other, but over time it's expected that people will learn to get good value for their time/money and make mutually beneficial trades. If that were not the case, the whole argument for capitalism as a sustainable system would crumble. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 04:11:27 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:11:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4236606F.4050104@earthlink.net> Doesn't matter whether or not you like one country as world cop. That's the way it is!!! Let me ask you....has any other country volunteered to assist U.S. in "maintaining the peace? I don't know of any; do you? Forming a new government in Iraq is a give and take situation. Where you place the effort depends on whether you're with the ebb or flo. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >I don't think any one country should be >world cop. Since we have started two >wars in recent years, it is hard to see >us as agents of peace. > >I think our defense posture should be >"strong enough to do our share," not >"stronger than anyone." Insisting on >being number one is the path to >exhaustion and destruction. > >The last I heard the effort to form a >new government in Iraq had broken >down. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:06 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change > >This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. > >The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >in Democracy. That's good enough for me. > >Gerry > > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>group security. >> >>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>with blather about democracy. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 15 04:12:26 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:12:26 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423660AA.7040109@solution-consulting.com> Mao Tse tung seriously considered changing the language of china to english, to deal with the inefficiencies of the written language. Steve Hovland wrote: >I think that because of the web English is becoming >even more entrenched. > >Chinese has an inefficient written language. > >I think the day of world "peace" being enforced >by any one state may be past. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:13 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change > >I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that >process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? > >The world language has always been the language of whoever is most >influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French >when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire >was always sunny, and now US English. > >But how does that world language change process occurs? > >Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. >How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many >chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and >articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? > >Has anyone studied these world language transitions? > >Christian > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > >>And English is not pure, so it's an example of what >>world languages have always been. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language >> >>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>That said, here is a quiz: >> >>What do you call someone who speaks three languages? >> Trilingual >> >>What about someone who speaks two languages? >> Bilingual >> >>And what do we call someone who speaks one language? >> American >> >>Lynn >> -former trilingual >>fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally >>disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me >>at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. >> >>K.E. wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>hi, >>> >>> >>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>>Linguisitics >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>>see: Netglish >>> >>>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>>web are written in English. >>> >>>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >>> >>>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >>> >>>Karen Ellis >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 04:15:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:15:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> Me too. Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is there a new resurrection? Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >No world cop. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >> >>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>Gerry >> >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>group security. >>> >>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>with blather about democracy. >>> >>>Steve Hovland >>>www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 13:22:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] capitalism and influence In-Reply-To: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4236E17E.7010904@uconn.edu> Michael Christopher wrote: > If that were not the case, the > whole argument for capitalism as a sustainable system > would crumble. Crumble. Christian -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 13:24:48 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". People should arbitrate their problems through that system. This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Me too. > > Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is > there a new resurrection? > > Gerry > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >>No world cop. >> >>Christian >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>> >>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>Gerry >>> >>> >>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>group security. >>>> >>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>with blather about democracy. >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland >>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 15 14:56:02 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:56:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Good vs. evil In-Reply-To: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> Christian, I am inspired by your hope but dubious of your grasp of human evil. You know very well there are sections of Rio where no one can go without extreme risk. There are no cops there, so the good people suffer at the hands of the evil. World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop. An international "cop?" But the U.N. has failed over and over, from failure to prevent genocide to corruption in the oil for food scandals. So how can we hope for something that has never happened? Democracy, we learn from history, is achieved mostly through force and warfare. The U. S. democratic republic arose from conflict and is one of the oldest in the world. England has a democracy that was born of armed nobility confronting a king. Germany, Japan, Iraq -- all examples of democracy arising from armed conflict. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine wouldn't have been possible without Reagan's insistance that we could afford a military buildup and the Soviets could not. Lebanon wouldn't have hope without the example of Iraq. Libya is restrained by force of the American cop on the corner. And, as the joke goes, Bush has announced how he will withdraw from Iraq: "We'll just go through Iran." And why must democracy be purchased at the price of our blood? Psychopaths respond only to firm, quick resistance to their lawless behavior. Thoughout history, the psychopaths have risen to the top (consider the French revolution; consider the sad history of Argentina, my beloved tragic second home). But in the American revolution, the careful and the accountable became the leaders and have inspired the world ever since. Other than that, I have no strong feelings. Chau, amigo Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >People should arbitrate their problems through that system. > >This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Me too. >> >>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>there a new resurrection? >> >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>No world cop. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>> >>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>group security. >>>>> >>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 16:12:25 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:12:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a model? Which nordic country are you referring to? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >People should arbitrate their problems through that system. > >This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Me too. >> >>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>there a new resurrection? >> >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>No world cop. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>> >>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>group security. >>>>> >>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 22:07:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:07:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] cop In-Reply-To: <200503151923.j2FJNfE13832@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< --I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole "cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may be possible for several nations to form temporary alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That may work better. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 22:56:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:56:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] DNA with three base pairs - A step towards expanding the genetic code Message-ID: <01C5296F.3B066270.shovland@mindspring.com> SAN DIEGO, March 14, 2005 --Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California are reporting today at the 229th national meeting of the American Chemical Society progress toward the creation of a system for replicating a modified form of DNA containing an unnatural base pair. According to the Scripps Research scientists, this finding is a significant step towards expanding the genetic code and the ability of DNA to act as an information storage and retrieval system in the test tube and in simple, engineered organisms, such as yeast or bacteria. DNA with three or more base pairs could find broad applications in a number of fields, including biotechnology, medicine, data storage, and security. Instead of just the canonical base pairs "G-C" or guanine-cytosine, and "A-T" or adenine-thymine, the Scripps Research scientists' DNA has a third pairing: "3FB-3FB" between two unnatural bases called 3-fluorobenzene (or 3FB). Unlike other unnatural base pairs, DNA polymerases are able to replicate this base pair, albeit with reduced fidelity. To improve replication, the scientists also reported the development of a system capable of evolving polymerases to better recognize 3FB in DNA. Using a selection system some liken to evolution in the test tube, they are creating their own "polymerase" enzyme able to replicate the unnatural DNA. While the polymerase does not replicate the unnatural DNA with the same fidelity observed in nature, (roughly one mistake for every 10 million bases of DNA copied), its fidelity is reasonable (typically making only one mistake for every1000 base pairs). This is the first time anyone has been able to replicate unnatural DNA with fidelity against every possible mispair. "We definitely are still working on improvements, especially in fidelity," says Scripps Research Assistant Professor Floyd Romesberg, who led the research. "Nevertheless, we are now able to replicate unnatural DNA." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/acs-wt030805.php From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 22:58:57 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:58:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Message-ID: <01C5296F.84332460.shovland@mindspring.com> At the moment, most of the world thinks the US is the criminal, not the cop. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:07 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Lynn says: >>World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< --I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole "cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may be possible for several nations to form temporary alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That may work better. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 16 02:52:44 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:52:44 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop In-Reply-To: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42379F7C.3050402@solution-consulting.com> Very good point. England helped us with Iraq; now Germany and France are showing more support. However, the reality is that Europe is useless because they have cut their militaries beyond bone, and cannot actually show up with force. Europe also is useless because the wars have left them too tolerant and they make money from dictators and dangerous tyrants. Canada is useless as an ally, unless Alberta & the heartland seceeds. South America has a strong military tradition but little respect for civilian authority. Poland and a few other countries have some potential for alliances. China is an economic enemy. Australia is an excellent ally. So we have England, Australia, and Poland. Enough? Probably not. I wish I could see where we could turn. Any ideas? The big stick helps us negotiate with the Syria type countries, and we are better to never use it. Your point about bankrupcy is excellent; there is a genuine danger of that. We are already far too dependent on China to bankroll our deficits. China is over a barrel, they cannot afford to cash in their bonds. Things are a mess. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>World history seems to tell me that without cops the >>> >>> >worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< > >--I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole >"cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may >be possible for several nations to form temporary >alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That >may work better. > >michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 16 03:29:21 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:29:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Message-ID: <01C52995.4A6BC590.shovland@mindspring.com> Our big stick lost in Vietnam. If the war in Iraq continues the 2006 election may be a referendum on it. If it is still going in 2008, any candidate can win who can credibly promise to end it. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:53 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] cop Very good point. England helped us with Iraq; now Germany and France are showing more support. However, the reality is that Europe is useless because they have cut their militaries beyond bone, and cannot actually show up with force. Europe also is useless because the wars have left them too tolerant and they make money from dictators and dangerous tyrants. Canada is useless as an ally, unless Alberta & the heartland seceeds. South America has a strong military tradition but little respect for civilian authority. Poland and a few other countries have some potential for alliances. China is an economic enemy. Australia is an excellent ally. So we have England, Australia, and Poland. Enough? Probably not. I wish I could see where we could turn. Any ideas? The big stick helps us negotiate with the Syria type countries, and we are better to never use it. Your point about bankrupcy is excellent; there is a genuine danger of that. We are already far too dependent on China to bankroll our deficits. China is over a barrel, they cannot afford to cash in their bonds. Things are a mess. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>World history seems to tell me that without cops the >>> >>> >worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< > >--I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole >"cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may >be possible for several nations to form temporary >alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That >may work better. > >michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 16 04:46:18 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:46:18 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] disruptive innovations link Message-ID: <4237BA1A.3050508@solution-consulting.com> Here is an interesting interview of Clayton Christensen, Harvard Prof and proponent of disruptive innovations. His ideas apply to societies as well as businesses, IMHO. http://www.cio.com/archive/040101/disruption.html Intro blurb: IN RECENT YEARS, HARVARD Business School professor Clayton Christensen has gained a reputation for his work on "disruptive innovations"--products or systems that create entirely new markets. His first book, The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business School Press, 1997), was named the best business book of 1997 by The Financial Times and Booz, Allen & Hamilton, and remains a stalwart in CIO's Reading Room . Christensen's research explains why established companies--even those competently managed by smart people--have such trouble countering or embracing disruptive innovations that are on the horizon. His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead. Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 20:33:09 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets In-Reply-To: <200503161958.j2GJw0E03733@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050316203309.73784.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead.<< --Centralized and consolidated power tends to do that, in business or any other field. It's the people on the margins, the alert intuitives, who take advantage of sudden opportunities who leap ahead. One thing about people at the top of hierarchical systems, they tend to develop tunnel vision and ignore information that becomes crucial later on. As Jesus said, "Many who are first will come last." Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 16 23:28:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:28:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets Message-ID: <01C52A3C.D374AAD0.shovland@mindspring.com> The smartest business people don't waste time trying to wake up old corporations. They do their best to get involved at the innovative firms where they have a chance to grow with the company. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:33 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets >>His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead.<< --Centralized and consolidated power tends to do that, in business or any other field. It's the people on the margins, the alert intuitives, who take advantage of sudden opportunities who leap ahead. One thing about people at the top of hierarchical systems, they tend to develop tunnel vision and ignore information that becomes crucial later on. As Jesus said, "Many who are first will come last." Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 17 13:59:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:59:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Study Reveals New Difference Between Sexes Message-ID: <01C52AB6.81378100.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.nature.com/index.html Although men and women may often act like separate species, scientists have long believed they are really not that different when it comes down to their DNA. But now, researchers have found that the sexes differ more than we thought, particularly when it comes to the genes on one crucial chromosome. Every woman carries a double dose of the X chromosome, whereas men carry one X and a Y. Women don't express both copies of the X chromosome in their cells: in each cell they shut one copy down (the 'inactive' X) and use the other. However, it seems that the inactive X doesn't just sit down and shut up. The first of two research papers on the human X chromosome, both published in Nature, analyses the complete sequence of the chromosome1. The second shows that women still express many genes from their inactive X chromosomes2. What's more, different women express different genes from the inactive X. Taken together, the two papers may eventually explain some of the behavioural and biological differences between individual women, and perhaps, between women and men. It doesn't provide evidence that genes explain the differences between men and women, but it does provide candidates. Laura Carrel Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey Quietly active Scientists already had an idea that the inactive X chromosome is not completely silenced. But they did not realize just how active it actually is. Hunt Willard of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Laura Carrel of the Pennsylvania State College of Medicine in Hershey, investigated this by designing tags that bind to messages from X-chromosome genes. The tags allowed scientists to pinpoint which genes were escaping inactivation. Using these tags to probe samples from 40 women, Willard and Carrel found that 15% of the genes on the inactive X chromosome were active in every sample. Another 10% of genes from the inactive X were switched on in just some of the samples. Many diseases have been linked to genes on the X chromosome. Click here for details. ? Welcome Trust Medicine Photographic Library Media box "The data are so striking," says Willard. "Every female is expressing a different subset of X-linked genes at different levels." Because the genes expressed from the inactive X are also expressed from a woman's active X, women get a higher dose of these genes than men. So these genes may underlie traits that differ between the sexes. The scientists caution, however, that they have only investigated one type of cell, and that to draw any general conclusions the findings must be repeated in other kinds of cells. "It doesn't provide evidence that genes explain the differences between men and women, but it does provide candidates for such genes," Carrel says. Cancer therapy The X-chromosome sequence, which is now 99.3% complete, has also revealed a few surprises of its own. The international team that assembled the sequence found that about 10% of X genes belong to a family (the 'testis-antigen genes') that has been linked to cancer. These genes are promising targets for potential therapies, because they are only expressed in cancer and in the male reproductive organs. Therapies that knock out tissues expressing the testis-antigen genes should leave patients' other organs intact. Other key findings from the X sequence could help us understand how the chromosome evolved, and how it sends the signals that shut down the inactive chromosome. Investigating these leads will keep scientists busy for a long time to come, says genomicist Jenny Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra. "Having the quantitative picture of the X is absolutely new, and I think this gives us a really good picture of the whole X chromosome," Graves says. From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Thu Mar 17 14:31:44 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:31:44 -0500 Subject: Future of democracy. Was:Re: [Paleopsych] Good vs. evil In-Reply-To: <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <423994D0.7060902@uconn.edu> Lynn, We know we disagree on many things but we are closer here. :-) My message was not clear, I'm not saying there must not be a "keeper or order" in the world. But I don't think there must be a country assuming that responsibility on its own because the action of that country will respond to the interests of that population. American cop actions suit american needs. It is like Rio, where the cops only keep the law where the rich and famous live or have business. The world cop must exist but it must be accountable to all people it protects. Therefore, there must be a political structure of accountability to the people of any global armed forces. Up until now, all attempts have been diplomatic and undemocratic, like the UN or NATO. Also, the cop should only work on its jurisdiction. I agree that some places have had conflicts to come to a democracy but not ALL. That is not a historic law. Brazil is democratic and it never had a conflict, similar with Finland that I alluded in another email. Of course, the earlier the democracy probably the more violence you needed because more abstract the concept was and more power the rulers had. One thing that seems usual is the fact that the stronger democracies come when the people are part of the democratic revolution. But the historic argument is also flawed because it dictates that things will always be like they were. If the historic argument always held, it means no change. However, the world advances on change. When democracy first appeared that had never been democracy, and people at that time could pull the historic argument against it. I say we are at a point today where we can more easily do democratic revolution through non-violent means. One way of doing that is through increased information flow. We can start in the US. Now, to say that Iraq is a democracy, that's being too anxious. ;-) Christian Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > Christian, I am inspired by your hope but dubious of your grasp of human > evil. You know very well there are sections of Rio where no one can go > without extreme risk. There are no cops there, so the good people suffer > at the hands of the evil. World history seems to tell me that without > cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop. > An international "cop?" But the U.N. has failed over and over, from > failure to prevent genocide to corruption in the oil for food scandals. > So how can we hope for something that has never happened? > Democracy, we learn from history, is achieved mostly through force > and warfare. The U. S. democratic republic arose from conflict and is > one of the oldest in the world. England has a democracy that was born of > armed nobility confronting a king. Germany, Japan, Iraq -- all examples > of democracy arising from armed conflict. The Orange Revolution in > Ukraine wouldn't have been possible without Reagan's insistance that we > could afford a military buildup and the Soviets could not. Lebanon > wouldn't have hope without the example of Iraq. Libya is restrained by > force of the American cop on the corner. And, as the joke goes, Bush has > announced how he will withdraw from Iraq: "We'll just go through Iran." > And why must democracy be purchased at the price of our blood? > Psychopaths respond only to firm, quick resistance to their lawless > behavior. Thoughout history, the psychopaths have risen to the top > (consider the French revolution; consider the sad history of Argentina, > my beloved tragic second home). But in the American revolution, the > careful and the accountable became the leaders and have inspired the > world ever since. > Other than that, I have no strong feelings. > Chau, amigo > Lynn > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >> >>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >> >>Christian >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>>Me too. >>> >>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>there a new resurrection? >>> >>>Gerry >>> >>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>No world cop. >>>> >>>>Christian >>>> >>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>> >>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>Gerry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>group security. >>>>>> >>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 17 16:16:06 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:16:06 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that after a few interactions, they will. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >(considering the population). There is parlament elected through >proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >(modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method > >They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on consensus >and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability (although >it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). > >That's a good start. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>> >>>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >>>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Me too. >>>> >>>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>there a new resurrection? >>>> >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>No world cop. >>>>> >>>>>Christian >>>>> >>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>> >>>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>Gerry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>group security. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From christian.rauh at UCONN.EDU Thu Mar 17 17:42:25 2005 From: christian.rauh at UCONN.EDU (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:42:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> Gerry, I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is has a representativeness problem with some of its other political structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system proportionally elected through a d'hont system? The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in > which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a > townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. Forming > consensus and building alliances again work for small groups in which > everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that after a few > interactions, they will. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >> >> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on consensus >> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability (although >> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >> >> That's a good start. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>> >>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>> strong. >>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Me too. >>>>> >>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>> >>>>> Gerry >>>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you >>>>>>> like it >>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>> interested >>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 17 21:59:56 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:59:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> Christian, How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could implement a more individual form of voting and support many political parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that great, at least from my perspective. Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower of Babel. Best regards, Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: > Gerry, > > I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be > improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. > > The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is > has a representativeness problem with some of its other political > structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. > > What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system > proportionally elected through a d'hont system? > > The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. > > Christian > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >> which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >> townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >> Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >> in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >> after a few interactions, they will. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> Christian Rauh wrote: >> >>> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>> >>> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>> consensus >>> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>> (although >>> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>> >>> That's a good start. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>> >>>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>> strong. >>>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>> >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Me too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>> you like it >>>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>> gamble at >>>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 00:09:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:09:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Mar 18 00:38:46 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:38:46 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] energy In-Reply-To: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200503151923.j2FJNfE13832@tick.javien.com> <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050317193618.01d5ec00@incoming.verizon.net> In case anyone really cares whether the situation in the Mideast becomes nonsustainable over the next 20-30 years, or even such a small things as whether the Arctic Ice Cap doubles or nothing... see... www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy But we were told that drug use in baseball is far more important to humans than whether they survive or not. Yo ho ho. Something... but we need more than something. Best of luck to us all, Paul W. From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 04:14:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: ieee energy ideas Message-ID: <01C52B2D.FCEC6280.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/electricreliability/index.html IEEE-USA supports passage of federal legislation empowering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create a self-regulating reliability organization, the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) with authority to set and enforce mandatory standards for reliability of the North American electric system. At present, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) develops standards, guidelines, and criteria for assuring transmission system security and reliability. Electric company compliance with NERC standards, is voluntary and is not subject to government oversight. IEEE-USA also supports federal R&D investments in electric transmission and distribution related to improving the capacity and reliability of the electric grid. IEEE-USA Position Statements Electric Power Reliability Organization <../../positions/reliability.html> (Nov. 2002) IEEE-USA Press Releases Broad Coalition of Energy Organizations UrgesRestoration of Support for Research on Electric Transmission, Distribution to ImproveReliability, Prevent Future Blackouts <../../../communications/releases/2004/021904pr.html> (19 Feb. 2004) IEEE-USA Recommends Electric Grid Investment, Cooperation and Coordination to Improve Reliabilityand Prevent Future Blackouts <../../../communications/releases/2003/092403pr.html> (24 Sept. 2003) IEEE-USA's Call for Reliability Legislation Underscored by Largest U.S. Power Outage <../../../communications/releases/2003/081503pr.html> (15 August 2003) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:39 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] energy In case anyone really cares whether the situation in the Mideast becomes nonsustainable over the next 20-30 years, or even such a small things as whether the Arctic Ice Cap doubles or nothing... see... www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy But we were told that drug use in baseball is far more important to humans than whether they survive or not. Yo ho ho. Something... but we need more than something. Best of luck to us all, Paul W. _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 04:23:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:23:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hypomanic: does this fit Bush? Message-ID: <01C52B2F.3A98B1F0.shovland@mindspring.com> 1. inflated self-esteem or grandiosity 2. decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep) 3. more talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking 4. flight of ideas, or subjective experience that thoughts are racing 5. distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli) 6. increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation 7. excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 18 04:49:38 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:49:38 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423A5DE2.1090808@solution-consulting.com> So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. Have you been had, Steve? Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 05:03:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:03:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Neuropeptides Message-ID: <01C52B34.BF25B3A0.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/npep/ google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neuropeptides Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 14:22:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:22:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Even if it is fake, does it fit? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:50 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. Have you been had, Steve? Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 14:29:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:29:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology's progress and challenges addressed during ACS meeting Message-ID: <01C52B83.E38BB060.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/acs-pa030805.php EACH PAPER EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SAN DIEGO - From promising diagnostic tests to tomorrow's electronics, nanotechnology - the science and technology of the ultra-small - is getting bigger all the time. More than 60 presentations, in symposia ranging from medicine to the environment to business, highlight nanotechnology's progress and challenges during the 229th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, in San Diego, March 13-17. Highlights from selected symposia and research presentations are highlighted below: Monday, March 14 How do you name a nanomaterial?-When the field of molecular genetics emerged, scientists often found themselves calling a new gene by different names. Nanotechnology researchers now face a similar challenge. What's more, this name game has regulatory importance: Today, the government ev aluates and regulates the toxicity of a named chemical entity without considering different-sized versions of it. But nanoparticles bear unique electronic and mechanical features. Now, to clear up these concerns and more, a researcher at Rice University is leading the call to build a nomenclature for nanotechnology. (IEC 116, Monday, March 14, 4:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency, Room Ford A, during the symposium "Nanotechnology and the Environment.") Growing the business of nanotechnology - Since nanotechnology emerged, dozens of businesses in California have launched big dreams for tiny tools. Illustrating this boom is Nanosys, launched in 2002 in Palo Alto, Calif. Nanosys has built early versions of nano-enabled solar cells, flexible electronics, and nano chips for drug discovery research. Along the way, the company has formed strategic relationships with industry giants such as Intel, Dupont, In-Q-Tel, SAIC, Sharp, and Matsushita. The company hopes its platform technology will find success in renewable energy, defense, macroelectrics, healthcare and information technology. (COLL 121, Monday, March 14, 8:30 a.m., Convention Center, Room 22, during the symposium "Colloid and Surface Chemistry Award Symposium Honoring Paul Alivisatos.") Tuesday, March 15 Bio-barcode may help diagnose Alzheimer's disease in living persons - Alzheimer's is hard to diagnose in living persons and is only definitively diagnosed upon autopsy. Now, in a preliminary study led by noted scientist Chad Mirkin, researchers at Northwestern University have used a "bio-barcode" assay to detect, in the spinal fluid of study participants, a brain protein thought to be associated with Alzheimer's. The bio-barcode assay fixes antibodies to magnetic particles and gold nanocrystals laced with strands of DNA, referred to as bar code DNA. Somewhat like a consumer bar code, these DNA barcodes are identified on a chip designed to sort and measure their concentrations. The assay also holds promise for detecting HIV, cancer and heart problems. It could be available to researchers within a year or two, according to the researchers. (ANYL 331, Tuesday, March 15, 9:50 a.m., Convention Center, Room 29B, during the symposium, "ACS Nobel Laureate Signature Award Symposium: Spectroscopy at the Nanoscale.") Wednesday, March 16 Quantum dots make colorful labels - Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Quantum Dot Corporation in Hayward, Calif., have created fluorescent semiconductor nanocrystal labels for cells and other biological material. The researchers recently used light-scattering techniques to probe the distance between two gold nanocrystals at the single molecule level. These nanocrystals hold promise as flags of biological reactions in living cells that can serve as probes far longer than current dyes.(PHYS 241, Wednesday, March 16, 4:30 p.m., Convention Center, Room 15A, during the symposium "Novel Directions in Photonics: Nanophotonics and Biophotonics.") Thursday, March 17 Building a greener nanotechnology - Researchers with the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) contend that nanotechnology and green chemistry are uniquely compatible. Nanoscience can enable the discovery of greener products and processes. At the same time, the tools of green chemistry can guide nano developments. A University of Oregon chemist, who last year received a patent for a greener method of synthesizing gold nanoparticles, explores this synergy. (I&EC 182, Thursday, March 17, 8:30 a.m., Hyatt Regency, Del Mar A, during the symposium "Nanotechnology and the Environment.") ### ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION IEC 116 Naming nanotechnology: Creating a dictionary for the nanoscale Vicki L. Colvin, Department of Chemistry, Rice University, MS 60, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251, colvin at rice.edu The importance of terminology and nomenclature to chemistry generally ca nnot be overstated. Systems of nomenclature and accurate terminology improve communication, enhance the utility of the scientific literature, and define how we teach subjects to students. The need for terminology in nanotechnology is growing substantially and this talk will address the ongoing efforts in this area. Both at the national and international level early approaches to this large problem will be highlighted. Additionally, this venue will permit ample audience input and commentary on the various emerging strategies for nomenclature systems for nanomaterials. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION COLL 121 Nanotechnology and business Larry Bock, Nanosys Inc, 2625 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Fax: 858 759 8299, LBock at nanosysinc.com , Phone: 858-759-8693 I will give a non technical, business overview of how Nanosys is attempting to build a leading pure play nanotechnology venture. My presentation will describe how we are building an important platform technology focused on high performance, fully integrated, inorganic semiconductor nanostructures, how we are applying this platform technology in multiple muti-billion dollar industries from renewable energy to defense to macroelectroics (flexible electronics) to healthcare to information technology. I will also describe, how we capitalized the company in under three years with over $75M in equity and non equity capital and formed strategic relationships with such companies as Intel, Dupont, In-Q-Tel, SAIC and Matsushita. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION PHYS 241 New Nanocrystal assemblies for photonic structures A. Paul Alivisatos, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Materials Sciences Division, D-43A Hildebrand Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1460, Fax: 510-642-6911, alivis at uclink4.berkeley.edu , Phone: 510-643-7371 This talk will focus on two recent projects relating to applications of nanocrystals in photonics. The first project concerns the use of discrete groups of nanocrystals as novel biological labels. For example, colloidal quantum dot emission can be altered by the placement nearby of Au nanocrystals. Similarly, the distance between two Au nanocrystals can be probed at the single molecule level by light scattering. The second area of interest is in the creation of specific patterns of nanocrystals on lithographically patterned surfaces by capillary force assembly. ANYL 331 Biobarcode assay: PCR-like sensitivity for proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules Chad Mirkin, Chemistry Dept, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, Fax: 847-467-5123, Phone: 847-467-7302 An ultrasensitive method for detecting protein analytes has been developed. The system relies on magnetic microparticle probes with antibodies that specifically bind a target of interest [prostate specific antigen (PSA) in this case] and nanoparticle probes that are encoded with DNA that is unique to the protein target of interest and antibodies that can sandwich the target captured by the microparticle probes. Magnetic separation of the complexed probes and target followed by dehybridization of the oligonucleotides on the nanoparticle probe surface allows one to determine the presence of the target protein by identifying the oligonucleotide sequence released from the nanoparticle probe. Because the nanoparticle probe carries with it a large number of oligonucleotides per protein binding event, there is substantial amplification and one can detect protein targets in the 500 zeptomolar to picomolar concentration range. Comparable clinically accepted conventional assays for detecting the same targets have sensitivity limits of ~ 3 pM, 6 orders of magnitude less sensitive than what is observed with this method. The assay has been developed for prostrate cancer, HIV, cardiac markers and Alzheimers disease. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION IEC 182 Environmentally-benign nanomanufacturing: Merging green chemistry and nanoscience James E. Hutchison, Department of Chemistry and Materials Science Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, hutch at uoregon.edu Nanotechnology promises considerable benefit to society and the environment. However, the products of nanotechnology and the manufacturing processes used to produce these products may pose threats to human health, the environment, worker safety, and security. The challenge will be to develop nanotechnology to provide maximum benefit, while minimizing the hazards. Green chemistry and engineering principles can be adopted to guide the early stages of product and process development to meet this challenge. Discoveries in nanoscience will provide new opportunities for the development of sustainable technologies. In this presentation, I will discuss how green chemistry and engineering principles can guide the responsible development of nanotechnology and how nanoscience can enable the discovery of greener products and processes. Examples of greener materials, processes and applications of nanoscience will be presented, with an emphasis on nanomanufacturing. From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 18 17:11:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:11:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came from. 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported even if it twists the facts. 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock stars because crime will automatically disappear. 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say is intellectually correct. 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can attain high positions, especially those without any background. 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 23:20:40 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:20:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] symbol vs. reality In-Reply-To: <200503181922.j2IJMfE10103@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050318232040.70272.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.<< --This seems to be part of a larger issue that may include members of many opposing groups. Symbols become substitutes for reality, when people consider large-scale issues involving millions of people. It's as if the reality is impossible to hold in mind, so a symbol must replace it. Then, the symbol is elevated to the status of a human being, treated as if it were able to feel pain and could be violated as a human can. The flag becomes a "martyr", or a minor deity, rather than a symbol. Tearing up the word "people" is not the same as tearing up people. Burning a flag is not the same as burning the country. One thing I wonder about: if someone burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution, would it get the same level of outrage? Perhaps the fact that nobody wants to burn it means we all agree on something more basic than the flag. After all, without the Constitution, what would the flag represent? Not freedom. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 19 00:26:53 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:26:53 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423B71CD.8070601@solution-consulting.com> No, of course not. Special pleading. This is an old pattern, invent a bunch of "similarities" that have no particular validity, and prove something from it. Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate? Steve Hovland wrote: >Even if it is fake, does it fit? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:50 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism > >So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: >http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 > >Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an >academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / >humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten >but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no >Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The >novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. > >Have you been had, Steve? > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >>Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >>American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: >> >>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >>constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >>paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >>and in public displays. >> >>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >>"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >>summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. >> >>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >>are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >>perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >>liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >>problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >>funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >>service are glamorized. >> >>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >>exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >>are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >>the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >>institution. >> >>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >>the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >>government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >>Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >> >>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >>by the government over the masses. >> >>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >>manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >> >> >>from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are > > >>diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. >> >>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >>of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >>power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >>power elite. >> >>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >>the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >>eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >>promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >>is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >>arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. >> >>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >>police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >>often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >>the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >>virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >>governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >>government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >>their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >>for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >>outright stolen by government leaders. >> >>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >>complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >>against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >>to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >>manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >>judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 19 00:28:11 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:28:11 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow > support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific > ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form > of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers > can attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >> on clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers >> and military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >> very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be >> censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is >> openly attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and >> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures >> to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 19 00:35:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:35:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52BD8.8EEAF3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Good work :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:12 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came from. 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported even if it twists the facts. 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock stars because crime will automatically disappear. 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say is intellectually correct. 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can attain high positions, especially those without any background. 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 16:18:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> If it came in a package, which version would you choose? The original or the upside-down? Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support > for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of > punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can > attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >> constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >> paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on >> clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >> "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and >> military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople >> and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor >> is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are >> either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. >> It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored >> or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly >> attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and authority >> to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in >> fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be >> appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are >> a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 15:20:47 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] =?windows-1252?q?PLOS=3A_Recent_Origin_and_Cultural?= =?windows-1252?q?_Reversion_of_a_Hunter=96Gatherer_Group?= Message-ID: <423C434F.7010903@uconn.edu> 04-plbi-ra-0485r2_tn *Recent Origin and Cultural Reversion of a Hunter?Gatherer Group* Hiroki Oota, Brigitte Pakendorf, Gunter Weiss, Arndt von Haeseler, Surin Pookajorn, Wannapa Settheetham-Ishida, Danai Tiwawech, Takafumi Ishida, Mark Stoneking Synopsis | Full-text | Screen PDF (123K) The mtDNA analysis revealed something remarkable: all the Mlabri mtDNA sequences were identical. Not only did all of the other hill tribes show ?significantly higher? variation, but this lack of variation hasn't been found in any other human population. The Y-chromosome and autosome analyses revealed the same reduced diversity, indicating a ?severe reduction in population size? for the Mlabri. This reduction likely happened 500 to 800 years ago, Stoneking and colleagues conclude, and at most 1,000 years ago. But how? Since genetic analyses can't distinguish between a population bottleneck and a founding event, the authors used simulations to calculate the amount of population reduction required to completely eliminate mtDNA diversity, arriving at ?not more than two unrelated females? and ?perhaps even only one.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 04-plbi-ra-0485r2_tn.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2276 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Mar 19 17:45:15 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] oops, clarification Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> Please forgive me for a gross typo! The URL is: www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt In general -- if we want to discuss aberrations of the human mind, how about the aberration which thinks of problems in the Middle East (oil, war and nuclear proliferation all combined) and high gas prices as a kind of temporary rainshower certain to go away all by itself in a day or two? Freud talks about denial -- but how long can an organism survive if, when its life is threatened, it buries its head either in the sand or in Michael Jackson's crotch or in sniffing noses in baseball lockers? (The main events on TV and in Congressional discussion this week. We did get what people call good attendance on Thursday... but TV was all into other things.) Why is IEEE (and the other folks we partnered with on Thursday at Rayburn) just about the only group on the planet asking in a serious, honest way what we can actually DO to save our lives? (Are engineers the last small minority of people on earth who believe that a real world exists?) Does anyone really care whether we do or not? Do they figure that oh, well, their souls will be saved if they just pray on Sundays to the God of hydrogen and otherwise forget it? And do they expect the god of hydrogen to resurrect their mangled bodies? It really is a central question for psychology how organisms can be so weird. Best, Paul W. From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 16:06:51 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:06:51 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World Political System In-Reply-To: <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423C4E1B.3030205@uconn.edu> Gerry, Big has to be global level. You might need layers of representation and action but that's an empirical question. In a global environment, people should be able to aggreaget themselves in both geographic location and interest groups. When you have a plurarlity of parties then each party can become more distinct from the other. In a two party system the two parties will converge to what is perceived as commonground. People who have a high investment on a non-popular issue will be left with no representation. Computer terminal will definetely play a role in a global scale democratic government, which brings up the issue of access and efficacy to/with technology. One of the first initiatives towards that would be to improve access and efficacy around the world. People make a world political system seem so hard and alien but the fact is that many of our global corporations have information systems and internal political/management structures that support and are very similar to what I'm advocating. The difference is that corporations operate under authoritarian rule and it would have to be democratic. And we all know democracy does have more overhead than authocracy. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian, > How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for > a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be > implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large > number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could > implement a more individual form of voting and support many political > parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special > individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the > differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that > great, at least from my perspective. > > Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could > be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal > level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower > of Babel. > > Best regards, > Gerry > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >> Gerry, >> >> I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be >> improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. >> >> The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is >> has a representativeness problem with some of its other political >> structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. >> >> What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system >> proportionally elected through a d'hont system? >> >> The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >>> which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >>> townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >>> Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >>> in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >>> after a few interactions, they will. >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>>> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>>> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>>> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>>> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>>> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>>> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>>> >>>> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>>> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>>> consensus >>>> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>>> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>>> (although >>>> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>>> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>>> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>>> >>>> That's a good start. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>>> >>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>>> >>>>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>>> strong. >>>>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Me too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>>> you like it >>>>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>>> gamble at >>>>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 21:48:20 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:48:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism In-Reply-To: <200503192046.j2JKjoE01535@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050319214820.83265.qmail@web30809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says to Stephen: >>Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate?<< --I have a question. Using fake memos is most definitely a journalism faux pas and terribly embarrassing. But the President also used forged memos in making his case for the Iraq war. Why is one so much worse than the other? Biased filtering of information is bad no matter who does it, I would think. Good reason to be skeptical of information that confirms one's preconceptions about an issue. It's easy to go on automatic and believe everything that condemns someone you are convinced is evil, or to automatically reject anything that undermines your assumptions and loyalties. Regarding the fascism thread: I think we might look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Blue Eyes experiment, and Milgram's experiment, and remember that NOBODY is immune from the kind of abuses that take over in a fascist climate. Humans typically are very skeptical of one side in a polarity and overly trusting in another. It may be hard-wired, and it makes us susceptible to any authority that tells us we're in danger and must trust its view of reality over that of an enemy who must never be listened to or taken at face value. It's not an American thing, not a German thing, it's something all people, including Europeans, Muslims and others who may see all evil in America and none on their own side, must guard against. Polarities distort behavior, on all sides, and nobody is immune from having their mind hijacked by herd perception. It's part of our evolutionary heritage, and getting too proud of being uninfluenced is a mistake, since pride exists on a different level from the automatic, unconscious bias that creeps in when one habitually takes one side in a conflict. It would help if, rather than accusing America of becoming a fascist state, we look at fascist TENDENCIES, in cultures around the globe. Those tendencies can exist in a culture that is democratic and not overtly fascist in political structure. They are found in any group that remains unconscious of its own flaws while accusing other groups of being irreparably flawed. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 19 23:22:52 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:22:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> Lynn, have you considered the possibility that being a conservative cripples your creativity? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:28 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow > support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific > ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form > of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers > can attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >> on clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers >> and military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >> very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be >> censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is >> openly attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and >> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures >> to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 01:27:12 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:27:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <423CD170.70402@earthlink.net> Dear Lynn and Steve, Thanks awfully for your very kind words. I like to think of these 14 points in two respects. Firstly we have the original set of 14 derived by Dr. Lawrence Britt after examing fascist regimes. Let's call these the "thesis". I then came along and stood the entire set on its head and compiled by own set of 14.....let's call these the "antithesis" . How does my set sound? Mighty scary from a security point of view especially after the 9/11 scare, huh! Yet when anyone complains fascism is WRONG, presenting the opposite is not a secure alternative. If only we could meld thesis with antithesis.... Best regards, Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: Good work :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >> characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >> down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist >> regime: >> >> 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >> homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >> from. >> >> 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >> think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your >> family. >> >> 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >> scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic >> militants. >> >> 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >> serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >> >> 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow >> support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >> >> 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >> even if it twists the facts. >> >> 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >> laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >> stars because crime will automatically disappear. >> >> 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific >> ideology. >> >> 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >> >> 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >> >> 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >> gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such >> as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to >> say is intellectually correct. >> >> 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form >> of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >> >> 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers >> can attain high positions, especially those without any background. >> >> 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >> available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into >> government. >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Hovland wrote: >> >>> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) >>> and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>> characteristics common to each: >>> >>> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >>> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >>> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >>> on clothing and in public displays. >>> >>> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >>> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>> prisoners, etc. >>> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, >>> etc. >>> >>> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount >>> of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. >>> Soldiers and military service are glamorized. >>> >>> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, >>> traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and >>> homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the >>> ultimate guardian of the family institution. >>> >>> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly >>> controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is >>> indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >>> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >>> very common. >>> >>> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a >>> motivational tool by the government over the masses. >>> >>> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>> actions. >>> >>> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>> business/government relationship and power elite. >>> >>> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >>> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >>> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>> >>> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend >>> to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >>> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to >>> be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and >>> letters is openly attacked. >>> >>> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, >>> the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The >>> people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego >>> civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national >>> police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>> >>> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>> other to government positions and use governmental power and >>> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >>> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even >>> treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government >>> leaders. >>> >>> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >>> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, >>> use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 02:26:10 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:26:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: World Political System In-Reply-To: <423C4E12.6050802@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> <423C4E12.6050802@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <423CDF42.4030407@earthlink.net> Big at a global level is warranted but can it be managed? One definitely needs layers of representation ascending the ladder to final voting. As I stated previously, computers could allow voting at a local level in which numerous candidates present their platforms and local (community voters) cast their ballots. As far as having this work at national level, I can't imagine how. Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >Gerry, > >Big has to be global level. You might need layers of representation and >action but that's an empirical question. In a global environment, people >should be able to aggreaget themselves in both geographic location and >interest groups. > >When you have a plurarlity of parties then each party can become more >distinct from the other. In a two party system the two parties will >converge to what is perceived as commonground. People who have a high >investment on a non-popular issue will be left with no representation. > >Computer terminal will definetely play a role in a global scale >democratic government, which brings up the issue of access and efficacy >to/with technology. One of the first initiatives towards that would be >to improve access and efficacy around the world. > >People make a world political system seem so hard and alien but the fact >is that many of our global corporations have information systems and >internal political/management structures that support and are very >similar to what I'm advocating. The difference is that corporations >operate under authoritarian rule and it would have to be democratic. And >we all know democracy does have more overhead than authocracy. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Christian, >>How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for >>a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be >>implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large >>number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could >>implement a more individual form of voting and support many political >>parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special >>individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the >>differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that >>great, at least from my perspective. >> >>Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could >>be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal >>level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower >>of Babel. >> >>Best regards, >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>Gerry, >>> >>>I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be >>>improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. >>> >>>The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is >>>has a representativeness problem with some of its other political >>>structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. >>> >>>What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system >>>proportionally elected through a d'hont system? >>> >>>The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >>>>which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >>>>townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >>>>Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >>>>in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >>>>after a few interactions, they will. >>>> >>>>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>>>>reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>>>>There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>>>>(considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>>>>proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>>>>(modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>>>> >>>>>They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>>>>supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>>>>consensus >>>>>and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>>>>reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>>>>(although >>>>>it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>>>>population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>>>>the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>>>> >>>>>That's a good start. >>>>> >>>>>Christian >>>>> >>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>>>>model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>>>> >>>>>>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>>> >>>>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>>>>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>>>>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>>>>strong. >>>>>>>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Christian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Me too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>>>>there a new resurrection? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Gerry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No world cop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Christian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>>>>you like it >>>>>>>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>>>>gamble at >>>>>>>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>>>>US.....not >>>>>>>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>>>>interested >>>>>>>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>>>>Gerry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>>>>group security. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 20 16:43:05 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:43:05 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] oops, clarification In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423DA819.1040502@solution-consulting.com> Paul, thanks for the link Great info! I sent the link to my congressman and both senators with this letter: I recognize you are very busy. Please have a staffer look at this link: www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt It is a presentation a colleague gave on energy with some very thought-provoking ideas. This would seem to be something both democrats and republicans could agree on, and your leadership could make a difference. Lynn Johnson, Ph.D. I hope I can call you a (virtual) colleague. I suggest if we all sent something like that to our representatives, Paul's concepts could gain some energy (grin) in the legislature. -- You can email your representatives through this linik: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Lynn PS: Paul, I also sent the link to my brother, Karl, at U. Pitt where he is prof of chem eng. He is involved in energy storage studies, and modeled hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes (he found it wasn't practical) so I am sure he will be interested in your work. If you give permission, I would also post the link to some other energy-related sites with a similar message. Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > Please forgive me for a gross typo! > > The URL is: > > www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > > > In general -- if we want to discuss aberrations of the human mind, how > about > the aberration which thinks of problems in the Middle East > (oil, war and nuclear proliferation all combined) and high gas prices > as a kind > of temporary rainshower certain to go away all by itself in a day or two? > Freud talks about denial -- but how long can an organism survive if, > when its life is threatened, it buries its head either in the sand or in > Michael Jackson's crotch or in sniffing noses in baseball lockers? > (The main events on TV and in Congressional discussion this week. > We did get what people call good attendance on Thursday... but > TV was all into other things.) > > Why is IEEE (and the other folks we partnered with on Thursday at > Rayburn) > just about the only group on the planet asking in a serious, honest > way what > we can actually DO to save our lives? (Are engineers the last > small minority of people on earth who believe that a real world exists?) > > Does anyone really care whether we do or not? Do they figure that oh, > well, > their souls will be saved if they just pray on Sundays to the God of > hydrogen and > otherwise forget it? And do they expect the god of hydrogen to > resurrect their mangled bodies? > > It really is a central question for psychology how organisms can be so > weird. > > Best, > > Paul W. > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 19:50:54 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:50:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52D23.2DE90B80.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52D23.2DE90B80.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423DD41E.4070709@earthlink.net> Hold on a sec, Steve. Wasn't 911 the first time our country was attacked on its mainland with bombings in both New City City AND the Pentagon in D.C.? Whenever measures to improve national security are set forth, we always run the risk of setting up a police state. Take the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism turned into "antithesis"....almost as liberal as maximum security prisons in Sweden were until recently when hard-core immigrants, supposedly from Eastern Europe, infiltrated the system. Now even Sweden must tighten its prison security. And that's what the original 14 characteristics of Fascism clearly presents. We have both extremes presented below. Possibly someone can "synthesize" the two lists into something politically acceptable in today's unsettling times. Best regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >It's a matter of orientation. > >911 has been used as an excuse to enact >laws that have very little to do with improving >our security and quite a lot to do with >establishing a police state. > >The huge deficits in our national budget >represent looting by a criminal regime. > >There is quite a lot conquer-the-world-with-force >nationalism, but very little economic patriotism. > >In religion, there is a great difference between >the faith of those with a deep scientific understanding >of the world and whacko Christian cults who live >in anticipation of the rapture. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:27 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list; Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.; Steve Hovland >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism > >Dear Lynn and Steve, > >Thanks awfully for your very kind words. I like to think of these 14 >points in two respects. Firstly we have the original set of 14 derived >by Dr. Lawrence Britt after examing fascist regimes. Let's call these >the "thesis". I then came along and stood the entire set on its head >and compiled by own set of 14.....let's call these the "antithesis" . >How does my set sound? Mighty scary from a security point of view >especially after the 9/11 scare, huh! Yet when anyone complains fascism >is WRONG, presenting the opposite is not a secure alternative. If only >we could meld thesis with antithesis.... > >Best regards, >Gerry > > > >Steve Hovland wrote: > >Good work :-) > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > > >Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > > > >>brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >> >>>For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >>>characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >>>down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist >>>regime: >>> >>>1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >>>homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >>>from. >>> >>>2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >>>think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your >>>family. >>> >>>3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >>>scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic >>>militants. >>> >>>4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >>>serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >>> >>>5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow >>>support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >>> >>>6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >>>even if it twists the facts. >>> >>>7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >>>laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >>>stars because crime will automatically disappear. >>> >>>8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific >>>ideology. >>> >>>9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >>> >>>10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >>> >>>11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >>>gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such >>>as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to >>>say is intellectually correct. >>> >>>12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form >>>of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >>> >>>13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers >>>can attain high positions, especially those without any background. >>> >>>14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >>>available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into >>>government. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>>>(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) >>>>and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>>>characteristics common to each: >>>> >>>>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >>>>make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >>>>other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >>>>on clothing and in public displays. >>>> >>>>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>>>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>>>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >>>>of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>>>torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>>>prisoners, etc. >>>>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>>>people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>>>eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>>>religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, >>>>etc. >>>> >>>>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>>>domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount >>>>of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. >>>>Soldiers and military service are glamorized. >>>> >>>>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>>>almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, >>>>traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and >>>>homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the >>>>ultimate guardian of the family institution. >>>> >>>>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly >>>>controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is >>>>indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >>>>spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >>>>very common. >>>> >>>>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a >>>>motivational tool by the government over the masses. >>>> >>>>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>>>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>>>to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>>>common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>>>religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>>>actions. >>>> >>>>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>>>aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>>>government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>>>business/government relationship and power elite. >>>> >>>>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >>>>labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >>>>are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>>> >>>>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend >>>>to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >>>>academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to >>>>be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and >>>>letters is openly attacked. >>>> >>>>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, >>>>the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The >>>>people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego >>>>civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national >>>>police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>>> >>>>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>>>are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>>>other to government positions and use governmental power and >>>>authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >>>>uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even >>>>treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government >>>>leaders. >>>> >>>>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >>>>are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>>>campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, >>>>use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>>>boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>>>typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 20 16:04:39 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism Message-ID: <01C52D23.77654D00.shovland@mindspring.com> The strict definition of fascism has to do with political control by business interests. We are pretty far gone by that definition. Remember that in order to be effective propaganda has to start with a kernel of truth. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:48 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism Lynn says to Stephen: >>Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate?<< --I have a question. Using fake memos is most definitely a journalism faux pas and terribly embarrassing. But the President also used forged memos in making his case for the Iraq war. Why is one so much worse than the other? Biased filtering of information is bad no matter who does it, I would think. Good reason to be skeptical of information that confirms one's preconceptions about an issue. It's easy to go on automatic and believe everything that condemns someone you are convinced is evil, or to automatically reject anything that undermines your assumptions and loyalties. Regarding the fascism thread: I think we might look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Blue Eyes experiment, and Milgram's experiment, and remember that NOBODY is immune from the kind of abuses that take over in a fascist climate. Humans typically are very skeptical of one side in a polarity and overly trusting in another. It may be hard-wired, and it makes us susceptible to any authority that tells us we're in danger and must trust its view of reality over that of an enemy who must never be listened to or taken at face value. It's not an American thing, not a German thing, it's something all people, including Europeans, Muslims and others who may see all evil in America and none on their own side, must guard against. Polarities distort behavior, on all sides, and nobody is immune from having their mind hijacked by herd perception. It's part of our evolutionary heritage, and getting too proud of being uninfluenced is a mistake, since pride exists on a different level from the automatic, unconscious bias that creeps in when one habitually takes one side in a conflict. It would help if, rather than accusing America of becoming a fascist state, we look at fascist TENDENCIES, in cultures around the globe. Those tendencies can exist in a culture that is democratic and not overtly fascist in political structure. They are found in any group that remains unconscious of its own flaws while accusing other groups of being irreparably flawed. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 03:59:08 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:59:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <423CF50C.20909@earthlink.net> Neither. We need to figure out a way in combining both versions. This is called "synthesis" and that's what is needed. Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >If it came in a package, which version would you choose? >The original or the upside-down? > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >>characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >>down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: >> >>1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >>homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >>from. >> >>2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >>think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. >> >>3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >>scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. >> >>4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >>serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >> >>5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support >>for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >> >>6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >>even if it twists the facts. >> >>7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >>laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >>stars because crime will automatically disappear. >> >>8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. >> >>9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >> >>10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >> >>11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >>gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as >>crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say >>is intellectually correct. >> >>12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of >>punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >> >>13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can >>attain high positions, especially those without any background. >> >>14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >>available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. >> >> >> >> >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>>(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >>>several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>>characteristics common to each: >>> >>>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >>>constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >>>paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on >>>clothing and in public displays. >>> >>>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >>>"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>>torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>>prisoners, etc. >>>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>>people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>>eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>>religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >>> >>>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>>domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >>>government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and >>>military service are glamorized. >>> >>>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>>almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >>>gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >>>are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >>>of the family institution. >>> >>>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >>>by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >>>controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople >>>and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >>> >>>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >>>tool by the government over the masses. >>> >>>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>>to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>>common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>>religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>>actions. >>> >>>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>>aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>>government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>>business/government relationship and power elite. >>> >>>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor >>>is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are >>>either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>> >>>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >>>promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. >>>It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored >>>or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly >>>attacked. >>> >>>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >>>police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >>>are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >>>liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >>>force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>> >>>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>>are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>>other to government positions and use governmental power and authority >>>to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in >>>fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be >>>appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >>> >>>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are >>>a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>>campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >>>of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>>boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>>typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 20 13:09:48 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:09:48 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Fascism is a word. Pondering over the true definition of a word tends to be one of the most effective ways to waste time known to the universe. Of course, that's a very familiar ancient problem in philosophy -- the motivation for guys like Ayers to invent the common language or "Anglo-American" school of philosophy. That school has had its own excesses, but their starting point is worth remembering. So perhaps instead one might ask:"What is fascism that we should care an iota about its definition?" Instead of asking "what is fascism?" we might try to formulate a question that actually has some kind of meaning. For example, as a small step... one might ask "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? Of states which are unlikely to grow into more happiness? Of states which are poised to drop into the toilet?" And one might ask what the empirical evidence is to support any purported answers. But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that. From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:53:00 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:53:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423E28FC.8090802@earthlink.net> Dear Paul, I'll bite and try listing items I might claim could bring extreme unhappiness to people. 1. Inability to secure employment of any kind. 2. Inability to provide food, clothing and shelter for one's family. Once these basics have been offered to citizens, a glimmer of hope is given as well. Yet this is what socialism manages to present to its citizens and at a basic level, a socialist form of government works. Once something more than basics is required by a nation....that's when some states go down the toilet. The ideal political structure for a state to adhere to is one in which the best of socialism merges with the best of capitalism. Synthesizing a political venue shouldn't be thought of as impossible. This synthesis could possibly relieve citizens of their extreme unhappiness. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > For example, as a small step... one might ask > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? Of states > which are unlikely to grow into more happiness? Of states which > are poised to drop into the toilet?" > > From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 13:56:25 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:56:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] MRI visualizes gene expression in real time Message-ID: <01C52DDA.B79E6A20.shovland@mindspring.com> Carnegie Mellon scientists develop tool that uses MRI to visualize gene expression in living animals PITTSBURGH--In a first, Carnegie Mellon University scientists have "programmed" cells to make their own contrast agents, enabling unprecedented high-resolution, deep-tissue imaging of gene expression. The results, appearing in the April issue of Nature Medicine, hold considerable promise for conducting preclinical studies in the emerging field of molecular therapeutics and for monitoring the delivery of therapeutic genes in patients. "For 20 years it has been the chemist's job to develop agents that can be used to enhance MRI contrast," said Eric Ahrens, assistant professor of biological sciences in the Mellon College of Science at Carnegie Mellon. "Now, with our approach, we have put this job into the hands of the molecular biologist. Using off-the-shelf molecular biology tools we can now enable living cells to change their MRI contrast via genetic instructions." "The new imaging method is a platform technology that can be adapted for many tissue types and for a range of preclinical uses in conjunction with emerging molecular therapeutic strategies," Ahrens said. Ahrens' new approach uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor gene expression in real-time. Because MRI images deep tissues non-invasively and at high resolution, investigators don't need to sacrifice animals and perform laborious and costly analysis. To trigger living cells into producing their own contrast agent, Ahrens gave them a gene that produces a form of ferritin, a protein that normally stores iron in a non-toxic form. This metalloprotein acts like a nano-magnet and a potent MRI "reporter." A typical MRI scan detects and analyzes signals given off by hydrogen protons in water molecules after they are exposed to a magnetic field and radiofrequency pulses. These signals are then converted into an image. Ahrens' new MRI reporter alters the magnetic field in its proximity, cau sing nearby protons to give off a distinctly different signal. The resulting image reveals dark areas that indicate the presence of the MRI reporter. "Our technology is adaptable to monitor gene expression in many tissue types. You could link this MRI reporter gene to any other gene of interest, including therapeutic genes for diseases like cancer and arthritis, to detect where and when they are being expressed," Ahrens said. Existing methods used to image gene expression have limitations, according to Ahrens. Some methods cannot be used in living subjects, fail to image cells deep inside the body or don't provide high-resolution images. Other approaches using MRI are not practical for a wide range of applications. Ahrens and his colleagues constructed a gene carrier, or vector, that contained a gene for the MRI reporter. They used a widely studied vector called a replication-defective adenovirus that readily enters cells but doesn't reproduce itself. Ahrens injected the vector carrying the MRI reporter gene into brains of living mice and imaged the MRI reporter expression periodically for over a month in the same cohort of animals. The research showed no overt toxicity in the mouse brain from the MRI reporter. ### Ahrens consulted on aspects of the research with William Goins, a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh. The work was funded by the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. Ahrens is a member of the Pittsburgh NMR Center for Biomedical Research, a joint endeavor sponsored by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Established in 1986 and funded continuously since 1988 by the National Institutes of Health, the Pittsburgh NMR Center is dedicated to advancing molecular, cellular and functional imaging in animals. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cmu-cms031405.php From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 13:58:12 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:58:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Prefrontal cortex brain waves predict body movement Message-ID: <01C52DDA.F8280560.shovland@mindspring.com> Scientists Discover What You Are Thinking PASADENA, Calif. - By decoding signals coming from neurons, scientists at the California Institute of Technology have confirmed that an area of the brain known as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vPF) is involved in the planning stages of movement, that instantaneous flicker of time when we contemplate moving a hand or other limb. The work has implications for the development of a neural prosthesis, a brain-machine interface that will give paralyzed people the ability to move and communicate simply by thinking. By piggybacking on therapeutic work being conducted on epileptic patients, Daniel Rizzuto, a postdoctoral scholar in the lab of Richard Andersen, the Boswell Professor of Neuroscience, was able to predict where a target the patient was looking at was located, and also where the patient was going to move his hand. The work currently appears in the online version of Nature Neuroscience. Most research in this field involves tapping into the areas of the brain that directly control motor actions, hoping that this will give patients the rudimentary ability to move a cursor, say, or a robotic arm with just their thoughts. Andersen, though, is taking a different tack. Instead of the primary motor areas, he taps into the planning stages of the brain, the posterior parietal and premotor areas. Rizzuto looked at another area of the brain to see if planning could take place there as well. Until this work, the idea that spatial processing or movement planning took place in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex has been a highly contested one. "Just the fact that these spatial signals are there is important," he says. "Based upon previous work in monkeys, people were saying this was not the case." Rizzuto's work is the first to show these spatial signals exist in humans. Rizzuto took advantage of clinical work being performed by Adam Mamelak, a neurosurgeon at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. Mamelak was treating three patients who suffered from severe epilepsy, trying to identify the brain areas where the seizures occurred and then surgically removing that area of the brain. Mamelak implanted electrodes into the vPF as part of this process. "So for a couple of weeks these patients are lying there, bored, waiting for a seizure," says Rizzuto, "and I was able to get their permission to do my study, taking advantage of the electrodes that were already there." The patients watched a computer screen for a flashing target, remembered the target location through a short delay, then reached to that location. "Obviously a very basic task," he says. "We were looking for the brain regions that may be contributing to planned movements. And what I was able to show is that a part of the brain called the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is indeed involved in planning these movements." Just by analyzing the brain activity from the implanted electrodes using software algorithms that he wrote, Rizzuto was able to tell with very high accuracy where the target was located while it was on the screen, and also what direction the patient was going to reach to when the target wasn't even there. Unlike most labs doing this type of research, Andersen's lab is looking at the planning areas of the brain rather than the primary motor area of the brain, because they believe the planning areas are less susceptible to damage. "In the case of a spinal cord injury," says Rizzuto, "communication to and from the primary motor cortex is cut off." But the brain still performs the computations associated with planning to move. "So if we can tap into the planning computations and decode where a person is thinking of moving," he says, then it just becomes an engineering problem--the person can be hooked up to a computer where he can move a cursor by thinking, or can even be attached to a robotic arm. Andersen notes, "Dan's results are remarkable in showing that the human ventral prefrontal cortex, an area previously implicated in processing information about objects, also processes the intentions of subjects to make movements. This research adds ventral prefrontal cortex to the list of candidate brain areas for extracting signals for neural prosthetics applications." In Andersen's lab, Rizzuto's goal is to take the technology they've perfected in animal studies to human clinical trials. "I've already met with our first paralyzed patient, and graduate student Hilary Glidden and I are now doing noninvasive studies to see how the brain reorganizes after paralysis," he says. If it does reorganize, he notes, all the technology that has been developed in non-paralyzed humans may not work. "This is why we think our approach may be better, because we already know that the primary motor area shows pathological reorganization and degeneration after paralysis. We think our area of the brain is going to reorganize less, if at all. After this we hope to implant paralyzed patients with electrodes so that they may better communicate with others and control their environment." From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 21 14:26:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:26:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > For example, as a small step... one might ask > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? What about causing extreme unhapiness to other people not their own? Christian -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 19:26:38 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language In-Reply-To: <200503211900.j2LJ0gY17487@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050321192638.73632.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Paul says: >>But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that.<< --Agreed. The problem with using words like "fascism" is that they tend to get a knee-jerk response that says "nonsense! there's no fascism here!" Which is unfortunate, because if it were worded differently, everyone might actually agree on what's going on, at least in the abstract. One encouraging sign is that some columnists on the Left and the Right are occasionally breaking ranks with their party on individual issues. This means there may be less willingness to tolerate "political correctness" on one's own side in order to combat it on the other. More people are approaching the middle, when specific issues are on the table as opposed to lofty abstract principles with capital letters. Make health care or bankruptcy the issue and people suddenly have a lot more diverse positions than if you talk about Freedom, Values, Family, and so on. Statements like "People are becoming more and more intolerant of other points of view" would probably get a lot of agreement. "People are making decisisons that benefit their group at the expense of others" might also work. Or perhaps "political decisions are being made to benefit one group that may eventually be exploited by other groups to do a lot of damage". Even the most conservative Americans might worry if they were reminded that it won't just be Republican administrations that will benefit from new levels of secrecy, erosion of checks and balances, and so on. Once in place, such practices become institutionalized until something goes terribly wrong. People who insist the President is a man of Values, Faith and Integrity who would never consider him an icon of fascism might feel a little less confident when reminded that rule changes and political strategies that benefit the current administration will also be used by future ones, perhaps without the integrity a Bush supporter will swear is stronger than any corrupting influence in the system. Looking at the long term systemic trends rather than short-term tactical wrestling, things are a bit frightening, and I bet everyone can agree on that. So perhaps if we back off the accusations that one side or the other "wants to destroy everything we cherish", and focus on what future administrations might do based on the precedent set by this one, we might actually be able to form some agreement on what can be done about it, regardless of who is on top at any given time. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 22:18:44 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:18:44 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language Message-ID: <01C52E20.E49E7BF0.shovland@mindspring.com> I recently heard that young Evangelicals are thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:27 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language Paul says: >>But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that.<< --Agreed. The problem with using words like "fascism" is that they tend to get a knee-jerk response that says "nonsense! there's no fascism here!" Which is unfortunate, because if it were worded differently, everyone might actually agree on what's going on, at least in the abstract. One encouraging sign is that some columnists on the Left and the Right are occasionally breaking ranks with their party on individual issues. This means there may be less willingness to tolerate "political correctness" on one's own side in order to combat it on the other. More people are approaching the middle, when specific issues are on the table as opposed to lofty abstract principles with capital letters. Make health care or bankruptcy the issue and people suddenly have a lot more diverse positions than if you talk about Freedom, Values, Family, and so on. Statements like "People are becoming more and more intolerant of other points of view" would probably get a lot of agreement. "People are making decisisons that benefit their group at the expense of others" might also work. Or perhaps "political decisions are being made to benefit one group that may eventually be exploited by other groups to do a lot of damage". Even the most conservative Americans might worry if they were reminded that it won't just be Republican administrations that will benefit from new levels of secrecy, erosion of checks and balances, and so on. Once in place, such practices become institutionalized until something goes terribly wrong. People who insist the President is a man of Values, Faith and Integrity who would never consider him an icon of fascism might feel a little less confident when reminded that rule changes and political strategies that benefit the current administration will also be used by future ones, perhaps without the integrity a Bush supporter will swear is stronger than any corrupting influence in the system. Looking at the long term systemic trends rather than short-term tactical wrestling, things are a bit frightening, and I bet everyone can agree on that. So perhaps if we back off the accusations that one side or the other "wants to destroy everything we cherish", and focus on what future administrations might do based on the precedent set by this one, we might actually be able to form some agreement on what can be done about it, regardless of who is on top at any given time. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 21 23:09:55 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:09:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050321180835.01ccc6e0@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:26 AM 3/21/2005, Christian Rauh wrote: >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > > For example, as a small step... one might ask > > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? > >What about causing extreme unhapiness to other people not their own? Fair enough. But the key question is the one about DYNAMICS: are our actions and policies making things better or worse? Are people FEELING more freedom of speech in practice, for example, in their everyday lives? Here and elsewhere? >Christian >-- > >????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ >_____________________________________________________________________ >????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 04:15:07 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:15:07 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? Message-ID: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> "This isn't about Terri Shiavo. This is about looking like we care." -George Bush From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Mar 22 08:30:11 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:15 PM 3/21/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >"This isn't about Terri Shiavo. > >This is about looking like we care." > > > -George Bush Please forgive... if I repeat a frivolous set of words I hear "in the void"... "Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that they empathize more with the corpses?" Who is "they?" You have choices... From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 14:31:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:31:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Bacteria act as glue in nanomachines Message-ID: <01C52EA8.CFA4BAB0.shovland@mindspring.com> Prachi Patel Predd Electrodes snare microbes in key sites on silicon wafers. Click here to see video of live bacteria trapped by electric currents. ? The Hamers Group Media box Electric currents are being used to move bacteria around silicon chips and trap them at specific locations. The technique could help to assemble nanomachines from miniature parts, and to create a new generation of biological sensors. Nanodevices are typically built by connecting tiny components. But such a delicate task is not easy. So, many researchers are exploring ways to fix components in place using the binding properties of biological molecules, notably DNA. Robert Hamers and his colleagues from University of Wisconsin-Madison propose using entire microbes instead. The cells have surface proteins that attach to certain biological molecules. Once the cells are placed at specific sites on a silicon wafer, nanoparticles tagged with these molecules can bind to the cells in those locations. This is easier than dragging the nanoparticles themselves to the right spot, because their high density makes them harder to move through fluid media than the less dense living cells. The technique gives one a way to fix components such as quantum dots or carbon nanowires at very precise locations, explains Paul Cremer, a bioanalytical chemist at Texas A&M University in College Station. "That's potentially very exciting," he says. Golden rods The researchers use Bacillus mycoides, rod-shaped bacteria that are about 5 micrometres long. They pass a solution containing the cells over a silicon wafer with gold electrodes on its surface. The charge on the electrodes captures the bacteria, which flow along the electrodes' edges like luggage on a conveyor belt. The electrodes have tiny gaps between them. When a bacterium reaches a gap, it is trapped there by the electric field. It can be released by reducing the field between the electrodes, or permanently immobilized by increasing the voltage enough to break its cell wall. I think of it like catch-and-release fishing. Robert Hamers University of Wisconsin-Madison Cells have been manipulated using electric currents before but it is typically done using larger cells, which are moved around as they are observed under a microscope. Hamers' work is unique because the locations of the bacteria are detected electrically. When a cell bridges the gap between two electrodes, it acts like a wire and increases the current, signalling the bacterium's presence. Hamers presented the work on 17 March at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego. ADVERTISMENT "I think of it like catch-and-release fishing," he says. "You can collect the cell, measure it and then if you want you can release the field and let it go again." He believes that electrical detection will allow the method to be used on organisms that are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. It should also help the automation of nanoscale assembly. "You don't want to have to visually inspect every electrode to see what's happening," he says. "You could have a computer detect it electrically." As well as providing the glue for miniature devices, the system could also be used to detect harmful biological agents such as anthrax spores or certain strains of Escherichia coli bacteria. The electrodes on the chip could be coated with biomolecules designed to bind to particular pathogens and hold them in place, and other pathogens would flow away when the electrode voltage was reduced below a certain threshold. From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 15:00:43 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:00:43 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Plasmonic computer chips move closer Message-ID: <01C52EAC.DE52AD20.shovland@mindspring.com> Computer chips capable of speeding data around by rippling the electrons on the surface of metal wires just got a step closer, researchers say. Mark Brongersma, at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, US has found a new way to model the three-dimensional propagation of these ripples - called plasmons - in two dimensions. He says the new model is much simpler and more intuitive than existing simulations and will be crucial in the design of plasmonic components for computer chips. Plasmons travel at the speed of light and are created when light hits a metal at a particular angle, causing waves to propagate through electrons near the surface. "Right now, the simulations are so complex that only a few groups in the world can carry them out," says Brongersma. "The new model came out of a desire for much simpler models." Currently the biggest application for plasmons is in gold-coated glass biosensors, which detect when particular proteins or DNA are present - the bio-matter changes the angle at which light hitting the surface produces the most intense plasmons. But scientists would love to use plasmons to ferry data around computer chips because they could operate at frequencies 100,000 times faster than today's Pentium chips, without requiring thicker wiring. Light speed Ordinary light waves can transmit data at similarly high frequencies, but using photons to carry data across a computer chip is currently impossible. This is because the size of the optical fibre that carries the light waves must be about half the wavelength of the light, which is over twice the thickness of the wires in modern chips. "The big advantage of plasmons is that you can make the devices the same size as electrical components but give them the speed of photons," says Brongersma. Plasmon-carrying wires could also be made out of copper or aluminium, like the interconnects on today's computer chips. Brongersma points out that the speed of these interconnects has become a key limiting factor. While transistors have become faster at switching as manufacturers find ways to make them smaller and smaller, the wires that carry the data are not getting any faster. "We need to find new ways to connect transistors together," he says. Design issues To develop the new, simpler model, Brongersma showed that the intensity pattern of a plasmon travelling across the surface of a metal strip was the same as for a light wave travelling through an optical fibre. He says this indicates that traditional "ray-tracer" programs for modelling light waves should work for plasmons too. Such models are necessary if devices that generate and route multiple plasmons are ever to be designed, Brongersma says. He will publish the work in an upcoming issue of Optics Letters. "Any advance that aids design is a good thing," says Harry Atwater of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, US. But he warns that a bigger hurdle to plasmon-based computer chips is finding plasmon sources that are compatible with silicon. "The most important element is not the design tools, it is having the ingenuity to know what to do with them," he says. From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 22 17:46:04 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:46:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the environment when compared to similar drilling by other nations such as Russia. Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also has NOT occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to me like corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their fair share. Gerry Reinhart-Waller > "Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support > for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do > they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that > they empathize more with the corpses?" > > Who is "they?" You have choices... > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 20:38:56 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:38:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals In-Reply-To: <200503221900.j2MJ0HY27018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050322203856.41131.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Steve says: >>I recently heard that young Evangelicalsare thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy.<< --I think the children of Evangelicals may be on the forefront of the future progressive movement. It wasn't uncommon for Christians to be found in "hippie" circles in the 60's. The ultra-conservative mindset is more of a backlash than anything inherent in Christianity, and overseas Christians often wonder if our own Christians are a bit loopy. The left Behind mindset can't last very long, certainly not through the middle of this century, as it hinges on the belief that the Rapture will happen within a lifetime of Israel's statehood. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 20:44:12 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] dynamics In-Reply-To: <200503221900.j2MJ0HY27018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050322204412.53214.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Paul says: >>But the key question is the one about DYNAMICS: are our actions and policies making things better or worse? Are people FEELING more freedom of speech in practice, for example, in their everyday lives? Here and elsewhere?<< --Agreed. Most people seem to rely on a few basic presuppositions against which all new information is compared. A systems view which updates its goals and means as the system evolves would make more sense. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Mar 22 23:36:45 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:46 PM 3/22/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the environment >when compared to similar drilling by other nations such as Russia. >Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also has NOT >occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to me like >corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their fair share. So anyone who doesn't want to pay more than $3/gallon forever is an evil environmentalist and leftist? I suppose that you and Osama may agree on something. But then again, maybe this is an insult to Osama, in this context. He would not be so extreme, and not indulge in stereotypes to such a degree. >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > >>"Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support >>for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do >>they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that >>they empathize more with the corpses?" >> >>Who is "they?" You have choices... >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 23 00:33:46 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:33:46 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4240B96A.8030808@earthlink.net> European and most Asian countries pay more than $3/gallon for gasoline. My position is that oil isn't the only energy product available. There are many alternative energies including wind and solar that are presently out there and within an affordable price range. Higher fuel costs for oil aid in making these products more attractive. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 12:46 PM 3/22/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the >> environment when compared to similar drilling by other nations such >> as Russia. >> Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also >> has NOT occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to >> me like corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their >> fair share. > > > So anyone who doesn't want to pay more than $3/gallon forever is an > evil environmentalist and leftist? > > I suppose that you and Osama may agree on something. But then again, > maybe this > is an insult to Osama, in this context. He would not be so extreme, and > not indulge in stereotypes to such a degree. > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 05:24:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:24:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals Message-ID: <01C52F25.993D6440.shovland@mindspring.com> Most of the left behind crowd will indeed be gone by mid-century. Raptured one at a time :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:39 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals Steve says: >>I recently heard that young Evangelicalsare thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy.<< --I think the children of Evangelicals may be on the forefront of the future progressive movement. It wasn't uncommon for Christians to be found in "hippie" circles in the 60's. The ultra-conservative mindset is more of a backlash than anything inherent in Christianity, and overseas Christians often wonder if our own Christians are a bit loopy. The left Behind mindset can't last very long, certainly not through the middle of this century, as it hinges on the belief that the Rapture will happen within a lifetime of Israel's statehood. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 14:44:21 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:44:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nano-Probes Allow an Inside Look at Cell Nuclei Message-ID: <01C52F73.BF443530.shovland@mindspring.com> Contact: Dan Krotz, (510) 486-4019, dakrotz at lbl.gov BERKELEY, CA - Nanotechnology may be in its infancy, but biologists may soon use it to watch the inner workings of a living cell like never before. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have developed a way to sneak nano-sized probes inside cell nuclei where they can track life's fundamental processes, such as DNA repair, for hours on end. "Our work represents the first time a biologist can image long-term phenomena within the nuclei of living cells," says Fanqing Chen of Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, who developed the technique with Daniele Gerion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Their success lies in specially prepared crystalline semiconductors composed of a few hundred or thousand atoms that emit different colors of light when illuminated by a laser. Because these fluorescent probes are stable and nontoxic, they have the ability to remain in a cell's nucleus - without harming the cell or fading out - much longer than conventional fluorescent labels. This could give biologists a ringside seat to nuclear processes that span several hours or days, such as DNA replication, genomic alterations, and cell cycle control. The long-lived probes may also allow researchers to track the effectiveness of disease-fighting drugs that target these processes. "We could determine whether a drug has arrived where it is supposed to, and if it is having the desired impact," says Chen. The first enduring look into the secret lives of cell nuclei comes by way of a strong collaboration between biologists and chemists. For the past four years, Chen and Gerion have worked closely with members of the lab of Paul Alivisatos, a Berkeley Lab chemist in the Materials Sciences Division and Associate Laboratory Director who helped pioneer the development of nano-sized crystals of semiconductor materials. Called quantum dots, these microscopic crystals have shown promise in such wide-ranging applications as solar cells, computer design, and biology. In 1998, for example, Alivisatos developed a way to fashion inorganic nanocrystals composed of cadmium selenide and cadmium sulfide into fluorescent probes suitable for the study of living cells. This technology has been licensed to the Hayward, California-based Quantum Dot Corporation for use in biological assays. More recently, Chen and Gerion wondered if they could get even closer to the genetic action by transporting quantum dots inside cell nuclei. "We took the tool Paul developed and applied it to a problem faced by biologists every day - getting inside the nucleus, a desirable target because the cell's genetic information resides there," says Chen. First, they had to breach the nuclear membrane, which has pores that are only about 20 nanometers wide. To fit through these tiny slits, Chen and Gerion used an especially compact cadmium selenide/zinc sulfide quantum dot coated with silica. Next, they stole a trick from a virus's playbook to smuggle this nanocrystal past the highly selective membrane that guards the entrance into the nucleus. In nature, a virus called SV40 is coated with a protein that binds to a cell's nuclear trafficking mechanism, a ploy that gives the virus an unhindered ride inside the nucleus. Chen and Gerion obtained a portion of this protein and attached it to the quantum dot. The result is a hybrid quantum dot, part biological molecule and part nano-sized semiconductor, that is small enough to slide through the nuclear membrane's pores and believable enough to slip past the membrane's barriers. "We knew we could get quantum dots inside a cell, but getting them through the nuclear membrane is very difficult," says Chen. "So we learned from the virus." These two images portray the movement of the nano-sized probes. On the left, a false-color overlay of fluorescence from a cell taken at four minute intervals reveals the dots moving from the green to the red positions. On the right, a large aggregate of immobile dots is indicated with the red arrow, while the circled stars and arrows indicate dots that move. So far, Chen and Gerion have been able to introduce and retain quantum dots in the nuclei of living cells for up to a week without harming the cell. In addition, quantum dots fluoresce for days at a resolution high enough to detect biological events carried out by single molecules. In contrast, conventional labels such as organic fluorescent dyes and green fluorescent proteins only fluoresce for a few minutes at a high resolution. These labels are also either toxic to cells or difficult to construct and manipulate. In the future, they hope to tailor quantum dots to track specific chemical reactions inside nuclei, such as how proteins help repair DNA after irradiation. They have already visualized the dots' journey from the area surrounding the nucleus to inside the nucleus, a feat that opens the door for real-time observations of nuclear trafficking mechanisms. They also hope to target other cellular organelles besides the nucleus, such as mitochondria and Golgi bodies. And because quantum dots emit different colors of light based on their size, they can be used to observe the transfer of material between cells. "We can have two different quantum dots in two different cells, and watch as the cells exchange their mitochondria," says Chen, adding that their technique paves the way for imaging a host of other long-term biological events. "The toughest part is getting inside the nucleus, and we have already cleared that hurdle." Chen and Gerion's research was published in the 2004, Vol. 2, No. 10 issue of Nano Letters. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov . From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 23 15:23:57 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:23:57 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <42418A0D.1080706@solution-consulting.com> The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 Lynn From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 15:47:06 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:47:06 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> Who appointed the current members of the FEC? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 Lynn _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 17:20:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:20:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Searching for New Drugs in Virtual Molecule Databases Message-ID: <01C52F89.90D21800.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw43/rarey.html by Matthias Rarey and Thomas Lengauer The rapid progress in sequencing the human genome opens the possibility for the near future to understand many diseases better on molecular level and to obtain so-called target proteins for pharmaceutical research. If such a target protein is identified, the search for those molecules begins which influence the protein's activity specifically and which are therefore considered to be potential drugs against the disease. At GMD, approaches to the computer-based search for new drugs are being developed (virtual screening) which have already been used by industry in parts. From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 24 00:47:19 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:47:19 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech In-Reply-To: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42420E17.30901@solution-consulting.com> Statuatorially they are half republican and half democrat. Read the editorial, it gives more detail. Steve Hovland wrote: >Who appointed the current members of the FEC? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech > >The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. >Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? > >http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 > >Lynn > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 24 02:09:20 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:09:20 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <01C52FD3.7090F440.shovland@mindspring.com> This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:47 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Statuatorially they are half republican and half democrat. Read the editorial, it gives more detail. Steve Hovland wrote: >Who appointed the current members of the FEC? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech > >The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. >Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? > >http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 > >Lynn > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 19:30:34 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:30:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <200503241900.j2OJ0RY19131@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050324193035.11929.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< --Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and make decisions based on ideology and partisan posturing, some group in the middle will eventually reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world where everyone around them reinforces their views, an echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) but at some point, those in the middle will speak up and renounce the extremes. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 25 01:41:53 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:41:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity Message-ID: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> What I am thinking is that if the FEC cracks down on the bloggers they will be more mad at the FEC than they will at each other... Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:31 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity >>This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< --Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and make decisions based on ideology and partisan posturing, some group in the middle will eventually reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world where everyone around them reinforces their views, an echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) but at some point, those in the middle will speak up and renounce the extremes. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 02:07:32 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:07:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Quote from Nietzsche: "Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". Quote from me" "Religion is a basic form of morality". Best wishes, Gerry Reinhart-Waller From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 02:12:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:12:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42437393.1060001@earthlink.net> And that's how Revolution begins. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >What I am thinking is that if the FEC cracks >down on the bloggers they will be more mad >at the FEC than they will at each other... > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:31 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity > > > > >>>This may radicalize a whole new group on >>> >>> >both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< > >--Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and >make decisions based on ideology and partisan >posturing, some group in the middle will eventually >reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all >isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who >are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world >where everyone around them reinforces their views, an >echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or >family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, >overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated >extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic >ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every >step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) >but at some point, those in the middle will speak up >and renounce the extremes. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 02:26:57 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:26:57 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity. Stephen At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Quote from Nietzsche: > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > >Quote from me" > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > >Best wishes, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 02:26:57 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:26:57 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity. Stephen At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Quote from Nietzsche: > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > >Quote from me" > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > >Best wishes, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 03:36:37 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:36:37 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more about. Any references? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Stephen Springette wrote: > Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: > > Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a > struggle > is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded > in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists > imposed > by decree by an unforgiving deity. > > Stephen > > At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >Quote from Nietzsche: > > > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > > > >Quote from me" > > > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > > > >Best wishes, > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > >_______________________________________________ > >paleopsych mailing list > >paleopsych at paleopsych.org > >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor* > ADVERTISEMENT > click here > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bigbangtango/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > bigbangtango-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 12:23:47 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:23:47 +0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325201630.03170c00@mail.iinet.net.au> Hmmmm. Not too sure I have any "references" so much as my own perspective in semiotics (refer my website below). Also, Buddhism seems to infer something of an appreciation for the plight of all living things, as do some other traditions in mysticism. At 11:36 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of >morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more >about. Any references? > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >Stephen Springette wrote: > >>Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: >> >>Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle >>is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded >>in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed >>by decree by an unforgiving deity. >> >>Stephen >> >>At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >Quote from Nietzsche: >> > >> >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". >> > >> >Quote from me" >> > >> >"Religion is a basic form of morality". >> > >> >Best wishes, >> >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >______________________________________________ > >There can be no complexity without simplicity: >http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/biosem.html > >Stephen Springette >______________________________________________ From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 25 14:45:11 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:45:11 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene Message-ID: <01C53106.324C6780.shovland@mindspring.com> By NICHOLAS WADE Published: March 23, 2005 In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents, as if some handy backup copy with the right version had been made in the grandparents' generation or earlier. The finding implies that some organisms may contain a cryptic backup copy of their genome that bypasses the usual mechanisms of heredity. If confirmed, it would represent an unprecedented exception to the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century. Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material. The discovery also raises interesting biological questions - including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system. "It looks like a marvelous discovery," said Dr. Elliott Meyerowitz, a plant geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, described the finding as "a really strange and unexpected result," which would be important if the observation holds up and applies widely in nature. The result, reported online yesterday in the journal Nature by Dr. Robert E. Pruitt, Dr. Susan J. Lolle and colleagues at Purdue, has been found in a single species, the mustardlike plant called arabidopsis that is the standard laboratory organism of plant geneticists. But there are hints that the same mechanism may occur in people, according to a commentary by Dr. Detlef Weigel of the Max-Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tubingen, Germany. Dr. Weigel describes the Purdue work as "a spectacular discovery." The finding grew out of a research project started three years ago in which Dr. Pruitt and Dr. Lolle were trying to understand the genes that control the plant's outer skin, or cuticle. As part of the project, they were studying plants with a mutated gene that made the plant's petals and other floral organs clump together. Because each of the plant's two copies of the gene were in mutated form, they had virtually no chance of having normal offspring. But up to 10 percent of the plants' offspring kept reverting to normal. Various rare events can make this happen, but none involve altering the actual sequence of DNA units in the gene. Yet when the researchers analyzed the mutated gene, known as hothead, they found it had changed, with the mutated DNA units being changed back to normal form. "That was the moment when it was a complete shock," Dr. Pruitt said. A mutated gene can be put right by various mechanisms that are already known, but all require a correct copy of the gene to be available to serve as the template. The Purdue team scanned the DNA of the entire arabidopsis genome for a second, cryptic copy of the hothead gene but could find none. Dr. Pruitt and his colleagues argue that a correct template must exist, but because it is not in the form of DNA, it probably exists as RNA, DNA's close chemical cousin. RNA performs many important roles in the cell, and is the hereditary material of some viruses. But it is less stable than DNA, and so has been regarded as unsuitable for preserving the genetic information of higher organisms. Dr. Pruitt said he favored the idea that there is an RNA backup copy for the entire genome, not just the hothead gene, and that it might be set in motion when the plant was under stress, as is the case with those having mutated hothead genes. He and other experts said it was possible that an entire RNA backup copy of the genome could exist without being detected, especially since there has been no reason until now to look for it. Scientific journals often take months or years to get comfortable with articles presenting novel ideas. But Nature accepted the paper within six weeks of receiving it. Dr. Christopher Surridge, a biology editor at Nature, said the finding had been discussed at scientific conferences for quite a while, with people saying it was impossible and proposing alternative explanations. But the authors had checked all these out and disposed of them, Dr. Surridge said. As for their proposal of a backup RNA genome, "that is very much a hypothesis, and basically the least mad hypothesis for how this might be working," Dr. Surridge said. From ross.buck at uconn.edu Fri Mar 25 15:31:55 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Buck, Ross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:31:55 -0500 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person (P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, sympathy, and contempt. BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. (This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or flying an aircraft into a building. Cheers! Ross Ross Buck, Ph. D. Professor of Communication Sciences and Psychology Communication Sciences U-1085 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-1085 860-486-4494 fax 860-486-5422 Ross.buck at uconn.edu http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. Reinhart-Waller Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:37 PM To: bigbangtango at yahoogroups.com; Paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more about. Any references? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Stephen Springette wrote: > Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: > > Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a > struggle > is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded > in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists > imposed > by decree by an unforgiving deity. > > Stephen > > At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >Quote from Nietzsche: > > > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > > > >Quote from me" > > > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > > > >Best wishes, > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > >_______________________________________________ > >paleopsych mailing list > >paleopsych at paleopsych.org > >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor* > ADVERTISEMENT > click here > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bigbangtango/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > bigbangtango-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 20:14:33 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:14:33 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42447129.4080901@earthlink.net> >>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms folded. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral >emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of >normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" >pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person >(P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with >envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add >considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get >the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, >sympathy, and contempt. > >BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. >(This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than >liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political >philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. > >Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") >that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own >devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal >moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. >Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own >community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, >attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within >one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or >flying an aircraft into a building. > >Cheers! Ross > >Ross Buck, Ph. D. >Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology >Communication Sciences U-1085 >University of Connecticut >Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >860-486-4494 >fax 860-486-5422 >Ross.buck at uconn.edu >http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > >Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the >gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral >emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of >Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. > > > > > From ross.buck at uconn.edu Fri Mar 25 20:18:43 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Buck, Ross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:18:43 -0500 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... Ross -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. Reinhart-Waller Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms folded. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral >emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of >normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" >pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person >(P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with >envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add >considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get >the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, >sympathy, and contempt. > >BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. >(This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than >liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political >philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. > >Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") >that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own >devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal >moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. >Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own >community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, >attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within >one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or >flying an aircraft into a building. > >Cheers! Ross > >Ross Buck, Ph. D. >Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology >Communication Sciences U-1085 >University of Connecticut >Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >860-486-4494 >fax 860-486-5422 >Ross.buck at uconn.edu >http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > >Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the >gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral >emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of >Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. > > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 20:34:03 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:34:03 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a half-breed. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... > >Ross > >-----Original Message----- >From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >Reinhart-Waller >Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > >>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >>> >>> >conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> > >Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >folded. > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 22:41:53 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:41:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] religious hypocrisy In-Reply-To: <200503251900.j2PJ0LY15179@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050325224153.5467.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Stephen says: >>Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity.<< --Very true. Fundamentalism seems to disable empathy, by conferring the status of the Other onto heretical groups. It's one thing to forgive your enemies, another if you think their refusal to accept your religion means they are unrepentant and undeserving of forgiveness. Christianity pays lip service to the idea that anyone, however fallen, can be saved and reborn as a "new creature in Christ". A rather beautiful belief, in my opinion, one which is utterly ignored when the subject of the death penalty comes up. I've heard politically active Christians who have no problem agitating against gay marriage say "Yes, Christ forgives a murderer who repents, but the state has the right to take life for life and we are to respect the state." Responsibility is passed to the state. How convenient! I like to make a hand-washing motion when I hear that argument. Empathy, plus a systems view of society, seem to make up a pretty decent moral code, but a fundamentalist trusts only those who share his belief and cannot extend empathy much further. When empathy speaks, it must be compartmentalized and kept apart from belief. This makes it easy for authoritarian religious groups to treat "infidels" as objects rather than human beings. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kendulf at shaw.ca Sat Mar 26 02:50:40 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:50:40 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a > half-breed. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > Buck, Ross wrote: > >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... >> >>Ross >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >>Reinhart-Waller >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> >> >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >>>> >>>> >>conservatives >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> >> >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >>folded. >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 26 04:25:47 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:25:47 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them barely smile. Yet, to each his own. Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if timing would now be correct. Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to poverty. The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Val Geist wrote: > Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and > damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I > have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar > Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard > Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry > denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination > at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and > his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, > quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their > callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! > (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart > escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any > catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's > leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, > Val Geist > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a > > half-breed. > > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > Buck, Ross wrote: > > > >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... > >> > >>Ross > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > > >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. > >>Reinhart-Waller > >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM > >>To: The new improved paleopsych list > >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > >> > >> > >> > >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and > >>>> > >>>> > >>conservatives > >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with > >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> > >> > >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those > >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms > >>folded. > >> > >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > paleopsych mailing list > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 26 19:18:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:18:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: Easter Bunny hop Message-ID: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> This is better than the Bunny Hop. An early Happy Easter!! http://www.grayace.com/dex/bunny.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kendulf at shaw.ca Sat Mar 26 18:20:22 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:20:22 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on this continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into two factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to me. And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less humor than the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but they do share historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But again, humor is a wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity despite a rich sample of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie Jokes....Come to think of it what I will miss about Communism is the loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 year, 10 year, 5 year varieties (if you got caught telling the first type: 25 years in jail! ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and Communist jokes both debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I appreciate both, its nice to know that they will be appreciated less and less as time goes on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of the German language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking of the writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock reading it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes in humor transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not remember heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the Great, a king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, crossed swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be honored by the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, adored by Napoleon for his military skills, but remembered best of all for his humor. In the Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach against the French and defeated them. A contingent of French officers stood under guard in the evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A lonely horseman approached them, and they recognized the king who had defeated them. Fredrick halted, tipped his hat to the French officers and a hush fell over the dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I was expecting you. But not so many and not so soon". At war with France, and yet he was the rage in Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The humor of this wonderful American, then a youngster marching with Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved Patton to white rage who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. This young man saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which friend and foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the courage to portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his cow-boy humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in dead earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, but it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron von Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain of Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set as a play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest German military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to flee Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far apart. And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After all, the court jester was valued because only he could say the truth to the king! "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist on stage in Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a boar, a sow and a piglet. "Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to you the Family Mann! This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this" and he pointed to the big, fat boar " is Hermann!". he was promptly hauled off to jail for insulting Hermann Goering. After his jail time he appeared on stage. In trot the three pigs - a turmoil broke out in the audience! "Ladies and Gentlemen, whom have I brought with me?" The audience roared "Die Familie Mann". Quieting the turmoil he shouted "No, No. This is not the Family Mann. These are merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this" and her pointed to the boar" is the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in jail for!". Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a small stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a culture that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one way to let it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour pusses. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them barely > smile. Yet, to each his own. > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if > timing would now be correct. > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to > poverty. > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. > > Regards, > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > > Val Geist wrote: > >> Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and >> damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I >> have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar >> Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard >> Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry >> denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination >> at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and >> his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, >> quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their >> callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! >> (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart >> escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any >> catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's >> leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, >> Val Geist >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM >> Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a >> > half-breed. >> > >> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> > >> > Buck, Ross wrote: >> > >> >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... >> >> >> >>Ross >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >> >> >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >> >>Reinhart-Waller >> >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >> >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >> >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>conservatives >> >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >> >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> >> >> >> >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >> >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >> >>folded. >> >> >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > paleopsych mailing list >> > paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 >> > >> > >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 26 22:46:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: Easter Bunny hop In-Reply-To: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4245E62D.6000909@earthlink.net> It certain is contemporary! Thanks loads. And he's a link to the same which might work faster. http://i.flowgo.com/greetings/rapeasterbunny/rapeasterbunny.swf Happy Easter everyone! Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: > > > This is better than the Bunny Hop. An early Happy Easter!! > http://www.grayace.com/dex/bunny.html > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 27 05:04:16 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:04:16 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <42463ED0.4080405@earthlink.net> Hi Vole, I find your explanation of Lutherans fascinating, especially the religious thugs. This is the group I'm intimately familiar with. Yep, I might even compare them to the KKK....they're really scary and clueless. Too bad all the jokes from many of our finer folks have gone the way of podunk. Humor is something I was raised with as a child and something now I never hear. Tis a pity I must say. I know lots of Russian jokes but as far as Communism ones, I can't seem to separate the two. Hmmm, could it be something that Breznev said? Yes. Yes. Maybe a tale about landing on the moon? Both Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were politically incorrect in the 1960s so I'm not surprised you found an unwatered down version reading them in German. Americans hated the word Nigger et. al used by Huck and that started the squabble. Wow....your stream of consciousness is wonderful....so knowledgeable about American Literature. But I must confess......as an English major the only Lit I avoided was Americn. I found it too undisciplied and too WILD for my tastes. So be it. Humor is a wonderful way to express inner feelings only my German inlaws haven't seen the light. Take care, Gerry Val Geist wrote: > Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are > religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as > religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on > this continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into > two factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as > representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A > collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to > me. And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less > humor than the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but > they do share historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But > again, humor is a wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity > despite a rich sample of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie > Jokes....Come to think of it what I will miss about Communism is the > loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 year, 10 year, 5 year > varieties (if you got caught telling the first type: 25 years in jail! > ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and Communist jokes both > debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I appreciate both, its > nice to know that they will be appreciated less and less as time goes > on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of the German > language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking of the > writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in > German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock > reading it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes > in humor transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not > remember heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the > Great, a king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, > crossed swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be > honored by the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, > adored by Napoleon for his military skills, but remembered best of all > for his humor. In the Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach > against the French and defeated them. A contingent of French officers > stood under guard in the evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A > lonely horseman approached them, and they recognized the king who had > defeated them. Fredrick halted, tipped his hat to the French officers > and a hush fell over the dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I > was expecting you. But not so many and not so soon". At war with > France, and yet he was the rage in Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The > humor of this wonderful American, then a youngster marching with > Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved Patton to white rage > who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. This young man > saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which friend and > foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the courage to > portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his cow-boy > humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in dead > earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin > must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war > propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all > about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, > but it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to > medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron > von Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain > of Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set > as a play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest > German military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to > flee Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far > apart. And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After > all, the court jester was valued because only he could say the truth > to the king! "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist > on stage in Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a > boar, a sow and a piglet. "/Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to > you the Family Mann! This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this/" > and he pointed to the big, fat boar " /*is Hermann*/!". he was > promptly hauled off to jail for insulting Hermann Goering. After his > jail time he appeared on stage. In trot the three pigs - a turmoil > broke out in the audience! "/Ladies and Gentlemen, whom have I brought > with me?/" The audience roared "/Die Familie Mann/". Quieting the > turmoil he shouted "/No, No/. /This is not the Family Mann. These are > merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this/" and her pointed to the > boar" is /the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in jail for/!". > Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a small > stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a > culture that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one > way to let it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour > pusses. Cheers, Val Geist > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM > Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've > > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them > barely > > smile. Yet, to each his own. > > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect > > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing > > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if > > timing would now be correct. > > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's > > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to > > poverty. > > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what > > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid > > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. > > > > Regards, > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > From kendulf at shaw.ca Sun Mar 27 07:30:41 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:30:41 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <42463ED0.4080405@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003d01c5329e$e1c47f60$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Garry, Communist jokes came not only from Russia, but occupied countries as well. A good many are about Russians - understandably. Escapees from the paradise behind the Iron Curtain published books of such. Thanks for the tip about Mark Twain; I need to find an original English copy. I read him in the 1940's and 50's. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > Hi Vole, > I find your explanation of Lutherans fascinating, especially the religious > thugs. This is the group I'm intimately familiar with. Yep, I might even > compare them to the KKK....they're really scary and clueless. Too bad all > the jokes from many of our finer folks have gone the way of podunk. Humor > is something I was raised with as a child and something now I never hear. > Tis a pity I must say. > I know lots of Russian jokes but as far as Communism ones, I can't seem to > separate the two. Hmmm, could it be something that Breznev said? Yes. > Yes. Maybe a tale about landing on the moon? > Both Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were politically incorrect in the 1960s so > I'm not surprised you found an unwatered down version reading them in > German. Americans hated the word Nigger et. al used by Huck and that > started the squabble. > Wow....your stream of consciousness is wonderful....so knowledgeable about > American Literature. But I must confess......as an English major the only > Lit I avoided was Americn. I found it too undisciplied and too WILD for > my tastes. So be it. > Humor is a wonderful way to express inner feelings only my German inlaws > haven't seen the light. > Take care, > Gerry > > > > > > > > > > Val Geist wrote: > >> Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are >> religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as >> religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on this >> continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into two >> factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as >> representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A >> collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to me. >> And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less humor than >> the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but they do share >> historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But again, humor is a >> wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity despite a rich sample >> of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie Jokes....Come to think of it what I >> will miss about Communism is the loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 >> year, 10 year, 5 year varieties (if you got caught telling the first >> type: 25 years in jail! ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and >> Communist jokes both debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I >> appreciate both, its nice to know that they will be appreciated less and >> less as time goes on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of >> the German language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking >> of the writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in >> German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock reading >> it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes in humor >> transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not remember >> heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the Great, a >> king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, crossed >> swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be honored by >> the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, adored by Napoleon >> for his military skills, but remembered best of all for his humor. In the >> Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach against the French and >> defeated them. A contingent of French officers stood under guard in the >> evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A lonely horseman approached >> them, and they recognized the king who had defeated them. Fredrick >> halted, tipped his hat to the French officers and a hush fell over the >> dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I was expecting you. But not >> so many and not so soon". At war with France, and yet he was the rage in >> Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The humor of this wonderful American, then a >> youngster marching with Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved >> Patton to white rage who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. >> This young man saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which >> friend and foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the >> courage to portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his >> cow-boy humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in >> dead earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin >> must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war >> propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all >> about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, but >> it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to >> medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron von >> Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain of >> Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set as a >> play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest German >> military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to flee >> Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far apart. >> And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After all, the >> court jester was valued because only he could say the truth to the king! >> "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist on stage in >> Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a boar, a sow and >> a piglet. "/Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to you the Family Mann! >> This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this/" and he pointed to the >> big, fat boar " /*is Hermann*/!". he was promptly hauled off to jail for >> insulting Hermann Goering. After his jail time he appeared on stage. In >> trot the three pigs - a turmoil broke out in the audience! "/Ladies and >> Gentlemen, whom have I brought with me?/" The audience roared "/Die >> Familie Mann/". Quieting the turmoil he shouted "/No, No/. /This is not >> the Family Mann. These are merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this/" >> and her pointed to the boar" is /the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in >> jail for/!". Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a >> small stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a culture >> that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one way to let >> it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour pusses. Cheers, >> Val Geist >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've >> > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them >> barely >> > smile. Yet, to each his own. >> > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect >> > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing >> > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if >> > timing would now be correct. >> > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's >> > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to >> > poverty. >> > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what >> > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid >> > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 27 16:02:15 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:02:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Geo-Greening by Example Message-ID: <01C532A3.4AE05100.shovland@mindspring.com> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: March 27, 2005 How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency. "Ah, Friedman, but you overstate the case." No, I understate it. Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism. By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil. Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: "Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm." All the elements of what I like to call a geo-green strategy are known: We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down. At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption. We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet." And we need some kind of carbon tax that would move more industries from coal to wind, hydro and solar power, or other, cleaner fuels. The revenue from these taxes would go to pay down the deficit and the reduction in oil imports would help to strengthen the dollar and defuse competition for energy with China. It's smart geopolitics. It's smart fiscal policy. It is smart climate policy. Most of all - it's smart politics! Even evangelicals are speaking out about our need to protect God's green earth. "The Republican Party is much greener than George Bush or Dick Cheney," remarked Mr. Schwartz. "There is now a near convergence of support on the environmental issue. Look at how popular [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, a green Republican, is becoming because of what he has done on the environment in California." Imagine if George Bush declared that he was getting rid of his limousine for an armor-plated Ford Escape hybrid, adopting a geo-green strategy and building an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens to sustain it. His popularity at home - and abroad - would soar. The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, he prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it? My response: Subj: The Bush crime family doesn't care about real problems They only care about stealing as much as they can for as long as they can. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:52:38 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:52:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Schaivo and ... Message-ID: Emerging issues of the right-to-life of chimeras (mice genes placed in humans, or human genes placed in mice, which has already been done in South Korea) or of just experiments manipulating the human genome that cannot live on their own but could be kept alive at great expense are going to be far more important that the instant case of Terri Schiavo. Saying that such creatures should not be conceived or be allow to develop to term does not solve the ethical problem of what happens if they do, any more than what happens when genetically quite normal but socially irresponsible parents give birth to children they cannot support in a reasonable fashion until they have completed schooling. Responsible parents will provide a decent education for their children and take out insurance for death and disability. Irresponsible parents are the source of the greatest negative externalities (public bads) in the country. The rest of us pay for this through public education, welfare, and so on, and have elected politicians to make these provisions. Yet rarely are irresponsible parents punished. ---------------- Below I show how the rhetoric is playing out. There are 50,700 articles as of right now, but 35,400 on Wednesday when I made a count. Now that Lent is over, I'm resuming my postings and will concentrate today on the Schiavo case, sending the best background articles I've come across and those that display the wide range of opinions. This I do to get you to think for yourself but also to drink deeply in the human comedy. As always, I wish we could have heard Mr. Mencken's reactions. I'll put, yet again, a succinct statement of his on American politics, at the end. Expect up to twenty articles on all sorts of subjects if you are on one of my private lists. If you are just in my address book, I'll send just this one article on the Schiavo case. I may, as always, send you things on other subjects at other times. I'll target public lists selectively. ----------------------- My observations on the Schiavo case: 1. Death is a small price to pay for life. We now know from evolutionary biology that death occurs because of sexual reproduction, though the jury is out on which theory or combination of theories explains how sexual reproduction came about in the first place. That the price is small is, of course, a judgment of value, but all such judgments should rest on factual foundations. 2. Human life ceases to be of value when the brain gets below a certain point or when pain greatly outweighs pleasure. At this point, the price of what was once a valuable life should be paid. Michael should have let go of Terri soon after the medical facts became apparent. 3. The law is correct in assigning a strong presumption in favor of the spouse in making end-of-life decisions in case the patient can no longer make them. This is to promote family values, for the greatest purpose of monogamous marriage is to turn cads into dads. The spouse gets to decide, even if going against the express wishes of the patient, when death, the price of life, is to be paid. All this is rebuttable, but nothing in the instant case came anywhere close to making such a rebuttal. 4. When these cases come before courts, it is better to err on the side of death, of paying for the price of life right now, rather than on the side of valueless life. The monies could be better spent on many other things. 5. Though the price of a valueless life should be paid, the spouse should be free to pay, out of his own pocket or to use insurance he paid for out of his own pocket, to withhold paying the price. Michael did so for many years. But no one else should be able to claim the body, and the taxpayers should not have to pay for continued care. (Medicare paid for part of the costs of keeping Terri alive, Michael paid for a lot of it for many years, and the various hospices Terri stayed at picked up part of the tab. Whether, in a country where health care is hugely regulated by governments, this amounts to indirect taxation, I do not know.) I applaud Michael for standing up for his own rights and refusing the offer of a California businessman of $1 million to assign him the power of attorney over Terri. 6. The Evangelical and Roman Catholic response is quite understandable. Unlike their relativist counterparts, they hold to an absolute source of morality. (It's a continuum, really. More some other time. I'll be sending a piece on the various Jewish views later.) This source is their own interpretation of their religion. (There are a few secular believers in what Frank Knight called "relatively absolute absolutes": Larry Arnhart, the late Robert Nisbet, Roger Scruton, probably Gertrude Himmelfarb, and me.) 7. There has been far too much group think among these Christians. The ostensible source of the revealed source of their absolute morals, namely the Bible, is silent on these issues. David Hume noted two centuries ago that the Bible does not prohibit suicide. (Neither does it prohibit abortion.) We would certainly be hearing the relevant chapters and verses if they were there. Instead, we get the constructs of theologians. 8. What the absolutist does is draw a line that must not be crossed. The line can and will be arbitrary. Indeed, state laws are arbitrary and it is the job of lawyers, judges, *and* jurors to decide just exactly what the law is in specific cases. What's important is to understand the necessity for this element of the arbitrary and to abide by the rule of law and not to keep going back to overturn the voter count in Florida in the Presidential election of 2000. 9. I charge the Democrats with gross hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. The notion of a "Living Constitution" is not an absurd one, and Mr. Jefferson was something of a proponent of it. But for the liberals to have suddenly discovered the merits of Federalism is too much! 10. The Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted for the Terri bill were playing it safe. Their votes in favor will be entirely forgotten by the next election. Meanwhile, Republican unity has been damaged by the escalation to the Federal legislative level, whether for good or ill to the Republic, deponent sayeth nothing. 11. The contest became a primate territorial fight, a battle over what Freud called the narcissism of small differences. 12. I had predicted that someone would assassinate Michael in order "to save Terri's life," since custody over Terri would devolve upon her parents. This has not happened so far. Michael, along with Judges George Greer and James Whittemore have received death threats, as has Michael's brother and family, which he has moved to safety. No assassinations yet, but the culture war could escalate this way and into suicide bombings. The Bible does not directly prohibit suicide but it repeatedly praises martyrs. We shall see. 13. My record as a prophet is not a good one. Google News has 35,400 articles on Schiavo, as of Wednesday, March 23. Here's the number that also contain: 44 Hitler 18 Osama 14 Stalin 1 Lenin 0 Mao 0 Pol Pot 0 Ghengis Khan 19 dictator 18 monster 11 saint 1 sinner 54 sin 825 murder 1150 suicide But (no surprise): 15,500 Bush 1,450 Clinton 35 Hillary 25 Lincoln 21 Jefferson 0 Fillmore 0 bathtub And then: 49 Nazi 23 communist 20 genocide 9 racist 7 fascist 1 elitist > From religion: 77 Heaven 81 Hell 21 Limbo (Terri's state between life and death, legal limbo, Terri's own "hellish limbo") 18 Devil 12 Satan 2 Purgatory 2 Paradise 0 Nirvana 60 grandstanding 30 "political advantage" 25 exploit 23 exploiting 2740 tragedy 37 farce 27 disaster 19 comedy 4 calamity And, sadly, only: 48 federalism 12 federalist 80 "states' rights" 28 "state's rights", but 675 "separation of powers" ---------------- On Being an American by H.L. Mencken (from Prejudices, Third Series (1922)) 4 All the while I have been forgetting the third of my reasons for remaining so faithful a citizen of the Federation, despite all the lascivious inducements from expatriates to follow them beyond the seas, and all the surly suggestions from patriots that I succumb. It is the reason which grows out of my mediaeval but unashamed taste for the bizarre and indelicate, my congenital weakness for comedy of the grosser varieties. The United States, to my eye, is incomparably the greatest show on earth. It is a show which avoids diligently all the kinds of clowning which tire me most quickly -- for example, royal ceremonials, the tedious hocus-pocus of haut politique, the taking of politics seriously -- and lays chief stress upon the kinds which delight me unceasingly -- for example, the ribald combats of demagogues, the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues, the pursuit of witches and heretics, the desperate struggles of inferior men to claw their way into Heaven. We have clowns in constant practice among us who are as far above the clowns of any other great state as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic -- and not a few dozen or score of them, but whole droves and herds. Human enterprises which, in all other Christian countries, are resigned despairingly to an incurable dullness -- things that seem devoid of exhilirating amusement, by their very nature -- are here lifted to such vast heights of buffoonery that contemplating them strains the midriff almost to breaking. I cite an example: the worship of God. Everywhere else on earth it is carried on in a solemn and dispiriting manner; in England, of course, the bishops are obscene, but the average man seldom gets a fair chance to laugh at them and enjoy them. Now come home. Here we not only have bishops who are enormously more obscene than even the most gifted of the English bishops; we have also a huge force of lesser specialists in ecclesiastical mountebankery -- tin-horn Loyolas, Savonarolas and Xaviers of a hundred fantastic rites, each performing untiringly and each full of a grotesque and illimitable whimsicality. Every American town, however small, has one of its own: a holy clerk with so fine a talent for introducing the arts of jazz into the salvation of the damned that his performance takes on all the gaudiness of a four-ring circus, and the bald announcement that he will raid Hell on such and such a night is enough to empty all the town blind- pigs and bordellos and pack his sanctuary to the doors. And to aid him and inspire him there are travelling experts to whom he stands in the relation of a wart to the Matterhorn -- stupendous masters of theological imbecility, contrivers of doctrines utterly preposterous, heirs to the Joseph Smith, Mother Eddy and John Alexander Dowie tradition -- Bryan, Sunday, and their like. These are the eminences of the American Sacred College. I delight in them. Their proceedings make me a happier American. Turn, now, to politics. Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Would it be possible to imagine anything more uproariously idiotic -- a deafening, nerve-wracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Harlequin and Sganarelle, Gobbo and Dr. Cook -- the unspeakable, with fearful snorts, gradually swallowing the inconceivable? I defy any one to match it elsewhere on this earth. In other lands, at worst, there are at least intelligible issues, coherent ideas, salient personalities. Somebody says something, and somebody replies. But what did Harding say in 1920, and what did Cox reply? Who was Harding, anyhow, and who was Cox? Here, having perfected democracy, we lift the whole combat to symbolism, to transcendentalism, to metaphysics. Here we load a pair of palpably tin cannon with blank cartridges charged with talcum power, and so let fly. Here one may howl over the show without any uneasy reminder that it is serious, and that some one may be hurt. I hold that this elevation of politics to the plane of undiluted comedy is peculiarly American, that no-where else on this disreputable ball has the art of the sham-battle been developed to such fineness... ... Here politics is purged of all menace, all sinister quality, all genuine significance, and stuffed with such gorgeous humors, such inordinate farce that one comes to the end of a campaign with one's ribs loose, and ready for "King Lear," or a hanging, or a course of medical journals. But feeling better for the laugh. Ridi si sapis, said Martial. Mirth is necessary to wisdom, to comfort, above all to happiness. Well, here is the land of mirth, as Germany is the land of metaphysics and France is the land of fornication. Here the buffoonery never stops. What could be more delightful than the endless struggle of the Puritan to make the joy of the minority unlawful and impossible? The effort is itself a greater joy to one standing on the side-lines than any or all of the carnal joys it combats. Always, when I contemplate an uplifter at his hopeless business, I recall a scene in an old- time burlesque show, witnessed for hire in my days as a dramatic critic. A chorus girl executed a fall upon the stage, and Rudolph Krausemeyer, the Swiss comdeian, rushed to her aid. As he stooped painfully to succor her, Irving Rabinovitz, the Zionist comedian, fetched him a fearful clout across the cofferdam with a slap-stick. So the uplifter, the soul-saver, the Americanizer, striving to make the Republic fit for Y.M.C.A. secretaries. He is the eternal American, ever moved by the best of intentions, ever running a la Krausemeyer to the rescue of virtue, and ever getting his pantaloons fanned by the Devil. I am naturally sinful, and such spectacles caress me. If the slap-stick were a sash-weight, the show would be cruel, and I'd probably complain to the Polizei. As it is, I know that the uplifter is not really hurt, but simply shocked. The blow, in fact, does him good, for it helps get him into Heaven, as exegetes prove from Matthew v, 11: Hereux serez-vous, lorsqu'on vous outragera, qu'on vous persecutera, and so on. As for me, it makes me a more contented man, and hence a better citizen. One man prefers the Republic because it pays better wages than Bulgaria. Another because it has laws to keep him sober and his daughter chaste. Another because the Woolworth Building is higher than the cathedral at Chartres. Another because, living here, he can read the New York Evening Journal. Another because there is a warrant out for him somewhere else. Me, I like it because it amuses me to my taste. I never get tired of the show. It is worth every cent it costs. That cost, it seems to me is very moderate. Taxes in the United States are not actually high. I figure, for example, that my private share of the expense of maintaining the Hon. Mr. Harding in the White House this year will work out to less than 80 cents. Try to think of better sport for the money: in New York it has been estimated that it costs $8 to get comfortably tight, and $17.50, on an average, to pinch a girl's arm. The United States Senate will cost me perhaps $11 for the year, but against that expense set the subscription price of the Congressional Record, about $15, which, as a journalist, I receive for nothing. For $4 less than nothing I am thus entertained as Solomon never was by his hooch dancers. Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey costs me but 25 cents a year; I get Nicholas Murray Butler free. Finally, there is young Teddy Roosevelt, the naval expert. Teddy costs me, as I work it out, about 11 cents a year, or less than a cent a month. More, he entertains me doubly for the money, first as a naval expert, and secondly as a walking attentat upon democracy, a devastating proof that there is nothing, after all, in that superstition. We Americans subscribe to the doctrine of human equality - - and the Rooseveltii reduce it to an absurdity as brilliantly as the sons of Veit Bach. Where is your equal opportunity now? Here in this Eden of clowns, with the highest rewards of clowning theoretically open to every poor boy -- here in the very citadel of democracy we found and cherish a clown dynasty! From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:53:33 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:53:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Jewish Ethical Views Differ on Schiavo Message-ID: Jewish Ethical Views Differ on Schiavo The Jewish Journal Of Greater Los Angeles http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/print.php?id=13858 2005-03-25 by Joanne Palmer, Jewish Telegraphic Agency As a federal court considers whether to reconnect Terri Schiavos feeding tube, Jewish scholars are turning to halacha, or Jewish religious law, for guidance on the issue. Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged Florida woman whose parents and husband have been battling in state and now federal courts for more than a decade, is the insensate center of a swirl of emotion and legal action. Religious leaders have been involved as well. Schiavo and her parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, are Roman Catholic, and many of their most fervent supporters are fundamentalist Protestants. The Schindlers want to keep their daughters feeding tube in; Michael Schiavo, her husband, wants it removed so his wife can die a natural death. Jews, like others caught up in the debate, have a range of beliefs, and their understanding of how to apply halacha varies accordingly. Virtually all the rabbis interviewed, though, told JTA that they did not agree with attempts by some conservative Christians to tie Schiavos case to the public debate about abortion. At the traditional end of the spectrum, Rabbi Avi Shafran of the ultra-Orthodox Agudath Israel of America said the Schiavo case is straightforward from a Jewish perspective: The most important point from a halachic standpoint is that a compromised life is still a life. In the Schiavo case, youre not dealing with a patient in extremis, he said, noting that until her feeding tube was removed, Schiavo was not dying. In halacha, there is a category for a person at the edge of death; the rules for such a person, called a goses, are complicated. There are times when certain medical intervention is halachically contraindicated, Shafran said. There may be times when its OK not to shock a heart back into beating, not to administer certain drugs. You do not prolong the act of dying. However, Schiavo was not a goses, Shafran said. Instead, he added, before the tube was removed, she had the exact same halachic status as a baby or a demented person. Like a baby, she was helpless, could not feed herself and was not able to communicate in any meaningful way. But a life is a life. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, the central arm of modern Orthodoxy, agreed that from a halachic perspective, the Schiavo case is straightforward. Its not permitted to do anything actively that would stop the process of a persons staying alive, he said. In this case, that would be withdrawing a feeding tube, which is tantamount to starving a person to death. Like Shafran, Weinreb said the wishes of the patient or the family are not relevant. It might have a bearing on whether new measures are undertaken, but once a person is on a support system, removing it is not possible, Weinreb said. Doing something to actively interfere with a persons ability to continue to live technically is murder, he said. I cant imagine a scenario that would make removing the feeding tube permissible. Rabbi David Feldman, who had an Orthodox ordination and defines himself as traditional, is rabbi emeritus of the Conservadox Jewish Center of Teaneck, N.J. Theres a dispute here between a husband and parents, but none of that makes any difference as far as halacha is concerned, said Feldman, author of Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (Schocken, 1975) and the dean of the Jewish Institute of Bioethics. You cant hasten death yourself, with your own hands. If death comes, you can thank God because its a relief, but you cant decide yourself that it has to be done. The only time it would be acceptable to remove a medical device, Feldman said, would be if something worse would happen if leaving it in would cause infection or more pain. You can kill someone pursuing you, you can kill the soldier in the enemy army, maybe very cautiously you can kill if there is a death penalty, but you cant kill an innocent person because of illness, he said. Rabbi Joel Roth is a member of the Conservative movements Rabbinical Assemblys Law Committee. In 1990, when he was the committees chair, the group studied end-stage medical care and accepted two opposing positions on artificial nutrition and hydration. One, by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, would permit withholding and withdrawing the tube; the other, by Rabbi Avraham Reisner, would not. The divide comes from how the tube that provides food and water is defined. If it is seen as a medical device, as Dorff does, it may be removed, Roth said. If it is seen as a feeding device, as Reisner does, it may not be removed. Dorff puts a person dependent on a feeding tube in the halachic category of treifah, which, he argues, is a life that does not require our full protection an animal that is treifah is one that has some kind of physical defect that will prohibit it from having a prolonged life. So he argues that a treifah is a life that does not require our full protection, Roth said. Reisner, on the other hand, treats these people as goses, Roth said. And even in the end stage, he noted, there is the value of chaya shaah, the life of the hour. In other words, Roth said, even when there is very little life left, that life still matters. The Conservative movement accepts both decisions, but Roth, a professor of Talmud and Jewish law at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, sides with Reisner, and with Schiavos parents. She should be kept on the feeding tube, he said. Shes not being medicated, and shes breathing on her own. Rabbi Mark Washofsky teaches rabbinics at the Reform movements Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, and he sits on the movements responsa committee. The movement does not speak with one voice on the issue, Washofsky said, but in 1994 it issued a responsa on the treatment of terminally ill patients. Like the Conservative decisions, the Reform rabbis base their view of whether a feeding tube can be removed on their understanding of the tubes function. We cannot claim that Jewish tradition categorically prohibits the removal of food and water from dying patients, Washofsky said. But we consider food and water, no matter how they are delivered, the staff of life. So what we ultimately do is express deep reservations about their withdrawal, but in the end, we say, nonetheless, that because we cannot declare that the cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration is categorically forbidden by Jewish moral thought, the patient and the family must ultimately let their consciences guide them. Rabbi David Teutsch, director of the Center for Jewish Ethics at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia, agrees that the question is how a feeding tube is defined. If it were a form of eating, a position held by a number of more traditional halachic authorities, then youre required to feed those who are hungry, Teutsch said. But if its medicine a position held by Conservative authorities like Rabbi Elliott Dorff, and by me as well then you serve the interests of the patient, which may involve not providing medicine. He believes that a feeding tube is a medical device, and so it can be removed, Teutsch said. Its pretty clear that its closer to regular intervention than to eating, he said. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:54:44 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:54:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WP: Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life Message-ID: Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64459-2005Mar24?language=printer The Woman Who Is Now a Symbol And a Cause Hated the Spotlight By Jennifer Frey Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 25, 2005; Page C01 She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids. She was a girl who loved animals and worshiped cute television stars, paying homage to heartthrobs Starsky and Hutch by naming two gerbils after them. She daydreamed about working for a veterinarian when she grew up, or maybe just being a dog groomer. She was a shy girl, always overweight as a child, with big glasses, but shiny hair and perfect skin and a tendency to collapse into fifth-grade giggles. Her first car -- a black-and-gold Trans Am with a T-top roof -- exuded the flash and confidence that she herself never did. She was a girl who married the first man she ever kissed. "She was quiet," says childhood friend Sue Pickwell, who was a bridesmaid the day Terri Schindler married Michael Schiavo. "She didn't like the limelight. How ironic is that?" Terri Schiavo is everywhere. There are pictures of her on the front pages of newspapers, on the Internet, on every news network on TV. A four-year-old videotape of Terri with her mother is played over and over and over again. The fight over her life -- and death -- is being played out, in this Easter week, as a uniquely American Passion play. Congress passed emergency legislation. The president signed it in the middle of the night, in his pajamas, after being awakened. There are picketers, prayer services, angry invective, impassioned appeals. The Vatican has weighed in. The Supreme Court has refused to do so. For seven years now, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers -- primarily, Terri's parents, Bob and Mary -- have been locked in a grueling war, a war over money, over control, and, in the end, over Terri's future. Schiavo wants his wife to be allowed to die. That, he says, was her wish. The Schindlers want someone -- the government, the courts, anyone with any possible authority in this situation -- to restore the feeding tube that was removed, by court order, last Friday. They want their daughter, in whatever state she is, to live. It has been an extraordinary situation, marked by extraordinary efforts and circumstances that have dominated the national consciousness. And all of it, her friends and family say, is about a truly ordinary girl with simple dreams and an uncomplicated life. Who is Terri Schiavo? Again and again, the courts recognize that she is a woman who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" since the day she suffered heart failure 15 years ago. She cannot communicate, she is not cognizant of what is happening around her, her movements are nothing more than neurological tics. The Schindlers argue -- thus far unsuccessfully in courts of law -- that she still gets pleasure from seeing her family, that she might have a chance at some semblance of recovery, that she is still a real person somewhere inside the body she cannot control. But who was Terri Schiavo? That is another question altogether. Teresa Marie Schindler had a purple-and-white bedroom in her family's home in the Philadelphia suburbs. White wicker furniture. Endless stuffed animals. Posters of '70s television stars; she liked David Cassidy more than Shaun. Her brother, Bobby, was two years younger, her sister Suzanne two years younger than that. Her first friend was Diane Meyer. Her dad had been pals with Terri's dad forever. The girls became friends at age 2 and did family celebrations together, took annual summer vacation trips to the same hotels on the Jersey shore. Diane's little brother, Stephen, was best friends with Bobby. The boys tortured the girls regularly, in that little-brother way. Water pistol attacks. Food fights. Obnoxious public behavior designed to embarrass. That made Terri nuts. She hated to stand out. "To those who knew her -- her friends, her family -- she was vivacious, outgoing, funny," Meyer says. "But in a crowd, she was the quiet one." She never sought out friends, but welcomed them eagerly if they made an overture. It was in her seventh-grade classroom that she first bonded with Pickwell; they both broke up laughing over something silly that was said. "I don't remember what it was," Pickwell says, "but everything's funny in seventh grade, I guess." They became fast friends. There was a sleepover almost every weekend. Terri went on Pickwell family outings and vice versa. "There was nothing extraordinary," Pickwell says. "No trying to change the world type of thing. It was your typical teenagers, watching movies, eating junk food, that kind of thing." They were mall rats. The day Pickwell got her driver's license, that's the first place they went. It was, in their vocabulary, huge. Once Terri got her license, she and Meyer -- who went to a different school -- started hanging out frequently. They watched sappy TV movies, especially love stories and anything adapted from romance novelist Danielle Steel, Terri's favorite author. They went to the Magic Pan for crepes. Terri's weight reached more than 200 pounds, and late in her senior year, she went on the NutriSystem diet and lost more than 50 pounds. She continued to live at home and enrolled in Bucks County Community College. On weekends, she took her Trans Am on road trips to visit Meyer, who went away to college at the University of Scranton. Meyer was a sorority sister at Gamma Phi Beta. Terri, she says, was like an honorary sorority member. She'd go to the parties, hang out, make friends. "I don't know if it was the weight loss or maturity or all of it combined, but she started to put herself out there a little bit more," Meyer says. "And once she did, she got more success in social situations. Terri is the kind of person, you meet her, you love her." A few months later, Terri met a guy at school. His name was Michael Schiavo. "Michael was her first everything." Pickwell is keeping her voice neutral. She disagrees vehemently with the decisions Michael has made about Terri's future. But that is now. This was then. She remembers how excited Terri was. How she lit up. Michael was the first boy who ever really looked at Terri. The first boy to ask her on a date. "I remember she called me, and she asked me to come home for the weekend," Meyer said. "She wanted me to be there." The first date was dinner, a movie, and that first-ever kiss. On the second date, Terri took Schiavo to meet Pickwell and her family. Pulling aside Pickwell and her big sister, Terri confided that Michael wanted to marry her. "What? Are you crazy?" Pickwell remembers telling her then. But Terri was giddy with excitement. "Everything happened so fast and it was such a good feeling for her," Pickwell says. "He was good-looking and it felt good to have someone pay attention to her. I think she was overwhelmed." In one of his rare interviews, Michael Schiavo talked about how hard he fell for her. "She had this presence, this aura, that just attracted you," he told CNN. "She was shy and outgoing at the same time." He introduced her to his big, boisterous family -- Michael is the youngest of five sons -- at a family birthday party. She hung back at first, but surprised the brothers by engaging in their games of sibling grief. All those years of water fights. All those years of little-brother abuse. "She fit right in," says Scott Schiavo, one of Michael's brothers. "Mike was always a happy kid, but when he met Terri he just perked up tenfold." Terri and Michael were engaged relatively quickly, and Terri began making plans for an elaborate wedding at Our Lady of Good Counsel, the Catholic parish the Schindler family attended. She was still a month shy of her 21st birthday when the big day came. In that interview with CNN, Michael Schiavo said when he first saw Terri come down the aisle, he thought she was "just gorgeous. All I saw was this big smile." Their first dance was to "Tonight I Celebrate My Love," by Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack. After the wedding, Terri drifted apart from her close girlfriends. She and Meyer had a falling-out and never really spoke again. Terri remained friends with Pickwell, but, Pickwell says, "they were newlyweds. You wanted to give them space." Meanwhile, Terri was folded into the big, tight-knit Schiavo family. Karen Schiavo, a sister-in-law, says that she instantly became one of them, and that Michael and Terri were "deeply in love." A few years later, the Schindlers decided to move to Florida, and Michael and Terri followed. She got an office job at an insurance company, he went to work managing a restaurant. Their hours were opposite -- Terri on days, Michael on nights -- so they didn't see a lot of each other. At work, Terri made friends with some co-workers, including Jackie Rhodes. They went shopping together. Visited Terri's grandmother at a nearby nursing home. Went swimming at the pool where the Schindlers had their condo. Terri loved watching the dolphins in the Intracoastal Waterway. She also started to lose more weight. If she had developed an eating disorder -- medical experts have said that complications from bulimia may have led to her heart failure -- she hid it well. Scott Schiavo remembers sitting next to her when the couple came back to Pennsylvania for a family funeral. Terri was eating a huge plate of food, but she was thinner than ever. "I asked her how she could eat like that and still be so thin," Scott remembers. "She laughed and said she must just have a good metabolism." By 1989, Rhodes says, Terri and Michael were having marital problems. The Schindlers have suggested the same in recent years. The Schiavos dispute that claim. Still, both Rhodes and Michael Schiavo (in an interview with CNN) say that the couple had been trying to conceive a child. Terri went to see a gynecologist to address problems with an irregular menstrual cycle. The last time she spoke to Terri, Rhodes says, she had just gone to get her hair done. Terri was toying with going back to her natural color, so Rhodes called that Saturday to ask what she had decided. Terri, Rhodes says, was in tears; she and Michael had had a fight over the cost of the salon visit. Early the next morning, in February 1990, Terri collapsed in the hallway in her house. Michael heard her fall, found her there. She was 26 years old, weighed 110 pounds and was in heart failure because of a severe potassium imbalance. Inside Woodside Hospice, Michael Schiavo likes to hold his wife's hand, according to his brother Scott. Today will be the seventh day Terri Schiavo has gone without the feeding tube that sustained her. Her husband sits vigil with her most of the day, his brothers Brian and Bill on hand to support him. Michael adjusts Terri's positions, moves her, makes sure there will be no bedsores. And he talks to her -- talks to her the way one talks to the headstone of a loved one at the cemetery. "You know how that is?" says Scott, who calls his brother's cell phone multiple times a day for updates. "How you do it because it makes you feel better, even though you know they can't hear anything you say?" The Schiavos leave the room when the Schindlers come to visit. They, too, take turns trying to make Terri comfortable. They stroke her hands, kiss her hair. And they, too, talk to her. "We talk to her about getting her out and taking her to lunch," says Mike Tammaro, her uncle. "We tell her we're working hard to take her to lunch. The other night, we said, 'We're taking you out to breakfast tomorrow, Terri.' " The family's vigil, Tammaro says, is tense and tearful. They watch carefully for signs of decline. "I believe she's hearing some of this," Tammaro says. "I really do. I don't know how much. I don't know what state her mind is in. It doesn't matter. We just want her alive and home." For Michael, Scott Schiavo says, the days are filled with sadness and frustration and anger at the politicians and their attempts to intervene in what he considers a very personal decision. Michael, Scott says, wanted this to be a private moment. The Schiavos are grieving, too, he says. He says Terri wasn't a sister-in-law to him, she was a sister. He breaks down. "It's so sad that they've turned this wonderful person into a sideshow," Scott says, his voice shaking. "Into a media circus. It's such a shame. It really is. The one that's hurt the most here is Terri. Her memory. They're taking away whatever dignity she had left. They're taking it away. And it really stinks." And so they take turns in the room, two sets of family, each with their own version of who Terri Schiavo is now. Perhaps there will be some last-minute intervention. More likely, her life is coming to an end. In her hospice room, she is surrounded by stuffed animals. The world has fast-forwarded 15 years. Terri Schiavo is 41 years old. But who she was -- a shy little girl, a woman still able to find joy in a simple stuffed bunny -- will forever be suspended in time. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:57:00 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:57:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Did Descartes Doom Terri Schiavo? Message-ID: Did Descartes Doom Terri Schiavo? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/weekinreview/27lela.html March 27, 2005 By JOHN LELAND IN the parade of faces talking about Terri Schiavo last week, two notable authorities were missing: Aristotle and Descartes. Yet their legacy was there. Beneath the political maneuvering and legal wrangling, the case re-enacted a clash of ideals that has run through the history of Western thought. And in a way, it's the essential question that has been asked by philosophers since the dawn of human civilization. Is every human life precious, no matter how disabled? Or do human beings have the right to self-determination and to decide when life has value? "The clash is about how we understand the human person," said Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a conservative policy group. The plea last week to prolong Ms. Schiavo's feeding, against the wishes of her husband or what courts determined to be her own expressed inclinations, echoed the teachings of Aristotle, who considered existence itself to be inviolable. On the other side, the argument that Ms. Schiavo's life could be judged as not worth living echoed Descartes, the Enlightenment philosopher who defined human life not as biological existence - which might be an inviolable gift from God - but as consciousness, about which people can make judgments. For most of history, the conflict between these schools of thought has allowed room for compromise, said Robert Veatch, a professor of medical ethics at Georgetown University who supports the right of patients to suspend treatment. He cited a Roman Catholic judgment from the Middle Ages that if a patient needed to travel 300 miles by donkey cart to a shrine to be healed, that was too much. "The idea that all life is valuable or sacred has in almost all settings been qualified in some way," Professor Veatch said. Yet this idea that all life is sacred has exerted a powerful force in America, said Mark A. Noll, a professor of history at Wheaton College, a prestigious evangelical school in Illinois, and the author of "The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity. " It fueled the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, which insisted on the humanity of slaves, against the prevailing views of social science. In the early 20th century, the same ideal stood up against eugenics, which advocated forced sterilization to prevent the weakest members of society from reproducing. In both battles, Professor Noll said, people who held the sanctity of all human life as a religious conviction triumphed over an Enlightenment contention "that said 'No, we can qualify this value' " - meaning the value of a human life could be determined by scientific thought. As late as 1927, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government could sterilize mentally retarded people against their will. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the court's decision involving a woman mistakenly deemed retarded. In this context, Professor Noll said, "the preference for life has been a protection against the exploitation of little people by big people." The conflict as it exists now began to take shape with the emergence of modern medicine in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, said Gary M. Laderman, an associate professor of religion at Emory University and author of "The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-1883." Medical breakthroughs that prolonged human life by technological means changed the way Americans could see death and by extension, the ways they defined life. The setting for death shifted from the home to the hospital, where doctors, rather than religious leaders, claimed authority. Medicine lionized the figure of the heroic doctor, and treated death as a kind of failure, Professor Laderman said. Doctors were free not to tell patients that they were terminally ill, claiming for themselves the right to determine what was appropriate. Death became a "medicalized" state, to be determined by human expertise. Like life, it could be treated as a medical option. By the 1960's and 1970's, medical patients began to claim this right for themselves, said Bruce Jennings, a senior research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics research group that has supported patient rights. In this, they conspicuously followed the model of the political and consumer movements of the era, which shifted authority away from experts and institutions to individuals. To adopt Professor Noll's language, they redefined the little people. "This offered a slightly different way to frame the issue: not so much as a conflict between valuing life and the freedom of choice, but a different attitude toward technology itself," Mr. Jennings said. "On the one hand, there's a widespread feeling in the United States that everything can be cured and we don't have to die. But there's another fear of imprisonment by technology in a way that undermines our integrity and dignity. It's claiming freedom from these institutions or technology." The philosophical line in this history, then, is not straightforward, but includes a peculiar American twist: The evangelical revival of the 18th and 19th centuries produced the abolition movement, which gave rise to the women's suffrage movement, which inspired the civil rights movement, which led to the patient's rights movement. But now the patient's rights movement faces off with many 21st-century evangelical Christians in the Schiavo case. At the same time, the scientific legacy of the Enlightenment, which argued that human life resided not in the body but the mind, is now being undermined, as modern neuroscience demystifies elements of thought and personality as heartless biochemical or genetic processes. The mind is simply prisoner to the body's DNA. The ideas at play over this history do not conclude with Ms. Schiavo's case, but feed into arguments over abortion, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, the death penalty and even animal rights. In their competing claims, these ideas are part of what defines America, said Courtney S. Campbell, a professor of medical ethics at Oregon State University who has argued for the rights of patients to pull the plug. "It goes back to the foundations of the Republic - the right to life and the right to liberty in the Declaration of Independence," he said. "It's a deep-rooted conflict that goes to the core of who we are as a people and as a political society, so it's not surprising that it can be polarizing." From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 19:22:47 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:22:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Recorder: The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money Message-ID: The Recorder By Jon B. Eisenberg March 4, 2005 Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached? During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to "follow the money." In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas. For the past 12 years, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a bitter dispute over whether to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers want the doctors to keep Terri alive; Michael does not. Late last year, in Bush v. Schiavo, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush violated the constitutional separation of powers when he attempted to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing the governor's action. Two months later I participated in a public debate on the case at Florida State University. Among the participants supporting Gov. Bush's position were Pat Anderson, one of multiple attorneys who have represented the Schindlers, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients. I found myself wondering: "I'm doing this pro bono; are they?" I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable. The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products). I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo. Here are a few examples: Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family. Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation. The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation. These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more. With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long. And it's still not over. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene, the Schindlers' lawyers are now trying to prolong the litigation yet again through a series of post-judgment motions which, regardless of their merit, could yield stays that would continue to forestall the removal of Terri's feeding tube. Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18. On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay. There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory. They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up. Jon B. Eisenberg is an appellate practitioner based in Oakland. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 22:02:03 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: How to Save Medicare? Die Sooner Message-ID: Business > Your Money > Economic View: How to Save Medicare? Die Sooner http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/business/yourmoney/27view.html February 27, 2005 By DANIEL ALTMAN THOUGH Social Security's fiscal direction has taken center stage in Washington of late, Medicare's future financing problems are likely to be much worse. President Bush has asserted that the Medicare Modernization Act, which he signed in 2003, would solve some of those problems - "the logic is irrefutable," he said two months ago. Yet the Congressional Budget Office expects the law to create just $28 billion in savings during the decade after its passage, while its prescription drug benefit will add more than $400 billion in costs. So, how can Medicare's ballooning costs be contained? One idea is to let people die earlier. For the last few decades, the share of Medicare costs incurred by patients in their last year of life has stayed at about 28 percent, said Dr. Gail R. Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project HOPE who previously ran Medicare and Medicaid. Thus end-of-life care hasn't contributed unduly of late to Medicare's problems. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution. "If you take the assumption that you want to go where the money is, it's a reasonable place to look," Dr. Wilensky said. End-of-life care may also be a useful focus because, in some cases, efforts to prolong life may end up only prolonging suffering. In such cases, reducing pain may be a better use of resources than heroic attempts to save lives. The question becomes, how can you identify end-of-life care, especially the kind that's likely to be of little value? "It's very difficult to predict exactly when a given individual is going to die, in most cases," said David O. Meltzer, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago who also teaches economics. "But there's no question that there are many markers we have of someone who is approaching the end of life." Even with that knowledge, however, Dr. Meltzer warned against putting the brakes on care just as a patient takes an inexorable turn for the worse. Studies of doctors who intervened at that point to stave off unproductive care have found little success in cutting costs, he said. Instead, he recommended that doctors try to prepare patients and families for less resource-intensive care at the end of life. "There is no question, as a clinician, and as a patient and the family members of patients, there are things you can do to make sure that expenditures with little chance of being helpful won't be undertaken," he said. "You explain to people that the goal of medical care is not always to make people live longer." Explaining that principle early on could make a difference in the cases that appear to pose the biggest problem: those in which the patient's health changes suddenly and severely. Dr. Wilensky cited recent research showing that these cases incurred high costs with scant medical benefit. "When someone starts going south, and there was not an expectation that that was going to happen, you probably pull out all the stops," she said. These choices can actually harm patients, contradicting the purpose of the treatment, said Dr. Arnold S. Relman, a professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard and former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. "Sometimes, you know that death is inevitable over the next few weeks or few months," he said. "And then there are some doctors, and some families, who just don't want to confront that, and feel that they want to and should invest everything possible - the maximum amount of resources - in fighting the inevitable. That often results in prolonging the pain and discomfort of dying." Dr. Wilensky said these cases often involved an unusual number of specialists and other doctors visiting the patient, as well as a potentially excessive number of tests. Better coordination of care within hospitals and with other providers could curtail these extra efforts, she said. She also suggested that more use of evidence-based medicine, in which care is guided by documented cases and statistics, could discourage doctors from pursuing treatments with little chance of success. Yet teaching doctors and patients to say no could be a losing battle. "It doesn't fit human nature, and it certainly doesn't fit our culture," Dr. Relman said. "Most Americans - and most people who are educated in advanced societies now - believe that each person is entitled to, technically and scientifically, the best medical care that they can get." Introducing gatekeepers, the administrators in health maintenance organizations who choose which procedures patients may undergo, could take the often-emotional decisions about end-of-life care out of doctors' and patients' hands. Indeed, incorporating more of these managed-care-style practices into Medicare is a primary emphasis for the Bush administration, along with greater competition among providers, said Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. But Dr. Relman predicted that the public wouldn't stand for it. "That's exactly why the traditional H.M.O., with the gatekeeper, has given way and is so unpopular and has been replaced by the P.P.O." or preferred provider organization, he said. In order to cut costs, he said, a complete revamping of Medicare's payment system is needed - especially for outpatient care that the government buys on a fee-for-service basis. AN alternative to saying no would be to encourage severely ill patients to choose hospice care, where the emphasis in treatment shifts from cure to quality of life. Patients are made to feel as comfortable as possible, and reducing pain takes precedence over radical procedures. At present, only about 1.6 percent of Medicare benefits pay for hospice care. Despite the less-intensive brand of treatment, hospice care may not be cheaper than hospital care. "The assessment of hospice has not indicated that it's a clear money-saver," Dr. Wilensky said. "It can be, but we don't have very good examples." And that lack of information should be the main target, said Dr. Meltzer, of the University of Chicago. "We just woefully underinvest in health-related research," he said. "The Medicare program has really very, very little money to fund research to help improve itself." He added that the savings from changing doctors' and patients' expectations about end-of-life care could be substantial. Gauging just how substantial, he said, was the most important first step: "Research that helps us better to understand that is going to have an absolutely immense return." From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:10:27 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:10:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Online News Hour: Shields and Brooks Analyze the Terri Schiavo Case Message-ID: Online NewsHour: Shields and Brooks Analyze the Terri Schiavo Case and the Nomination of Paul Wolfowitz -- March 18, 2005 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june05/sb_3-18.html [Only the Schiavo case is included.] a NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks discuss the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the new World Bank president, the Terri Schiavo case and baseball's steroid problem. Jim Lehrer JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields & Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, is this the kind of business the Congress of the United States should be involved in? MARK SHIELDS: Not this case, Jim, but I think it's a serious enough public question that there ought to be debate and consideration as just to what - you know, what guidelines we have so that each case doesn't become a circus like this. I mean, we're seeing a total role reversal right now. We're seeing conservatives saying "we got to go to the federal courts." They've been attributing -- the champions of states rights. The liberals have always fought for the federal intervention and have said "No, we ought to leave it to the state court." I think there are serious ethical questions here. Is this medical intervention, or is it ordinary treatment? And you get ethicists on both sides of all faiths on that. But if there's one thing that comes through in this, boy, it's every one of us ought to have explicit directives for end-of-life treatment for when and if this happens, I mean, because the tragedy of this is just in human terms, is enormous. JIM LEHRER: But what about the political intervention here, David? Do you support what the Republican leaders of the Congress are doing? DAVID BROOKS: I find myself in complete agreement with what Mark just said. On a case by case basis, I'm a little uncomfortable with Congress going in case by case. But I am supportive of the idea that these life and death issues should be settled politically and not judicially. Judicial or political intervention David Brooks JIM LEHRER: In other words, the judge in Florida should not be resolving this; there should be a federal law of some kind that would resolve this? DAVID BROOKS: Right. And I would say building off the abortion example, I mean, I personally believe if we had settled the abortion issue politically rather than judicially, we would have arrived at some sort of muddled solution, which was not either or and most Americans would be happy with it. And most Americans would regard it as a little more legitimate. And just people would feel happy with the law. And as with that birth issue, I think the same thing is true with this death issue. JIM LEHRER: But, David, this issue involving Terri Schiavo has been going on for seven years and Congress did nothing until issuing some subpoenas today. DAVID BROOKS: That's right. And there's an element of political grandstanding. But there's also an element of sincere belief. I mean, I'm personally sort of in the middle on this issue. I'm muddled. I confess I haven't really come to conclusions about this subject. But I do, just thinking about it, why does there seem to be a presumption toward the death option when the woman's parents are willing to take care of her? Why can't we have a law that says the presumption is toward life unless you sign something and there's something very concrete that's definable in a court of law saying "No, I don't want these measures taken?" To me there should be a presumption toward life but everyone have the right to sign something, which makes it very cut and dry. Mark Shields MARK SHIELDS: Jim, one thing, David used the term "grandstanding," which I think was probably kind. I went back and checked the files; Tom Delay had not spoken on this issue -- the House Republican Majority Leader, until Wednesday of this week. I mean, I think it's a great diversionary tactic for him. I don't think there's any question he identifies himself with Palm Sunday, that there are people of deep religious conviction who believe that this is totally wrong and that somehow he wants to divert attention. I don't think there's any question about it. And the idea of subpoenaing Terri Schiavo is a grandstand. But the issue remains, and I think David is right, a political resolution of the abortion issue would have resolved that. We were headed toward that on a state-by-state basis. Some states were going to legalize it under certain terms, others were going to legalize it totally in New York, and then we short circuited it by going to the courts. And I think this is a mistake here. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:21:14 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:21:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance Message-ID: National > Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24relig.html March 24, 2005 [Another article should deal with the Evangeligal-Zionist alliance. Evangelicals are warm supporters of Israel, and explictly Jewish publications, like Commentary, have published articles questioning evolution. Others, like The Weekly Standard, feature both Evangelical and Zionist authors. Somehow, I suspect that Bill Kristol's dedication to pro-life issues is more tactical than sincere.] By LAURIE GOODSTEIN The powerful outcry over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case has provoked a national debate over whether she should live or die, is a testament to the growing alliance of conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals who have found common cause in the "culture of life" agenda articulated by Pope John Paul II. In their fight to keep their daughter alive, Ms. Schiavo's parents, who are Catholics, have been backed by an ad hoc coalition of Catholic and evangelical lobbyists, street organizers and legal advisers like the Rev. Frank Pavone, the Catholic priest who runs a group called Priests for Life and evangelical Protestants like Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the National Clergy Council. The struggle is only the latest indication of a strengthening religious alliance between denominations that were once bitterly divided. Evangelical leaders say they frequently lean on Catholic intellectuals like Robert George at Princeton University and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, to help them frame political issues theologically. An increasing number of Catholics hold crucial staff positions in some of the religious conservative groups that lobby Washington. And conservative Catholics and evangelicals meet weekly in Virginia with a broad array of right-leaning lobbyists. "The idea of building a culture that values human life is a Catholic articulation, but it echoes in the hearts of many people, evangelicals and others," said William L. Saunders Jr., director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council in Washington. "It was articulated by John Paul II, who is a great hero to pro-life people, regardless of their church," said Mr. Saunders, who is among the Catholics working at an organization founded by or affiliated with evangelicals. The "culture of life" language has been widely adopted by conservative politicians. President Bush said in a news conference yesterday that government must "err on the side of life" in making every effort to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. The Catholics and evangelicals first joined forces in the anti-abortion movement. And their alliance has now extended to include promoting sexual abstinence education and opposing stem-cell research and euthanasia. It is an array of issues they link under the rubric of "respect for the sanctity of life," whether that life is an "unborn baby" or an unresponsive patient lying in a hospice bed. "Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God?" asked the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Monday, commenting on the Schiavo situation. "Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?" Burke J. Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said the religious alliance on the Schiavo case had also been given a great boost by disability rights organizations that saw Ms. Schiavo as a disabled American deserving legal protection. Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic who runs Joni and Friends, an evangelical ministry for disability rights in Los Angeles, said: "When you look at those videotapes, you are unable to rule out that she is in some way conscious or cognizant. When reasonable doubts like that are raised, we who are disabled believe her condition should be exhaustively investigated." Historically, the Catholic and evangelical alliance is very new. Less than half a century ago, Catholics and evangelicals still shared little but a history of mutual contempt and mistrust. When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, evangelical leaders sent out a letter to Protestant pastors asking them to preach against him, arguing that as a Catholic, his true allegiance was to Rome. It was only 11 years ago that a group of evangelical and Catholic leaders and theologians released a groundbreaking statement, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," drafted after a series of unusual meetings. While the document treated primarily theological issues, it said that evangelicals and Catholics could unite on a broad social agenda that included "pro-life" issues, strengthening the family and government support for religious schools. Now the alliance of evangelicals and Catholics is among the most powerful forces molding American politics. Last year, conservative evangelicals cheered when a handful of Catholic bishops said that Senator John Kerry, the Catholic who was the Democratic presidential nominee, should not take communion because of his stance on abortion. Mr. Bush courted evangelical and Catholic voters in 2004 and benefited from their mobilization. But evangelicals have so far shown little interest in joining Catholics in opposing the death penalty, which Catholics also regard as a "culture of life" issue. On Monday, Catholic bishops announced a renewed campaign to oppose the death penalty. A representative of the bishops said that while he did not expect that Protestant organizations or denominations that support the death penalty would change their positions, he did find change among individual Protestants who had been exposed to Catholic thinking. "Certainly in the Catholic tradition, culture of life includes concern about the death penalty," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There are many Protestants who've been great admirers of Pope John Paul II and his witness, and have well-thumbed copies of his encyclical on the gospel of life, and have read it more carefully than Catholics have. And as a result, they have done more thinking on the death penalty, as well." People who have opposed removing Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube have said in interviews that evangelicals were the first to take a stand in their support, even though Ms. Schiavo is Catholic. Her parents had the spiritual support of individual priests, but Catholic bishops had been reluctant to become involved, with a Florida bishop's issuing a statement saying he would "refrain from passing judgment." There were differences of opinion among Catholic ethicists, Mr. Doerflinger said, on whether assisted feeding constituted exceptional medical intervention, which is not necessary under all circumstances, or "basic care," which must be provided to a sick person. He said the pope helped clarify the teaching a year ago, after delivering a message to a Rome conference on end-of life-issues in which he said that providing food and water was "morally obligatory." The pope said, "I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act." Since then, bishops have spoken out unequivocally on the Schiavo case. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said Monday that the court-ordered removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was a "form of euthanasia," which the Catholic Church condemns as "gravely wrong." From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:29:49 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:29:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Even as Doctors Say Enough, Families Fight to Prolong Life Message-ID: National > Even as Doctors Say Enough, Families Fight to Prolong Life http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/national/27death.html? March 27, 2005 By [1]PAM BELLUCK BOSTON, March 26 - For years, when families and hospitals fought over how to treat critically ill patients, families often pressed to let their loved ones die, while hospitals tried to keep them alive. But in the last decade or so, things have changed. Now, doctors and ethicists say that when hospitals and families clash, conflicts often pit families who want to continue life support and aggressive medical care against doctors who believe it is time to stop. "The most common case that comes before the ethics committees," said Dr. John J. Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, "are families now insisting on treatment that the doctors believe is unwarranted." Extraordinary medical advances have stoked the hopes of families. Also, more patients and families feel empowered to make medical decisions, and some are skeptical of doctors' interpretations or intentions. When asked in polls about Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman, 60 percent to 70 percent of respondents said they would remove Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube and, in similar circumstances, would choose not to keep themselves or a spouse alive. Many right-to-die requests would not cause conflict with a hospital these days because they are more likely to be in sync with doctors' assessments. When there is a conflict, it typically involves families who feel their loved one would not want to endure surgery or treatment that might not succeed. But even families who say they believe in removing life support may find that position untenable when their own relatives are involved. "About 15 years ago, at least 80 percent of the cases were right-to-die kinds of cases," said Dr. Lachlan Forrow, the director of ethics programs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who handles 50 to 100 end-of-life conflicts a year. "Today, it's more like at least 80 percent of the cases are the other direction: family members who are pushing for continued or more aggressive life support and doctors and nurses who think that that's wrong." Dr. Lisa Anderson-Shaw, co-chairwoman of the ethics committee at University of Illinois at Chicago hospital, said that in 1998 she consulted on 2 such cases, while last year, she fielded 11. Chuck Ceronsky, a co-chairman of the ethics committee of Fairview University Medical Center in Minneapolis, said, "The right-to-die families find a more receptive audience in the hospital, as opposed to years ago when a doctor might say, My job is not to end life." "We have a disproportionate number of cases where people come in with something they think ought to be tried, or that they've read on the Internet ought to be tried," Mr. Ceronsky added. Ethics committees resolve most cases, often through repeated family discussions over weeks or months. But at least three states, Texas, Virginia and California, have laws that let doctors refuse treatment against the wishes of a family, or even a patient's advanced directive in certain circumstances. In other states, like Wisconsin, doctors are seeking such laws. "When they're asking for things that become absolutely nonsensical, then you don't have to do it any more," said Dr. Kay Heggestad, who is the chairwoman of the ethics committee of the Wisconsin Medical Society and is helping draft a "futile care" bill in her state. "If someone marches into my office with normal kidney function and demands dialysis, I am not required to offer that." Recently, several life-support requests have landed in court. In October, when doctors at a hospital in Salt Lake City declared 6-year-old Jesse Koochin brain dead and planned to remove life support, Jesse's parents, Steve and Gayle Koochin, went to court. A judge ruled against the hospital and granted the Koochins the right to take Jesse home, where they kept him on a ventilator and said they were convinced that he could get better with alternative medical treatments. A month later, Jesse died. In Boston, doctors considered it so inhumane to keep alive Barbara Howe, a 79-year-old woman with Lou Gehrig's disease, that the chairman of the ethics committee wrote in June 2003, "this is Massachusetts General Hospital, not Auschwitz." When Ms. Howe's daughter, Carol Carvitt, said her mother would not want to disconnect life support, the hospital sued. A judge said it was Ms. Carvitt's decision, but urged her to think about her mother's best interests. This month, Ms. Carvitt agreed to terminate life support by June 30. And last November in Orlando, Fla., Alice Pinette insisted that her husband, Hanford, stay on life support even though his living will said he would not want to. A judge sided with the hospital, which removed the ventilator, and Mr. Pinette, 73, died. "Medical advances give people greater expectations, and they're not willing to accept that death is inevitable; somebody somewhere can save Mom," said Dr. Forrow, of Beth Israel in Boston, said. "They have way more belief that the decision about that is partly up to them: my business, my body, my mom's body. Fifteen years ago, it was the doctor's purview alone." Some are wary that doctors may be truncating treatment because of soaring medical costs, and Dr. Dianne Bartels, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said: "Sometimes there's also mistrust of the medical system. A doctor might have said, 'Your husband's never going to make it' and he's already survived two or three times, so why should they believe the doctor?" Thomas W. Mayo, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University law school and an author of the Texas law, cited another reason. "There are more specialists with less contact with the family," Mr. Mayo said. "As patient volumes have increased and reimbursement rates cut to the bone, there's less incentive for everyone in the system to provide that. When a stranger says, 'Well, there's nothing we can do other than turn things off,' you're hearing that from someone you have no reason to believe other than he's wearing a white coat." The Texas law, signed in 1999 by Gov. George W. Bush, allows doctors to remove life-sustaining treatment over the objections of families, provided an ethics committee agrees and the hospital gives the family 10 days to see if another facility will accept the patient. Dr. Robert L. Fine, an author of the law and the chairman of the clinical ethics committee at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, said life support could be withdrawn even if a patient's living will specified otherwise, but that ethics committees would give great weight to such a document. Virginia's law is similar; California's is much vaguer, saying physicians cannot be required to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards. Now, in most disputes in Texas, "families look for an alternative willing to provide care and if none is available they say, 'O.K., it's time to stop,' " Dr. Fine said. There have been two recent exceptions. Last week, Sun Hudson, a 5-month-old, died after a judge gave Texas Children's Hospital in Houston permission to disconnect his ventilator over the objections of his mother. And last Sunday, the case of Spiro Nikolouzos, 68, was resolved when his family, who fought a Houston hospital's plan to remove his ventilator, found a nursing home to accept him. In the absence of laws like Texas's, hospitals often accede to a family's wishes because they fear being sued. They are reluctant to go to court because judges often rule that even if the hospital's assessment is correct, families' claims of what patients would have wanted take precedence. And doctors and ethicists in many states have not lobbied for a Texas-style law because of expected opposition from right-to-life advocates. There is also discomfort with determining when health care is futile. "It is controversial even within the bioethics community," Mr. Mayo said. "There are times when medicine has nothing more to offer and we're not obligated to offer it, but when you go to implement that, it gives people the heebie-jeebies." References 1. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=PAM%20BELLUCK&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=PAM%20BELLUCK&inline=nyt-per From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:28:35 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:28:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Salon: This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life Message-ID: This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/22/father_john/ From another list: My friend and former racquetball partner, the Jesuit priest and bioethicist John Paris, is in Salon today explicating some of the Catholic argument - he filed on behalf of the husband Michael Schiavo, along with 54 other bioethicists. ---------- The Rev. John Paris, professor of bioethics, says Terri Schiavo has the moral and legal right to die, and only the Christian right is keeping her alive. By Andrew Leonard March 22, 2005 | The decision on whether to allow Terri Schiavo to die has sparked endless controversy over what is legal and ethical when patients are unable to make their own wishes. One observer who brings both legal and moral authority to the debate is the Rev. John Paris, the Walsh Professor of Bioethics at Boston College. Paris has served as an expert witness on numerous cases involving patients who were being kept alive by artificial means. He is equally capable of discussing the legal details of the Schiavo case and the Catholic Church's view of it. According to Paris, every relevant legal issue has already been decided; the only thing keeping the case alive is the fact that the Christian right has made Schiavo a cause c?l?bre. Paris did not serve as an expert witness in the Schiavo case. However, when the case was reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, he signed an amicus brief on behalf of Michael Schiavo, who wants to take his wife off life support. Salon spoke to Paris by phone on Monday morning. "This case," he says, "is bizarre." Why is the case bizarre? In most cases, the court has a theory, you have an appellate review, and that's the end. But this case, the parents keep coming back with new issues -- every time that they lose, they come in with a new issue. We want to reexamine the case. We believe she's competent. We need new medical tests being done. We think she's been abused. We want child protective services to intervene. Finally, Judge George Greer denied them all. He said. "Look, we have had court-appointed neutral physicians examine this patient. You don't believe the findings of the doctors but the finding of the doctors have been accepted by the court as factual." There have been six reviews by the appellate court. What did the appellate court find? The Florida Court of Appeals found four very interesting things. And it found them by the highest legal standard you can have -- clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court said that Judge Greer found clear and convincing evidence that Schiavo is in a well-diagnosed, persistent vegetative state, that there is no hope of her ever recovering consciousness, and that she had stated she would not ever want to be maintained this way. The court said we have heard the parents saying she didn't [say that], and we heard the husband say she did, and we believe the husband's statement is a correct statement of her position. The court also found that the husband was a caring, loving spouse whose actions were in Terri's best interests. The court said, "Remove the feeding tube," and the family protested. Of course, the family has the radical, antiabortion, right-to-life Christian right, with its apparently unlimited resources and political muscle, behind them. So what do you think this case is really about? The power of the Christian right. This case has nothing to do with the legal issues involving a feeding tube. The feeding tube issue was definitively resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 in Cruzan vs. Director. The United States Supreme Court ruled that competent patients have the right to decline any and all unwanted treatment, and unconscious patients have the same right, depending upon the evidentiary standard established by the state. And Florida law says that Terri Schiavo has more than met the standard in this state. So there is no legal issue. Are there any extenuating circumstances? The law is clear, the medicine is clear, the ethics are clear. A presidential commission in 1983, appointed by Ronald Reagan, issued a very famous document called "Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment." It talked about the appropriate treatment for patients who are permanently unconscious. The commission said the only justification for continuing any treatment -- and they specifically talked about feeding tubes -- is either the slight hope that the patient might recover or the family's hope that the patient might recover. Terri Schiavo's legitimate family -- the guardian, the spouse -- has persuaded the court that she wouldn't want [intervention] and therefore it shouldn't happen. Now you have the brother and sister, the mother and father, saying that's all wrong. But they had their day in court, they had their weeks in court, they had their years in court! Isn't the underlying social issue here one that says the law doesn't have authority over this kind of life-or-death matter? Let me give you a test that I've done 100 times to audiences. And I guarantee you can do the same thing. Go and find the first 12 people you meet and say to them, "If you were to suffer a cerebral aneurysm, and we were able to diagnose that with a PET-scan immediately, would you want to be put on a feeding tube, knowing that you can be sustained in this existence?" I have asked that question in medical audiences, legal audiences and audiences of judges. I'll bet I have put that question before several thousand people. How many people do you think have said they wanted to be maintained that way? Zero. Not one person. Now that tells you about where the moral sentiment of our community is. Where do you think this case is headed? It's headed to federal court today. I cannot imagine what the federal question is. Congress said, "All we are doing is asking to have a federal court examine this." I don't know what they thought the courts were doing in the last eight years. They are saying, "We're asking a court to review this, to be certain that due process has not been violated." I don't think there is a case in the history of the United States that has been reviewed six times by an appellate court. Remember, the United States Supreme Court refused to review this. As a priest, how do you resolve questions in which the "sanctity of life" is involved? The sanctity of life? This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. The Roman Catholic Church has a consistent 400-year-old tradition that I'm sure you are familiar with. It says nobody is obliged to undergo extraordinary means to preserve life. This is Holy Week, this is when the Catholic community is saying, "We understand that life is not an absolute good and death is not an absolute defeat." The whole story of Easter is about the triumph of eternal life over death. Catholics have never believed that biological life is an end in and of itself. We've been created as a gift from God and are ultimately destined to go back to God. And we've been destined in this life to be involved in relationships. And when the capacity for that life is exhausted, there is no obligation to make officious efforts to sustain it. This is not new doctrine. Back in 1950, Gerald Kelly, the leading Catholic moral theologian at the time, wrote a marvelous article on the obligation to use artificial means to sustain life. He published it in Theological Studies, the leading Catholic journal. He wrote, "I'm often asked whether you have to use IV feeding to sustain somebody who is in a terminal coma." And he said, "Not only do I believe there is no obligation to do it, I believe that imposing those treatments on that class of patients is wrong. There is no benefit to the patient, there is great expense to the community, and there is enormous tension on the family." How do you square that with the pope's comments last year, which seemed to indicate that people in Schiavo's situation should be kept alive? The bishops of Florida did it very nicely when they said, "There is a presumption to use nutritional fluid, unless the continued use of it would be burdensome to the patient." So it's not an absolute. That statement is a recognition that the Vatican is inhabited by the same cross section of people that inhabit the United States What do you mean? I mean there are some radical right-to-lifers there, and they got that statement out. But it has to be seen in the context of the pope's 1980 declaration on euthanasia, and the pope's encyclical on death and dying, in which he repeats the long-standing tradition that I just gave you. His comment last year wasn't doctrinal statement, it wasn't encyclical, it wasn't a papal pronouncement. It was a speech at a meeting of right-to-lifers. Again, this issue is not new. Every court, every jurisdiction that has heard it, agrees. So you'd think this issue would have ended. I thought it ended when we took it to the Supreme Court in 1990. But I hadn't anticipated the power of the Christian right. They elected him [George Bush]. And now he dances. - - - - - - - - - - - - About the writer Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:23:01 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:23:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Rich: The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay Message-ID: Arts > Frank Rich: The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/arts/27Rich.html March 27, 2005 AS Congress and the president scurried to play God in the lives of Terri Schiavo and her family last weekend, ABC kicked off Holy Week with its perennial ritual: a rebroadcast of the 1956 Hollywood blockbuster, "The Ten Commandments." Cecil B. DeMille's epic is known for the parting of its Technicolor Red Sea, for the religiosity of its dialogue (Anne Baxter's Nefretiri to Charlton Heston's Moses: "You can worship any God you like as long as I can worship you.") and for a Golden Calf scene that DeMille himself described as "an orgy Sunday-school children can watch." But this year the lovable old war horse has a relevance that transcends camp. At a time when government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma, the half-forgotten show business history of "The Ten Commandments" provides a telling back story. As DeMille readied his costly Paramount production for release a half-century ago, he seized on an ingenious publicity scheme. In partnership with the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a nationwide association of civic-minded clubs founded by theater owners, he sponsored the construction of several thousand Ten Commandments monuments throughout the country to hype his product. The Pharaoh himself - that would be Yul Brynner - participated in the gala unveiling of the Milwaukee slab. Heston did the same in North Dakota. Bizarrely enough, all these years later, it is another of these DeMille-inspired granite monuments, on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, that is a focus of the Ten Commandments case that the United States Supreme Court heard this month. We must wait for the court's ruling on whether the relics of a Hollywood relic breach the separation of church and state. Either way, it's clear that one principle, so firmly upheld by DeMille, has remained inviolate no matter what the courts have to say: American moguls, snake-oil salesmen and politicians looking to score riches or power will stop at little if they feel it is in their interests to exploit God to achieve those ends. While sometimes God racketeers are guilty of the relatively minor sin of bad taste - witness the crucifixion-nail jewelry licensed by Mel Gibson - sometimes we get the demagoguery of Father Coughlin or the big-time cons of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. The religio-hucksterism surrounding the Schiavo case makes DeMille's Hollywood crusades look like amateur night. This circus is the latest and most egregious in a series of cultural shocks that have followed Election Day 2004, when a fateful exit poll question on "moral values" ignited a take-no-prisoners political grab by moral zealots. During the commercial interruptions on "The Ten Commandments" last weekend, viewers could surf over to the cable news networks and find a Bible-thumping show as only Washington could conceive it. Congress was floating such scenarios as staging a meeting in Ms. Schiavo's hospital room or, alternatively, subpoenaing her, her husband and her doctors to a hearing in Washington. All in the name of faith. Like many Americans, I suspect, I tried to picture how I would have reacted if a bunch of smarmy, camera-seeking politicians came anywhere near a hospital room where my own relative was hooked up to life support. I imagined summoning the Clint Eastwood of "Dirty Harry," not "Million Dollar Baby." But before my fantasy could get very far, star politicians with the most to gain from playing the God card started hatching stunts whose extravagant shamelessness could upstage any humble reverie of my own. Senator Bill Frist, the Harvard-educated heart surgeon with presidential aspirations, announced that watching videos of Ms. Schiavo had persuaded him that her doctors in Florida were mistaken about her vegetative state - a remarkable diagnosis given that he had not only failed to examine the patient ostensibly under his care but has no expertise in the medical specialty, neurology, relevant to her case. No less audacious was Tom DeLay, last seen on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago deflecting Lesley Stahl's questions about his proximity to allegedly criminal fund-raising by saying he would talk only about children stranded by the tsunami. Those kids were quickly forgotten as he hitched his own political rehabilitation to a brain-damaged patient's feeding tube. Adopting a prayerful tone, the former exterminator from Sugar Land, Tex., took it upon himself to instruct "millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend" to "not be afraid." The president was not about to be outpreached by these saps. The same Mr. Bush who couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation during the darkening summer of 2001, not even when he received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," flew from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign Congress's Schiavo bill into law. The bill could have been flown to him in Texas, but his ceremonial arrival and departure by helicopter on the White House lawn allowed him to showboat as if he had just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. "It is wise to always err on the side of life," he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson. These theatrics were foretold. Culture is often a more reliable prophecy than religion of where the country is going, and our culture has been screaming its theocratic inclinations for months now. The anti-indecency campaign, already a roaring success, has just yielded a new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin, who had been endorsed by the Parents Television Council and other avatars of the religious right. The push for the sanctity of marriage (or all marriages except Terri and Michael Schiavo's) has led to the banishment of lesbian moms on public television. The Armageddon-fueled worldview of the "Left Behind" books extends its spell by the day, soon to surface in a new NBC prime-time mini-series, "Revelations," being sold with the slogan "The End is Near." All this is happening while polls consistently show that at most a fifth of the country subscribes to the religious views of those in the Republican base whom even George Will, speaking last Sunday on ABC's "This Week," acknowledged may be considered "extremists." In that famous Election Day exit poll, "moral values" voters amounted to only 22 percent. Similarly, an ABC News survey last weekend found that only 27 percent of Americans thought it was "appropriate" for Congress to "get involved" in the Schiavo case and only 16 percent said it would want to be kept alive in her condition. But a majority of American colonists didn't believe in witches during the Salem trials either - any more than the Taliban reflected the views of a majority of Afghans. At a certain point - and we seem to be at that point - fear takes over, allowing a mob to bully the majority over the short term. (Of course, if you believe the end is near, there is no long term.) That bullying, stoked by politicians in power, has become omnipresent, leading television stations to practice self-censorship and high school teachers to avoid mentioning "the E word," evolution, in their classrooms, lest they arouse fundamentalist rancor. The president is on record as saying that the jury is still out on evolution, so perhaps it's no surprise that The Los Angeles Times has uncovered a three-year-old "religious rights" unit in the Justice Department that investigated a biology professor at Texas Tech because he refused to write letters of recommendation for students who do not accept evolution as "the central, unifying principle of biology." Cornelia Dean of The New York Times [1]broke the story last weekend that some Imax theaters, even those in science centers, are now refusing to show documentaries like "Gal?pagos" or "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" because their references to Darwin and the Big Bang theory might antagonize some audiences. Soon such films will disappear along with biology textbooks that don't give equal time to creationism. James Cameron, producer of "Volcanoes" (and, more famously, the director of "Titanic"), called this development "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science." Faith-based science has in turn begat faith-based medicine that impedes stem-cell research, not to mention faith-based abstinence-only health policy that impedes the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and diseases like AIDS. Faith-based news is not far behind. Ashley Smith, the 26-year-old woman who was held hostage by Brian Nichols, the accused Atlanta courthouse killer, has been canonized by virtually every American news organization as God's messenger because she inspired Mr. Nichols to surrender by talking about her faith and reading him a chapter from Rick Warren's best seller, "The Purpose-Driven Life." But if she's speaking for God, what does that make Dennis Rader, the church council president arrested in Wichita's B.T.K. serial killer case? Was God instructing Terry Ratzmann, the devoted member of the Living Church of God who this month murdered his pastor, an elderly man, two teenagers and two others before killing himself at a weekly church service in Wisconsin? The religious elements of these stories, including the role played by the end-of-times fatalism of Mr. Ratzmann's church, are left largely unexamined by the same news outlets that serve up Ashley Smith's tale as an inspirational parable for profit. Next to what's happening now, official displays of DeMille's old Ten Commandments monuments seem an innocuous encroachment of religion into public life. It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend, and what's most scary about it is how little was heard from the political opposition. The Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:26:02 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:26:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Auster: Gov. Bush must act, despite the courts Message-ID: This shows the zeal of a convert from Judaism to Christianity. Aside from the death threats, which I have only read about, this is the most extreme statement I've seen on the net. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:16:31 -0500 From: Lawrence Auster To: Interested Parties Subject: Gov. Bush must act, despite the courts Gov. Bush must act, despite the courts by Lawrence Auster at View from the Right, "the right blog for the right" As explained by William Bennett and Brian Kennedy writing at NRO, the Florida legislature in 2003 passed a law favored by Gov. Bush that would save Terri Schiavo's life. The Florida Supreme Court then declared the law unconstitutional, a holding with which the governor disagrees. Everybody assumes that that's the end of the matter, that we are under a rule of judges. But we are not. The executive has the same right and duty to judge the constitutionality of a law that the courts have. It is only modern liberalism, which worships courts because they pushed through liberal agendas by usurping the power of legislatures, that has convinced us otherwise. As the chief executive of Florida, Bush is charged with protecting the rights and lives of the people. If a wayward court is destroying an innocent person's life, it is the governor's duty to act to save that person's life. He should therefore exercise his police powers and order Terri's feeding tube reconnected. If the people of Florida think that he acted illegally, they can seek his impeachment through the legislature. That's the way it ought to happen under a republican form of government. What should not happen is this disgusting spectacle of all of us sitting around like slaves while an innocent women is starved and dehydrated to death. I urge readers to call or e-mail Gov. Bush and urge him to take action to stop this atrocity. I'm going to do so myself. Here is contact information. Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 25, 2005 01:53 PM | Comment | Yet another Holy Week atrocity by Lawrence Auster at View from the Right, "the right blog for the right" For the second time in five years, government entities in this country are with brute force victimizing an innocent person during Holy Week, the week of Christ's Passion. The last time it was the Clinton administration's seizure of Elian Gonzales, of which I wrote at NewsMax: This country, which makes such a show of supporting the oppressed against the oppressors, treats [Elian's] Miami relatives in their modest bungalow home--these people who have nothing to stand on but their humanity and their sense of what is right--with contempt. This country, which gobbles up one Hollywood thriller after another in which people who fight against authority for a cause they believe in are regarded as heroes, regards the good Marisleysis as a joke and the heroic Lazaro as a lowlife. How dead are the souls of the millions of Americans who, far from sympathizing with these good people, agree with those who callously mock and dismiss them. How dead are their souls that they can't understand that a person who has saved a child's life [Donato Dalrymple] feels forever a special bond and obligation to the one he saved. How contemptuous are they to a man who did nothing but good, a "fisher of men" who rescued a lost soul from the wide ocean. Most of all, how lost are they that they cannot see the symbolic evil of what the Clinton government is doing with their support--grabbing at gun point from the man who saved him the boy he miraculously saved, seizing him from his surrogate mother, whom he called "Mari," seizing him through the despicable ruse of negotiations, seizing him in the early morning hours of Holy Saturday for fear of acting in broad daylight before the eyes of the people. If the feds had done their deed just 24 hours earlier, in the early morning hours of Good Friday, the parallel with the arrest of Jesus would have been complete. And now it is Holy Thursday five years later, Holy Thursday, when Jesus bade his disciples to eat of his body and drink of his blood, in which is remission of sins and eternal life, and this country, with the apparent acquiescence and even the active, emotional support of a majority of the people (just as with Elian), is withholding food and water from an innocent woman in order to kill her, a woman who is loved by her family, a woman who has the light of love in her eyes when her relatives speak to her and caress her, and it is killing her only because her estranged husband wants her to die, while her own blood, who actually care about her and want to save her, are being turned down by every court in the land. Do we think that God's protection will remain over us, if we keep behaving like this? How many unmistakable signs must we receive that we are in rebellion against God, before we wake up? With every legal avenue closed, there is only way to prevent this monstrous judicial crime from being consummated: Gov. Bush must activate the National Guard, take over the hospital, and save Terri Schiavo's life. Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 24, 2005 01:48 PM | Comment | (To read original article, click on the article's title above.) From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:56:16 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:56:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Sobran Column --- Legal Fiction Message-ID: Legal Fiction http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050324.shtml March 24, 2005 [spacer.gif] Have conservative Republicans been inconsistent, even hypocritical, in seeking Federal intervention to save Terri Schiavo? [3]Read Joe's columns the day he writes them. What about the principles of states' rights and the sanctity of the family? [spacer.gif] It's a striking departure from the causes they usually espouse, all right; but they have the very human excuse of wanting desperately to save a life. What is less excusable is that liberal Democrats, with honorable exceptions, have just as suddenly embraced the same principles, which they usually minimize and even mock. [spacer.gif] Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die. He invokes the sanctity of marriage to justify not only starving and dehydrating her, but causing her parents the cruelest agony parents can suffer. [spacer.gif] He says he is only trying to honor the promise he made to Terri, that he would never prolong her life in such a condition. This is a remarkable case of recovered memory, since it took him seven years to remember this pledge. We are supposed to believe the subject came up so early in their life together? How did they know Terri, and not he, would be in this plight? Or did he exact a reciprocal pledge from her at the time, never to prolong his life if he should be the afflicted one? He hasn't said. [spacer.gif] Even if Terri told him she wouldn't want to be kept alive in a "persistent vegetative state," she could hardly have imagined the specific difficulties that have come to pass in her case. We may doubt that she'd want her parents to be tortured this way so that her husband could "move on," as he so aptly puts it, from his marriage to her. [Breaker quote: The tender mercies of Michael Schiavo] [spacer.gif] What makes Michael Schiavo's story even more fishy is that the sanctity of his alleged promise to Terri hasn't stopped him from violating an even more basic promise: He has indeed "moved on" and taken another woman, whom he calls his "fianc?e," and by whom he already has two children. Many men commit adultery, but few announce their engagements to other women while still married to living wives. This "fianc?e" should take a close look at the man she intends to marry. [spacer.gif] How has it come about that Terri Schiavo's life is at the mercy of the very man who wants her dead? The law presumes that a husband has the best interests of his wife at heart. But the interests of spouses may not be identical, but opposed. No woman's life should depend on the good will of her enemy. After all, nobody who stands to gain by an accused murderer's execution would be allowed to sit on his jury. [spacer.gif] This issue has been confused by legal abortion. A mother is presumed to have the best interests of her child at heart; she can hardly be impartial. But, in fact, many women, finding themselves inconveniently pregnant, pay abortionists to solve what they see as their problems. It's disingenuous to say, in such circumstances, that the interests of mother and child are identical. The law now prefers the interests of the mother, as she unilaterally defines them; the child's interests don't count. [spacer.gif] In the same way, Terri Schiavo (as of this moment) is a problem for Michael Schiavo. He pretends that her interests and his are identical, citing his alleged privileged knowledge of her wishes. He is relying on the legal fiction, often useful but sometimes false, that spouses want what is best for each other. Terri's death, a near certainty since the courts have refused to save her, would be good for her husband and his "fianc?e"; but he also wants us to believe that it would be good for Terri. [spacer.gif] When a man is tried for murder, his interests are protected and represented; he can have a lawyer to insist on his rights. But there are no legal safeguards for the unborn child, or for Terri Schiavo. They are at the mercy of those who want to get rid of them. This is why the people who favor legal abortion, including feminists, generally support Michael Schiavo; the people who oppose legal abortion generally support Terri's right to live -- and in most cases, the sanctity of marriage too. [spacer.gif] Honoring Michael Schiavo's claim that he represents what his wife wanted -- including her family's anguish -- is carrying a legal fiction to the point of absurdity. Her fate should have been left to those who love her. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:57:38 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:57:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Szasz Blog: The Terri Schiavo Case Message-ID: The Terri Schiavo Case http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html The purpose of The Szasz Blog is to advance the debate about Thomas S. Szasz's basic ideas and their practical implications. The Szasz Blog is part of The Szasz Site, www.szasz.com The administrators are Jeff Schaler and Sheldon Richman. Comments are published at the discretion of the administrators. Please stay on topic. The length should not exceed 250 words. E-mail comments to sheldon at sheldonrichman.com or jeffschaler at attglobal.net Saturday, March 19, 2005 The Terri Schiavo Case The sad case of Terri Schiavo brings important medical-ethical issues to the fore. But this is not a hard case. As a general principle, when there is reasonable doubt about an incapacitated person's wishes regarding life-support and when someone is willing to pay for continued support, the presumption should be in favor of life and a spouse should not be able to terminate it. In this case, there is no written proof that Terri Schiavo expressed a wish not to be kept alive. All we have is her husband's and one or two other persons' say so. Not good enough. In fact, according to [7]Terri Schiavo's parents, "When he [husband Michael Schiavo] promised the malpractice jury back in 1993 that he would take care of Terri for the rest of his life, Mr. Schiavo said nothing to the jury about Terri not wanting to be sustained on anything `artificial.'" Not only was Michael Schiavo [8]awarded money by a jury for her perpetual care, it has been reported that others have offered to pay for her life-support. Add to these facts that ten years ago Michael Shiavo [9]commenced a romantic relationship with another woman whom he describes as his fiance, has had two children with that woman, and has announced that he has "moved on" with his life, and his wish to disconnect his wife from feeding and hydration tubes becomes suspect and indeed irrelevant. The Florida courts long ago should have excluded Michael Shiavo from the matter, declaring that he has a conflict of interest, and recognized Terri Schiavo's parents as her guardians. The fact is, we don't know what Terri Shiavo would say she wants if she could speak for herself. But there should be a presumption in favor of preserving life unless that presumption is overcome by an advance directive. It might be argued that in her condition, Terri Schiavo is no longer a person and thus has no interests. But what is the difference between a former person (non-person) and a severely impaired person? Does the desired disposition dictate which term we use? Language is often more prescriptive than descriptive. posted by Sheldon Richman @ [10]12:05 PM [11]11 comments 11 Comments: At [12]5:16 PM, [13]Lee Killough said... Here is a [14]radio interview (MP3) of Terri's brother, Bob Schindler, and family lawyer, Pat Anderson, that was recorded by a friend of mine this week. At [15]9:34 PM, [16]Mira de Vries said... It is clear that there is a horrific feud going on between the parents and the husband. We should be careful not to take sides. The idea that the husband has a conflict of interest while the parents don't is unfair. Surely no one is suggesting that the husband should have stayed celibate for fifteen years. Now there is a new family which also has interests. This may be affecting not only the husband's point of view, but also that of the parents, who clearly resent the new family. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to die for the benefit of the new family. I'm only pointing out that there is no party without a conflict of interest. Does Mrs. Schiavo truly respond to environmental stimuli, as her parents claim? Or are they fighting acceptance of the reality that she is no longer? Or are they using their daughter to punish the new family? Perhaps no one can know the answer for sure, which would certainly be a reason to continue the life-support, but I don't think the issue is as clear-cut as you suggest. At [17]11:26 PM, [18]Nicolas Martin said... Being careless, I'll side with the conflict of interest known as love. I agree that there should be a "presumption in favor of preserving life." But. Don't the physicians who are caring for Mrs. Schiavo want to disconnect her? How can the woman be kept alive if the state does not compel the doctors and the hospital to keep her on support? Why should the state have such power? At [19]12:01 AM, [20]Nicolas Martin said... Too bad nobody remembered to bring a video camera to this event. Terri Schiavo Tried to Tell Parents' Attorney She Wanted to Live http://www.lifenews.com/bio805.html Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys for Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler, told reporters about her visit with Terri on Friday. "Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this will be over," she told the disabled woman. Weller said Terri desperately tried to repeat Weller's words. "'I waaaaannt ...,' Schiavo allegedly said. Weller described it as a prolonged yell that was loud enough that police stationed nearby entered the hospice room. "She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Weller explained. At that point, police removed Weller from Terri's hospice room and, later, her feeding tube was removed. At [21]7:21 AM, [22]Sheldon Richman said... I am not saying I agree with the parents' decision or that we know that their position is untainted by vindictiveness. All I'm arguing for is a presumption in behalf of the preservation of life. It does not follow from this that the taxpayers should be compelled to maintain life-support. I understand that private money has been offered to support her. At [23]10:21 AM, [24]Mira de Vries said... Sheldon, surely the right to life is not contingent on the willingness of a third party to pay for it? In Libertaria, where the state has no power except to protect citizens' right to life, liberty, and property, the technological possibility of life-support systems will force us to take another look at the definition of life. At [25]10:43 AM, [26]Sheldon Richman said... The right to life cannot mean that others (absent a contract) have an obligation to sustain that person's life. That would be slavery. It means only the right to take non-coercive actions to maintain one's life. At [27]10:44 AM, [28]Sheldon Richman said... It would be hard to come up with a group of people more cynical than the the Republican leadership in the Congress. This is from today's Washington Post: "In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as 'a great political issue' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006." At [29]11:13 AM, [30]Mira de Vries said... Sheldon said: "The right to life cannot mean that others (absent a contract) have an obligation to sustain that person's life." In Mrs. Schiavo's case, that would mean that the husband has an obligation to sustain her life at whatever cost, as it is understood by the marriage contract. On the other hand, he has no obligation to sustain the life of his common-law wife, as state law prohibiting bigamy prevents him from making a marriage contract with her. My conclusion is that as long as the state interferes so heavily in our private lives, we cannot always apply libertarian principles to the right to life. At [31]8:54 PM, [32]Nicolas Martin said... mira de vries wrote: "[S]urely the right to life is not contingent on the willingness of a third party to pay for it?" You mean, I assume that the right to remain alive should not depend on third party support. But why not? Does Mrs. Schiavo retain the right to indefinitely force others to maintain her on life support? Does that right extend to doctors who think it unethical to keep her alive? Does it extend to her family, even in the event they decide she should not be sustained artifically? Does it extend to all people who pay taxes? If an adult has a right to live at the expense of others, should this right be confined just to medical interventions? Does someone who, due to handicap, cannot generate the income to feed or house himself have the right to compel others to support him? If a person is so impaired that he cannot bring food to his mouth, does he have the right to compel others to put the food in his mouth? If so, is this a right that can be exercised only indirectly, such as by having taxpayer money pay for an assistant, or can it be exercised directly, such as by having the police compel his neighbor or family to attend to his needs? If you believe that the family or taxpayers can be compelled to support a right to life, does that also mean that they are obliged to provide assistance, directly or indirectly, to all elderly persons who haven't the financial, mental, or physical wherewithall to care for themselves? I'm interested in more details on this positive right that you are apparently propounding. What are its boundaries? I can't see how it could be limited to medical care: food and shelter are just as critical for survival. And I don't see why it requires a redefinition of life or of ethics. At [33]11:39 AM, [34]Mira de Vries said... I have great faith that in a libertarian society, people (not everybody, but sufficient) will feel responsible for each other's lives, and rally to the rescue when needed. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a libertarian. In our current society, which, I don't have to point out to you, isn't libertarian, the state takes this responsibility upon itself. Private citizens are actively discouraged and even prevented from helping each other, for instance because they are not licensed to do so. As a libertarian living in a maxarchy, I find that not all dilemmas are easily solved by rigid principles. References: 7. http://www.terrisfight.org/press/Press%20Release%20Counter%20Michael.htm 8. http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUR26HK5E.html 9. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1664. 10. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html 11. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#comments 12. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111127061589071173 13. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6070545 14. http://shows.vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/terri.mp3 15. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111128609128131663 16. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6063014 17. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111129278911900991 18. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6053203 19. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111129491605768705 20. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6053203 21. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111132129494416866 22. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6052653 23. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111133210854284231 24. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6063014 25. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111133338814384056 26. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6052653 27. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111133346115587975 28. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6052653 29. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111133522630016266 30. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6063014 31. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111137009973437314 32. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6053203 33. http://theszaszblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case.html#c111142316487036456 34. http://www.blogger.com/profile/6063014 From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:36:40 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Whitaker Online: Bob on the Schiavo Case Message-ID: Whitaker's 3/26/05 Articles http://whitakeronline.org/032605.htm March 26, 2005 - [1]Pimping Pain and Suffering March 26, 2005 - [2]Real People Suffer March 26, 2005 - [3]Deadening Diversions Fun Quote: "Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn Pimping Pain and Suffering Respectable Conservatives are on cloud nine. The Terry Schiavo case in Florida is something they live for. They can have a play fight with the left, and both come out ahead. The left and the Respectable Conservatives love to sink their fangs into an issue like the Schiavo case. They could care less about the people involved, but each gets an enormous opportunity to grandstand. The left sees it as another chance to destroy common decency while the respectables can talk big and raise money on an issue that is emotionally touching and splashy but peripheral to the main issues. Respectables and their unwitting followers get all worked up over this type of issue because it's safe. No one can be called a racist or bigot or hater for siding with Schiavo. Common pity and sympathy are natural in such an individual case. The poor, beleagured working man with a sense of decency can give full vent to his emotions in this type of case without harming the left in any way. Real leadership requires tough decision-making, detachment, and dedication to the big picture. Most people are incapable of this, especially with issues outside their immediate purview. That is why Jesus was so condemning of the scribes and Pharisees. They were the leaders of their day, and were living off of the people, "making merchandise" of them. This is why Jesus told his disciples that the "greatest is the servant of all." He was talking about LEADERSHIP. A real leader serves his people by doing what is best for them, regardless of the cost to himself. A Respectable helps himself to a big serving of his people. Real People Suffer The Schiavo case is a real tragedy for the families involved. It is shameful that their personal suffering is made into a political and media circus act. Few people relate to abstract ideas. People relate to other people, and that is why these personal cases create such attraction. The influence of TV and other media has warped this very human trait all out of perspective. That is why Congress and the Supreme Court and the President must all weigh in on this case and "do something!" Anyone who believes a country can be governed adequately in this manner is out of his mind. It takes someone like Ole Bob to point this out. When there is a natural disaster like the Florida hurricanes last year, the Governor and the President must immediately get on a helicopter and rush to the scene. Why? What good can they accomplish? They are wasting thousands of dollars and impeding the efforts to alleviate REAL suffering by REAL people. All for a dog and pony show. Meanwhile back on planet earth, in fact in the same state of Florida, a little girl is brutally raped and murdered by a repeat "sex offender." The life of a family is torn apart because the left has succeeded in keeping these animals out of the electric chair and putting them back into REAL neighborhoods where they can prey on REAL people. Oh, you'll hear Respectable Conservatives pound their fists about bringing back the death penalty and keeping these people locked up. But will you ever hear one remind a leftist who got them back on the streets in the first place? Here is a [4]well-written description of what REAL people suffer. It is part of an account of a young female "whigger" that is worth reading. Notice how this young girl acts just like a "Respectable Conservative." Think about how many REAL little girls are ending up like this, because "Respectable Conservatives" have let the left lead us down this path. Deadening Diversions Cases that are novel and shocking grab the media headlines. People are drawn to them like moths to a flame. That is part of our nature. It is easily exploited. It is horrible when a child is murdered. It is heart-rending to see a case like the Schiavo one. But what can we say when we have thousands and thousands of our young people slowly destroyed right under our noses? Having Daddy's little girl become a wretched little whore over a ten year period is not a headline grabber. Yet we all see these works in progress every single day. So while we have Respectable Conservatives and leftists and everybody else screaming and wailing over a brain-dead woman, we have thousands and thousands of our little girls being turned into brain-dead little tramps, and thousands and thousands of our little boys being turned into brain-dead animals. Think about this when you watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or your favorite respectable rail about the latest circus act. What are they saying about the little girls you see every day? When the dust settles on the Schiavo case, and before the next one arrives, take some time to think about what is really being accomplished. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 00:30:15 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:30:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: Changing the sheets Message-ID: Changing the sheets http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109543&window_type=print Noel Malcolm 03 December 2004 A game of blind man's buff with Leviathan LEVIATHAN. By Thomas Hobbes. Edited by Karl Schuhmann and G. A. J. Rogers. Volume One: Introduction. 224pp. Volume Two: The new edition. 576pp. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. ?150. - 1 84371 026 9 In April 1651, Edward Hyde, the future Earl of Clarendon, stayed briefly in Paris. He was tired, ill and more than usually disgruntled, having just returned from a fruitless attempt to raise money in Madrid for the Royalist cause. He also felt ill at ease among the courtiers who clustered round the exiled Queen Henrietta Maria. But he did have one old friend in the French capital: the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who had been living in Paris for just over ten years. Hobbes, he later recalled, frequently came to me, and told me his Book (which he would call Leviathan) was then Printing in England, and that he receiv'd every week a Sheet to correct, of which he shewed me one or two Sheets, and thought it would be finished within little more then a moneth. (He) concluded, that he knew when I read his Book I would not like it, and thereupon mention'd some of his Conclusions; upon which I asked him, why he would publish such doctrine: to which, after a discourse between jest and earnest upon the Subject, he said, The truth is, I have a mind to go home. Hobbes was right: when Hyde received a copy of Leviathan a month or two later, he was disgusted by it. The book's key claim about the reciprocal relationship of "protection and obedience" seemed calculated to undermine the Royalist cause: it implied that if Charles II was in no position to protect his subjects, they were under no obligation to obey him. When Charles returned to Paris in November after his defeat at Worcester, Hyde was one of the advisers who persuaded him to ban Hobbes from his court. By this point, Hobbes's "mind to go home" was fully made up: he left Paris for London in the following month. Leviathan was certainly written in a very specific, and very fraught, political context. But it was, even at the time, a politically multivalent work. While it justified those who had submitted to the victorious rebels, it denounced rebellion and contested all the justifications the rebels had given for their actions. Its defence of monarchy, which aligned Hobbes with Royalists against republicans, included a stinging attack on constitutional theories of "mixed monarchy", which some Royalists had happily accepted. Its theory of the sovereign as the "representative" of the people used Parliament-arian language to make a profoundly anti- Parliamentarian point, while at the same time setting the authority of any monarch on a basis (the will of the people) that traditional monarchists would find repugnant. And, above all, Hobbes's treatment of religion offended Catholics, Presbyterians and Anglicans in almost equal measure. As an intervention in the politics of its time, Leviathan thus submits to no simple characterization. But, of course, it was more than a political tract: it claimed to present a science of politics consistent with, or derived from, the principles of the "new science", and it transformed natural-law theory, making it thoroughly naturalistic for the first time. Hobbes's theories were later used both by defenders of absolutism and by the underground writers of the radical Enlightenment. Today, Leviathan is seen as a seminal work for the modern traditions of both illiberal and liberal thought - indeed, as one of the seminal works of "modernity" as such. Which makes it all the more surprising that there has never yet been a proper critical edition of Leviathan. For many of Hobbes's writings, indeed, the only modern edition is the incomplete and unreliable one issued by Sir William Molesworth between 1839 and 1845. A new, complete, edition of Hobbes's works is under way at the Oxford University Press, and it will of course include Leviathan (edited by this reviewer). The late Karl Schuhmann, a German scholar who taught at the University of Utrecht, was familiar with the Oxford project, and made an outstanding contribution to one of its forthcoming volumes; but as he had a rather different approach to textual matters, he felt that it would be preferable to produce his own edition of Leviathan, in which he could proceed on a different basis. This large task dominated the final years of his life; he died of cancer in 2003, and the work was seen through the press by his English collaborator, G. A. J. Rogers. It appears in two volumes: the work itself, and a lengthy Introduction, in which Schuhmann sets out his theories about the history of the text. According to the publishers, this is "the first edition to take proper account of the publishing history"; it is thus "as definitive an edition of Leviathan as modern scholarship can provide". Such claims, if true, would make this one of the most important Hobbes publications in many decades. Anyone producing a critical edition has to begin by examining, and discriminating between, the early states of the text. Here the editor of Leviathan immediately faces a problem: although the identity of the true first edition, published in 1651, is not in doubt, there are two other early editions, both dated "1651" but presumed to be later. These three editions are known by the ornaments that appear on their printed title pages: the first is called the "Head" edition, the second "the Bear", and the third the "Ornaments"' (from its pattern of small ornaments, repeated in rows). The Bear and the Ornaments are sometimes called "pirated" editions, and it is generally supposed that each was printed to meet popular demand when the previous edition was exhausted. But, on the other hand, the Bear does contain a few significant changes to the text (copied also in the Ornaments), which may have derived from Hobbes himself. In 2002, I published a study of the printing history of the Bear, which argued that those changes did indeed come from Hobbes's pen, as responses to theological criticism in 1658 and a threat of possible prosecution in the late 1660s. My evidence suggested that the Bear was a hybrid product, the result first of an abortive attempt to print the book in London in 1670 (abortive because it was interrupted by a raid by the authorities) and then of a printing of the missing sheets by an Amsterdam printer sometime later in the 1670s. Karl Schuhmann's version of the story is very different. He starts with a master clue: that recollection by Hyde of Hobbes receiving "every week a Sheet to correct". All previous writers have assumed that Hobbes was proof-reading, making corrections that he would send back to the publisher who was organizing the printing of the Head edition in London, Andrew Crooke. Schuhmann disagrees. He points out, quite reasonably, that the pages would not have been kept in standing type, awaiting Hobbes's corrections: this would have been quite impractical for the printers (who were probably producing many more than one sheet per week). So why was Hobbes "correcting" sheets in Paris? The obvious answer is that he was compiling the general list of errata which was in fact included in the last sheet to be printed. But Schuhmann insists, a priori, that correcting typographical errors was the business of the printing-house corrector, not the author, so Hobbes cannot have been engaged in such work. Schuhmann has apparently never looked at Percy Simpson's classic book on proof- reading in the early modern period, which demonstrated, nearly seventy years ago, that the authorial correction of typographical errors was common. This, alas, is not the only point on which Schuhmann's argument is largely sustained by its lack of acquaintance with the facts of printing history. To the puzzle of those corrected sheets in Paris, Schuhmann has a strikingly original solution: Hobbes was making material changes to the text, and sending the altered sheets not back to London, but on to Amsterdam. There they were used by a Dutch printer, who produced the Bear edition - hence the authorial changes it contains. And this edition, produced almost simultaneously with the original Head edition, was then shipped back to the person who had commissioned and paid for it: Andrew Crooke. Why this cumbersome and roundabout procedure? Schuhmann's answer is that Crooke knew the book would "create a sensation" and might be seized and suppressed by the authorities. So he chose "the common way out and (also) had the book printed in Holland": that way, he would have extra copies to "financially indemnify him, if the English part of the production were to be seized". This is hugely implausible. Crooke obviously did not worry about the book being seized: had he done so, he would not have entered it under his name in the Stationers' Register, nor would he have printed his own name and address on the title page. As for the "common" procedure of simultaneous printing in Holland: Schuhmann gives no other examples of this, and they would indeed be hard to find. We are asked to imagine that Crooke would have thus duplicated the entire cost of setting up a text in print (a large part of his investment); that he would have incurred the risk of the Dutch printer running off more copies, which might then be sold surreptitiously to other booksellers, undermining Crooke's own sales; and that he would not only have allowed, but encouraged, the author to turn this secondary printing into a superior version of the text, thus further undermining the primary one if the differences between them ever became known. A great many other aspects of the case do not fit the proposition that the Bear was produced simultaneously with the Head. For example, there are many copies of the Head with dated inscriptions from the 1650s and 60s, but the earliest inscribed copy of the Bear is from 1678. The most important change made, apparently by Hobbes, to the text of the Bear relates to criticism published in the late 1650s; when Hobbes wrote a reply to that criticism in the 1660s, he did not state that he had already corrected that passage, but lamely claimed that it did not mean what it said. Again, Schuhmann's theory cannot account for the fact that the Bear was produced in two separate printing-houses (with different type and different paper). The simplest explanation of this - that some sheets were salvaged from the raid in 1670, to be used as the initial element in the make-up of the Bear -is dismissed as "an ad hoc hypothesis"; he omits to mention that it is a hypothesis backed by detailed evidence from the archives of the Stationers' Company. Schuhmann's resistance to that hypothesis is, psychologically at least, understandable; by the time he considered it, he had finished constructing his own history of the text, in which it was the Ornaments edition, not the Bear, that was identified with the printing interrupted in 1670. Here too his argument faces serious difficulties. He notes that the Ornaments divides into two sections with different typefaces, and concludes that this was caused by the interruption of the printing in 1670, when it became necessary to finish off the work at a different printing-house. He has not noticed that the paper is the same throughout the book, and that the same italic founts are used in both sections - strong evidence that it was produced (quite normally) by two teams in a single printing-house. All the evidence suggests that the Ornaments was a much later production; the earliest known dated copy is from 1702, long after Hobbes's death. Nevertheless, regardless of its date, Schuhmann argues that it is in fact the most authoritative edition of Leviathan, on the grounds that it contains further indubitably authorial changes to the text. There are just a handful of these changes, and what convinces Schuhmann that they came from Hobbes is that they coincide with changes Hobbes himself had made in the presentation manuscript which he gave to Charles II in 1651. But this argument is simply not compelling: in every case, the correction is one that any observant copy-editor could have made. The fact that the same improvement was made by Hobbes in 1651 and by an unknown copy-editor in, say, 1701 does not prove that the latter had access to personal instructions from the former. Schuhmann's attribution of final authority to the Ornaments will not, I think, be widely accepted. But in a strange way it is not accepted by Schuhmann himself: for when he comes to choosing the copy-text for his own edition, he rejects the Ornaments and goes back to the Head. This is surprising, because his theory of editorial method adheres to the old rule of the Ausgabe letzter Hand - that is, reproducing all features of the last edition in which the author was involved. His reasons for abandoning this rule here (while insisting that it is still correct in principle) are hard to follow, but have to do with a "pragmatic" preference for the spelling used in the Head edition. He also suggests that, while the Ornaments has more authority, it does stand at the end of an accumulation of typographical errors; he thus appears to have gone a little way towards reinventing the classic arguments of W. W. Greg and Fredson Bowers about the distinction between the authority of a text in substantive matters and in accidentals - arguments of which Schuhmann seems otherwise quite unaware. Having decided to base his edition on the Head, he then faced a further problem: the variants that exist between different copies of the Head edition. In-press correction was common in this period, and books were usually made up of an assortment of corrected and uncorrected sheets; this is why modern editors routinely collate multiple copies of their copy-text, in order to record the variants and identify the corrections. In a special case, an editor may find a privileged version of the text: where "large-paper" presentation copies were printed, they were often made at the end of the print run of each sheet, incorporating all in-press corrections. Richard Tuck's 1991 edition of Leviathan gave priority, for this reason, to a large-paper copy of the Head. Schuhmann has many pages discussing Tuck's edition (with withering comments on its adequacy); he dismisses the idea that the large-paper copies were made at the end of the run, on the grounds that they also include some errors. But the errors mentioned by Schuhmann merely demonstrate that Tuck was right: they consist only of cases where type has dropped out during the printing process (and, once or twice, been wrongly reinserted). This becomes plain if one makes a full collation of the large paper copies with the other copies; but that, of course, is something Schuhmann never did. Instead, he declaims against all such collating, arguing first that one would have to compare every single copy printed (an objection that was dealt with by bibliographers long ago, using simple mathematical sampling theory), and then that, a priori, collating could produce no evidence of value. His credo is that one copy is enough - or, as his colleague John Rogers puts it, "one copy, one vote". And yet here one comes to the strangest feature of this editorially idiosyncratic enterprise. Schuhmann has in fact attempted a detailed comparison of variants in different printings of the Head edition; but he has done so at one remove. Instead of examining the original seventeenth-century copies, he has examined a variety of twentieth-century editions (the Penguin, the Everyman, and so on) which are based on slightly differing copies of the Head. He notes that these modern editions therefore differ on many small points, and his editorial apparatus minutely records their "variants". Without checking the original copies used by those previous editors, he does not know whether the "variants" he records are genuine variants in the 1651 copies, or whether they are misprints, mistranscriptions, or emendations by the modern editors. A proper collation of the 1651 copies will show, I believe, that his apparatus contains examples of all of these, indiscriminately mixed in. Never mind that he also faithfully records misprints in Molesworth's Victorian edition, while silently correcting those of the 1651 printing. The whole basis on which Schuhmann's edition is constructed involves a procedure which cannot be called textual-critical recension at all; it is something more akin to a game of bibliographical blind man's buff. This is a sad end to a great career. Karl Schuhmann possessed extraordinary gifts of philological analysis; and there are many passages in his introductory volume here that display those talents, analysing, for instance, the relationship between the presentation manuscript and the 1651 text, or between the English Leviathan and its later translation into Latin. One wishes that he had devoted more time and space to such matters (and less of both to his minute investigations of the defects of various modern paperback editions). One wishes that he had caught up with the past fifty years or so of scholarship on printing history and analytical bibliography. And, most of all, one wishes that he had actually taken some physical copies of the 1651 edition in his hands, and seen for himself what they contained. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 00:31:16 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:31:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: The biographists' tales Message-ID: The biographists' tales http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109637&window_type=print Nicolas Barker 10 December 2004 THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, editors. Sixty volumes. Oxford University Press. ?7,500 (US $13,000). 0 19 861411 X Who's in, who's out and who's writing Different literary forms have been dominant at different times in different countries. In Britain, drama expressed the shifting pattern of society over four generations from the mid-sixteenth century, poetry from the mid- seventeenth, the novel from the mid-eighteenth. History had its day from William Robertson, Gibbon and Hume to Henry Hallam, Macaulay and the Trevelyans, and poetry had another surge in the nineteenth century. Fichte, in Uber das Wesen des Gelehrten, had an explanation for this, picked up by both Coleridge and Carlyle. There is a "divine idea" at the bottom of the world, not recognizable to most of us among the superficialities of life, but (the words are Carlyle's) "the Man of Letters is sent hither specially that he may discern for himself, and make manifest to us this same Divine Idea: in every generation it will manifest itself in a new dialect". Has biography come to express the spirit of our age? More and more biographies command an ever larger readership. Carlyle would not have been surprised: "The History of the World is but the Biography of great men", from which he drew the surprising deduction that made On Heroes so exciting in 1840, that "Odin, Luther, Johnson, Burns . . . are all originally of one stuff; that only by the world's reception of them, and the shapes they assume, are they so immeasurably diverse". It was this principle, interpreted by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, that inspired George Smith, the great publisher, to bring the Dictionary of National Biography into existence in 1882. His original idea had been a world biography on the lines of the Biographie Universelle (forty volumes, 1843-63), but in English. Stephen, who edited The Cornhill Magazine for Smith, thought otherwise, and on his advice in 1882, Smith "resolved to confine his efforts to the production of a complete dictionary of national biography which should supply full, accurate and concise biographies of all noteworthy inhabitants of the British Islands and the Colonies (exclusive of living persons) from the earliest historical period to the present time". This succinct definition by Lee, who took over from Stephen in 1891, had some odd exceptions: almost all the Irish rebels of 1798 were included, but pre-1776 Americans were not. But on the whole that was the rule applied then, and in the supplements published since. Chroniclers of the DNB from Lee onwards give the impression that British biography, or at least biographical dictionaries, sprang from the brow of Zeus, without antecedents. Far from it: Aelfric's Lives of the saints inaugurated a long medieval tradition, and Thomas More's Life of Richard III, written in Latin and English, looked back to Sallust as well as forward to the exemplary plan of Izaak Walton's Lives. This, too, was not new; the "parallel lives" of North's translation of Plutarch were implicitly examples. Dryden first coined "biography" in English to define Plutarch as "the history of particular men's lives" (Fuller's Worthies provides "biographist" for their writers). But the earliest attempt at a complete national dictionary was by Thomas Birch (1705-66), who has descended from "historian and biographer" in the old DNB to a mere "compiler" in the new. He did indeed compile many "lives", some if not all original, but his Biographia Britannica: or, the lives of the most eminent persons who have flourished in Great Britain and Ireland (1747-66) was the first systematic alphabetic dictionary of its subject. Like all its successors, it drew on the obituaries of the Gentleman's Magazine (1731 1876), so perhaps that publication's founder, Edward Cave, is the real father of British biography. But Birch's dictionary found imitators, the most successful The British Plutarch by Thomas Mortimer (1762), and a continuator, Andrew Kippis, whose unwieldy second edition was never completed. None of these predecessors was given much credit in the original DNB (although its title was to have been Biographia Britannica) and they have fared even less well in the new, due, perhaps, to a further century's gap between these and Smith's enterprise. Lee wrote an admirable account of this, and of Smith himself, in the first volume of the 1901 Supplement to the DNB, which he carried up to 1912. About his own collaboration with Stephen, Lee wrote affectingly of the former's "catholic interests . . . his tolerant spirit, his sanity of judgement, and his sense of fairness"; if impatient with "mere antiquarian research" (what did he make of his most prolific contributor, Thompson Cooper, who "never ceased to investigate the antiquarian bye-paths of literature"?), "he refused mercy to contributors who offered him vague conjecture or sentimental eulogy instead of unembroidered fact". Lee himself "was not more autocratic than was necessary for the smooth running of the machine up to time . . . and realized that its value depended on the general standard of the articles and not chiefly on the merits of the more important lives. His relations with his staff were far from autocratic". The two shared "the editor's sanctum", a small back room next to Smith, Elder's premises, to which they were connected by a speaking-tube. The large front room looking into Waterloo Place was the workshop; several large tables, many inkpots, piles of proofs and manuscripts on chairs and tables, a little pyramid of Stephen's pipes at one end of the chimney piece, a little pyramid of Lee's at the other end. The narrow side room opening out of it held on its shelves a fine assortment of reference books, sets of the Gentleman's Magazine and of Notes and Queries, Wood, Le Neve, and other biographical collections. The picture is by C. H. Firth. The scene, with which he was familiar as a contributor, clearly appealed to him, and he was one of the main advocates, with H. W. C. Davis and J. R. Weaver, of the acceptance of the bequest by Smith's son-in-law of the copyright and stereotype plates of the DNB to the Oxford University Press in 1917. This was bitterly opposed by Charles Cannan, Secretary to the Delegates of the Press, but he died in 1919, and Davis and Weaver produced two more volumes, covering 1912-30 (Davis had the victims, Weaver the generals of the First World War). L. G. Wickham-Legg edited the next two decades, assisted in the second by E. T. Williams, who was responsible for the next two, up to 1970; he retired in 1980. The standard set by Stephen and Lee was kept up by Davis and Weaver, although constrained by the all too recent deaths of their subjects. Shortening the focus from ten centuries to ten years made problems that their successors failed to solve, the later volumes conspicuously arid and banal, apart from the odd posthumous hatchet job. The problem was not unrecognized at Oxford; immediately after the bequest, Davis wrote that "the tendency after the war will be towards the study of Movements and Developments rather than of pure biography". The study of medieval and some periods of later British history had been transformed by the series of abstracts of original documents produced by the Record Commission in the nineteenth century, and the DNB was carried on in its wake; it was now overtaken by its own success. In 1941, John Sparrow analysed some of its shortcomings, its narrow vertical sections of profession, the equally constricted horizontal layers of class, the venial failure to anticipate the judgement of posterity, all matters on which Stephen and Lee had failed to agree. The 1970s, Williams's last decade, were miserable for Oxford University Press. The oil crisis had brought a threefold rise in the cost of paper, but "Resale Price Maintenance" required Board of Trade sanction (often painfully delayed) for any increase in the price of the 18,000 titles then in Oxford print. But the DNB was not forgotten; Janet Adam Smith wrote a cogent appeal for revision in the TLS in 1972. I had been involved in planning what became the very successful New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, where the commercial success of the existing edition enabled a wholly rewritten text, computer-based and thus capable of simultaneous publication; I wrote a long report for the Delegates of the Press, recommending a similar approach. The "Compact" DNB duly appeared, but investment in the future was deemed impossible at a time of general retrenchment. The London branch of OUP was closed, and then the printing business, three centuries old, in Oxford. Short-sighted though the latter decision proved, the removal of the general publishing business to Oxford awoke the dormant academic side, no longer prosperous after the huge American investment in academe ended abruptly with the Kent State University massacre. But it was the huge success of "English as a Foreign Language" that restored both prosperity and funds, and enabled the Press to think again about the DNB. Christine Nicholls's volume of 1,000 Missing Persons, published in 1993, led the way. It put right some shortcomings of the past: Sir George Cayley, deemed eccentric in his own time, was now recognized as a pioneer of aviation; more generally, something was done to rectify the imbalance between the sexes due to the rigidity that Sparrow had noticed. Already in April 1990, the Delegates had, with the British Academy, formally applied to the Government for funding to support the research costs of a complete new edition. This was granted through the Academy, the Press undertaking the cost of editorial (including contributors' fees), production and distribution costs. H. C. G. Matthew, editor of Gladstone's Diaries, was appointed editor and started work in September 1992. He found a plan that envisaged publication in serial parts, like the original DNB, due to start in 1995 and end in 2010. He sensibly recognized the advantages of computer-compilation, and determined that the deadline for publication of the complete work should be brought forward to 2004. With equal good sense, he determined that the old edition should not be abandoned, no matter how obsolete some of it was, taking Smith's view of the DNB as "a living organism". Computer technology made it possible to reproduce the original text alongside the new (some of these are not original, for Lee went on revising until 1912). Digital-imaging techniques made it possible to illustrate the articles, and one in five of them now have portraits provided by the National Portrait Gallery. All this has been achieved, despite Colin Matthew's untimely death in 1999, to be seamlessly succeeded by Brian Harrison (both owed much to Robert Faber, the project director). It has cost some ?25 million, of which ?3.7 million is government-funded, the Press supplying ?19.2 million towards all the costs of compilation and a further ?3 million in manufacturing costs. This investment, editorial and financial, redeeming seventy years of half-hearted support, justifies the title Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which might seem at first sight presumptuous. Its publication, complete and on time, is an achievement worthy of the congratulation bestowed on it in the general introduction. Altogether, 54,922 articles have been written by 12,550 authors, under a supervising committee of twenty, with two editors, thirteen consultant editors, 375 assistant editors, forty project staff, forty publishing staff (plus a further twenty-one OUP staff), three picture researchers, 144 research assistants, and about 300 freelance, temporary, or part-time staff. The text that they have produced is available in sixty volumes of print (without the "original" texts) or online at an annual subscription of ?195 (+ VAT - why?) for individuals, varying rates for institutions. With the subscription comes access to further revisions, which are to be continued under the editorship of Laurence Goldman. It is with this that the Oxford investment will be justified and (with luck) rewarded. Twenty-five years ago, a computer-based New Grove not only enabled simultaneous publication of the entire work, but subsequent derivatives, chronological or thematic (the volume on opera, for example), in book form. In 1995, Matthew promised the same in his Leslie Stephen Lecture on "The New Dictionary of National Biography". A set of thematic dictionaries of different professions, each named after one of the Muses (like Herodotus), might make entertaining reading. But it seems more likely that the ODNB will be the last such work to be published in that form, as well as on the Web, to which we all now turn first for any reference. How well does it work as a website? Well enough, in its primary purpose of delivering an article on someone you know whose life you wish to explore. Furthermore, you can obtain lists of all the names in alphabetic or chronological order, or in reverse, and also lists of members of "families" or "groups", related to the subject of your enquiry. You can also click on the "original" texts and on the names of contributors, with lists of the articles that they have written. There are, besides, "themes" on which you can obtain short essays or lists. You can even search the entire text for individual words or combinations thereof. All this is easily done, but ease of access is not the same as versatility, and here there are some shortcomings. You have to ask for names in the right way; it is no good keying in "Colin Matthew", it must be "H. C. G. Matthew" ("Matthew, H" or "Matthew, C" will work, although with an intermediate sort). Ada, Lady Lovelace must be sought as "Augusta Byron". Peers were always difficult to find in the DNB: titles might change, but not the family name, so you had to look there, however familiar the title. In the ODNB you can find them under either, but the names of the titles are a new hazard: "lord" or "countess" will work, but not "earl" or "duke" (perhaps considered to be names). "Families" or "groups" are limited to those identified as such: "Stephen" is a family, but not "Montagu". You can have a list of all Montagu Earls of Salisbury (except, inexplicably, Thomas, the ninth Earl), but it is no good trying to work out how the Montagus and Nevilles were related. As to "groups", you can have "Pre-Raphaelite women"but no Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood , the Tolpuddle Martyrs but not the Souls; try a word-search, and you get, not Lady Desborough, but pages of those who left money for masses. You can look up "fields of interest", twenty-five in all, such as "art" or "trade and retailing". As to themes, a reflection of Davis's "Movements and Developments", they too are limited in scope: what is the use of a list of the names of all the Home Secretaries, or unique of a history of Berwick-upon Tweed (omitting that, due to a change in the official style of the realm, it remained at war with Germany without a break from 1914 until 1945)? Just searching the database, however, with all these options, is a wonderful diversion in itself, with endless possibilities. No doubt its rigidities will disappear, just as text-messaging has been transformed by a "memory" that anticipates the word you want as you key it. What, then, of the text itself? Over more than forty years I have grown used to the original DNB in sixty-three volumes, 30,941 articles by 653 authors (most of them by fifty-seven in-house writers), bound in olive pebble-grain cloth. My edition belonged to G. M. Trevelyan (the subject of an excellent article by David Cannadine in the ODNB), and came to me after his death in 1962. It is marked in Volume One. "Send errata to the Secretary to the Delegates, Clarendon Press, Oxford". It seems unlikely that George Trevelyan did, since his note on G. C. Boase's article on Edward Horsman (1807-76), one of the Adullamites of 1866, has escaped revision. Boase wrote, "He best served the public by exposing jobs and other weak points in the ecclesiastical system"; Trevelyan noted, "He was finally driven out of politics for swindling a relative of his of enormous sums of money". The reviser is Matthew himself, one of 631 to which he turned his hand. He also wrote 147 new articles, in 289,447 words, more than anyone else. Those on the more famous include A. J. Balfour, John Buchan, Edward VII and VIII (a proficient if not expert player of the bagpipes), George V and VI, Gladstone, Sidney Herbert, Harold Macmillan, C. F. Masterman, Florence Nightingale, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, Connop Thirlwall and (with K. D. Reynolds) Queen Victoria. Herbert and Nightingale make a good pairing, Macmillan is certainly fair and sometimes vivid, if lacking in character, and Gladstone masterly, if a little too consciously so, in its control of so much material. The minor characters that Matthew added are an odd collection: Gladstone's sad sister Helen, who might have otherwise rated no more than a sentence in the article on her brother, Thomas Beighton, a missionary printer, James Jeremie, Dean of Lincoln, Isaac Jermy, victim of a celebrated mid-Victorian murder, and Nicholas Pocock, a contributor to the DNB. They all seem bit-players in the great Gladstonian drama. But the appearance of these figures is only part of more drastic changes in balance. The old DNB had 1,286 barristers and judges but only eight solicitors (not so surprising then). The clergy were even more dominant, and politicians and authors had more than their fair share, simply because facts about them were accessible. Now Anita McConnell has written 595 articles, mainly on scientists and inventors, Anne Pimlott Baker 470 on painters, gardeners and businessmen, and Elizabeth Baigent 437 on travellers, many more of each profession than in the DNB. The book trade, book-collectors and librarians are still under-represented, and the articles on newer media, such as broad- casting, are erratic - Lord Reith, Richard Dimbleby, Norman Collins and Sir George Barnes might have lived on different planets. The total number of persons is up by 42 per cent, an increase far from merely modern; every century before 1500 (except the seventh and eleventh) has half as many again. Matthew saw that "Stephen disliked the concept of absolute worth as a criterion for inclusion, sensibly preferring utility, interest, readers' demand, variety of coverage, spice, liveliness and individuality", and determined to pursue these goals further, fortified by far wider access to material. In this he was hoist on his own petard, the equally sensible decision to retain all the original subjects, however irrelevant their "worth" might seem today. But people previously excluded by geography or time, Britain's Roman and earlier native rulers, pre-1776 Americans and others whose lives had been spent abroad, as well as foreigners who lived in Britain, people in business and labour, arts and culture other than literary on a far wider definition - all these were now admitted. Persons famous for their opposition to British expansion, Powhattan, Nuncomar, Cetewayo and Te Rauparaha (but not Tipu Sultan or Nana Sahib) are now included, and with them strangers who came to this country, "Prince Giolo", brought by William Dampier from the Philippines, Omai, who came with Sir Joseph Banks, and Bennelong, Governor Phillip's ambassador to the Aborigines in Australia, who visited George III. The original eleven "legendary personages", among them King Arthur and Merlin, have grown to include Britannia, Friar Tuck, Junius, John Bull and Tommy Atkins (but not the Long Man of Cerne, arguably the most ancient Briton). And there are many, many more women. This rights an old wrong, but only to a limited extent. If the DNB came out when a class system was in force that segregated "public" and "private" life more than before or since (relegating women too easily to the "private" zone), adjusting the balance is easier said than done. Great political hostesses, head- mistresses, women religious, landowners, academics (now), or those in industry and trade, wise women and nurses, poets, novelists and even preachers, all need a proper account. But this still leaves "the feminist argument that women were simply excluded from the British power structure" (Matthew) unanswered. That they were included to a greater degree than the DNB suggests is certainly true, but how to reflect it? Many more are now included, double the number in the DNB, thanks to the specialist consultant editor, Jane Garnett. But "double" only means up from 5 per cent to 10 per cent; if the word "woman" recurs 4,615 times, "man" is still four times as frequent. Women famous in their own right are still apt to be found under their husbands, and others, like Marion Richardson, whose method taught generations of children to write well, are omitted. Not all the women are heroines like Margaret Roper (who gets a disappointing article), Florence Nightingale, or Edith Cavell. Matthew and Reynolds's Victoria is shorter and sharper than Lee's, and Reynolds, author of 252 articles, accounts for women already famous, including Princess Diana, Louise von Alten, successively Duchess of Manchester and Devonshire, and Lady Flora Hastings. Gladstone's near- Nemesis Laura Thistlethwayte, "courtesan and lay-preacher", is dealt with by J. Gilliland, along with eighty-seven others, mostly actresses, with a few murderers and pirates. Theo Aronson has a royal straight flush with Mrs Keppel, Lillie Langtry and Skittles. Barbara White has written sixteen lively articles on women criminals; the beguiling Moll Cutpurse is by Paul Griffiths. There are about a hundred entries for suffragettes, among them Mary Sophia Allen, later a pioneer policewoman. "Occupation" makes it hard to discern sex, the more so since words that denote it are usually pejorative. All fifty-one nurses are women, but Elizabeth Raffald is the only woman among the ten cooks, while "embroiderer", once a male preserve, now registers only one man out of seven. Of sixty-one "gardeners" only seven are women, plus three "garden designers", like Gertrude Jekyll. Against this, occupations once restricted to men now number many more women. But no increase in representation will satisfy ultra-feminists, who are interested only in some women, and even those do not always comply with what is desired of them. Thus Rebecca West's opinion of D. H. Lawrence ("She appreciated his vitalism, but found lapses in common sense, particularly in regard to issues of gender") leads to the conclusion "This sensitivity to the dynamics of gender makes the recovery of her work important for feminist studies". I can hear the snort of outraged derision that this would have provoked from its subject, and Jane Austen would no doubt have smiled at the elephantine account accorded to her, no improvement on Stephen's superannuated but perceptive essay at a tenth the length. On the other hand, Virginia Woolf, quintessence of the Stephen legacy, receives an understanding as well as objective account from Lyndall Gordon. Matters of specific feminine interest, such as fashion, do not come off so well. There is no article for Edward Molyneux, the first to put British fashion on the world map, though Norman Hartnell, Charles Worth, Thomas Burberry and Austin Reed are in. Constance Spry and Ernestine Carter, however, are both given their due, and there are moving evocations of Jean Muir (by Fiona MacCarthy), as well as Elizabeth David (Artemis Cooper) and Jill Tweedie (Katharine Whitehorn). Along with fairer distribution of the sexes comes, inevitably, sex itself, once firmly a "private" matter. There was no mention of Lord Grey's notorious liaison with Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, in the DNB article by J. A. Hamilton, whose onslaught on George IV pulled no punches. Trevelyan's extensive notes do not allude to it, but E. A. Smith redresses this even handedly. Other extra-marital or same-sex connections are deftly acknowledged by a "See also" cross-reference. Owen Dudley Edwards deals with its many complexities in the life of Oscar Wilde in a marvellous article full of original apercus, such as "All the major Irish Renaissance writers of protestant origin showed some evangelical inheritance, substituting cultural for spiritual leadership". Perhaps its most extreme expression comes in the sad and tender account of Donald Cammell, as irresistible a human being as Bruce Chatwin and even more attractive. The further breadth of human nature, as rich as any in the DNB, is displayed to the full in the 142 articles written by Richard Davenport-Hines, every one a winner, notably that on Ernest Boulton, the Victorian transvestite. Some are eminently respectable, distinguished either by birth, like the ninth Duke of Devonshire, or by achievement, such as Sibyl Colefax, Richard Monckton-Milnes (a particularly good article), or Sir George Lewis. But generally there is some interesting flaw, as in the lives of Chips Channon, Lady Caroline Blackwood, or J. Meade Falkner (minus the breach-of-contract trial that turned him from armaments to writing novels and collecting liturgical manuscripts). Some are outright rogues - aristocratic, Lords Lucan and Erroll ("colonialist and philanderer"), commercial, Emil Savundra, Peter Rachman and Robert Maxwell (his vast influence on the book trade not forgotten), or political, Tom Driberg and Stephen Ward. Others recall famous crimes or trials: William Palmer the poisoner, James Bulger (a strange inclusion) and "Jack the Ripper". James Goldsmith, John Aspinall, Mme Blavatsky and Horace Cole, the practical joker, hover in the wings. Not that the DNB itself was short of the eccentric. Geoffrey Madan's list of seventeen lives "not normally consulted" included John Selby Watson, the classical scholar who murdered his wife (Crockford, asked if he was the only clergyman guilty of wife-murder, replied cautiously that he was the only one to have been convicted of it) and John Howell, the inventor - "having made, at considerable expense, a model in the shape of a fish, he entered the machine, tried to swim under water at Leith, and was very nearly drowned". The new versions are now less incisive, as are the judgements. "He was as opposed to ritualism as he was to rationalism, and every form of liberalism he abhorred", the old verdict on Dean Burgon, is now watered down. Other petty criticisms might be made. The useful lists of works in the DNB have gone, "since library catalogues are so abundant and full" (but not always accurate). "Wealth at death" less usefully takes their place: Chatwin left ?584,388, Bess of Hardwick was just "very wealthy". The "families and groups", 408 in all, lack coherence, and seem to have grown out of the private enthusiasms of the more prolific contributors. The source references, on the other hand, are immensely expanded, and show the value of a web-based "literature search". Very rarely, older but still useful works escape; Modern English Biography (1892-1921) by Frederic Boase, one of the 1993 Missing Persons, still needs to be consulted. The lists of "likenesses" remain, although the 10,000 portraits are a greater gain. The National Portrait Gallery's archive, not just the pictures on its walls, but the vast number of prints and photographs that it also holds, is as great a national asset as the DNB, and not so well known. The idea of joining forces has produced a double benefit. To see Reynolds's vision of Warren Hastings en-livens Peter Marshall's excellent article, one of many on the British in India. This vision of the past adds a whole new dimension to the verbal record. It can be improved: the Eton picture of "Jane Shore" is of a half naked woman known (wrongly) as Diane de Poitiers, although the lifetime portrait of Edward IV's mistress is cited in the article's references; and Caroline Norton is unfairly photographed as a sad old woman, not in the beauty painted by Landseer, Hayter and Grant. The choice of who gets a likeness is also erratic: Joseph Wright's Sir Brooke Boothby and Thomas Day, two of his best portraits, are not there, and every relic of Leslie Stephen's article on Day, arguably his best, has gone with it. Of all that he wrote, only those on Allan Cunningham, Calverley, Augustus de Morgan, Laurence Oliphant and James Spedding remain. Stephen himself receives an excellent account from Alan Bell, as does George Smith from Bill Bell. This is, then, a different work, in more ways than the passage of time and expansion of scope allow, not Stephen's but Matthew's vision of a national biography. What, overall, is the difference? Matthew had a clear view of the merits of Stephen's vision, quoted above, and pursued it with even greater vigour, writing a far larger number of articles himself. But it was not his alone. The army of contributors and editors have added to it, but in a way more fragmented than the DNB, kaleidoscopic rather than organic. The army of contributors (twenty times as many as the DNB) and editors was too large for ordinary human control, and a mechanical system took its place. The engine of compilation that Matthew created was efficient but inflexible. The shape of every article was determined by a complex form that contributors had to fill in (they were also forbidden to communicate with each other, "a sound and strictly maintained policy" to Matthew, but an absurd constraint to them). Like all who take to a cause late in life, he seized on computer-compilation with an almost apocalyptic fervour. Well aware that delay begets greater delay, he drove the project forward with more than ordinary energy, as if he knew time was not on his side. Final editing was kept inside the house (with some disastrous results), but even so it took even greater acceleration at the last minute to bring the ODNB out on time. There are signs of this haste, from misprints to errors of selection, but something else was lost further back. "He maintained a rare attitude of humility, of astonishment and admiration, before the unpredictable spectacle of life"; the words are Edmund Wilson's on Lytton Strachey, but they describe what Stephen did, and what the ODNB engine lacks. Dr Johnson said, "At Oxford, as we all know, much will be forgiven to literary merit", which many of the articles possess; as much is due to Matthew's determination, generously recorded in his successor's long introduction. Stephen Leacock thought that the essence of an Oxford education was to be "well smoked" by your tutor. What is lost has gone like the smoke from Stephen's and Lee's pipes. What, finally, of the question with which we began? Is biography the literary form that expresses our age? Simultaneously with the ODNB, and, clearly, by no coincidence, Lives for Sale, edited by Mark Bostridge, a set of "Biographers' Tales" by thirty-three well-known modern practitioners has also been published (256pp. Continuum. ?16.99. 0 826 47573 6). These, like anglers' tales, fall into two categories: "the one that got away", and "so large that even I, when talking of it afterwards, may have no need to lie". But all biographers do lie, if only by selection. What makes most of these pieces, trivial or serious, uniformly engaging is the revelation of the sleights of hand, cunning, even deceit, that landed the fish; a fly will catch one, while another requires a trawler. Self-conscious heirs of Strachey, they oscillate between his model and the Victorian "Life and Letters" against which he rebelled, only himself to be so memorialized by Michael Holroyd. They all know the fallibility of memory, in witnesses and even documents, and are themselves fallible (my recollection of the inception of Robert Skidelsky's Life of Keynes is quite different from his). But by fair means or foul, what they are after is the truth. This is transparent in the work of perhaps the greatest contemporary biographer (not among Bostridge's thirty three), Richard Holmes. Virginia Woolf grew up under the shadow of the DNB, and Orlando is a playful satire on its ideas and ideals. Her verdict, "By telling us the true facts, by sifting the little from the big, and shaping the whole so that we perceive the outline, the biographer does more to stimulate the imagination than any poet or novelist save the very greatest", is its vindication. John Gross's article on the entries for Literature, Journalism and Publishing in the ODNB will be published next week. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 00:32:00 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:32:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: Feminine wills Message-ID: Feminine wills http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109711&window_type=print John Gross 17 December 2004 A literary tour through the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography There are 7,453 entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography listed under the heading "Literature, Journalism and Publishing". The story doesn't stop there, however. "Literature" is a fluid term, and there are hundreds, probably thousands of men and women in the Dictionary who have been assigned to other categories but who also have some claim to be considered literary figures. You won't find Lancelot Andrewes listed under "Literature", for instance, or William Cobbett, or David Hume, or T. H. Huxley, but you will of course find substantial articles about them. To review such a mass of material is beyond the power of an individual. It is a job which, if it were ever seriously undertaken, would call for a committee. But one can dip, one can reconnoitre, one can browse - and one can form a broad judgement. Having sampled its literary entries over several weeks, I am in no doubt that the Dictionary is a great achievement - a worthy successor to the DNB of Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, and in many respects an improvement. Its scholarly virtues are matched by its breadth of spirit and its liveliness. The principles and policies underlying it are set out in a long introduction, but to grasp its full character these pages ought to be supplemented by the excellent entry for Colin Matthew, written by Ross McKibbin. As editor from 1992 until his death in 1999, Matthew was the prime architect of the Dictionary: it bears the stamp of his openness, warmth and good sense. He was also an innovator, determined to broaden the Dictionary's scope and to modernize its assumptions, and eager for contributors to stress the changing historical reputations of the figures with whom they were dealing. At the same time, while he was a man of the Left, his convictions were tempered by a certain cultural conservatism. One of his most significant decisions as editor was to retain all the entries in the old DNB all of them revised or rewritten, but all of them still there. The result, as McKibbin says, is that the new dictionary is "a collective account of the attitudes of two centuries: the nineteenth as well as the twentieth, the one developing organically from the other". And along with this sense of continuity, Matthew sought to preserve the civilized, conversational, unpedantic tone which Stephen had tried to foster. Like the DNB (and its supplementary volumes), the ODNB is more than a work of reference. It is designed to be read, not just consulted. Another respect in which Matthew followed Stephen was in taking on the role of a writing editor. Many of the best entries in the DNB are signed "L.S.": Matthew wrote or (mostly) revised no fewer than 778 articles for his own Dictionary. The most substantial of the wholly original ones, reflecting his interests as a historian, are on politicians, monarchs and public figures -Gladstone, Balfour, Edward VII, Florence Nightingale and others. But he also contributed a number of entries on authors and journalists. His article on John Buchan is outstanding - a vast improvement on the one it replaces, marked by a real inwardness with its subject. (Matthew himself was a Scotsman.) He also succeeds in breathing life into such largely forgotten figures as the Nonconformist editor and journalist William Robertson Nicoll - a great maker of literary reputations in his time - although one might have hoped for more from his account of the abrasive Tory man of letters Charles Whibley. It fails to convey the flavour of Whibley's personality, or to mention the essay by T. S. Eliot which is the one place where the general reader is likely to encounter him today. One of Matthew's most important initial recommendations as editor was that the Dictionary should be illustrated. Over 10,000 entries (around 18 per cent of the total) are accompanied by a likeness of the subject; the criteria for selecting these portraits has been carefully thought out, and the work as a whole is greatly enhanced by them. With major authors, where you have some idea of the available possibilities, the choice of image almost always seems judicious and appropriate. With lesser figures, the results are often intriguing, especially if you haven't seen a likeness of them before. Putting a face to a writer for the first time can modify your whole sense of him. The editorial rulings as to which authors should or shouldn't be granted the privilege of a portrait are more debatable. If the Dictionary includes a likeness of the nineteenth-century poet Edwin Atherstone (is there a single living human being who has read his massive biblical epics?), it is hard to see on what principle there isn't one of Charlotte Mew, say, or Isaac Rosenberg. Among the professors of literature, it seems reasonable that we should be given a chance to see what L. C. Knights looked like, but then why not I. A. Richards? And not every choice of image will command universal assent. If authenticity or possible authenticity is the first consideration, I'm a bit puzzled as to why the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare (the one with the earring) should have been chosen in preference to the Droeshout frontispiece to the First Folio or the bust in Holy Trinity, Stratford.You could argue that Virginia Woolf isn't necessarily best represented by a photograph taken when she was twenty. The well-known portrait of Ruskin by Millais is printed the wrong way round. Among other innovations, the most useful (for students, at least) is a much fuller treatment of references and sources, while the most gossipworthy is the inclusion, whenever possible, of an individual's "wealth at death". The figures cited for this last, which represent probate, may not reflect the full picture, but they are undeniably interesting, and sometimes surprising. Henry James, for instance, left ?8,961. It seems a curiously small sum, all the more so when you compare it, say, with the ?32,359 left by George Meredith or the ?95,428 left by Thomas Hardy. The new Dictionary contains entries for many writers who are not to be found in the old one. Some are men and women who have died since 1990, too late for inclusion in the last of the DNB supplements: Graham Greene, V. S. Pritchett and Anthony Powell are notable examples. Others - a much larger contingent - were passed over by earlier editors. They make a valuable addition, though one which would be even more striking if it were not for a previous attempt to remedy omissions, Missing Persons (1993). That volume included articles, admittedly fairly short ones, on major figures who had failed to find a place in the 1901 DNB - Thomas Traherne (virtually unknown at the time), Gerard Manley Hopkins (largely unknown), Dorothy Wordsworth (tucked into the entry for William) - and on some major- minor figures who had been overlooked by the supplements, including Baron Corvo and Ronald Firbank. None of the newcomers in the ODNB is in the same class as the first group, or even (apart from one or two post-1990 figures) the second. It is in the treatment which has been accorded writers who were already represented in the DNB that the greatest gains have been made. The new entries embody, in the first instance, the advances of a hundred years and more of literary scholarship. To put it in more or less tabloid terms, there was no mention in the original entry for Wordsworth of Annette Vallon, and no mention in the entry for Dickens of Ellen Ternan. Now we know better (and Ellen Ternan gets an entry of her own, by Claire Tomalin). But even famous instances like these give only a faint notion of the extent to which research has deepened our knowledge and modified our perceptions. On the whole, the leading writers dealt with in the ODNB have been assigned to leading authorities, contributors whose scholarly credentials are widely recognized. As for criticism and interpretation, a dictionary is no place to launch bold original theories, and most of the critical comment in this one sticks to the middle ground. But it avoids the fussiness which so often goes with that territory: it is lucid and concise, with relatively few descents into stodge. With so many admirable articles to choose from, it is hard to single out one or two for praise without seeming arbitrary, but Pat Rogers on Dr Johnson and R. F. Foster on Yeats could reasonably be cited as model contributions. Both pieces are heroic feats of compression; both tell stories which must sometimes have seemed all too familiar to the authors but are nonetheless related with freshness and verve. And then there is the most idiosyncratic of the articles devoted to a major writer, the one on Tennyson. It is by Christopher Ricks, unmistakably so: we are told at one point, for example, that the poet's reputation changed as "imminent Edwardians ousted eminent Victorians". But along with the stylistic tics, the piece has all Ricks's penetration and power. It makes particularly telling use of quotations from Tennyson's contemporaries. The article on Dickens has the added piquancy of replacing one which was notoriously unsympathetic. The original piece was the work of "L.S.", and it displays many of his virtues, but it also contains what is possibly the snootiest sentence in the entire DNB: "If literary fame could be safely measured by popularity with the half-educated, Dickens must claim the highest position among English novelists". A whole history lay behind this jibe. The Stephen family took Dickens's satire on the Civil Service personally. Leslie Stephen's brother Fitzjames, who disliked the novelist anyway, had written a slashing attack on Little Dorrit. (He was convinced that Tite Barnacle of the Circumlocution Office was meant to be a caricature of his father, Sir James Stephen.) Leslie Stephen himself, however, was at least prepared to leave the question of Dickens's greatness open. He concluded his DNB article by observing that the decision between his own cool verdict and "more eulogistic opinions" had to be left to "a future edition of this dictionary". And now the new edition is here, and the article on Dickens, by Michael Slater, is indeed eulogistic. It is also discriminating, and solidly rooted in modern Dickens scholarship. Working out the balance between literary assessment and straight biography seems to have been left to individual contributors, and some entries tilt too far towards assessment. There is an excellent article on Arnold Bennett by John Lucas, but much of it might have been written with a guide to literature in mind rather than a dictionary of biography. Ezra Pound's caricature of Bennett in Mauberley is discussed in some detail, but for an idea of the part played by the novelist in London life in the 1920s you would do better to look up the old article in the 1949 supplement by Frank Swinnerton. In many entries, critical appraisal is mostly confined to a final section on the history of the subject's reputation. These are sometimes unduly academic. The changing fortunes of Shelley in the first half of the twentieth century are considered purely in terms of "lit crit" - Eliot, Leavis and so on. A broader approach, and a more appropriate one, would have taken into account such things as Shaw's championship of the poet and Andre Maurois's popular biographical portrait Ariel (the very first Penguin). In general, contributors have avoided academic jargon, especially its more recent varieties, and few of them have been tempted to put their authors through the mangle of literary theory. A partial exception is Bruce Stewart, in his article on Joyce. Much of the time Stewart offers a straightforward and often spirited account of the writer's life and work, but he is also at pains to inform us that "ecriture feminine was the very definition of Joyce's way of writing from 'Penelope' (in Ulysses) onwards", and that "the nature of the colonial world from which he sprang dictated that the only authentic representation of reality in language must follow the contours of a divided world". In his final summing-up Stewart is heavily preoccupied with the efforts made by some Irish critics to "repatriate" Joyce or enlist him under the banner of Irish nationalism. Stewart's own view is that the paradoxes of Joyce's position - at once very Irish and very cosmopolitan - are best accounted for by "the post-colonial concept of hybridity". Some of the political observations which pop up in other entries are more partisan than the occasion warrants. Peter Holland's article on Shakespeare is a case in point. The first half, devoted to Shakespeare's life, could hardly be bettered. The second half, which deals with his influence and reputation, is packed with interesting material, but at one point it adopts what is surely the wrong tone for a work like the Dictionary. In the 1980s, we are told, "right-wing Conservative politicians like Michael Portillo returned with mechanical frequency to Ulysses' speech on degree in Troilus and Cressida as 'proof' that Shakespeare supported the hierarchies and institutions tories were committed to maintain". The hostility here is too naked. Colin Matthew himself wasn't above getting in a political blow. In his article on Samuel Smiles, he doesn't mention the centenary edition of Self-Help, which had a notable introductory essay by Asa Briggs, and perhaps there is no reason why he should have done. But he makes a point of telling us that an abridged version which was published in 1986, with an introduction by Sir Keith Joseph, did Smiles "little service". Nowhere have the editors of the Dictionary worked harder to remedy past injustices than in improving the representation of women. This is as true of literature as other departments, though it seems likely that women writers were less under-represented in the DNB than most social or occupational groups. By way of a small test, consider the authors included in the compendious anthology edited by Angela Leighton and Margaret Reynolds, Victorian Women Poets (1995). Thirty six of them died before 1900. Of these, three haven't even been accorded a place in the ODNB, and can perhaps be set to one side. Of the remainder, all but eight - twenty-five out of thirty-three - were in the original Dictionary. It doesn't seem an outrageously low score. Which is not to say that the newcomers shouldn't have gained admission the first time round. They include such interesting figures as the anarchist Louisa Guggenberger (nee Bevington) and the tragic Scottish working-class poet and autobiographer Ellen Johnston. It isn't only a question of the number of women in the Dictionary, but of the way in which they are presented. To see how much ground had to be made up, you need only compare the DNB and the ODNB on the subject of Mary Wollstonecraft. In the new article devoted to her, she is treated thoughtfully, sympathetically and at considerable length. In the old article (by L.S., alas) her most famous book is dismissed in two short sentences: "She published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792. It had some success, was translated into French, and scandalised her sisters". Many other women writers get much fuller treatment than they did in the DNB. But it is possible to exaggerate the sins of the past - Stephen on Mary Wollstonecraft is only part of the story - and to make Victorian critics sound more benighted than they were. In the course of the new (and very thorough) entry for Aphra Behn by Janet Todd, for instance, we are told that in the nineteenth century she was "either ignored or vilified". But if we turn to the old DNB article on Behn, we get a rather different impression. It is by Edmund Gosse, and he takes a prissy and disapproving view of her more scandalous activities. But he also says that "we may be sure that a woman so witty, so active, and so versatile, was not degraded, though she might be lamentably unconventional. She was the George Sand of the Restoration, the 'chere maitre' to such men as Dryden, Otway and Southerne, who all honoured her with their friendship. Her genius and vivacity were undoubted; her plays are very coarse, but very lively and humorous, while she possessed an indisputable touch of lyric genius". Vilification? I don't think so. Indeed, Gosse's sketch seems to me more calculated to arouse interest in Behn in the general reader than the rather dogged account of her historical significance that you get in the new article. It is when it comes to lesser lives, the lives you are unlikely or unable to read about elsewhere, that a biographical dictionary can be most rewarding. The shorter entries were one of the glories of the DNB, and the same is true of its successor. They were also one of its great pleasures, and if anything the new ones are even more enjoyable. The social scope of the work has been widened, and old inhibitions have been dropped; at the same time contributors continue to write with relish - with a feeling for quirks of character, and an eye for revealing detail. This is not to say that there aren't misjudgements. The article on the eighteenth-century poet Matthew Green, author of The Spleen, relegates him firmly to the category of light verse, and gives no idea of his true quality. (Leavis, eccentrically but not crazily, thought that Green was a more engaging poet than Swift.) The article on the Romantic poet George Darley suggests, no doubt correctly, that much of his work is unreadable, but misses out on the rather more important fact that he wrote a few marvellous lines (try "The Mermaidens' Vesper-Hymn", for instance). Sometimes the ODNB takes a step backwards. The article in the 1959 supplement on Angela Brazil was a sparkling affair - not surprisingly, given that it was by Arthur Marshall. And Marshall didn't just highlight absurdities, he also seized on picturesque facts - pointing out, for instance, that when Angela Brazil was at art school one of her fellow students was Baroness Orczy of The Scarlet Pimpernel. But all this has gone by the board: the entry which has replaced Marshall is dry and pedestrian. Many of the new articles, on the other hand, are revised versions that retain the best bits of the old ones (which were often based on first-hand knowledge), while where there has been a complete change the gains generally far outweigh any losses. The new entry for Baroness Orczy herself is a good deal more informative than the old one. We simply used to be told, for instance, that her father, a Hungarian landowner, "abandoned agriculture for a musical career". We now learn that he was a figure of considerable importance: as Intendant of the national theatres in Budapest in the 1870s, he championed Wagner and appointed Hans Richter as Kapellmeister. The ODNB is stronger on dodgy characters than the DNB was. There is a first rate portrait of Frank Harris (by Richard Davenport-Hines) and an excellent account of Maurice Girodias of the Olympia Press. Davenport-Hines also contributes, among some thirty other colourful items, an article on Jack the Ripper which lists J. K. Stephen - Leslie Stephen's nephew - among the candidates who have been fingered by Ripperologists as the possible killer. (The brief entry for J. K. Stephen himself is quite inadequate: it mentions his poems, but gives you no inkling of what kind of poems they were.) On the whole, disreputable or wayward personalities make for livelier reading than respectable ones, but you can never be sure who is going to prove interesting. John Drinkwater was already a fairly dim figure when he made his appearance in the 1949 supplement, and he is even dimmer now. Yet the new article on him is full of good material. It turns out that not content with writing verse plays about Abraham Lincoln, Cromwell, Socrates, Mary Queen of Scots, Robert E. Lee and other historical personalities, he adapted a play from the Italian about Napoleon: it was by Mussolini. (Shaw is supposed to have said, when someone asked him why he had decided to write about St Joan, "To save her from Drinkwater".) Not surprisingly - given Colin Matthew's professional interests, and those of his successor, Brian Harrison - historians are particularly well covered. The entry for Namier is much more vigorous than the one it replaces. (One characteristic touch it reveals is that Namier, who knew how much his career owed to a favourable review of one of his books by G. M. Trevelyan, "claimed to have repaid his debt by refusing ever to review Trevelyan's books".) The article on G. R. Elton by Patrick Collinson is enthralling, and likely to send readers back to Collinson's articles on Elton's predecessors Neale and Pollard. Many people know that Elton was Ben Elton's uncle; it will probably come as more of a surprise to learn that one of his grandfathers was a schoolfriend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Literary scholars and academic critics are also well represented, though there are gaps - nothing on D. W. Harding, for instance. Many Oxford figures are honoured - John Carey contributes a mellow piece about Nevill Coghill - but F. W. Bateson is passed over in silence. There is, as is only right, a fine account of Sidney Lee, the joint handiwork of Alan Bell and Katherine Duncan-Jones. One important decision which Matthew and his colleagues took was to extend the coverage of foreigners, including "foreigners whose visits to Britain may have been short, but whose observations may have been influential". There are now, for the first time, articles on Voltaire and Hippolyte Taine, for example (though the latter doesn't mention Leslie Stephen's politely scathing account of Taine's History of English Literature). Possibly this category should have been widened to include visitors who were less well known in Britain at the time they were here, such as Theodor Fontane. Writers from Central Europe who made their home in Britain in the middle decades of the twentieth century are under-represented. George Mikes the humorist, Erich Heller the critic and George Lichtheim the historian of Marxism are only three of the many missing persons in this group. Elsewhere there are inconsistencies. If Ezra Pound is included, why not Alice James or Robert Frost, both of whom spent significant periods of their lives in England? It is entirely right that the London-based American war correspondent Edward R. Murrow should get an entry, but you could argue that Nathaniel Hawthorne, say, deserved one too, on the strength of his time as a consul in Liverpool and his book Our Old Home. As for the Dictionary as a whole, there are lots of minor literary absentees one would like to have seen included. The treatment of crime fiction, for example, is very good as far as it goes, but there are definite gaps. The ultra- prolific John Creasey should have been included; so should John Dickson Carr; so, whatever one thinks of him, should James Hadley Chase; so should Anthony Berkeley Cox - if not for the books he wrote as "Anthony Berkeley", then certainly on account of the ones he wrote as "Francis Iles". Still, the impressive thing is how much ground has been covered, and how many byways (and highways) the reader is left free to explore. Popular literature in particular, and what Leslie Stephen or Sidney Lee would have called lighter literature, provide some of the ODNB's merriest pages. The article on Sellar and Yeatman of 1066 and All That is a gem. (They had very different personalities.) There is an admirable cameo of John Wells by Ferdinand Mount; the article on Frank Muir makes it clear that it was Muir and Dennis Norden, and not, as legend suggests, Kenneth Williams who were responsible for the line "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me". Or take Harry Graham. His one claim to immortality is Ruthless Rhymes; but how pleasant to discover that he was once engaged to Ethel Barrymore, or that the song lyrics he wrote for the stage included the English version of Richard Tauber's "You Are My Heart's Delight". From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 00:32:49 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:32:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Milgram) Keep pulling the lever Message-ID: Keep pulling the lever http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109642&window_type=print John Darley 10 December 2004 THE MAN WHO SHOCKED THE WORLD. The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. By Thomas Blass. 392pp. Boulder, CO: Perseus. $26; distributed in the UK by Marston Book Services. ?19.99. 0 7382 0399 8 In 1960, in a post-Holocaust milieu in which it was often asked how seemingly normal people could have engaged in genocidal acts, the young psychologist Stanley Milgram decided to choose the topic of "obedience to authority" for his next research project. The result of this decision, "the obedience studies", remains the most famous series of experiments in social psychology, experiments which appeared to demonstrate people's shockingly counter-intuitive willingness to inflict serious harm on an innocent other, when ordered to do so by a perceived "authority". Milgram grew up in one world, but found his preferred home in a quite different one. Born in the Bronx in 1933 to Jewish immigrant parents, his father a baker, he was a strikingly clever boy who in 1950 went to Queen's College, one of the excellent, then free, universities of the City University of New York system. Fortuitously, a dean, impressed by Milgram's senior seminar performance, suggested that Milgram consider graduate work in the Department of Social Relations at Harvard University. The Department, unique to Harvard, combined Sociology, Social Psychology, Social Anthropology and Clinical Psychology: it essentially was the study of human nature. By cramming in several psychology courses during the summer, and doing brilliantly in them, Milgram eventually was granted admission to the Department. He did well, and soon earned the regard of three important and influential psychologists: Gordon Allport, Jerome Bruner and Roger Brown. Allport was a distinguished social and personality psychologist, Brown an extremely literate younger social psychologist who had captured the respect of the entire field, and Bruner was just on the verge of bringing cognitive psychology into being. Continuing his charmed career, Milgram soon became a teaching assistant for a visiting professor, Solomon Asch, the author of the famous conformity experiments. For his thesis, Milgram applied himself to a cross-cultural version of the conformity experiments. In 1960 Milgram accepted an assistant professorship at Yale, and thought strategically about what sort of research he might undertake. Looking for a topic that would be both important and allow him to adopt methods he used in his thesis, he arrived at the idea of the obedience studies. This choice was brilliant and original but overdetermined; overdetermined by the brute presence of the Holocaust and also, as Milgram later acknowledged, because his research paradigm "gave scientific expression to a more general concern about authority, a concern forced upon members of my generation, in particular upon Jews such as myself, by the atrocities of World War Two". But the first studies went well and remarkably fast; essentially completed by May 1962, they were published in scientific journals between 1963 and 1965. In order to conduct his experiment, Milgram had first to recruit members of the general public. He found volunteers among the citizens of New Haven who, on arrival at his laboratory, drew tickets from a hat to discover whether they would be the "teacher" or the "learner". The learner was to memorize a series of word pairs and the teacher was to administer an electric shock when the pupil failed to get them right; the more mistakes the learner made, the more intense the shocks became. Or this is how it appeared to the "teacher". The "learner" was actually an actor who had been primed to make prearranged errors. These were to be so frequent and plentiful that the "teacher" would be obliged to increase the voltage beyond a level labelled dangerous. (The "learner", of course, received only a painless signal.) If the "teacher" hesitated to administer the increasingly fierce shocks, the professional supervisor of the experiment would urge him or her to continue. The overarching discovery of the series was that a majority of "ordinary" people seemed to be prepared to inflict agonizing punishment on others and would continue to do so after their victim had implored them to stop, in some cases even explaining that he had a serious heart condition. The "teachers", however, were not insensitive to the pain that they were causing. In fact, as they continued to increase the voltage, they exhibited considerable reluctance to do so. But when encouraged by brief remarks from their supervisor, such as "The experiment requires you to continue", they persisted, often until the apparatus that they had been given had reached the limits of its capacity. Early in his experimental work, Milgram sent this description of his results to an official of the National Science Foundation, who had funded his experiments: The results are terrifying and depressing. They suggest that human nature - or more specifically, the kind of character produced in American society - cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority. In a naive moment some time ago, I once wondered whether in all of the United States a vicious government could find enough moral imbeciles to meet the personnel requirements of a national system of death camps, of the sort that were maintained in (Nazi) Germany. I am now beginning to think that the full complement could be recruited in New Haven. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act, and without pangs of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. Of course, the fact that a cross section of ordinary people were obviously not moral imbeciles and showed clear signs of distress, or pangs of conscience, as they administered the shocks, should have told Milgram that his description was incomplete and incorrect. At times he did seem to recognize that it was, to say the least, considerable overstatement. And to his credit there are numerous points in his lectures at which he draws more limited conclusions - and seems less certain of the relation of the results of his experiments to torturers and death-camp guards. Unfortunately, though, the world at large latched on to the views contained in the above quotation. As Milgram came to realize and to report in his talks on the obedience phenomenon, the implications of his results take us in a subtly but importantly different direction. They are a key factor in the development of the currently dominant "situational" theory of the causes of human behaviour. "Situationalism" holds that the major determinant of a person's actions is construction and internal representation of the meaning of the situation. This statement seems obvious, but in fact it disagrees with almost everyone's idea of how people's behaviour is determined. Most people, at least in Western cultures, believe that their actions flow from their personal characteristics, conceptualized as traits. Most people are sure that they themselves would never administer increasingly painful electric shocks to another. When Milgram described his experiment to other professionals, they unanimously predicted that the shock escalation would quickly cease. Most people were kind and decent rather than malevolent and sadistic. But Milgram's experiments demonstrated that the majority would in fact give the escalating shocks, continuing to the highest levels that the apparatus allowed them. So Milgram was wrong to suggest that his subjects were morally malevolent. Similarly people are sure that they would not conform if they heard others give an obviously factually incorrect answer about a physical reality such as the length of a line. Why would they not conform? Because they possessed the trait of independence. But Asch's live experiments had demonstrated that they would conform. In an experiment that I did with Bibb Latane, colleagues were sure that no sane person would stay in a room as it filled with acrid smoke. But if two others stayed there, our research subject also stayed. In each of these experiments, the fine grain of the situations in which the respondents found themselves determined their responses. Asch developed an experimental trick, new then, though much used since. He recruited students, who would turn up for an experiment and be perceived by the sole real student as simply other subjects. In fact, they had been coached by the experimenter to perform a prearranged act. In this case, the act was to report a sequence of wrong but unanimous judgements about which line matched the test line in length. Picture, then, what faced the naive subject. Half a dozen of these others, whom the subject perceived to be equally naive subjects, one by one all gave an obviously false answer to a simple perceptual question, which involved the length of a line that they could all see. The naive subject often conformed. Surrounded by the other apparent subjects who all reported an obvious false match to the length of the line, he or she simply could not think why it was that none of them could see the obviously correct answer, so, prudently, they decided not to deviate from the consensus until they could understand what the consequences might be. A slight change in the interpersonal situation made a huge change in the subjects' behaviour. When provided with one other person who gave the correct answer and did not receive punishment for his deviance, they too felt free to give the correct answer. In the case of the smoke-filled room, the subject interpreted a very critical aspect of the situation, the lack of response from her companions, as telling him that somehow the smoke did not signal danger to anyone in the room. If there was no one else in the room, so that no one was providing cues as to the meaning of the smoke, the subject quickly left and reported the smoke. In the Milgram experiments, the expertise attributed to the ever-present experimenter, who urged the continuation of the administration of the shocks, caused the subjects to think that either it could not be true that the learner would really be harmed (there was no doubt that he was being hurt, but the experiment was about the use of punishment to produce learning) or that the experimenter understood that the responsibility for harm was entirely his. Again, a slight change in the experimental situation made a huge difference in subjects' behaviour. In one case Milgram arranged for the expert experimenter to be called away. The experimenter left, asking that one of the non- experts should go on with the experiment. Now, when the learner raised his protests, and the substitute experimenter ordered his subjects to continue giving the escalating series of shocks, the vast majority of them refused. In five instances, when the substitute experimenter stepped to the controls "to administer the shocks myself", the subject prepared to physically restrain him. To sum up the message of these studies, small clues that provide cues to "what is going on" in the situation make large differences in the respondents' interpretations of the situation and therefore to their actions. In 1963, a major change occurred in Milgram's life. After his third year at Yale ended, he was offered a post at Harvard, which he accepted, returning to where he hoped to gain tenure. It also is likely that one of his earlier mentors, Allport, encouraged him in this belief. This, however, did not occur. Not enough support came from the department faculty to carry the case forward to the administration. The reasons, although Thomas Blass, in The Man Who Shocked the World, makes clear that Milgram had considerable support in the Department, seem to be that his obedience research remained controversial, was thought by some to be unethical, and received widespread publicity which may have been interpreted as something Milgram himself sought. And, too, he was prickly and did not tolerate fools gladly. Also, it was not clear what his next project would be; whether he "had any good ideas left in him". Blass conveys just how shattered, humiliated and betrayed he felt. Milgram repaired to the City University of New York with a full professorship and con- tinued to provide thoughtful, offbeat, sometimes highly original research. His eye for what seemingly ordinary behaviour might reveal - the habits of travellers on the subway, for example - remained keen. It was Milgram who began the research which led psychologists to believe that "six degrees of separation", only six intermediaries, are required to connect any two people on the planet. Milgram died of heart failure at sixty-one, leaving us with the knowledge that evil is not inherent in all of us, yet showing us how evil can be performed by essentially ordinary people. Milgram, himself, was a far from ordinary scientist. And Thomas Blass is also a far from run-of-the-mill biographer; as a child in Hungary he barely escaped the Holocaust, and his intense fascination with the problems of human nature that it revealed drew him to Milgram's papers, to interview those who knew him and eventually to produce this excellent biography. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 00:33:47 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:33:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Garcia Marquez) Sleeping seamstress Message-ID: Sleeping seamstress http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109681&window_type=print Adam Feinstein 10 December 2004 MEMORIA DE MIS PUTAS TRISTES. By Gabriel Garcia Marquez. 109pp. Madrid: Mondadori. 17euros. 84 397 1165 4 Gabriel Garcia Marquez's first novel for ten years was brought out early in a million-copy print-run in the Spanish-speaking world to beat the bootleggers and promptly sold 400,000 copies in its first week. As publishing sensations go, this was spectacular. The trouble is that the 109-page Memoria de mis putas tristes ("Memoir of My Sad Whores") - for all its warmth, humour and magnificent linguistic invention - ultimately emerges as a slight piece of work. The book begins memorably: "In my ninetieth year, I wanted to give myself the gift of a night of mad love with an adolescent virgin". The narrator is a music and theatre critic, a former teacher of grammar, known only by the nickname his former pupils had given him, Mustio Collado. Mustio appears to grasp the world largely through books: he came to understand why tuberculosis had made his mother so bad-tempered only through reading The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann. He has always insisted on paying for sex, even if the girl was not a prostitute, and has kept a log, Leporello like, recording 514 encounters by the age of fifty - though, by his own account, he has little in common with Don Giovanni, being "ugly, timid and old-fashioned". A fourteen-year-old girl has been selected for his birthday present by the madame of the brothel, Rosa Cabarcas. Mustio names the girl Delgadina and finds himself falling desperately in love with her. She is so exhausted after a day's work sewing buttons on clothes that she spends that first night in profound slumber - and indeed never opens her eyes through the entire novel. A similar situation occurs in a 1926 short story,"House of Sleeping Beauties", by the Japanese writer and fellow Nobel Laureate, Yasunari Kawabata, from which Garcia Marquez quotes on the frontispiece. Memoria de mis putas tristes, thin though it is, is a warmer work. It has tender echoes of some of Garcia Marquez's greatest novels - especially those, like Love in the Time of Cholera, which breathe optimism into old age. In its treatment of overpowering obsession, this latest novel is also curiously reminiscent, in some ways, of another of the author's short novels, No One Writes to the Colonel. But there are moments which bring to mind a much more self-indulgent, flawed and far more carelessly written - yet at times obstinately moving - study of an older man driven to recapture his waning powers through passion for a younger woman: Across the River and into the Trees, by Ernest Hemingway, an author who exerted a great influence on Garcia Marquez early in his career. Inevitably, the reader ponders the ways in which the ninety-year-old Mustio Collado resembles his seventy-six-year-old creator. Although the setting for the novel is unspecified, it is probably Barranquilla, the town on Colombia's Caribbean coastline where Garcia Marquez rented a room in a brothel while working as a young journalist. After his first, platonic night with Delgadina, Mustio declares: "The house, like all brothels at daybreak, was the closest thing there is to paradise". Now he experiences a new sense of liberation: the "unlikely pleasure", as he puts it, of contemplating a woman asleep without the pressure of desire. Until he met Delgadina, the sexual urge had served as "consolation to one for whom love is out of reach". Although Mustio informs us that he has "no vocation or virtue as a narrator", the novel employs a richly unsettling mix of anachronistic or unusual language and neologisms. The use in the very first chapter of the verb recordar (instead of the much more normal despertarse) to mean "to wake up" - even though it can be heard in Colombia, it is certainly not the first choice there - both reinforces the impression of Mustio's stubborn singularity but also gives an oddly courtly feel to his love for Delgadina. Yet his passion allows room for paternal protectiveness. As she sleeps, he reads her a version of The Thousand and One Nights which has been "disinfected" for children. An invented vocabulary - words like mutandas, bocapiernas and pintorreteado - fuels the novel's sense of hope and renewal. The book is due to be published in English next year, and it will be intriguing to see how the translator handles these linguistic intricacies. There are characteristically delightful passages of simple but telling physical detail: Rosa Cabarcas has difficulty walking on legs "swollen inside primitive cotton stockings". More surprisingly, there are sentences that shock with their banality: "I discovered, at last, that love is not a state of the soul but a sign of the zodiac". This novel is an imperfectly formed little jewel - sadly, not one destined to sparkle in the memory alongside the finest works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 28 03:17:12 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:17:12 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <003d01c5329e$e1c47f60$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <42463ED0.4080405@earthlink.net> <003d01c5329e$e1c47f60$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <42477738.1060706@earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 28 04:04:08 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:04:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] A view from the mission district in san francisco Message-ID: <01C53308.23B470B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 104854 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 28 04:19:01 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:19:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Longevity web site. Anyone not interested? Message-ID: <01C5330A.37FA3080.shovland@mindspring.com> http://longevity-science.org/ Welcome to Scientific and Educational Website on Human Longevity ! Unraveling the Secrets of Human Longevity The purpose of our studies: to understand the mechanisms of aging and longevity in order to extend healthy and productive human lifespan. From HowlBloom at aol.com Mon Mar 28 06:48:07 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:48:07 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism Message-ID: <1a0.307354b3.2f7902a7@aol.com> _Deinococcus radiodurans_ (http://deinococcus.allbio.org/) is able to withstand the shattering and spattering force of radioactivity by keeping many apparently super-condensed backup copies of its genome, then rebuilding whatever genomic sequences that have been destroyed. If a genome is the most economical summation of a species past possible, how can it be condensed into a backup copy? Is there, as Joel Isaacson suggest, an Ur pattern, an implicit pattern from which a mashed gene can be re-extracted? Does the deciphering of an ancient pattern, an implicit pattern, an Ur-pattern, change as the context that extracts it changes? Is the context of the still-unfazed genome, of the cytoplasm, of the cell membrane, and of the signals coming from neighboring and distant cells an extractor capable of re-deducing the implicit healthy gene when a mutated gene has gone off-track? Can evolution take a step back to retrace its earlier moves? Is the radiodurans backup mechanism an after-the-fact condensation of the genome--a symbolic representation of the genome? Or is it a remnant of something that preceded the genome? Eshel, you speak of RNA as the possible backup mechanism. RNA is the evolutionary precursor of DNA if the RNA-world hypothesis is true. Do you think that what was once derived from RNA can be derived again? Is this pattern a sort of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny? And if the complexities and intricate forms and functions of the present have been pulled from the implications of the past, what even more elaborate futures will be extracted from the implications of today? Howard In a message dated 3/24/2005 10:07:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, eshel at physics.ucsd.edu writes: Hi, Interestiing news, Eshel I sent yesterday the message below to several people in the Weizmann following a paper in Nature that I think is a most important discovery. personaly I feel very good as it supports my long objection to the current Neo-darwinian paradigm. It also indicates that the community in biology is now finally open to revolutionary ideas related to evolution. These discoveries might also ilustrate one example of organisms learning not through the DNA sequence. {Attached is a new paper that appear in Nature. Being myself against the central paradigm I find the discoveries potentially a mark of a new era. I might be dramatizing but may be not. I am quite surprised and pleased that Nature let them publish the paper and if you note the dates within 6 weeks from receiving it. Note also the possible connection with microRNA . It will be interesting if the media will realise the revolutionary aspects or not. If they do, it will probably lead to a flood of serious and "vitalistic" reactions. In this regard I also attached a paper entitled "New biology for a new century" I apologize if I am carried away but felt like sharing with you my excitement about these discoveries. There are many open questions. The first one is if it is a special mechanism for plants only or shared by animals as well (it is known that smallRNA have different mechanisms in plant). Eshel Eshel Ben-Jacob. Home Page: _http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/_ (http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/) Professor of Physics The Maguy-Glass Professor in Physics of Complex Systems _eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il_ (mailto:eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il) _ebenjacob at ucsd.edu_ (mailto:ebenjacob at ucsd.edu) Former President of the Israel Physical Society (IPS) Head the scientific board of PhysicaPlus _http://physicaplus.org.il_ (http://physicaplus.org.il/) The IPS Online Bi-lingual Magazine School of Physics and Astronomy 10/2004 -10/2005 Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel Center for Theoretical Biological Physics Tel 972-3-640 7845/7604 (Fax) -6425787 University of California San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0354 USA Tel (office) 1-858-534 0524 (Fax) -534 7697 ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 197946 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 303090 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 123657 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NYTimes-plants.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 28 13:48:31 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 05:48:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism Message-ID: <01C53359.C6D08F30.shovland@mindspring.com> Think about image compression. When I scan my slides I compress 8 million pixels into 500,000 bytes of computer data. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:48 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org; kurakin1970 at yandex.ru; ursus at earthlink.net; paul.werbos at verizon.net Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism _Deinococcus radiodurans_ (http://deinococcus.allbio.org/) is able to withstand the shattering and spattering force of radioactivity by keeping many apparently super-condensed backup copies of its genome, then rebuilding whatever genomic sequences that have been destroyed. If a genome is the most economical summation of a species past possible, how can it be condensed into a backup copy? Is there, as Joel Isaacson suggest, an Ur pattern, an implicit pattern from which a mashed gene can be re-extracted? Does the deciphering of an ancient pattern, an implicit pattern, an Ur-pattern, change as the context that extracts it changes? Is the context of the still-unfazed genome, of the cytoplasm, of the cell membrane, and of the signals coming from neighboring and distant cells an extractor capable of re-deducing the implicit healthy gene when a mutated gene has gone off-track? Can evolution take a step back to retrace its earlier moves? Is the radiodurans backup mechanism an after-the-fact condensation of the genome--a symbolic representation of the genome? Or is it a remnant of something that preceded the genome? Eshel, you speak of RNA as the possible backup mechanism. RNA is the evolutionary precursor of DNA if the RNA-world hypothesis is true. Do you think that what was once derived from RNA can be derived again? Is this pattern a sort of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny? And if the complexities and intricate forms and functions of the present have been pulled from the implications of the past, what even more elaborate futures will be extracted from the implications of today? Howard In a message dated 3/24/2005 10:07:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, eshel at physics.ucsd.edu writes: Hi, Interestiing news, Eshel I sent yesterday the message below to several people in the Weizmann following a paper in Nature that I think is a most important discovery. personaly I feel very good as it supports my long objection to the current Neo-darwinian paradigm. It also indicates that the community in biology is now finally open to revolutionary ideas related to evolution. These discoveries might also ilustrate one example of organisms learning not through the DNA sequence. {Attached is a new paper that appear in Nature. Being myself against the central paradigm I find the discoveries potentially a mark of a new era. I might be dramatizing but may be not. I am quite surprised and pleased that Nature let them publish the paper and if you note the dates within 6 weeks from receiving it. Note also the possible connection with microRNA . It will be interesting if the media will realise the revolutionary aspects or not. If they do, it will probably lead to a flood of serious and "vitalistic" reactions. In this regard I also attached a paper entitled "New biology for a new century" I apologize if I am carried away but felt like sharing with you my excitement about these discoveries. There are many open questions. The first one is if it is a special mechanism for plants only or shared by animals as well (it is known that smallRNA have different mechanisms in plant). Eshel Eshel Ben-Jacob. Home Page: _http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/_ (http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/) Professor of Physics The Maguy-Glass Professor in Physics of Complex Systems _eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il_ (mailto:eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il) _ebenjacob at ucsd.edu_ (mailto:ebenjacob at ucsd.edu) Former President of the Israel Physical Society (IPS) Head the scientific board of PhysicaPlus _http://physicaplus.org.il_ (http://physicaplus.org.il/) The IPS Online Bi-lingual Magazine School of Physics and Astronomy 10/2004 -10/2005 Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel Center for Theoretical Biological Physics Tel 972-3-640 7845/7604 (Fax) -6425787 University of California San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0354 USA Tel (office) 1-858-534 0524 (Fax) -534 7697 ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00005.html >> << File: genome_backup.pdf >> << File: naturearticlenonmendelianplantinheritance.pdf >> << File: NewBiology.pdf >> << File: NYTimes-plants.doc >> << File: ATT00006.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 28 13:51:05 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 05:51:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] IBM computing algorithm thinks like an animal Message-ID: <01C5335A.224EF400.shovland@mindspring.com> Published: March 22, 2005, 5:23 PM PST By Michael Kanellos Staff Writer, CNET News.com TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack IBM has devised a way to let computers think like vertebrates. Charles Peck and James Kozloski of IBM's Biometaphorical Computing team say they have created a mathematical model that mimics the behavior of neocortal minicolumns, thin strands of tissue that aggregate impulses from neurons. Further research could one day lead to robots that can "see" like humans and/or make appropriate decisions when bombarded with sensory information. A research paper on the model is expected to come out this week. The brain consists of roughly 28 billion cells, Peck explained. The 200 million minicolumns essentially gather sensory data and organize it for higher parts of the brain. The minicolumns also communicate with each other through interconnections. Minicolumns are roughly 1/20 of a millimeter in diameter and extend through the cortex. The mathematical model created at IBM simulates the behavior of 500,000 minicolumns connected by 400 million connections. With it, "we were able to demonstrate self-organization" and behavior similar to that seen in the real world, Peck said. "What we are trying to do is study the brain at the highest level of abstraction without masking the underlying function," he said. In a test outlined in the upcoming paper, the system was able to solve a pattern recognition problem that will cause errors on ordinary computers. Ideally, the algorithm could one day help scientists more fully understand the underlying processing that takes place when people see things. In a nutshell, an image is received, decomposed into color, shape, texture and other attributes and then reassembled, prompting the animal to change its behavior. Not all parts of the process are fully understood, Peck said. Over the past two years, researchers have increasingly looked toward nature as a model to emulate. Some companies, such as Cambrios, are trying to develop new compounds by exploiting proteins secreted by biological viruses. PalmOne founder Jeff Hawkins , meanwhile, is creating a company that will sell systems that use the same thought processes as the human brain. Intel co-founder Gordon Moore recently said that computers won't likely be able to think like humans unless they are redesigned. Brains typically think by making predictions about future events by looking at a vast array of past experiences, Hawkins said in a speech Monday at an event unrelated to IBM. Hawkins showed off a prototype application that can recognize shapes it has "seen" in the past. IBM is presenting the paper at the International Conference on Adaptive and Natural Computing Algorithms in Coimbra, Portugal. From kendulf at shaw.ca Mon Mar 28 18:40:03 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:40:03 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism References: <1a0.307354b3.2f7902a7@aol.com> Message-ID: <010a01c533c5$8e4222c0$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Howard, Eschel is right. This is exciting stuff, especially if the RNA hypothesis holds. However, there is something in mammals that relates to reverting to the grand-parental genetic expression, or great- great parental genetic expression , or great- great- great parental genetic expression - and not to the parental one! And we have no clue about the mysterious mechanism. The phenomenon was dubbed - not surprisingly - the "grand parent effect". It showed that he adaptive expression of genes in individuals was not that to their immediate environment, but to that of their grand or great-grand or great-great ..etc. parents. How is it possible that the ova and sperm retain the environmental memory of up to four generations past? Or is it something about the phenotype incubating in gestation its progeny that affect it? We do not know! The phenomenon was first discovered in the late 1930's by an exceedingly gifted amateur biologist, though chemist by training, when he was experimenting with red deer, trying to increase trophy size. Quite unexpectedly, the deer did not respond fully to the luxury food he offered, rather they responded with increases in body and antler size stepwise, each generation being larger in size than the preceding one - for five generations! About 30 years later it was re-discovered in mice and rats, showing that the nutrition experienced by grand parents and earlier generation still affected the phenotype of the now-generation. In short, genetic expression was based on phenotypic experiences and was stored for several generations, and this multi-generational gene-environment communication affected the offspring. Now, there is a wonderfully logical - adaptive - explanation for this. Remember the maintenance - dispersal phenotype axis? (or, if you prefer paedomorph - hypermorph, efficiency - luxury etc). The norm in populations is maintenance conditions that is of hunger, shortages, severe intra- and inter-specific competition for resources etc., to which the maintenance, paedomorph or efficiency phenotype is closely and effectively adapted. However, nature's ecological vagaries are such that now and a gain a year or two of abundance and luxury comes along. An individual conceived then - clearly - must not be a dispersal, hypermorph or luxury phenotype because it would be woefully maladaptive under the regular conditions of shortages and severe competition for resources. The adaptive thing to do is to wait and see and alter offspring towards dispersal, hypermorph or luxury phenotypes only if luxury conditions continue to prevail. That, however, is the signal for the very rare - excruciatingly rare, but supremely important - case of vacant habitat being available where the dispersal phenotype is highly adaptive to spread the parental genomes! That's all in Chapter six of my 1978 Lifestrategies .. book entitled "How Genes Communicate with the Environment - the Biology of Inequality". Coming back to humans: it is possible that the phenomenon of secular growth, in which the offspring generations over a long time span exceed the parent generation in size, is part and parcel of this gene-environment communication, with old environmental information stored for influencing the next generations ontogeny. Secular growth can be predicted to come to a halt when we have reached, on average, the body mass, size and development of our Upper Paleolithic Ice Age ancestors. That is, it will stop when men average a bit over six feet in height (and brain size exceeds our by about 20%) - and we are some time off from that! Five- eight, so I understand, is the height of men currently in North America. Secular growth has been going on since the middle of the 19th century, the nadir having been reached during the preceding industrial revolution. As stated befoer, there is no clue as to mechanism! Sincerely. Val Geist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org ; kurakin1970 at yandex.ru ; ursus at earthlink.net ; paul.werbos at verizon.net Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism Deinococcus radiodurans is able to withstand the shattering and spattering force of radioactivity by keeping many apparently super-condensed backup copies of its genome, then rebuilding whatever genomic sequences that have been destroyed. If a genome is the most economical summation of a species past possible, how can it be condensed into a backup copy? Is there, as Joel Isaacson suggest, an Ur pattern, an implicit pattern from which a mashed gene can be re-extracted? Does the deciphering of an ancient pattern, an implicit pattern, an Ur-pattern, change as the context that extracts it changes? Is the context of the still-unfazed genome, of the cytoplasm, of the cell membrane, and of the signals coming from neighboring and distant cells an extractor capable of re-deducing the implicit healthy gene when a mutated gene has gone off-track? Can evolution take a step back to retrace its earlier moves? Is the radiodurans backup mechanism an after-the-fact condensation of the genome--a symbolic representation of the genome? Or is it a remnant of something that preceded the genome? Eshel, you speak of RNA as the possible backup mechanism. RNA is the evolutionary precursor of DNA if the RNA-world hypothesis is true. Do you think that what was once derived from RNA can be derived again? Is this pattern a sort of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny? And if the complexities and intricate forms and functions of the present have been pulled from the implications of the past, what even more elaborate futures will be extracted from the implications of today? Howard In a message dated 3/24/2005 10:07:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, eshel at physics.ucsd.edu writes: Hi, Interestiing news, Eshel I sent yesterday the message below to several people in the Weizmann following a paper in Nature that I think is a most important discovery. personaly I feel very good as it supports my long objection to the current Neo-darwinian paradigm. It also indicates that the community in biology is now finally open to revolutionary ideas related to evolution. These discoveries might also ilustrate one example of organisms learning not through the DNA sequence. {Attached is a new paper that appear in Nature. Being myself against the central paradigm I find the discoveries potentially a mark of a new era. I might be dramatizing but may be not. I am quite surprised and pleased that Nature let them publish the paper and if you note the dates within 6 weeks from receiving it. Note also the possible connection with microRNA . It will be interesting if the media will realise the revolutionary aspects or not. If they do, it will probably lead to a flood of serious and "vitalistic" reactions. In this regard I also attached a paper entitled "New biology for a new century" I apologize if I am carried away but felt like sharing with you my excitement about these discoveries. There are many open questions. The first one is if it is a special mechanism for plants only or shared by animals as well (it is known that smallRNA have different mechanisms in plant). Eshel Eshel Ben-Jacob. Home Page: http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/ Professor of Physics The Maguy-Glass Professor in Physics of Complex Systems eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il ebenjacob at ucsd.edu Former President of the Israel Physical Society (IPS) Head the scientific board of PhysicaPlus http://physicaplus.org.il The IPS Online Bi-lingual Magazine School of Physics and Astronomy 10/2004 -10/2005 Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel Center for Theoretical Biological Physics Tel 972-3-640 7845/7604 (Fax) -6425787 University of California San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0354 USA Tel (office) 1-858-534 0524 (Fax) -534 7697 ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaacsonj at hotmail.com Mon Mar 28 19:07:01 2005 From: isaacsonj at hotmail.com (Joel Isaacson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:07:01 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism Message-ID: >From: HowlBloom at aol.com >Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org, kurakin1970 at yandex.ru, ursus at earthlink.net, > paul.werbos at verizon.net >Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:48:07 EST > > > >_Deinococcus radiodurans_ (http://deinococcus.allbio.org/) is able to >withstand the shattering and spattering force of radioactivity by keeping >many >apparently super-condensed backup copies of its genome, then rebuilding >whatever >genomic sequences that have been destroyed. > >If a genome is the most economical summation of a species past possible, >how >can it be condensed into a backup copy? Is there, as Joel Isaacson >suggests, >an Ur pattern, an implicit pattern from which a mashed gene can be >re-extracted? Does the deciphering of an ancient pattern, an implicit >pattern, an >Ur-pattern, change as the context that extracts it changes? > Hi Howard, I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental Ur-Process involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL RECURSIVE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at all scales. (Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the same patterns.) Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant flow of the Ur-Processes. Best, -- Joel Isaacson PS Baby girl No. 2 arrived this morning in Washington, DC. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:24:54 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:24:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] CHE: Liberal Education on the Ropes Message-ID: Liberal Education on the Ropes http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i30/30b00601.htm 5.4.1 By STANLEY N. KATZ Surely "liberal education" is the most used and abused phrase in the rhetoric of higher education. Just as surely it has no universal meaning. The Association of American Colleges and Universities recently launched a 10-year campaign to "champion the value of a liberal education" -- and to "spark public debate" about just what that is. But the concept may be more alive and well in four-year liberal-arts colleges than it is in our great research universities that are setting the agenda for higher education today. Those institutions are my concern: I fear that undergraduate education in the research university is becoming a project in ruins. Last year we heard of the renewal of interest in liberal education at those institutions when Harvard University announced that it was reforming its "core curriculum." The obvious question that wasn't asked in all the newsprint devoted to Harvard's statement is whether research universities can purport to offer undergraduates a liberal education. Furthermore, the questions that were asked indicate just how contested the meaning of liberal education is at research universities. Should the core curriculum offer common knowledge? Or a way of learning? Should it require set courses, or provide student choice? Focus on big questions, or on specialized exploration in a variety of disciplines? It seems that we have not traveled very far in defining a liberal education at research universities. Not in the last year. Not, perhaps, in the last 100 years. Reliable truisms are available. The association of colleges and universities currently defines liberal education as: "a philosophy of education that empowers individuals, liberates the mind from ignorance, and cultivates social responsibility. Characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than specific content, liberal education can occur at all types of colleges and universities." While the association's new campaign seeks to unite that philosophy with what it calls "practical education," the elements of the definition that have been at the heart of the most important ambitions of liberal education for the last century are likely to remain -- empowering students, liberating their minds, preparing them for citizenship. In short, a process rather than a substantive orientation. Through most of the 20th century, liberal education was more or less exclusively identified with the four-year liberal-arts colleges and a handful of elite universities. Both the institutions and its advocates were avowed educational elitists. But times have changed -- hence the attempt of the association of colleges and universities to universalize liberal education across all types of institutions. But liberal education is being asked to carry more freight than it did a century ago, and it is not clear that it can succeed. As it has expanded throughout higher education, it has suffered inevitable losses and unresolved tensions. As it spread from what were once primarily church-related colleges, for example, it lost its focus on moral values. But even the surviving emphasis on an orientation that stresses general values has been an uncomfortable fit in the modern research university, which has increasingly stressed the production of scientific knowledge over the transmission of culture. Many of the attempts to package liberal education in the modern university have centered on "general education." The idea of general education derives from Matthew Arnold, and it was picked up and Americanized in the United States early in the 20th century. Although we seldom recognize the fact, there were actually three streams in American thinking at the time. The first stream is perhaps one of the oldest, but still continues. It has been the self-conscious rejection of specific courses in favor of a vague notion of enforced diversity of subject matter, to be provided by regular disciplinary departments. Here the pre-eminent example is, alas, my own university, Princeton. Under the leadership of James McCosh in the late 1880s, Princeton developed the "distribution" system that is still all we have to provide structured liberal education at Old Nassau. At Princeton it was not necessary to offer special courses or designate faculty members to provide the content of liberal education -- just to ensure that students did not concentrate too narrowly by requiring a variety of what McCosh called "obligatory and disciplinary" courses. With the exception of a sequence of humanities courses and a large program of freshman seminars, present-day Princeton still has neither nondepartmental general-education courses nor any structured mechanism for thinking about the broader contours of undergraduate liberal education. We review the program periodically, but we seem always to conclude that McCosh had it right. Well, perhaps. The most obvious and most highly publicized example of the next stream began at Columbia University as the United States was entering World War I. This was an attempt to ensure that undergraduates in an increasingly scientific university would be broadly educated across the fields of the liberal arts and to integrate their increasingly fragmented selection of courses into some coherent form. (Admittedly, it was also fueled by a felt need to promote Western civilization in the face of German barbarism.) Combining new synthetic courses outside the disciplinary-obsessed department structure with the inculcation of a notion of democratic citizenship, the curriculum was organized around surveys of "Contemporary Civilization." In essence, the Columbia sequence humanized the now-secular university curriculum by broadly historicizing it. As time passed, most other elite institutions did the same. In the 1930s Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler at the University of Chicago launched an important experiment in this approach. It was complex and somewhat inwardly self-contradictory, but the bottom line was an insistence on the centrality of the Greek classics and other Great Books to undergraduate education, later supplemented by the construction of a "core curriculum" to educate undergraduates across the liberal-arts subjects and to force them to think through and across traditional disciplinary approaches. In 1945 Harvard, under James Bryant Conant, issued General Education in a Free Society, commonly known as the Harvard Red Book. I still have my copy, for it was the basis of my undergraduate education at Harvard beginning in 1951, when as a freshman I took a "Natural Sciences" course in the general-education sequence taught by President Conant, a stunning chemistry professor named Leonard Nash, and an obscure assistant professor of physics named Thomas S. Kuhn. I never had a better undergraduate course. The political rationale for the Red Book was grander than Columbia's or Chicago's, but the basic principles of general education were not that different, based on sweepingly synthetic historical approaches to classically great ideas. The attempt to give all undergraduates at least a taste of different disciplines is now one of the unchallenged principles of general education. The third stream, which in some ways has had a more profound influence on our actual educational practices, was that championed by John Dewey and Arthur O. Lovejoy. This effort focused on cognitive development and individual student growth, and its key was the idea of reflective thinking as a goal of liberal education. That concept was institutionalized at Columbia under the leadership of Dewey and at the Johns Hopkins University under Lovejoy. This approach was entirely cognitive, lacking in specific education content. To this day it forms the basis of the stress on process at the heart of approaches to liberal education. To be sure, there have been many other approaches to liberal education over the years. Until recently, many liberal-arts colleges used both sophisticated distribution systems and a variety of innovative course designs. Many still continue to innovate. As Ernest L. Boyer forcefully noted in College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, first published in 1987, some such colleges have become university wannabes or citadels of preprofessional education. In any case, in most of the major four-year institutions that are educating a larger and larger proportion of undergraduates, the challenge has seemed to be modifying the historical principles of general education in order to bring them up to date. Harvard, as usual, got the most publicity, first for the creation of its "core curriculum" in the 1970s -- another attempt to problematize and repackage general-education courses in a manner consistent with the epistemology and intellectual progress of the era. This twist on general education dehistoricized it, organizing the curriculum around abstract concepts like "moral reasoning," "quantitative reasoning," or "social analysis." Last year Harvard seemed to concede the failure of that approach and has begun to consider what I would call "Core Two." According to the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, William C. Kirby, reporting to the faculty, the aim is to empower students to "grasp the importance and relevance of fields to which they do not themselves owe personal allegiance and in which they have not developed special expertise" so that they may "understand, criticize, and improve our world constructively." Harvard is adding to its definition of general education a focus on international studies and one on scientific literacy. New "Harvard College Courses" are proposed to supply the new approaches, along with courses already in the curriculum. Freshman seminars are suggested and other small-group learning engagements for the final three years of college. A parallel aim of the new curriculum is to limit the student's concentration (Harvardese for "major"), by changing when undergraduates begin to major in a particular field from freshman year to the middle of the sophomore year (talk about epicycles!), and to limit the requirements for concentrators. The report also suggests that the university facilitate undergraduate research opportunities. Not one of those seems like either a new or very exciting idea. The Harvard document, when it is completed and put into effect, will predictably be the most discussed document on liberal education over the next few years. I have no doubt that it will, if put into practice in anything like a full-blooded fashion, significantly improve general education at Harvard. But it is a modest, reformist document. It defines liberal education in an altogether traditional manner, and each of its proposed reforms is mostly familiar. After all, internationalization has been on everyone's mind for some time, and there has not been a moment in the last century during which some group has not lamented that we are not doing a good job of conveying science to the nonscientist. Similarly, freshman seminars are hardly a new idea (I taught one the first year they were offered at Harvard, in 1961), nor is the call for more small-group instruction or for more undergraduate research. Three years is arguably too long for an undergraduate to major in a discipline. Undergraduates already do research and take courses in professional schools (if, perhaps, that has just been harder at Harvard than at comparable institutions). For those of us at other institutions who are long-term observers of liberal education, there does not seem to be a lot to learn from Harvard. My intention is not to attack any particular definition of liberal education. It is to suggest that we have not traveled far in our definitions over the past 100 years. Until we do, we can do little to fundamentally improve undergraduate education at research universities. Moreover, whatever the definition, we all face a dilemma. As I've suggested for a number of years, the real problem is that both long-term changes to the social, political, and economic environment for higher education and the recent internal restructuring of the university make it difficult -- if not impossible -- to achieve a satisfactory liberal education for undergraduates. Even if Dean Kirby can persuade his university significantly to increase the number of faculty members to help teach general-education courses (and President John E. Sexton of New York University is making a similar proposal), what are the odds (a) that Harvard or NYU can afford it, and (b) that they can and will hire the sorts of faculty members competent (and inclined) to be superior undergraduate teachers? Does anyone believe that possible? I do not. The modern university has been in tension with the liberal-arts college it harbors within its bosom for years. We are at a point in the history of the research university at which, in all likelihood, curriculum reform can no longer plausibly produce what we are looking for, despite the best efforts of admirable administrators like Bill Kirby or John Sexton. That is why I fear that liberal education for undergraduates in the research university, despite the recent hoopla, is in ruins. There are two ways of thinking about why that is so. The first is the intellectual task of reconceptualizing what the content and curricular mechanisms should be at the beginning of the second century of modern liberal education. The second approach is to consider the structural changes in the modern research university that are relegating undergraduate education to the margins. I will not attempt more than to gesture at what seem to me the contours of the intellectual problem. The overriding difficulty is the vast expansion of the domains of knowledge from the late 19th century to the early 21st century. After all, the by-now-traditional academic disciplines only took shape from the 1880s to the 1920s. The social sciences, in particular, were very much the original product of that period, and one of the original objectives of general education was to locate the social sciences within the new sociology of knowledge (itself a creation of the first half of the 20th century). As undergraduates increasingly "majored" in a single discipline, the question was how they could relate what they were learning to the larger intellectual cosmology. That was what Columbia and other elite colleges were addressing. But the intellectual panorama was already changing rapidly. By the 1940s, when Harvard introduced its undergraduate curriculum, atomic physics was most obviously where the action was, but the revolution in cell biology was quietly beginning and, with it, the total transformation of the life sciences. New forms and combinations of knowledge were being institutionalized in the natural sciences along the model that had produced biochemistry in the 1930s. What had begun as a private philanthropic initiative in the 1920s and 1930s was suddenly overwhelmed by the entrance of the federal government following World War II, especially through the mechanisms of the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. There would soon be no such thing as the generally educated scientist, much less the generally scientifically literate undergraduate student. There was simply too much to know because of the range, depth, and quantity of new scientific scholarship, and of the increasing centrality of complex mathematics to scientific understanding. Change was afoot in the humanities and social sciences as well. Those were more complicated and subtle stories, but the larger outlines seem clear enough. The social sciences became more complex theoretically, more scientific in their methodology, and more wide-ranging in their ambitions. They became less focused on understanding the problems of building democracy in the United States (as they had begun to do in the 1920s and 1930s), and more interested in fostering both economic and political development abroad, especially in the "underdeveloped" areas of the world. As in every other disciplinary domain, the traditional social-science disciplines splintered, sprouted new lines, and recombined in novel ways. In the humanities, the focus moved from studies of Europe (especially classical Europe) and America to contemplation of the rest of the world. We discovered world literature, philosophy, history, and music. New subdisciplines developed (the history of everything in the social sciences and humanities, for instance), new languages were studied, new techniques were employed. And the relevance of the humanities to politics became a problem and an opportunity. For undergraduate education, the center simply could not hold. There were many attempts to identify an essential core of knowledge, and many new attempts will undoubtedly be made. I think them unlikely to succeed given the breadth and complexity of the intellectual content students now confront. Nor do we seem to have the educational leaders capable of defining new content. Let me say that I do not think the blame should fall on university presidents and deans. It should be assigned to research faculties for whom thoughtful consideration of undergraduate education is simply not on the agenda. They are dominated by scholars committed to disciplinary approaches, who would mostly prefer to teach graduate students and, increasingly, postgrads. The professional schools at least claim to prefer to admit generally educated students, but what about graduate departments? Can we simply presume that the products of American secondary education are already liberally educated? To ask the question is to answer it. And that brings me to my second concern: the extent to which structural changes in the university, especially the research university, tend to marginalize undergraduate education generally and, more important, make it difficult to theorize and put into effect anything like liberal education. Some of those factors also affect colleges and general universities, but the problem is worst in the research universities. Quite apart from the intellectual transformation I have just described, the most important thing that has changed for higher education is the entirety of the social and political environment in which it is situated. The most significant shift is from elite to democratic higher education, which began in the 1930s and took off after World War II, heralded by the GI Bill. Since then the numbers of undergraduate students in four-year institutions have expanded exponentially, and student bodies have come to resemble the diversity of the general population of the country. Of course, pluralism requires something less morally prescriptive, less tailored, more diverse, and more practical than the elite higher education of the early-20th century. Notions of democratic higher education originated a century ago, but they took on new urgency and complexity after World War II. That is why Harvard went to such lengths to explore the democratic character of general education in its postwar Red Book. None of us wants to go back to traditional educational elitism. I assume that the "best" institutions these days aspire to meritocratic elitism, leavened by diversity programs aimed at casting a broad net, and compensating for past deficiencies where necessary. However, in all but the most selective institutions, students have a broad range of motivations for "going to college," and many (if not most of them) cannot choose freely to construct their educations. They are older, part time, and financially hard pressed. That does not mean that they are narrowly preprofessional or unreceptive to the need for a liberal education, but that they are obviously very different sorts of candidates for general education than students of my own or earlier generations. Over time the social and political pressures that shaped the modern research university have shaped the way that undergraduate education is conceptualized. It is at least arguable that the early research universities genuinely thought of themselves as collegiate institutions -- by which I mean a university surrounding an undergraduate college. That notion is still embodied in institutions such as Harvard and Yale University, where the phrase "the college" has some meaning. The term "Harvard graduate" (or "Yale graduate") still means someone who has completed the undergraduate program. But the fuller notion that the liberal arts are the core of the university has eroded badlymainly, I think, in response to the university's attempt to satisfy concrete and immediate pragmatic social demands. My contention is that we have gone so far down this road in the major universities that we have reversed our priorities and now give precedence to research and graduate and professional training -- in the kind of faculty members we recruit, in the incentives (light or nil teaching loads) we offer them, and even in the teaching we value (graduate over undergraduate students). Our research faculty members have little interest in joining efforts to build core or general-education programs, much less in teaching in them. Moreover, can we be confident that those prized faculty recruits are sufficiently liberally educated to participate in general education? The same is true of our fractionalizing of universities into research centers. Those increasingly become pawns in the faculty recruiting game -- we will finance a research center for you, help you recruit postdocs and graduate students to do the research -- with little room or thought to undergraduate education. Another problem, though one hard to document and discuss, is the difficulty of financing the humanities and soft social sciences, the fields in which so many undergraduates find their most important liberal-education experiences. We all know that faculty members in those fields teach more, get paid less, and have fewer resources for research than their colleagues in the natural sciences and hard social sciences. They have less leverage in the institution to get what they want, from secretarial services and office space to computers. They are also, on balance, the faculty members most likely to be concerned with undergraduate education, but they are in a weak position to influence decisions within their universities. Perhaps most important, those who administer our research universities are less and less likely to be well-known teachers, especially collegiate teachers. Presidents have less and less time to worry about education problems, and even provosts and deans of faculty are incredibly hard pressed to keep the lights on and the laboratories functioning. They themselves seldom teach. Such administrators are often forced to prize efficiency in undergraduate education -- the more bodies in a classroom the better, and cheaper. It may well be that in most American universities the economic realities are such that the administrators have few alternatives. I think I would know what to do about the plight of liberal education in the modern research university if I were offered the magic wand. We all have lovely theories. But none of us, and no university president, has such power. That makes it all the more important that we be conscious of the nature of the task at hand. I asked my friend Charles S. Maier, a professor of history at Harvard who has been working on its curricular review, about the university's recent proposal. "I do think it's a step in the right direction to bury the Core, which essentially said students should understand how scholars do scholarship. The Gen Ed that you and I took was a far more humanist enterprise. But by the early 1970s, faculties no longer had confidence in Values and thus turned toward Expertise," he told me. "At least we now have a sense that Values -- aesthetic, civic, moral -- are important again, even if we don't have confidence we know which values are important." I believe he's right. Lest we continue to be mired in incremental reforms, we need to be clearer about the larger function of general education. If we believe that values do have a role in education, then the challenge may be to rehistoricize and rehumanize the underclass curriculum. That does not mean going back to Contemporary Civilization courses or the Red Book. It does mean rethinking the content of knowledge appropriate for our contemporary society, and summoning the intellectual courage to embolden students to make qualitative judgments about the materials they are required to engage with in their underclass years. Of course, that will not be possible unless we are safely beyond the conflicts of the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s. That seems to me problematic at the current moment in American history, but perhaps I am too pessimistic. Even if we are able to open a new discussion about reforming the curriculum, however, we will still fail unless we take seriously the structural constraints on higher education today. At best we have been taking those constraints for granted; at worst, enthusiastically embracing them. The changing structure of the university is the place we may need to start the discussion. A great deal is at stake for undergraduate education, and for the country. If we believe, as so many of the founders of liberal education did, that the vitality of American democracy depends upon the kind of liberal education undergraduates receive, we need to put the reimagination of liberal education near the top of our agenda for education in our research universities. Stanley N. Katz is director of Princeton University's Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies and president emeritus of the American Council of Learned Societies. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:26:12 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:26:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] CHE: The Neglect of the American Elite Message-ID: The Neglect of the American Elite The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5.4.1 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i30/30b01301.htm By STEVE FRASER and GARY GERSTLE A paradox has baffled historians and citizens generally for as long as there has been a United States of America: How can a nation consecrated to freedom and equality nonetheless give rise to great hierarchies of power and wealth that undermine the very foundations of that extraordinary promise? The paradox is more pointed than that. The country is a democracy. The people rule. And yet the people do not rule; elites, patriciates, castes, classes have ruled in their stead. Sometimes they seem to rule with the people's interests in mind; sometimes not. Phrases like "ruling class" or "ruling elite" sound a discordant note. They do not feel as though they belong in the vocabulary of American politics and its history. After all, the very openness, fluidity, and social heterogeneity of American society defy anything as exclusive, ongoing, and inaccessible as a "ruling class." There is something ineffably alien about such notions, stepchildren imported from the lingua franca of the Old World and its sedimentary layers of titled aristocrats, landed gentry, military castes, and dynastic families. It is a cherished American folk belief, after all, that classes do not exist or, if they do, are always going out of existence. Democratic political institutions, whatever their defects, will not tolerate a continuous monopoly of power by a tiny clique of self-anointed overlords. And even if such usurpation might be attempted, the sheer overwhelming tidal force of the American economy would wash it away in an onrushing flood of new enterprise, new technology, and new sources of wealth that would inundate the old ruling groups and either force them open to rising elements of the middle classes or dissolve them entirely. So, too, the ethnic promiscuity of American society, its open invitation to people from every country and culture to come aboard and grab a share of the American dream, inexorably wears away at the internal cohesion, that vital complex of shared traditions, beliefs, and customs that any ruling milieu depends on for its ?lan and its sense of entitlement. Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country's evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history. We have all grown used to characterizing the 1980s and 1990s as the second coming of the Gilded Age. "Crony capitalism" has re-entered our everyday political vocabulary, a term carrying unsavory associations, suggesting the cross-fertilization of privileged economic and political circles in open defiance of the normal protocols of democratic politics. Since historians, like everybody else, are hardly immune to the subtle influence of the pressing issues of their own day, even as they burrow deep into the distant past, it is noteworthy that so few have felt the urge of late to explore the class dimensions of power in years gone by. That this recent neglect of the way ruling groups formed, exercised their power, and came to an end has followed the "social-history revolution" of the 1960s also seems peculiar. That revolution generated a remarkably fertile outpouring of historical research and writing that focused on the experience of oppression going all the way back to the colonial origins of the New World and beyond. But the meticulous examination of the lives of slaves, immigrants, industrial workers, Native Americans, impoverished underclasses, women, disenfranchised minorities, and others has, for the most part, not concerned itself with the social and political history of those presumably responsible for their oppression. However valuable and innovative such historical detective work on the experiences of the subordinate often was (and is), it drained intellectual attention away from the collective lives of the superordinate. Of course, these histories treated as axiomatic the power and exploitation exercised by upper classes, master races, and patriarchs. Beyond that, any more intimate examination of how ruling groups coalesced, how they exercised their authority in an ostensibly democratic political environment, how they formulated the ideological justifications for their empowerment, how they faced up to crises and challenges to their supremacy -- those and a dozen other similarly intriguing questions often fell from view. Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. To the contrary, the story of the ruling elites had preoccupied historians for a very long time. Moreover, to talk about classes and the struggles between them was common parlance. Indeed, for the first 150 years of the nation's life, the language of ruling and subordinate social groups defined the contours of one of the grand narratives of American history. Measured by the long sweep of that history, stretching back into the colonial era, it is the recent muting of those concerns about the concentration and exercise of power that seems odd. That does not mean that those who once stressed such matters were right. But it does mean that a whole set of historical metaphors and categories of analysis once taken for granted have lost much of their legitimacy. Beginning sometime after World War II, and with increasing force in the wake of the Reagan "revolution," a gathering consensus concluded that events, "History," the impersonal forces of the market, or some other analogous abstractions rule, not classes or elites. Certainly the cultural cold war helped stigmatize notions of "class struggle" and "ruling classes" as so much communist verbiage, a purely propagandist rhetoric that failed to capture the more centerless, polymorphous, and pluralist makeup of American politics and social organization. Yet precisely the opposite conviction runs likes a red thread through much of the nation's past. It is virtually impossible to make sense of any of the great epochs in American political history or of the grander chronicle of democracy in America without coming face to face with "Tories," "moneycrats," "the Monster Bank," "the slaveocracy," "robber barons," "plutocrats," "the money trust," "economic royalists," "the Establishment," the "power elite," or the "military-industrial complex." All those colorful variations echo a single theme: that, the fluid and anarchic character of the American experience notwithstanding, organized political and social groupings have arisen at key junctures in the country's history and have succeeded for more or less extended periods of time in exercising broad dominion over the nation's political economy and even its cultural and social life. One might view that rich imagery of the pursuit of power either as a reproach or as a vindication of the pursuit of happiness -- a reproach insofar as it suggests that the American promise of freedom and equality has been a sham and a delusion, a vindication inasmuch as it implies that democracy has been a permanent revolution, forever embattled against those who have tried to abrogate that promise. Either way, America is depicted as densely populated with an assortment of social groups that all seem to behave suspiciously like ruling classes or elites. Survey the landmarks of the national drama. Every president of enduring reputation up to John F. Kennedy is remembered for some vital crusade against a usurping or entrenched elite. Washington and Jefferson overthrew the minions of the British monarchy and then fended off attempts at aristocratic counterrevolution by homegrown Tories. Andrew Jackson waged war against a "Monster Bank" that presumed to monopolize the credit resources of a fledgling nation and turn enterprising citizens into its vassals. Lincoln purged the nation of its mortal sin by extirpating the "slaveocracy." Teddy Roosevelt unleashed rhetorical thunderbolts against those "malefactors of great wealth" whose gargantuan corporate combines showed no regard for the public welfare and bought and sold senators and congressmen like so many pigs at a market. Woodrow Wilson promised, if swept into office, to take on the "money trust," that financial octopus whose tentacles were strangling to death the economic opportunity and democratic independence that were every citizen's birthright. In the midst of the greatest calamity since the Civil War, FDR chased the "money changers from the temple" and declared that his New Deal would henceforth police and punish the "economic royalists" who had brought on the Great Depression. Even the mild-mannered Dwight Eisenhower left office cautioning the country against the overweening power of the "military-industrial complex." In the wake of the conservative intellectual ascendancy that accompanied the rise of Ronald Reagan, however, what had once been a main current of the country's historiography became little more than a tributary. It is true that plenty of books have appeared over the last decade or so revisiting the lives of legendary business titans such as Jay Gould, Edward H. Harriman, J. Pierpont Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller. But nearly without exception, they steer clear of treating those figures as emblematic of some ruling elite. Nowadays it may seem old-fashioned, against the American grain, or even subversive (pace President George W. Bush's warning that to criticize his tax cuts for the wealthy was to indulge in "class warfare") to talk about classes, about the struggles between them, about something as exotic and alien as a ruling elite. But it is not. The corpus of thinking about hierarchy and democracy that extends all the way back to the first days of the Republic has left behind a series of questions still worth pondering. We need to focus on the variety of economic elites that have ruled, or attempted to rule, the nation. We need to look at the different ways in which elites have constituted their political, ideological, and social worlds; examine the internal fissures and external challenges that have threatened and sometimes undermined those worlds; explore the special problems facing elite pretensions to political power in a democracy. That requires a focus on instability and change as integral features of elite rule in America. One fundamental transformation involves the etiology of power. In the era of Adams and Jefferson, government seemed the principal incubator of elite aspirations to overweening authority. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, however, civil society, in particular the centers of greatest economic power, had supplanted government as the breeding ground of aristocratic hubris. Government had become either the servitor of powers greater than itself or the inspirational hope of those who saw it as the only mechanism capable of wrestling the country's illicit ruling cliques to the ground. That great sea change in where power was rooted and on whose behalf it might be deployed arose in most societies undergoing the transition from precapitalist to capitalist mechanisms of wealth creation. Moreover it was itself organically connected to an equally profound change in the way elites organized and conceived of themselves. In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, elites configured themselves as an aristocratic caste whose position rested on lineage, inbreeding, and various forms of social exclusivity. Even apart from their real and personal property, their inherited cultural capital commanded deference from those not so blessed. Over time, those boundaries blurred along with the explosive expansion and differentiation of the economy. Those occupying the commanding heights of the economy and the political system began to look more like a class, open to -- even forced open by -- newcomers of more plebeian origin. That new social fluidity further complicated attempts to discern just who ruled and how. That was emphatically the case, moreover, as rising corporate industrial and finance capital overcame or merged with more settled and dynastic forms of landed and mercantile wealth. That proliferation of power centers, in turn, generated internal divisions that could take on cultural and political as well as economic shape. Most significant, it produced a fissure within the "leisure class" between those absorbed by their own self-interest and self-regard, psychologically and politically deaf and blind to the economic mayhem and social antagonisms accumulating around them, and a fraction of that same universe -- people such as the Roosevelts, for example, or those to-the-manner-born "Establishment" figures of the next generation -- who self-consciously took up the challenge of ruling on behalf of the whole commonwealth, even if that meant now and then risking the enmity of their social peers. Within those circles, a sense of social trusteeship subdued the instinct for self-indulgence. Here the possibility of collaborating with subordinate segments of the body politic -- the labor movement, for example -- was actively explored, leaving the makeup, not to mention the verifiable existence, of a ruling group even more intriguing to ascertain. Fissures that profound took on measurable visible form only during mortal crises. One thinks of the constitutional period, the Civil War, the political firestorm ignited by populist and antitrust passions at the turn of the 19th century, the Great Depression, and the defeat in Vietnam and the end of U.S. world economic supremacy in the 1970s. What is fascinating about those occurrences is that they show how dominant groups faced up to the challenge and either succumbed in war or public ignominy or else surmounted it, whether through pure self-assertion or shrewd political compromise. Whatever the outcome, the life and death of ruling elites is one of the enduring themes that run through the long literature of wealth and political power in America. It remains so today as the country witnesses the tribulations of its latest ruling group, born at the dawn of Reagan's "morning in America" and now struggling to master what may be either the high noon or the twilight of the new American Century. Steve Fraser is a writer and historian living in New York. Gary Gerstle is a professor of history at the University of Maryland at College Park. This essay is adapted from the book they edited, Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy, published this month by Harvard University Press. Copyright ? 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:28:10 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:28:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] spiked-health: Our unhealthy obsession with sickness Message-ID: Our unhealthy obsession with sickness http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA958.htm 5.3.23 Why is being ill now embraced as a positive part of the human experience? by Frank Furedi We live in a world where illnesses are on the increase. The distinguishing feature of the twenty-first century is that health has become a dominant issue, both in our personal lives and in public life. It has become a highly politicised issue, too, and an increasingly important site of government intervention and policymaking. With every year that passes, we seem to spend more and more time and resources thinking about health and sickness. I think there are four possible reasons for this. First, there is the imperative of medicalisation. When the concept of medicalisation was first formulated, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it referred to a far narrower range of phenomena than is the case today - and it was linked to the actions of a small number of professionals rather than having the all-pervasive character that it does now. Essentially, the term medicalisation means that problems we encounter in everyday life are reinterpreted as medical ones. So problems that might traditionally have been defined as existential - that is, the problems of existence - have a medical label attached to them. Today, it is difficult to think of any kind of human experience that doesn't come with a health warning or some kind of medical explanation. It is not only the experience of pain or distress or disappointment or engagement with adversity that is medicalised and seen as potentially traumatic and stress-inducing; even human characteristics are medicalised now. Consider shyness. It is quite normal to be shy; there are many circumstances where many of us feel shy and awkward. Yet shyness is now referred to as 'social phobia'. And, of course, when a medical label is attached to shyness, it is only a matter of time before a pharmaceutical company comes up with a 'shyness pill'. Pop these pills, and you too can become the life and soul of the party! One of my hobbies is to read press releases informing us of the existence of a new illness, the 'illness of the week', if you like. Recently I received one that said: 'Psychologists say that love sickness is a genuine disease and needs more awareness and diagnoses. Those little actions that are normally seen as the symptoms of the first flush of love - buying presents, waiting by the phone, or making an effort before a date - may actually be signs of a deep-rooted problem to come. Many people who suffer from love sickness cannot cope with the intensity of love and have been destabilised by falling in love or suffer on account of their love being unrequited.' Of course, an intense passion can and does have an impact upon our bodies. But when even love can be seen as the harbinger of illness, what aspect of our lives can be said to be illness-free? What can we possibly do that will not apparently induce some sickness or syndrome? Medicalisation no longer knows any limits. It is so intrusive that it can impact on virtually any of our experiences, creating a situation where illness is increasingly perceived as normal. This leads to my second point - there is now a presupposition that illness is as normal as health. Earlier theories of medicalisation still considered illness to be the exception; now, being ill is seen as a normal state, possibly even more normal than being healthy. We are all now seen as being potentially ill; that is the default state we live in today. This can be glimpsed in the increasing use of the term 'wellness', with well men's clinics and well women's clinics. 'Wellness', another relatively recent concept, is a peculiar term. It presupposes that being well is not a natural or normal state. After all, there are no such things as 'sunshine clinics' or 'evening clincs'; such normal things do not normally need an institution attached to them. And why would you have to visit a wellness clinic if you were well, anyway? It makes little sense. Wellness has become something you have to work on, something to aspire to and achieve. This reinforces the presupposition that not being well - or being ill - is the normal state. That is what our culture says to us now: you are not okay, you are not fine; you are potentially ill. The message seems to be that if you do not subscribe to this project of keeping well, you will revert to being ill. In supermarkets, especially in middle-class neighbourhoods, buying food has become like conducting a scientific experiment. Individuals spend hours looking at how many carbohydrates there are, whether it's organic, natural, holistic. Spending time reading labels is one way of doing your bit to keep well. Being potentially ill is now so prevalent that we have reached a situation where illness becomes a part of our identity, part of the human condition. Some of us might not flaunt it, walking around saying, 'I've got a gum disease' or 'I've got a bad case of athlete's foot'. That doesn't sound very sexy, and is unlikely to go down well at the dinner table. But it has become acceptable to talk openly about other illnesses - to declare that you are a cancer survivor, or to flaunt a disability. As we normalise illness, our identity becomes inextricably linked to illness. So it is normal to be ill, and to be ill is normal. The nature of illness changes when it becomes part of our identity. When we invest so much emotion in an illness, when it becomes such a large aspect of our lives through the illness metaphor, we start to embrace it - and it can be very difficult to let go of that part of our identity. This is why illness tends to become more durable and last longer. Sickness is no longer a temporary episode: it is something that, increasingly, afflicts one for life. You are scarred for life, with an indelible stamp on your personality. This can be seen in the idea of being a cancer survivor or some other kind of survivor; we are always, it seems, in remission. The illness remains part of us, and shapes our personality. As this happens, illnesses start to acquire features that are no longer negative. In the past, illness was seen as a bad thing. Today you can read illness diaries in the Guardian and other newspapers and magazines. We often hear the phrase: 'I've learned so much about myself through my illness.' It becomes a pedagogic experience: 'I may have lost a leg and half my brain cells, but I'm learning so much from this extremely unique experience.' It's almost like going to university, something positive, to be embraced, with hundreds of books telling us how to make the most of the experience of sickness. We are not simply making a virtue out of a necessity; rather we are consciously valuing illness. From a theoretical standpoint, we might view illness as the first order concept, and wellness as the second order concept. Wellness is subordinate, methodologically, to the state of being ill. The third influence is today's cultural script, the cultural narrative that impacts on our lives, which increasingly uses health to make sense of the human experience. The more uncertainty we face, the more difficult we find it to make statements of moral purpose, the more ambiguous we feel about what is right and wrong, then the more comfortable we feel using the language of health to make sense of our lives. At a time of moral and existential uncertainty, health has become an important idiom through which to provide guidance to individuals. This is now so prevalent that we no longer even notice when we are doing it. For example, we no longer tell teenagers that pre-marital sex is good or bad or sinful. Instead we say that pre-marital sex is a health risk. Sex education programmes teach that you will be emotionally traumatised if pressured into having sex and will be generally healthier if you stay at home and watch TV instead. There are few clear moral guidelines that can direct our behaviour today; but we have become very good at using health to regulate people's lives in an intrusive and systematic fashion. Even medicine and food have acquired moral connotations. So some drugs are said to be bad for the environment, while others, especially those made with a natural herb, are seen as being morally superior. Organic food is seen as 'good', not only in nutritional terms, but in moral terms. Junk food, on the other hand, is seen as evil. If you look at the language that is used to discuss health and medicine, or obese people and their body shapes, it isn't just about health: we are making moral statements. A fat person is considered to have a serious moral problem, rather than simply a health one. As we become morally illiterate, we turn to health to save us from circumstances where we face a degree of moral or spiritual disorientation. The fourth influence is the politicisation of health. Health has become a focus of incessant political activity. Politicians who have little by way of beliefs or passions, and don't know what to say to the public, are guaranteed a response if they say something health-related. Some also make a lot of money from the health issue, from pharmaceutical companies to alternative health shops to individual quacks selling their wares - all are in the business, essentially, of living of today's health-obsessed cultural sentiment. Governments today do two things that I object to in particular. First they encourage introspection, telling us that unless men examine their testicles, unless we keep a check on our cholesterol level, then we are not being responsible citizens. You are letting down yourself, your wife, your kids, everybody. We are encouraged continually to worry about our health. As a consequence, public health initiatives have become, as far as I can tell, a threat to public health. Secondly, governments promote the value of health seeking. We are meant always to be seeking health for this or that condition. The primary effect of this, I believe, is to make us all feel more ill. Here's a prediction - Western societies are not going to overcome the crisis of healthcare; it is beyond the realms of possibility. No matter what policies government pursue, or how much money they throw at the problem, even if they increase health expenditure fourfold, the problem will not go away. As long as the normalisation of illness remains culturally affirmed, more and more of us are likely to identify ourselves as sick, and will identify ourselves as sick for a growing period of time. The solution to this problem lies not in the area of policymaking, or even medicine, but in the cultural sphere. Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent, and author of Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?: Confronting Twenty-First Century Philistinism (buy this book from [2]Amazon (UK) or [3]Amazon (USA)). This is an edited version of a speech he gave at Health: An Unhealthy Obsession, a conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas in London on 12 February 2005. Visit his website [4]here. References 2. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0826467695/spiked 3. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0826467695/spiked-20 4. http://www.frankfuredi.com/ From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:29:40 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:29:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] City Journal: Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power by Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills Message-ID: Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power by Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html 2005 Winter Your typical city dweller doesn't know just how much coal and uranium he burns each year. On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago--where the numbers are fairly representative of urban America as a whole--the answer is (roughly): four tons and a few ounces. In round numbers, tons of coal generate about half of the typical city's electric power; ounces of uranium, about 17 percent; natural gas and hydro take care of the rest. New York is a bit different: an apartment dweller on the Upper West Side substitutes two tons of oil (or the equivalent in natural gas) for Chicago's four tons of coal. The oil-tons get burned at plants like the huge oil/gas unit in Astoria, Queens. The uranium ounces get split at Indian Point in Westchester, 35 miles north of the city, as well as at the Ginna, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile Point units upstate, and at additional plants in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. That's the stunning thing about nuclear power: tiny quantities of raw material can do so much. A bundle of enriched-uranium fuel-rods that could fit into a two-bedroom apartment in Hell's Kitchen would power the city for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, everything--even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid. True, you don't want to stack fuel rods in midtown Manhattan; you don't in fact want to stack them casually on top of one another anywhere. But in suitable reactors, situated, say, 50 miles from the city on a few hundred acres of suitably fortified and well-guarded real estate, two rooms' worth of fuel could electrify it all. Think of our solitary New Yorker on the Upper West Side as a 1,400-watt bulb that never sleeps--that's the national per-capita average demand for electric power from homes, factories, businesses, the lot. Our average citizen burns about twice as bright at 4 pm in August, and a lot dimmer at 4 am in December; grown-ups burn more than kids, the rich more than the poor; but it all averages out: 14 floor lamps per person, lit round the clock. Convert this same number back into a utility's supply-side jargon, and a million people need roughly 1.4 "gigs" of power--1.4 gigawatts (GW). Running at peak power, Entergy's two nuclear units at Indian Point generate just under 2 GW. So just four Indian Points could take care of New York City's 7-GW round-the-clock average. Six could handle its peak load of about 11.5 GW. And if we had all-electric engines, machines, and heaters out at the receiving end, another ten or so could power all the cars, ovens, furnaces--everything else in the city that oil or gas currently fuels. For such a nuclear-powered future to arrive, however, we'll need to get beyond our nuclear-power past. In the now-standard histories, the beginning of the end of nuclear power arrived on March 28, 1979, with the meltdown of the uranium core at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. The Chernobyl disaster seven years later drove the final nail into the nuclear coffin. It didn't matter that the Three Mile Island containment vessel had done its job and prevented any significant release of radioactivity, or that Soviet reactors operated within a system that couldn't build a safe toaster oven. Uranium was finished. Three Mile Island came on the heels of the first great energy shock to hit America. On October 19, 1973, King Faisal ordered a 25 percent reduction in Saudi Arabia's oil shipments to the United States, launching the Arab oil embargo. Oil supplies would tighten and prices would rise from then on, experts predicted. It would take some time, but oil was finished, too. Five months after Three Mile Island, the nation's first energy secretary summed up our predicament: "The energy future is bleak," James R. Schlesinger declared, "and is likely to grow bleaker in the decade ahead. We must rapidly adjust our economics to a condition of chronic stringency in traditional energy supplies." Fortunately, some argued, the U.S. could manage on less--much less. Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars were gaining favor, and rising gas prices would curb demand. The nation certainly didn't need any new giant electric power plants--efficiency and the development of renewable sources of power would suffice. "The long-run supply curve for electricity is as flat as the Kansas horizon," noted one right-thinking energy sage. In the ensuing decades, however, American oil consumption rose 15 percent and electricity use almost doubled. Many people aren't happy about it. Protecting our oil-supply lines entangles us with feudal theocracies and the fanatical sects that they spawn. The coal that we burn to generate so much of our electricity pollutes the air and may warm the planet. What to do? All sober and thoughtful energy pundits at the New York Times, Greenpeace, and the Harvard Divinity School agree: the answer to both problems is . . . efficiency and the development of renewable sources of power. Nevertheless, the secretary of energy, his boss (now a Texas oilman, not a Georgia peanut farmer), and the rest of the country should look elsewhere. The U.S. today consumes about 100 quads--100 quadrillion BTUs--of raw thermal energy per year. We do three basic things with it: generate electricity (about 40 percent of the raw energy consumed), move vehicles (30 percent), and produce heat (30 percent). Oil is the fuel of transportation, of course. We principally use natural gas to supply raw heat, though it's now making steady inroads into electric power generation. Fueling electric power plants are mainly (in descending order) coal, uranium, natural gas, and rainfall, by way of hydroelectricity. This sharp segmentation emerged relatively recently, and there's no reason to think it's permanent. After all, developing economies use trees and pasture as fuel for heat and transportation, and don't generate much electricity at all. A century ago, coal was the all-purpose fuel of industrial economies: coal furnaces provided heat, and coal-fired steam engines powered trains, factories, and the early electric power plants. From the 1930s until well into the 1970s, oil fueled not just cars but many electric power plants, too. And by 2020, electricity almost certainly will have become the new cross-cutting "fuel" in both stationary and mobile applications. That shift is already under way. About 60 percent of the fuel we use today isn't oil but coal, uranium, natural gas, and gravity--all making electricity. Electricity has met almost all of the growth in U.S. energy demand since the 1980s. About 60 percent of our GDP now comes from industries and services that use electricity as their front-end "fuel"--in 1950, the figure was only 20 percent. The fastest growth sectors of the economy--information technology and telecom, notably--depend entirely on electricity for fuel, almost none of it oil-generated. Electrically powered information technology accounts for some 60 percent of new capital spending. Electricity is taking over ever more of the thermal sector, too. A microwave oven displaces much of what a gas stove once did in a kitchen. So, too, lasers, magnetic fields, microwaves, and other forms of high-intensity photon power provide more precise, calibrated heating than do conventional ovens in manufacturing and the industrial processing of materials. These electric cookers (broadly defined) are now replacing conventional furnaces, ovens, dryers, and welders to heat air, water, foods, and chemicals, to cure paints and glues, to forge steel, and to weld ships. Over the next two decades, such trends will move another 15 percent or so of our energy economy from conventional thermal to electrically powered processes. And that will shift about 15 percent of our oil-and-gas demand to whatever primary fuels we'll then be using to generate electricity. Electricity is also taking over the power train in transportation--not the engine itself, but the system that drives power throughout the car. Running in confined tunnels as they do, subways had to be all-electric from the get-go. More recently, diesel-electric locomotives and many of the monster trucks used in mining have made the transition to electric drive trains. Though the oil-fired combustion engine is still there, it's now just an onboard electric generator that propels only electrons. Most significantly, the next couple of decades will see us convert to the hybrid gasoline-and-electric car. A steadily rising fraction of the power produced under the hood of a car already is used to generate electricity: electrical modules are replacing components that belts, gears, pulleys, and shafts once drove. Steering, suspension, brakes, fans, pumps, and valves will eventually go electric; in the end, electricity will drive the wheels, too. Gas prices and environmental mandates have little to do with this changeover. The electric drive train simply delivers better performance, lower cost, and less weight. The policy implications are enormous. Outfitted with a fully electric power train, most of the car--everything but its prime mover--looks like a giant electrical appliance. This appliance won't run any great distance on batteries alone, given today's battery technology. But a substantial battery pack on board will provide surges of power when needed. And that makes possible at least some "refueling" of the car from the electricity grid. As cars get more electric, an infrastructure of battery-recharging stations will grow apace, probably in driveways and parking lots, where most cars spend most of their time. Once you've got the wheels themselves running on electricity, the basic economics strongly favor getting that electricity from the grid if you can. Burning $2-a-gallon gasoline, the power generated by current hybrid-car engines costs about 35 cents per kilowatt-hour. Many utilities, though, sell off-peak power for much less: 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The nationwide residential price is still only 8.5 cents or so. (Peak rates in Manhattan are higher because of the city's heavy dependence on oil and gas, but not enough to change the basic arithmetic.) Grid kilowatts are cheaper because cheaper fuels generate them and because utility power plants run a lot more efficiently than car engines. The gas tank and combustion engine won't disappear anytime soon, but in the imminent future, grid power will (in effect) begin to top off the tank in between the short trips that account for most driving. All-electric vehicles flopped in the 1990s because batteries can't store sufficient power for long weekend trips. But plug-in hybrids do have a gasoline tank for the long trips. And the vast majority of the most fuel-hungry trips are under six miles--within the range of the 2 to 5 kWh capacity of the onboard nickel-metal-hydride batteries in hybrids already on the road, and easily within the range of emerging automotive-class lithium batteries. Nationally, some 10 percent of hybrid cars could end up running almost entirely on the grid, as they travel less than six miles per day. Stick an extra 90 pounds--$800 worth--of nickel-metal-hydride batteries in a hybrid, recharge in garages and parking lots, and you can shift roughly 25 percent of a typical driver's fuel-hungriest miles to the grid. Urban drivers could go long stretches without going near a gas station. The technology for replacing (roughly) one pint of gasoline with one pound of coal or under one ounce of uranium to feed one kilowatt-hour of power to the wheels is now close at hand. So today we use 40 percent of our fuel to power the plug, and the plug powers 60 percent of GDP. And with the ascent of microwaves, lasers, hybrid wheels, and such, we're moving to 60 and 80 percent, respectively, soon. And then, in due course, 100/100. We're turning to electricity as fuel because it can do more, faster, in much less space--indeed, it's by far the fastest and purest form of power yet tamed for ubiquitous use. Small wonder that demand for it keeps growing. We've been meeting half of that new demand by burning an extra 400 million tons of coal a year, with coal continuing to supply half of our wired power. Natural gas, the fossil fuel grudgingly favored by most environmentalists, has helped meet the new demand, too: it's back at 16 percent of electricity generated, where it was two decades ago, after dropping sharply for a time. Astonishingly, over this same period, uranium's share of U.S. electricity has also risen--from 11 percent to its current 20 percent. Part of the explanation is more nuclear power plants. Even though Three Mile Island put an end to the commissioning of new facilities, some already under construction at the time later opened, with the plant count peaking at 112 in 1990. Three Mile Island also impelled plant operators to develop systematic procedures for sharing information and expertise, and plants that used to run seven months per year now run almost eleven. Uranium has thus displaced about eight percentage points of oil, and five points of hydroelectric, in the expanding electricity market. Renewable fuels, by contrast, made no visible dent in energy supplies, despite the hopes of Greens and the benefits of government-funded research, subsidies, and tax breaks. About a half billion kWh of electricity came from solar power in 2002--roughly 0.013 percent of the U.S. total. Wind power contributed another 0.27 percent. Fossil and nuclear fuels still completely dominate the U.S. energy supply, as in all industrialized economies. The other great hope of environmentalists, efficiency, did improve over the last couple of decades--very considerably, in fact. Air conditioners, car engines, industrial machines, lightbulbs, refrigerator motors--without exception, all do much more, with much less, than they used to. Yet in aggregate, they burn more fuel, too. Boosting efficiency actually raises consumption, as counterintuitive as that sounds. The more efficient a car, the cheaper the miles; the more efficient a refrigerator, the cheaper the ice; and at the end of the day, we use more efficient technology so much more that total energy consumption goes up, not down. We're burning our 40 quads of raw fuel to generate about 3.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year; if the automotive plug-and-play future does unfold on schedule, we'll need as much as 7 trillion kWh per year by 2025. How should we generate the extra trillions of kilowatt-hours? With hydrogen, the most optimistic Green visionaries reply--produced by solar cells or windmills. But it's not possible to take such proposals seriously. New York City consumes so much energy that you'd need, at a minimum, to cover two cities with solar cells to power a single city (see "How Cities Green the Planet," Winter 2000). No conceivable mix of solar and wind could come close to supplying the trillions of additional kilowatt-hours of power we'll soon need. Nuclear power could do it--easily. In all key technical respects, it is the antithesis of solar power. A quad's worth of solar-powered wood is a huge forest--beautiful to behold, but bulky and heavy. Pound for pound, coal stores about twice as much heat. Oil beats coal by about twice as much again. And an ounce of enriched-uranium fuel equals about 4 tons of coal, or 15 barrels of oil. That's why minuscule quantities contained in relatively tiny reactors can power a metropolis. What's more, North America has vast deposits of uranium ore, and scooping it up is no real challenge. Enrichment accounts for about half of the fuel's cost, and enrichment technologies keep improving. Proponents of solar and wind power maintain--correctly--that the underlying technologies for these energy sources keep getting cheaper, but so do those that squeeze power out of conventional fuels. The lasers coming out of the same semiconductor fabs that build solar cells could enrich uranium a thousand times more efficiently than the gaseous-diffusion processes currently used. And we also know this: left to its own devices, the market has not pursued thin, low-energy-density fuels, however cheap, but has instead paid steep premiums for fuels that pack more energy into less weight and space, and for power plants that pump greater power out of smaller engines, furnaces, generators, reactors, and turbines. Until the 1970s, engineering and economic imperatives had been pushing the fuel mix inexorably up the power-density curve, from wood to coal to oil to uranium. And the same held true on the demand side, with consumers steadily shifting toward fuels carrying more power, delivered faster, in less space. Then King Faisal and Three Mile Island shattered our confidence and convinced regulators, secretaries of energy, and even a president that just about everything that the economists and engineers thought they knew about energy was wrong. So wrong that we had to reverse completely the extraordinarily successful power policies of the past. New York has certainly felt the effects of that reversal. In 1965, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) announced plans to build a $75 million nuclear plant in Suffolk County, to come on line by 1973; soon after, it purchased a 455-acre site between Shoreham and Wading River. A bit later, LILCO decided to increase Shoreham's size and said it wanted to build several other nuclear plants in the area. Public resistance and federal regulators delayed Shoreham's completion. Then Three Mile Island happened. In the aftermath, regulators required plant operators to devise evacuation plans in coordination with state and local governments. In early 1983, newly elected governor Mario Cuomo and the Suffolk County legislature both declared that no evacuation plan would ever be feasible and safe. That was that. By the time the state fully decommissioned Shoreham in 1994, its price tag had reached $6 billion--and the plant had never started full-power commercial operation. To pay for it all, Long Island electric rates skyrocketed. What scared many New Yorkers--and thus many politicians--away from nuclear power was what had originally attracted the engineers and the utility economists to it: nuclear facilities use a unique fuel, burned, in its fashion, in relatively tiny reactors, to generate gargantuan amounts of power. Do it all just right, end to end, and you get cheap, abundant power, and King Faisal can't do a thing about it. But the raw material itself, packing so much power into so little material, is inherently dangerous. Sufficiently bad engineering can result in a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl. And these days, there's the fear that poor security might enable terrorists to pull off something even worse. How worried should we really be in 2005 that accidents or attacks might release and disperse a nuclear power plant's radioactive fuel? Not very. Our civilian nuclear industry has dramatically improved its procedures and safety-related hardware since 1979. Several thousand reactor-years of statistics since Three Mile Island clearly show that these power plants are extraordinarily reliable in normal operation. And uranium's combination of power and super-density makes the fuel less of a terror risk, not more, at least from an engineering standpoint. It's easy to "overbuild" the protective walls and containment systems of nuclear facilities, since--like the pyramids--the payload they're built to shield is so small. Protecting skyscrapers is hard; no builder can afford to erect a hundred times more wall than usable space. Guaranteeing the integrity of a jumbo jet's fuel tanks is impossible; the tanks have to fly. Shielding a nuclear plant's tiny payload is easy--just erect more steel, pour more concrete, and build tougher perimeters. In fact, it's a safety challenge that we have already met. Today's plants split atoms behind super-thick layers of steel and concrete; future plants would boast thicker protection still. All the numbers, and the strong consensus in the technical community, reinforce the projections made two decades ago: it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a serious release of nuclear materials from a U.S. reactor. What about the economic cost of nuclear power? Wind and sun are free, of course. But if the cost of fuel were all that mattered, the day of too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power would now be here--nearer, certainly, than too-cheap-to-meter solar power. Raw fuel accounts for over half the delivered cost of electricity generated in gas-fired turbines, about one-third of coal-fired power, and just a tenth of nuclear electricity. Factor in the cost of capital equipment, and the cheapest electrons come from uranium and coal, not sun and wind. What we pay for at our electric meter is increasingly like what we pay for at fancy restaurants: not the raw calories, but the fine linen, the service, and the chef's ineffable artistry. In our overall energy accounts, the sophisticated power-conversion hardware matters more every year, and the cost of raw fuel matters less. This in itself is great news for America. We're good at large-scale hardware; we build it ourselves and keep building it cheaper. The average price of U.S. electricity fell throughout the twentieth century, and it has kept falling since, except in egregiously mismanaged markets such as California's. The cheap, plentiful power does terrific things for labor productivity and overall employment. As Lewis E. Lehrman notes, rising employment strongly correlates with rising supplies of low-cost energy. It takes energy to get the increasingly mobile worker to the increasingly distant workplace, and energy to process materials and power the increasingly advanced machines that shape and assemble those materials. Most of the world, Europe aside, now recognizes this point. Workers in Asia and India are swiftly gaining access to the powered machines that steadily boosted the productivity of the American factory worker throughout the twentieth century. And the electricity driving those machines comes from power plants designed--and often built--by U.S. vendors. The power is a lot less expensive than ours, though, since it is generated the old-fashioned forget-the-environment way. There is little bother about protecting the river or scrubbing the smoke. China's answer to the 2-gigawatt Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is the Three Gorges project, an 18-gigawatt dam on the Yangtze River. Combine cheaper supplies of energy with ready access to heavy industrial machines, and it's hard to see how foreign laborers cannot close the productivity gap that has historically enabled American workers to remain competitive at considerably higher wages. Unless, that is, the United States keeps on pushing the productivity of its own workforce out ahead of its competitors. That--inevitably--means expanding our power supply and keeping it affordable, and deploying even more advanced technologies of powered production. Nuclear power would help keep the twenty-first-century U.S. economy globally competitive. Greens don't want to hear it, but nuclear power makes the most environmental sense, too. Nuclear wastes pose no serious engineering problems. Uranium is such an energy-rich fuel that the actual volume of waste is tiny compared with that of other fuels, and is easily converted from its already-stable ceramic form as a fuel into an even more stable glass-like compound, and just as easily deposited in deep geological formations, themselves stable for tens of millions of years. And what has Green antinuclear activism achieved since the seventies? Not the reduction in demand for energy that it had hoped for but a massive increase in the use of coal, which burns less clean than uranium. Many Greens think that they have a good grip on the likely trajectory of the planet's climate over the next 100 years. If we keep burning fossil fuels at current rates, their climate models tell them, we'll face a meltdown on a much larger scale than Chernobyl's, beginning with the polar ice caps. Saving an extra 400 million tons of coal here and there--roughly the amount of carbon that the United States would have to stop burning to comply with the Kyoto Protocol today--would make quite a difference, we're told. But serious Greens must face reality. Short of some convulsion that drastically shrinks the economy, demand for electricity will go on rising. Total U.S. electricity consumption will increase another 20 to 30 percent, at least, over the next ten years. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, moreover, will let the grid go cold--not even if that means burning yet another 400 million more tons of coal. Not even if that means melting the ice caps and putting much of Bangladesh under water. No governor or president wants to be the next Gray Davis, recalled from office when the lights go out. The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year. The one practical technology that could decisively shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It's time even for Greens to embrace the atom. It must surely be clear by now, too, that the political costs of depending so heavily on oil from the Middle East are just too great. We need to find a way to stop funneling $25 billion a year (or so) of our energy dollars into churning cauldrons of hate and violence. By sharply curtailing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would greatly expand the range of feasible political and military options in dealing with the countries that breed the terrorists. The best thing we can do to decrease the Middle East's hold on us is to turn off the spigot ourselves. For economic, ecological, and geopolitical reasons, U.S. policymakers ought to promote electrification on the demand side, and nuclear fuel on the supply side, wherever they reasonably can. It's cheap, clean, safe--and doesn't depend on Arabia. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:31:17 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:31:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Times: One final victim of the Rape of Nanking? Message-ID: One final victim of the Rape of Nanking? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1528026-7,00.html March 17, 2005 Oliver August A young historian's book on the 1937 atrocity unleashed a tide of repressed anguish and international recriminations that continue even after her suicide THOSE who knew Iris Chang used to worry about how she could cope with the gloom of her chosen work. But when they visited the house in California that she shared with her husband and saw him playing with their two-year-old son by the swimming pool in the backyard, they were reassured. The 36-year-old historian would sip lemonade with her friends at a Chinese caf? called the Tea House and, for a while, the torrent of terror that she frequently invited into her life would seem far away. Were it not for the crinkled maps of China, the pictures of mass graves and the two desperately overstuffed Rolodexes on her desk, Chang might have been just another former high school homecoming queen from the aptly named Sunnyvale. But she had become one of the foremost young historians of her generation after publishing, seven years ago, a bestselling account of the Rape of Nanking, one of the worst episodes of human cruelty in recent history. Her book brought international acclaim and controversy, and many spoke of a stellar future. It was not to be. In November she killed herself, no longer able to bear the weight of horrors from seven decades ago. The Rape of Nanking in 1937 began with the march of invading Japanese soldiers up the Yangtse River. They occupied the Chinese capital of the time and soon conquest was followed by bloodlust. Soldiers slaughtered between 100,000 and 300,000 civilians sheltering in a few city blocks. Slowly. Over a six-week period, up to 80,000 women were raped. But it wasn't so much the sheer numbers as the details that shock - fathers forced at gunpoint to rape daughters, stakes driven through vaginas, women nailed to trees, tied-up prisoners used for bayonet practice, breasts sliced off the living, speed decapitation contests. During the war the massacre was well known, but both Tokyo and Beijing preferred not to mention it over the four decades that followed. Iris Chang was pitched into this maelstrom of history as a child when her immigrant parents, who had escaped from wartime China to the US, told their daughter how the Japanese "sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths". In the introduction to her book she wrote: "Throughout my childhood [the massacre] remained buried in the back of my mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil." When, at 27, she read one of the few accounts of the atrocity still circulating in the West, she sensed a mission in life. "I was suddenly in a panic that this terrifying disrespect for death and dying, this reversion in human social evolution, would be reduced to a footnote of history, treated like a harmless glitch in a computer program that might or might not again cause a problem, unless someone forced the world to remember it." Chang soon made her first trip to China and sought out Sun Zhaiwei, a history professor in Nanjing, as Nanking is known today. "I provided her with an assistant and fixed appointments with some of the survivors," he says. Chang was given free lodgings and unlimited access to archives on the tree-lined campus near where the Japanese breached the old city wall before beginning their slaughter. When the book based on her research - The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II - was published two years later, it sold more than half a million copies and Chang became an instant celebrity in America. Hillary Clinton invited her to the White House and Stephen Ambrose, the doyen of US historians, described her as "maybe the best young historian we've got". She was also widely praised for the emotion and commitment she brought to her work. On book tours the slim, ponytailed author spoke with an intensity that few listeners expected. Many broke down by her side, feeling compelled to recount their own tales of horror even if these were unrelated to her subject. Orphans, rape victims and Holocaust survivors all wanted to bare their souls to her, finally relieving themselves of agonies sometimes decades old. They felt encouraged by the passion that she brought to the sort of grievances few of them could tackle on their own. Chang cried when they cried. She was enraged even when they no longer were. It was unthinkable for her just to pass the paper tissues and wait until people had composed themselves again. Chang invited memories of atrocity and abuse with a seemingly limitless appetite. Dan Rosen, who heard Chang at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, said: "As with many speaking programmes there, it was 50 per cent elderly Jews, many of them war survivors, in the audience. I was overwhelmed by the warmth and immediacy with which they embraced and applauded Chang. It was an instance of bearing witness, of never forgetting, which is holy to the Jewish community. They related to her like a daughter, and vice versa." But her success had its price. The book became a touchstone of renewed rivalry between Japan and China. Both nations had been content to allow the massacre to fade into the past, but in the 1990s China found itself in the ascendant and a long-suppressed sense of outrage burst out. Anti-Japanese museums sprang up across the country. Japanese nationalists responded by attacking the book and its author. Death threats were issued. Nobukatsu Fujioka, a right-wing commentator, campaigned to prevent publication of her book in Japan by citing a list of errors. He also published a book denouncing Chang as a propagandist funded by Japan-haters. The two volumes are still on prominent display in his Tokyo office. "The pressure on her from Tokyo was unbearable," says Yang Xiaming, one of Chang's research assistants in Nanjing. "She was afraid of travelling to Japan because she feared for her life." But the Japanese attacks were the easy part. With her newfound fame, Chang felt compelled to visit Chinese communities around the globe to hear more horror stories of Japanese occupation, forced prostitution in so-called "comfort houses" and nerve gas experiments on prisoners in Manchuria. After these encounters with people who would often approach her in tears, she felt utterly drained even hours later. Friends said that she was beginning to look frail, and she admitted to them that her hair was coming out. The more of others' suffering she absorbed, the more her old energy and intensity drained away. Each horror story seemed to pull her down a little farther. At home in California Chang worked to exhaustion, often until she collapsed in her study. When travelling she became forgetful and irritable. Her mind was preoccupied with earlier decades and haunted by gruesome images. Flashbacks of Chinese photographs that she had uncovered in archives tortured her. In the months before her death, Chang was researching a new book on Japanese wartime atrocities. Despite feeling unwell, she flew to Kentucky to interview survivors of the Bataan Death March. They recounted to her how thousands of American PoWs were killed during the occupation of the Philippines, some forced to bury their best friend alive or, if they refused, for both of them to be buried alive by a third friend, with the chain continuing until the Japanese soldiers found a PoW who complied. Eventually Chang broke down and needed to be treated in hospital. Her husband, computer scientist Brett Douglas, was not surprised. "The accumulation of hearing those stories year after year may have led to her depression," he says. Douglas sent their two young children to live with their grandparents, and when Chang left hospital he tried to watch her movements. He was worried by her obsessive talk about how people would remember her. She was calling friends one by one in what seemed like a series of goodbyes. On November 6 she spoke to Paula Kamen, whom she knew from university, and told her that she was struggling to deal with the magnitude of the misery she had uncovered, listened to and written about. She begged to be remembered as lively and confident. It was the last conversation they would have. Two days later, Chang was even more despondent than she had previously been. Her husband tried to calm her down but eventually fell asleep. At some point in the night, Chang got into her white 1999 Oldsmobile, taking with her a six-round pistol that she had bought from an antique weapons dealer to defend herself from attackers. She drove to a country road, loaded the pistol with black powder and lead balls, aimed it at her head and fired. She was found a few hours later, along with a farewell note to her family. Yet even in death Chang was not rid of the controversy. In recent memorial services across China, historians have blamed intense hostility from Japan for her death. The People's Daily in Beijing hailed Chang as a "warrior full of justice" and a "dart thrown against the Japanese rightists". In April the massacre museum in Nanjing will add a statue of Chang to its commemorative collection, in effect giving her the status of a massacre victim, with a finger pointed firmly across the Sea of Japan. The San Francisco Chronicle seemed to concur: "Many wonder if the gentle, sympathetic young woman was the massacre's latest victim." Meanwhile, Japanese right-wingers interpreted her suicide as belated support for their contention that the massacre never happened. "By the end she must have known that her arguments were without merit. We exposed the lies in her book," said Fujioka. In Nanjing, Professor Sun Zhaiwei says that being an historian can be "torture of the mind". "Nuclear scientists wear protective clothing and have their health checked by doctors. Perhaps we historians of the extreme need similar measures. Yet for now we have to take care of ourselves. "Maybe that was Iris's problem - she cared for the dead but failed to take care of herself." From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:32:09 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:32:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] New Criterion: Which Enlightenment? by Keith Windschuttle Message-ID: Enlightenment? by Keith Windschuttle http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/mar05/keith.htm Gertrude Himmelfarb The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments. Knopf, 284 pages, $25 Although it has already attracted a series of reverent reviews befitting a work by one of today's most eminent practitioners of history, this book is still more important than it looks. Gertrude Himmelfarb has called her latest volume Roads to Modernity: The British, French and American Enlightenments. It can be read as a provocative and persuasive revision not only of the intellectual era that made the modern world, but also of the concepts that still largely determine how we think about human affairs today. In particular, it explains the source of the fundamental division that, despite several predictions of its imminent demise, still doggedly grips Western political life: that between the left and the right. From the outset, each side had its own philosophical assumptions and its own view of the human condition. Roads to Modernity shows why one of these sides has generated a steady progeny of historical successes while its rival has consistently lurched from one disaster to the next. Most historians have accepted for several years now that the Enlightenment, once popularly characterized as the Age of Reason, came in two versions, the radical and the skeptical. The former is now generally identified with France, the latter with Scotland. It has also been acknowledged that the anti-clericalism that obsessed the French philosophes was not reciprocated in Britain or America. Indeed, in both these countries many Enlightenment concepts--human rights, liberty, equality, tolerance, science, progress--complemented rather than opposed church thinking. Himmelfarb has joined this revisionist process and accelerated its pace dramatically. She argues that, central though many mid-eighteenth-century Scots were to the movement, there were also so many original English contributors that a more accurate term than Scottish would be British Enlightenment. Moreover, unlike the French who elevated reason to the primary role in human affairs, British thinkers gave reason a secondary, instrumental role. In Britain it was virtue that trumped all other qualities. This was not personal virtue but the "social virtues"--compassion, benevolence, sympathy--which the British philosophers believed naturally, instinctively, and habitually bound people to one another. In the abstract, this difference might seem merely one of degree but, as it worked itself out in the subsequent history of the Continent and the British Isles, it was profound. In making her case, Himmelfarb defines the British Enlightenment in terms that some might find surprising. She includes people who in the past have usually been labeled part of the Counter-Enlightenment, especially John Wesley and Edmund Burke. She assigns prominent roles to the social movements of Methodism and Evangelical philanthropy. Despite the fact that the American colonies rebelled from Britain to found a republic, Himmelfarb demonstrates how very close they were to the British Enlightenment and how distant from French republicans. These differences have remained to this day, and over much the same issues. On the one hand, in France, the ideology of reason challenged not only religion and the church but all the institutions dependent upon them. Reason was inherently subversive. On the other hand, British moral philosophy was reformist rather than radical, respectful of both the past and present, even while looking forward to a more enlightened future. It was optimistic and had no quarrel with religion, which was why, in both Britain and the United States, the church itself could become a principal source for the spread of enlightened ideas. In Britain, the elevation of the social virtues derived from both academic philosophy and religious practice. In the eighteenth century, the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, Adam Smith, was more celebrated for his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) than his later thesis on the wealth of nations. He argued that sympathy and benevolence were moral virtues that sprang directly from the human condition. In being virtuous, especially towards those who could not help themselves, man rewarded himself by fulfilling his human nature. Edmund Burke began public life as a disciple of Smith. He wrote an early pamphlet on scarcity which endorsed Smith's laissez faire approach as the best way to serve both economic activity in general and the lower orders in particular. His Counter- Enlightenment status is usually assigned for his critique of the French Revolution, but Burke was at the same time a supporter of American independence. While his own government was pursuing its military campaign in America (and, at the same time, suspending habeas corpus at home), Burke was urging it to respect the liberty of both Americans and Englishmen. While some historians have been led by this apparent paradox to claim that at different stages of his life there were two Edmund Burkes, one liberal and the other conservative, Himmelfarb disagrees. She argues that his views were always consistent with the ideas about moral virtue that permeated the whole of the British Enlightenment. Indeed, Burke took this philosophy a step further by making the "sentiments, manners and moral opinion" of men the basis not only of social relations but also of politics. Apart from the different philosophical status they assigned to reason and virtue, the one issue where the division between the British and Continental Enlightenments was most sharply contrasted was their attitude to the lower orders. This is a distinction that has reverberated through politics ever since. The radical heirs of the Jacobin tradition have always insisted that it is they who speak for the wretched of the earth. In eighteenth-century France they claimed to speak for the people and the general will. In the nineteenth century they said they represented the working classes against their capitalist exploiters. In our own time, they have claimed to be on the side of blacks, women, gays, indigenes, refugees, and anyone else they define as the victims of discrimination and oppression. Himmelfarb's study demonstrates what a fa?ade these claims actually are. The French philosophes thought the social classes were divided by the chasm of poverty and, more crucially, of superstition and ignorance. They despised the lower orders because they were in thrall to Christianity. The editor of the Encyclop?die, Denis Diderot, declared the common people had no role in the Age of Reason. "The general mass of men are not so made that they can either promote or understand this forward march of the human spirit." Indeed, "the common people are incredibly stupid," he said, and were little more than beasts: "too idiotic--bestial--too miserable, and too busy" to enlighten themselves. Voltaire agreed. The lower orders lacked the intellect required to reason and so must be left to wallow in superstition. They could be controlled and pacified only by the sanctions and strictures of religion which, Voltaire proclaimed, "must be destroyed among respectable people and left to the canaille large and small, for whom it was made." In Britain and America, by contrast, the chasm between rich and poor was bridged by the moral sense and common sense the Enlightenment attributed to all individuals. Everyone, including the members of the lower orders, had a common humanity and a common fund of moral and social obligations. It was this social ethos, Himmelfarb argues, that in the English-speaking world was the common denominator between Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, secular philosophers, religious enthusiasts, Church of England bishops, and Wesleyan preachers. "Man is by constitution a religious animal," Edmund Burke famously wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. For Burke, religion itself--religious dissent in particular--was the very basis of liberty. The Wesleyans went one step further and also made it the basis of social reform. John Wesley's great mission was intended to be not only the spiritual salvation of the poor but also their intellectual and moral edification. There was no conflict between reason and religion. "It is a fundamental principle with us," Wesley argued, "that to renounce reason is to renounce religion, that religion and reason go hand in hand, and that all irrational religion is false religion." It was only by "religion and reason joined" that "passion and prejudice" and "wickedness and bigotry" could be overcome. In pursuit of their mission, the Methodists produced a huge volume of literature not just on Christianity but on grammar, medicine, electricity, natural history, Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, Locke, and other classics. Himmelfarb observes: "The whole of this quite extraordinary publication industry, comprising books, pamphlets, and tracts on a variety of subjects and directed to different levels of literacy and interest, constituted something like an Enlightenment for the common man." Methodists also took the initiative in the distribution of food, clothing, and money to the needy, paid visits to the sick and to prisoners in jail, and set up loan funds and work projects for the unemployed. By the end of the eighteenth century, the example of Wesleyanism had spawned an Evangelical movement within the Church of England that appealed largely to the middle and upper classes. As well as movements for prison reform, education and poor relief, the Evangelicals led the campaign that eventually lobbied successfully for the abolition of the slave trade. In the American colonies, the first Great Awakening, the religious revival of the 1730s and early 1740s, paralleled the Methodist revival in Britain. The contrast with France was dramatic. In seeking respite from the religious passions of the Old World, Himmelfarb writes, the Americans did not, like the French, turn against religion itself. Instead, they incorporated religion into the mores of society. They "moralized" and "socialized" religion, turning its energies into movements for voluntary association, local organization and, ultimately, the politics of liberty. In Britain and America, those who wrote about social reform and those in government who could do something about it were either the same people or else people cooperating closely with one another. In France, however, the philosophes were unconstrained by practical considerations about how their ideas might be translated into reality. They were all the more free to theorize and generalize precisely because they were less free to consult and advise. This profoundly affected the political consequences of their ideas. The philosophes initially decided that enlightened despotism would be their political instrument of choice. "Enlightened despotism," Himmelfarb argues, "was an attempt to realize--to enthrone as it were--reason as embodied in the person of an enlightened monarch, a Frederick enlightened by Voltaire, a Catherine by Diderot." The failure of these attempts subsequently produced the theory of the "general will" that legitimized the terror of the French Revolution. The people, in whose name the revolution purportedly acted, was a singular abstraction, represented by an appropriately singular and abstract general will. "In effect, the theory of the general will was a surrogate for the enlightened despot. It had the same moral and political authority as the despot because it, too, was grounded in reason, a reason that was the source of all legitimate authority." Within England itself, there were supporters of the French Enlightenment whose theory and practice ended up little different to that of the philosophes they emulated. Himmelfarb has a chapter on British radical dissenters, much of which is devoted to the pathetic case of William Godwin, whose writings denigrated emotions and sexuality as irrational but whose personal life was a tangle of both. As in France, the English radicals devised theories about the education of children, but their only contribution to education reform involved the schooling of the middle and upper classes. Godwin's wife, Mary Wollstonecraft, wanted girls to be educated with boys, but her thoughts were confined to those who could afford to go to boarding schools. Meanwhile, education for the poor became an important cause for Methodism and Evangelicalism. The eighteenth-century essayists and politicians Joseph Addison and Richard Steele thought the founding of charity schools for the children of the poor were "the glory of the age," the "greatest instance of public spirit the age has produced." They were followed by Sunday Schools which, until the mass education movements of the nineteenth century, were the main source of instruction for the lower orders in reading, writing and arithmetic. These education reforms reflected the same sensibility and ethos that inspired the other British philanthropic movements. They derived from the Christian principle, reaffirmed by British moral philosophy, of the natural equality of all people. In his treatise on the wealth of nations, the subject of Adam Smith's title was not the modern nation state. He meant the people who composed the nation, especially the "lower ranks." It was their well-being, their "wealth" that would be promoted by a progressive political economy. Smith wrote: No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. In Britain and America, the Enlightenment was both a theoretical and a practical expression of this outlook. Religion, moral philosophy, and their egalitarian assumptions shaped the era. They worked together for the common cause: the material as well as the "moral reformation" of the people. Roads to Modernity reveals more clearly than any previous book on the subject the environment in which these ideas and practices were born and how firmly they still mold the moral sense and common sense of the English-speaking world today. _________________________________________________________________ Keith Windschuttle's latest book is The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One, Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847 (Macleay Press). ________________________________________________________ From The New Criterion Vol. 23, No. 7, March 2005 References 1. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/mar05/keith.htm 2. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400042364/thenewcriterio 3. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400042364/thenewcriterio From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:34:21 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:34:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] 2blowhards.com: The Scottish Enlightenment Message-ID: The Scottish Enlightenment http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001710.html In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations. October 19, 2004 The Scottish Enlightenment Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- The Enlightenment, eh? What a mixed legacy. On the one hand: clarity and progress. On the other: arrogance and the evaporation of meaning. Spin the Enlightenment's implications out, and you wind up in a tangle, wrapped up in the bind we're told we necessarily struggle with today: po-mo, deconstruction, the crisis of "liberalism," bizarre buildings ... And we're led to believe that all this is inevitable -- that we can't have the blessings of Reason without the curses and agonies that follow in its wake. My hunch about why we feel the post-Enlightenment pinch as acutely as we do is that the Enlightenment most of us know is the French Enlightenment. And those French, forever pushing things to absurd extremes. A Frenchman is apparently incapable of saying, "Hey, cool: Reason!" and then adding it to his repertory. No, he has to believe in it, make a substitute religion of it, live it out to its logical conclusions ... And what does Reason lead to when it's pushed fanatically out as far as it can go? Barrenness, cafe existentialism, suicide, bizarre buildings, [99]Catherine Breillat movies. (A small joke: I love many of Breillat's movies.) But there was another Enlightenment altogether, one that had its feet well-planted on the ground -- the Scottish Englightenment. In 50ish years, from circa 1700 to the mid-1700s, Edinburgh transformed itself from a religion-oppressed backwater into one of the happening-ist cities in Europe. Giants walked Edinburgh's streets: Thomas Reid, Frances Hutcheson, Adam Smith, David Hume, Adam Ferguson, many others. Most of these men were "natural philosophers," taking on economics, science, aesthetics, psychology, politics, and philosophy itself. These weren't wacko poseurs or radical theorists. They were practical men who were respectful of everyday experience (even religion); many were in close contact with the great Scottish scientists of the era. The Scots also maintained close connections with the French, but Scotland's Enlightenment had a very different tone than France's did. It was grounded in common sense and history, and had a modest and empirical spirit. And the Scotsmen's attitude towards Reason was very different than the froggy attitude. The Scots seemed to consider Reason to be a marvelous tool, and nothing more. Sharpen it; respect it; make much use of it -- but don't look to Reason to deliver any Final Truth. And don't expect to turn up anything of much use or interest by investigating the nature of Reason itself. What does a tool have to tell you about life? A tool's a tool. It's up to you to put it to work. What the Scotsmen lack in radical-chic they more than make up for (IMHO) in solidity and usefulness. They keep Reason in perspective, always remembering that life itself is far more important. No surprise, then, that this was by all accounts a cheery, social, sunny-spirited, outgoing scene, one that brings to mind such convivial 18th century novels as "Tom Jones." Bizarrely, this era began being thought of as "the Scottish Englightenment" and being studied for its own sake only 40 or so years ago. I'm by no means a scholar on the topic, but I've read a fair amount of Hume and Smith, I've sampled some of the others, and I've read (and can recommend) two good recent books about the era: [100]this one and [101]this one. But still I was knocked out when I learned about the era and its thinkers. Post-Enlightenment stupid-knots in my brain relaxed their grip; sensible thoughts took the place of tormented ones. I sighed with relief and wondered: "Why didn't anyone tell me about this long ago?" I wonder if other people as puzzled by our supposedly inevitable post-Enlightenment predicament might not get as healthy a kick out of a quick visit with these Scotsmen as I did. What made me pull these few paragraphs together was running across [102]David Denby's essay about The Scottish Enlightenment in this week's New Yorker. Some excerpts from Denby's excellent piece: The learned Scots were remarkably unlike the French philosophes; indeed, they were unlike any other group of philosophers that ever existed.... In the Scottish group ... there was little of the bristling, charged, and exclusionary fervor of the Diderot-dAlembert circle; or of the ruthless atmosphere found in Germany in the group that included Fichte, the Schelling brothers, and Hegel; or of the conscious glamour of the existentialists in postwar Paris. The Scots vigorously disagreed with one another, but they lacked the temperament for the high moral drama of quarrels, renunciations, and reconciliation. Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith, along with Adam Ferguson and Thomas Reid, were all widely known, but none of them were remotely cult figures in the style of Hegel, Marx, Emerson, Wittgenstein, Sartre, or Foucault. To an astonishing degree, the men supported one anothers projects and publications, which they may have debated at a club that included amateurs (say, poetry-writing doctors, or lawyers with an interest in science) or in the fumy back room of some dark Edinburgh tavern. In all, the group seems rather like an erudite version of Dickenss chattering and benevolent Pickwick Club ... The Scots were conservatives and radicals at the same time. They prized social order, and peace and quiet; they also sought intellectual revolutionnew ways of looking at how the mind works, how morality works, and how we live in society ... They could not imagine, and did not desire, civil society without religion. But they wanted to ease God out of scientific research and out of political and social life, too. And they wanted to naturalize moralityto locate the foundations of morals somewhere else than in revelation and fear of eternal damnation ... Wisdom, for Hume, begins with the acknowledgment of uncertaintyof the limits of what we know ... The power of reason to prove much of what we know is weak, and Hume denied that our beliefs about the world could be ascertained with anything like scientific certainty ... Hume was fascinated by what we would call consciousness, but he always leads us back to experience, which is the arena, the test, the goal ... Sociability was what mattered, and in their writings the world, teeming yet measurable, is always with them ... The view is masculine, conservative, hedonistic: good fellows write poetry, study science and philosophy, do business, practice law, and gather at the end of the day for a drink, and lets not have any nonsense about austerity or purity ... [103]Here's a brief Wikipedia overview. [104]Here's The Adam Smith Institute. [105]Here's The International Adam Smith Society. [106]Here's The Hume Society; the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy's [107]entry on Hume is a good one. [108]Here's The Adam Ferguson Society; [109]here's a good intro to Ferguson. [110]Here's a good quick online intro to the Scottish Enlightenment generally. Reading Adam Smith himself, I was struck by what a respectful, trenchant, and complex thinker he was -- anything but the simple-minded apostle for corporatism and greed that he's sometimes taken to be today. Passages in his works anticipate Hayek and chaos theory; other passages anticipate Marx in their vision of how deadening division-of-labor-style labor can be. So I also recommend [111]a new essay by Sam Fleischacker for the Library of Economics and Liberty. In it, Fleischacker argues that Adam Smith is misunderstood when he's made out to be Mr. Johnny One-Note on the subject of self-interest: Far more important to Smith's work is the belief that ordinary people normally understand their own interests without help from politicians or professional philosophers. The distinctive mark of Smith's thought is his view of human cognition, not of human motivation: he is far more willing than practically any of his contemporaries to endorse the ability of ordinary people to know what they need to know in life. Why do we tend to overvalue French thought? And why do we tend to undervalue the thoughts of sensible people like this Scottish crowd? Is it the glamor factor? Radical posturing of the froggy sort often does have a certain elegance and chic. But maybe our profs and intellectuals genuinely believe that art, beauty, and decent political reform simply can't arise out of a well-grounded consciousness. Best, Michael posted by Michael at [112]October 19, 2004 [dateline.gif] Comments Ye Jacobites By Name --Robert Burns 1791 Ye Jacobites by name, give an ear, give an ear, Ye Jacobites by name, give an ear, Ye Jacobites by name, Your fautes I will proclaim, Your doctrines I maun blame, you shall hear. What is Right, and What is Wrang, by the law, by the law? What is Right and What is Wrang by the law? What is Right, and What is Wrang? A short sword, and a lang, A weak arm and a strang, for to draw. What makes heroic strife, famed afar, famed afar? What makes heroic strife famed afar? What makes heroic strife? To whet th' assassin's knife, Or hunt a Parent's life, wi' bluidy war? Then let your schemes alone, in the state, in the state, Then let your schemes alone in the state, Then let your schemes alone, Adore the rising sun, And leave a man undone, to his fate. Posted by: [113]ricpic on October 19, 2004 12:30 PM [plugdiv.gif] Why do intellectuals overvalue the French Enlightenment? Partially from its immense flattery of the intellectual ego--Reason can solve all problems, and if you possess a greater share of Reason than the hoi polloi, you are superior to them. The Scottish Englightenment, on the other hand, doesn't make such grandiose claims about Reason's power and recognizes that most people have enough Reason to solve their problems passably well. Also, intellectuals suffer from the same psychological flaws evolution has built into all of us. Specifically: (1) a moral busybody streak. In the philosophes' utopia, society would be so understood and engineered that everyone (else) does exactly what the intellectual wants. There's an evo-psych benefit to making other people's behavior predictable--it means I have to think less about how to manage and manipulate them. "Predictable," though, can still mean "not what I want." Even better is if everyone behaves the way I want them to--this gives me the further egoboo (and lighter cognitive load) of knowing I'm right and I don't have to rethink what I want. The Scots and their philosophical descendants--Hayek, Popper, small-l libertarians, et al.--recognized most of what is good about social living is self-organized, and were highly doubtful that grandiose social engineering projects could work. If one is looking for an intellectual justification for one's moral busybodydom, the Scots don't provide it. (2) the urge to dissolve one's ego in a collective. The philosophes presented a vision of a transcendent collective--the utopia to come after "the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest"--as well as a temporal collective--the salons and cafes--where one had to labor to bring the transcendent collective to fruition. (The religious analogy is intended: think of the New Jerusalem the early Christians would see if they remained faithful to their oppressed churches). Such a vision is seductive, both in traditional religions and in modern, "secular" ones like Marxism/Communism, Fascism, architectural modernism, avant-gardeism in arts and letters, environmentalism, etc. The Scots only provided the temporal collective--pubs where people could debate and agree to disagree. The transcendent collective is off the table; if it even exists, we won't know until we get there, and what it is may surprise us. Posted by: [114]Raymund on October 19, 2004 01:49 PM [plugdiv.gif] Alan Charles Kors did not do enough about the Scottish Enlightenment for his, otherwise, fabulous lectures for the Teaching Company. If anyone has any clout with Kors, badger him into doing a series on it ASAP! Posted by: [115]Michael Serafin on October 19, 2004 02:09 PM [plugdiv.gif] Ricpic -- I didn't know that poem, or at least didn't remember it. Pretty much sums things up, though, doesn't it? Thanks for passing it along. Raymund -- You packed as much punch into your handful of paragraphs as Denby did into his piece. "Immense flattery of the intellectual ego" -- that's really good. I'll be stealing, er borrowing, your ideas and insights. Thanks in advance. Michael -- I was a little bugged too by the way Kors seemed overentranced by the French, but like you thought the series was great anyway. You're right: someone should urge Kors and the Teaching Company to get on the Scottish Enlightenment bandwagon soon -- or else the Portable Professors will get there first. Posted by: [116]Michael Blowhard on October 19, 2004 04:30 PM [plugdiv.gif] A couple of additional points: According to Bernard Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," the Scottish Enlightenment played a huge role among American thinkers in 1776 and 1787, especially more obscure figures like Hutcheson. Also, Darwinism, Britain's greatest intellectual contribution of the the next century, is clearly a 19th Century outgrowth of the Scottish Enlightenment and its counterparts in northern England. Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection shortly after reading Adam Smith and the economist Thomas Malthus. Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently discovered the theory of natural selection in 1857, did so immediately after awakening from a Malaria fever dream about Malthus' ideas, which he had been reading when he fell asleep. Both JM Keynes and SG Gould have remarked on Darwinism as an outgrowth of the Smith tradition in economics. Posted by: [117]Steve Sailer on October 19, 2004 05:18 PM [plugdiv.gif] Thought you had been reading Gertrude Himmelfarb's "The Road to Modernity", when I saw your title "Englightenment". I may have missed a comment on the book.I think she gives a wider view of the British Enlightenment. Pete Posted by: [118]peter on October 20, 2004 07:16 AM [plugdiv.gif] How come we English get squeezed out? Ever heard of Newton, Locke, Priestley, Godwin, Wollstonecraft, Defoe, Pope, Paine? See Roy Porter's book "The Creation of the Modern World: The Untold Story of the British Enlightenment". Posted by: [119]Mick H on October 20, 2004 08:25 AM [plugdiv.gif] The Scottish Enlightenment is underrated because it celebrated bourgeois values. Modern intellectuals want radicalism and activism, and have been that way ever since the French Revolution. In their sobriety and reasonableness, Smith and Hume are a constant rebuke to the search for romantic intellectualism that has characterized the bohemians of the 19th and 20th centuries. Posted by: [120]jn on October 20, 2004 11:59 AM [plugdiv.gif] Steve -- Thanks, I've always wondered whether I should give the Bailyn a try. Now I know I should. Peter, Mick H -- I don't know why but the Brit Englightenment never hit me as hard as the Scottish, though I suppose it'd have behooved me to mention that. Maybe the Scots seemed more ... I dunno, earthy or something. A nicer antidote to the French. And, hey, I skipped the German Enlightenment too. JN -- That's well-put, tks, and the emphasis on the bourgeois is important. I wonder if there's any way to balance what's of worth in what bohemia has to offer (mainly certain kinds of beauty) with a wariness about buying the entire silly package. I hope so. Posted by: [121]Michael Blowhard on October 20, 2004 12:47 PM [plugdiv.gif] The Scots (and Brits and subsequently Americans) emphasized process over theory. An approach that works, but doesn't resonate like the mellow soundings of the philosophes. In "An Anglosphere Primer" (via Chicago Boyz), James C. Bennett extols strong civil society as the glue holding together Anglosphere democracy. French intellectuals mouthed the democratic words without the music. "These intellectuals called this thing democracy, but they subsequently focused attention on their model (and its misunderstandings) rather than the essence of the thing they actually admired." Steve - In the early eighties, in a French lit course at UC Santa Cruz, our prof opened by asking who were the three most influential thinkers of the modern era. She - arms crossed and confident in her judgment - was sitting in the catbird seat with the Goods. Who did we think was tops? I - anglophile Scots-American bourgeois - essayed a guess: Darwin. To her credit, that one made her think. Her choices, though, were Freud, Marx and Nietzsche. Posted by: [122]Robert Bruce on October 20, 2004 03:02 PM [plugdiv.gif] ". . . Hume adopts Berkeley's arguments showing our inability to access some external world behind our perceptions." (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humeepis.htm) "He dismissed standard accounts of causality and argued that our conceptions of cause/effect relations are grounded in habits of thinking, rather than in the perception of causal forces in the external world itself." (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humelife.htm) Without calling it so, Hume concluded that there is a problem of induction, which, ever since, has been a problem for philosophers of science: the [p]roblem of justifying the inductive inference from the observed to the unobserved. (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9367935&query=Induction&c t=David; you can find Karl Popper on it here: http://dieoff.org/page126.htm) As David Stove has pointed out ". . . the influence of Hume on 20th-century philosophy of science in general is in fact so great that it is scarcely possible to exaggerate it. He looms like a colossus over both of the main tendencies in philosophy of science in the present century: the logical positivist one, and the irrationalist one. His empiricism, his insistence on the fallibility of induction, and on the thesis which follows from those two, of the permanent possibility of the falsity of any scientific theory, are fundamental planks in the platform of both of these schools of thought. Where the two schools separate is that the irrationalists further accept, while the logical positivists reject, Hume's further, sceptical, thesis about induction: that the premise of an inductive argument is no reason to believe its conclusion. This is why the logical positivists, in the 1940's and '50's set about constructing what they called `confirmation-theory', `non-deductive logic', `the theory of logical probability', or `inductive logic': a branch of logic which, while being consistent with empiricism and inductive fallibilism, would allow scientific theories to be objects of rational belief without being certain. The irrationalists, on the other hand, being Humean sceptics and not merely fallibilists about induction, deny the possibility of any such theory . . . ." In the sharpest possible contrast to all this, the influence of Hume on philosophy of science in the 19th century was but slight. For this extraordinary reversal in the importance attached to Hume's philosophy of science, the historical reason is obvious enough, at least in broad terms. The crucial event was that one which for almost two hundred years had been felt to be impossible, but which nevertheless took place near the start of this century: the fall of the Newtonian empire in physics. This catastrophe, and the period of extreme turbulence in physics it inaugurated, changed the entire climate of philosophy of science. Almost all philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, it was now clear, has enormously exaggerated the certainty and the extent of scientific knowledge. What was needed, evidently, was a far less optimistic philosophy of science, a rigorously fallibilist philosophy, which would ensure that such fearful hubris as had been incurred in connection with Newtonian physics should never be incurred again. Well, the very thing needed was lying at hand, though long neglected; and Hume, 150 years after his death, finally and fully came into his own. Thus the revival of Hume's philosophy of science in this century was a movement of retreat from that confidence in science which was so high, and constantly rising, in the two preceding centuries, and which had proved to be misplaced precisely where it was highest. This retreat was general, all empiricist philosophers taking part in it. [Karl] Popper and his followers are simply those with whom the retreat turned into a rout. They fell back all the way to Hume: not just to his fallibilism but to his scepticism about induction; and hence (since they were empiricists) to his scepticism in general about the unobserved. Their only object was, and has remained, to ensure that no scientific theory should ever again become the object of over-confident belief; since only in that way can it be guaranteed that such a fall as overtook Newtonian pride will never be repeated. Now, it was the belief that a scientific theory can be certain, which had made that fall possible. So it must be re-affirmed, with Hume, that a scientific theory is never deducible from the observational evidence for it. (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/dcs/popper/ch apter-03.html) After Hume had reached these conclusions about our knowledge of the external world, the nature of cause and effect, and the problem of induction, among others, he wrote: "The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. [1.4.7.8]" (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humeepis.htm#H3) However, [m]ost fortunately it happens that, since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation and lively impression of my senses which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse and I am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strain'd, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. (Treatise, Book I, Part IV, Section VII, p. 269 in the Selby-Bigge edition) (http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html) Cordially, Dave Lull Posted by: [123]Dave Lull on October 20, 2004 03:23 PM [plugdiv.gif] Superb essays on the ethical theories of the Scottish Enlightenment appear in Alasdair MacIntyre's _Whose Justice? Which Rationality?_ (1988). See especially ch. XII, "The Augustinian and Aristotelian Background to the Scottish Enlightenment" and ch. XIV, "Hutcheson on Justice and Practical Responsibility." Posted by: [124]Francis Morrone on October 20, 2004 03:25 PM [plugdiv.gif] "Steve - In the early eighties, in a French lit course at UC Santa Cruz, our prof opened by asking who were the three most influential thinkers of the modern era... Her choices, though, were Freud, Marx and Nietzsche." If she asked, "Who were the most _right_ thinkers?" then it would be hard to beat Hume, Smith, and Darwin. Posted by: [125]Steve Sailer on October 20, 2004 08:05 PM [plugdiv.gif] Michael - You should definitely give the Bailyn a try. I'm a simple man, I don't know much, but I do know that. Especially since we now live in a pamphleteering age very similar to the one he distills in his first few chapters. Also, his distinction between power and liberty parallels yours between "the political class" and "the rest of us". A fine book. Posted by: [126]Brian on October 20, 2004 10:05 PM [plugdiv.gif] Thanks to all for tips, info, thoughts, etc. I'm just a dabbler and a fan, so it's great to go on learning. Posted by: [127]Michael Blowhard on October 21, 2004 12:17 AM [plugdiv.gif] Thank you for the Buchan recommendation -- I hadn't realized that he had a new book out. Have you read Frozen Desire, his book about money? Worth giving a try. Posted by: [128]Steve Casburn on November 1, 2004 03:52 AM References 99. http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001700.html#001700 100. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841581518/qid=1097957090/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-8379273-2271924?v=glance&s=books 101. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060558881/qid=1097957090/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8379273-2271924?v=glance&s=books 102. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?041011crat_atlarge 103. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_enlightenment 104. http://www.adamsmith.org/ 105. http://www.adamsmithsociety.net/ 106. http://www.humesociety.org/ 107. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humelife.htm 108. http://www.logan.com/afi/ 109. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ferguson.htm 110. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/scottish.htm 111. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2004/FleischackerSmith.html 112. http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001710.html#001710 113. mailto:sutta at adelphia.net 114. mailto:kumarbis_tx at yahoo.com 115. mailto:michael_serafin at hotmail.com 116. http://www.2blowhards.com/ 117. http://www.isteve.com/ 118. mailto:p.dible at worldnet.att.net 119. mailto:mick.hartley at btinternet.com 120. mailto:jn at mailinator.com 121. http://www.2blowhards.com/ 122. mailto:lutosus at hotmail.com 123. mailto:dave_lull at yahoo.com 124. mailto:fm27 at nyu.edu 125. http://www.iSteve.com/ 126. mailto:thechases at worldnet.att.net.die.spammers.die 127. http://www.2blowhards.com/ 128. http://www.io.com/~casburn/blog/ From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:36:47 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:36:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Christianity Today: Rites of Passage: Debs and pledges Message-ID: Rites of Passage: Debs and pledges http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/002/10.37.html By Lauren F. Winner Rites and Regalia of American Debdom by Karal Ann Marling Univ. Press of Kansas, 2004 The Secret Life of Sororities by Alexandra Robbins Hyperion, 2004 256 pp., $23.95 Every year, at galas like the Magnolia Debutante Ball and the Rhododendron Royal Brigade of Guards, young women from the finest families don white dresses and long white gloves and make their debut to society. If you're not on the Rhododendron Royal Brigade's invite list, you can settle for reading Debutante: Rites and Regalia of American Debdom, the newest offering by Karal Ann Marling, grande dame of American Studies. The balls are stupendous, the dresses lovely, but the real meaning of deb teas and cotillions is rite of passage. At their debuts, young women are formally presented to society. In the crassest sense, a debut is an announcement that you are of marriageable age, that all those men from appropriate families can start making their bids. Also, after coming out--yes, I know the phrase means something different for Ellen DeGeneres, but here, think debs--you're allowed to sign your full name underneath your mother's when she sends a note or leaves a calling card. Once debuted, a woman is a grown up. For most of American history, debuts have been the province of elites; as Marling shows, "debbing is a ritual grounded in aspiration ... and legitimization." Fathers threw expensive balls not only because they wanted to dote on their girls but also because they wanted to shore up their own class-standing. Debuting, of course, has always been as much about who is kept out as who is presented. Most cotillions present girls who boast not only a lot of money but also an old name, and white skin, to boot. Marling traces debbing from the 18th century to the present. Her historical analysis is rich and detailed, and readers will enjoy vicariously dancing at centuries of cotillions. She explores contemporary debdom as well, arguing convincingly that proms are a modern-day, meritocratic iteration of the debut impulse. And she explores the "different kind of debuts" that have arisen in ethnic and African-American communities--quinceanera, the traditional celebration of a girl's 15th birthday, has become newly popular in Latina communities, and "For every black girl slighted by the selection committee of an Old Guard cotillion, a hundred more have bowed to the high society of their own communities." Her exploration of contemporary, mostly-white, mostly-rich debuts--the traditional debuts--is a little thin. Marling tells us that although cotillions and balls fell out of fashion in the 1960s and '70s, they are now as popular as ever among the country club set. But she fails to explore why debuting has made such a comeback, predictably wondering why modern-day gals would embrace a coming-of-age ritual in which they are passive and objectified, and quickly--lamely--ascribing the popularity of debbing simply to "a virulent wave of neoconservatism." This quick castigation goes hand-in-hand with the pervasive tone of the book--a tone of unrestrained condescension towards the people about whom she is writing. (One example will make the point: Marling calls her synecdochic, pseudonymous deb "Muffy.") Perhaps if she'd spent more time in, say, Virginia and South Carolina, Marling would have found more to say about traditional debbing at the turn of the 21st century. Curiously, Marling focuses on Philadelphia, New York, and the Midwest, and almost entirely neglects the American South, surely the home of the most vital deb culture; she notes in an aside that "Texas debs are a law unto themselves," and then she moves back to Chicago. It may, of course, be true that the renaissance of regal, almost-all-white debutante balls is part and parcel of a general trend toward conservatism. Maybe young women from old families feel their class standing has been assaulted by the dot.com nouveau riche. Maybe debbing has revived because ?lite white families are freaked out by affirmative action and want to reaffirm their hold on "society." But readers of Debutante won't find out, because Marling doesn't elaborate, substantiate, or even really investigate her claim. For many young women, debbing has been either augmented or replaced by another coming-of-age ritual: rushing. Ah, Greek life! Alpha Delta Pi, America's oldest sorority, was founded at Wesleyan Female College in Macon, Georgia, in 1851. The first six members included several daughters of Methodist Bishops and pastors, and the religious undertones of this first female secret society were clear. (To wit, The Creed of Alpha Delta Pi, which begins: "I BELIEVE in Alpha Delta Pi. I BELIEVE that my sorority is more than a ritual or a symbol; that it is a way of life. I BELIEVE that the principles established by our founders in 1851 are enduring attributes, exemplifying the highest ideals of Christian womanhood.") The high social standing of the first ADPs remains a mark of sororities today, but as Alexandra Robbins' Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities makes clear, some of the noble--not to mention Christian--foundations of sorority life have given way. In Pledged, Robbins charts the escapades of four sorority sisters at a Southern school she calls State U. (Incidentally, she doesn't call any of them Muffy, assigning them more plausible and less condescending pseudonyms like Amy and Sabrina.) The sisters go on dates, experiment with new lipstick colors, and study. Sabrina, a lower-class black woman, works a part-time job so that she can pay the sorority dues. All four are boy-crazy. All four joined the sorority in order to make friends, and find community, at their huge university, and there is something wistful and appealing about the bonds they form with their sisters. But sorority life is not all make-overs and trips to the mall. There's a lot of binge drinking. One report, conducted by Harvard University's College Alcohol Studies Program, found that 76 percent of non-binge-drinking high school girls become binge drinkers when they live in a sorority house. Robbins tells of ambulance trips to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, of a sorority pledge class in which each girl is "required to down an entire pint of Jack Daniel's." Her gals routinely "pre-game"--that is, booze up "before the actual [party] started. ... This way, they saved time, since they didn't have to spend the first hour of an event getting drunk." There's also a lot of sex, not all of it consensual--one sister in Pledged is date-raped--and eating disorders are epidemic. That urban legend about sorority houses' toilets being so clogged with vomit that plumbers come round to clean up about once a month? Turns out it's true. Sororities have always insisted that they turn out good citizens and strong leaders. Doubtless, sororities do have a civic function--national sororities require hours of community service from their girls, and Greek life does offer real opportunities to hone leadership skills. Sisters have to maintain a certain minimum grade point average (although to help sisters make the grade, many sorority houses keep old papers and exams on file). Out in the real world, alumnae networks provide sisters a leg up in the business world. (Robbins focuses primarily on sororities in the National Pan-Hellenic Conference--that is, historically white sororities like Theta and Alpha Chi Omega. No doubt, in historically black sororities, these alumnae networks can be even more important.) But, bulimia and date-rape aside, these leadership opportunities seem obscured by a culture of superficiality. Consider these two quotations, which Robbins juxtaposes in a chapter epigraph: The sorority becomes one of life's great forces in teaching the beauty of self-sacrifice. Leadership under the spell of this great power must be magnetic. Self-confidence, then, is creative, self-control restrictive, self-sacrifice persuasive. --The Sorority Handbook, 1907 Manicured nails are of paramount importance for the finished look. --Ready for Rush: The Must-Have Manual for Sorority Rushees!, 1999 To be sure, one might pose some questions about that 1907 notion of self-sacrifice--likely The Sorority Handbook was thinking more the sacrifice of a self-effacing wife than the sacrifice of, say, the Christian servant. Nonetheless, in 1907 the sorority message was about character, not about cosmetics. Today, an institution that should turn out strong leaders instead tells young women that their worth is equated with their beauty, with their breast size. Sororities, like the women who pledge them, are full of potential. But that potential is being diluted by gallons of nail polish and Mudslides and Rolling Rock. Lauren F. Winner is the author of Girl Meets God (Algonquin) and Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity, coming in April from Brazos Press. She quit cotillion after eighth grade, and was neither a deb nor a sorority sister. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:38:11 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:38:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] New Statesman: The Invisible Century: Einstein, Freud and the search for hidden universes Message-ID: The Invisible Century: Einstein, Freud and the search for hidden universes http://www.newstatesman.com/Bookshop/300000095511 Monday 28th March 2005 Bookshop Richard Panek Fourth Estate, 258pp, ?15.99 ISBN 1841152773 Reviewed by Marek Kohn As a young graduate student in New York in 1894, the physicist Robert Millikan was chaffed by his flatmates - who had opted for social science or medicine - for sticking to a "dead subject". Echoing a belief prevalent among physicists themselves, they told him that the work of physics was more or less done. The constants of nature were known; the physicist's duty was now to measure them to ever-remoter decimal places. The following year, in Germany, Bertha Rontgen obliged her husband, Wilhelm, by placing her hand for 15 minutes between a glass tube and a photographic plate. On the latter, a spectral image materialised, revealing the action of X-rays to the world. In the 20th century, the invisible was made visible as a matter of routine. X-ray machines became standard equipment in hospitals and even shoe shops. Devices were developed to detect radio waves from astronomical distances, or to make images of life forms too small to be observed with glass lenses. In the "invisible century", nobody imagined that physics was winding up - though once it was discovered that atoms could be smashed and could smash cities in turn, many might have wished it had. Richard Panek's "hidden universes" are not, however, those revealed by artificial extensions to human senses. His interest is in worlds conjured by the imagination. This puts Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud in the same basket, as minds without need of apparatus. Panek tells a story of science resigned to a self-denying positivism, relying only on what the senses could tell it, challenged by thinkers who forced it to admit that speculation is its vital spark. They dissolved what remained of the old universe, of earth below and heavens above. The heavens had once been taken for a fixed, unchanging firmament; after Einstein, not even time was fixed within them. After Freud, the outward self looked like little more than the mind's official spokesperson. Panek's attention is held by ideas in the abstract rather than in their wider con-text. His determined efforts to demonstrate similarities between Einstein's and Freud's thought are persuasive but not convincing. There is no getting away from it: the chapters on the two men are like chalk and cheese. Their universes were hidden from each other, as they were obliged to accept the one time that they met, passing a couple of hours in an agreeable non-exchange of ideas. The fundamental obstacle is that Einstein was a scientist and Freud considered himself one. Panek acknowledges the questions about the scientific status of psychoanalysis, but avoids wrestling with them. He would not necessarily have torpedoed the book if he had. It is possible to regard Freud's thought as magnificent without taking it to be scientific, or even true. That entails seeing the broader picture of films and cartoons and novels and 20th-century celebrity in which the two men became stars. It entails admitting the obvious reason they go together: that they are both household names. When Einstein attended the premiere of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights in 1931, the actor observed to him: "They cheer me because they all understand me, and they cheer you because no one understands you." Panek comments that Freud might have said the same, "except sometimes for the cheering part". Yet it is possible to get a purchase on some of Einstein's ideas without jargon or special skills. That time varies with relative motion can be grasped by imagining lights on moving trains (or ships, in the example that Panek glides through before the reader realises what is afoot), even if the grasp doesn't last much longer than the lesson. The fundamental difference between Einstein's celebrity and Freud's is that the former's was established by scientific observation. Einstein became a star when the papers splashed the news that observations of bending in starlight matched what his theory had predicted. Nothing in Freud could ever be tested that way, and so there was little to restrain a mind that had started out studying neuroanatomy from ending up in portentous rumination about a "death instinct". Freud's legacy is not a scientific discipline but a body of lore, imagery and insight sufficient to equip a small civilisation. He began as a biologist of the mind and became, in the phrase of the science historian Frank Sulloway, its greatest myth-maker. Einstein's position remains unchallen-ged, though he was rapidly eclipsed as a dissolver of certainties by the quantum theorists. Lights on trains were plain and homely compared to the sinister mystery of Schrodinger's hypothetical cat, locked in a box with a vial of poison for reasons that, by the nature of the quantum world, remained obscure. In the invisible century, physicists made the universe incomprehensible, while the psychoanalysts made the couch a carriage into the underworld. Marek Kohn's A Reason for Everything: natural selection and the British imagination is published by Faber & Faber From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:39:25 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:39:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] CIA: The Great Game: The Myth and Reality of Espionage Reality of Espionage Message-ID: The Great Game: The Myth and Reality of Espionage Reality of Espionage http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html Intelligence in Recent Public Literature The Great Game: The Myth and Reality of Espionage Reality of Espionage By Frederick P. Hitz. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. 211 pages. Reviewed by [4]Hayden B. Peake _________________________________________________________________ For connoisseurs of intelligence fiction a few titles epitomize the essence of the craft. Rudyard Kipling's Kim is perhaps the most well known. John le Carr?'s The Spy Who Came In From the Cold has become an icon of the anti-hero spy. Somewhat less familiar but equally compelling works include Graham Greene's Human Factor, Erskine Childers Riddle of the Sands, Joseph Conrad's Secret Agent, and Somerset Maugham's Ashenden. But while entertained, most readers are left wondering whether these books reflect the real world of spying. In The Great Game, Fred Hitz, former operations officer, Agency inspector general, and more recently a professor at Princeton University, set out to answer that question. His approach is straightforward: he compares issues discussed in these and other great works of fiction--Ian Fleming and the like, excluded--with the writings of Kim Philby and his My Silent War, Dewey Clarridge's A Spy For All Seasons, Jerry Schecter's The Spy Who Saved The World, David Murphy and Sergei Kondrashev's Battleground Berlin, and David Wise's SPY, to name a few non-fiction books he included. The 17 chapters in The Great Game deal with a variety of functional espionage topics. For example, Hitz shows how agent recruitment in the literary world is seen to follow the classic real world model of spotting, contact, and development of potential agents by the recruiting agency. To illustrate his point, he uses the case contained in David Ignatius's book Agents of Influence, an account of agent operations in the Middle East. The central character, case officer Tom Rogers--"loosely modeled on a real CIA case officer killed in the Beirut Embassy bombing in 1983" (p. 10)--cultivates the deputy chief of Fatah intelligence. His intent is to get early warnings about planned terrorist threats to US citizens in the region. Rogers painstakingly develops a rapport with the prospective agent, called PECOCK, who gradually becomes a source of this vital data. This approach to recruitment, Hitz points out, is based on a very basic principle of human behavior that operates when someone is trying to get someone else to do something he might not otherwise consider--people like to talk and often say more than they should under the right conditions. Recruitment under these circumstances is more cooperative than coercive, at least initially. In this particular case, Ignatius shows how conflict can develop when CIA Headquarters decides to place tighter control on the agent than the relationship, as originally established, permits. The consequence is conflict between the officer in the field, the agent, and Headquarters. And while the story makes for good reading, Hitz uses it to make two points. The first of these is that, when it comes to such interpersonal issues, fiction can illustrate the basic human stresses of espionage as well as non-fiction, but it doesn't capture "all the ways in which a human spy can scheme, rationalize, justify, and alter his behavior to perform his espionage mission." The second point, which applies to both fiction and non-fiction, is that the classical recruitment approach is largely theoretical. In the real world, suggests Hitz, most CIA and KGB agents, at least during the Cold War, were walk-ins--volunteers. The challenge for the case officer in such an instance was whether the prospective agent should be accepted. This changes the control aspect in favor of the receiving agency, especially with agents who remain in place and supply secrets. Hitz uses Bill Hood's MOLE, as one example of how most Cold War agents came to work for the CIA. It tells the story of a Soviet intelligence officer who became a CIA agent in 1953--a GRU major, Peter Popov, stationed in Vienna. The CIA didn't notice him; he noticed them and eventually dropped a letter into an American's car, thus beginning a valuable relationship of many years. Popov was just the first of such walk-ins who became valuable sources.[5]1 The Great Game does point out that some recruitment techniques are encountered in both the real world and in fiction. Some coercive techniques, sexual entrapment (the honeytrap), for example, fall in this category. To make the point in the non-fiction world, Hitz uses the case of Marine Corps Sgt. Clayton Lonetree, whose lover in Moscow turned out to be a KGB asset (Swallow). A fictional coercive counterpart is found in Eric Ambler's A Coffin for Dimitrios, in which the target's gambling problems are used to gain his cooperation. In other comparisons, Hitz argues that both fiction and non-fiction can illuminate some issues equally well. In fact, some of the most basic concerns that surface in espionage cases are in this category-what motivates a person to become an agent and betray his country; the complexities of counterintelligence (CI), the problem of potential fabricators; spying on friendly countries, and the role of assassination in intelligence operations, are just a few. When it comes to motivation, Hitz finds le Carr?'s works most impressive. Those are followed by Philby's autobiography, My Silent War, and Graham Greene's Human Factor. In the non-fiction arena, David Wise's treatment of Robert Hanssen and Miranda Carter's recent biography of Anthony Blunt, are both good examples.[6]2 A cautionary note is worth considering. Hitz does not directly suggest that fiction can be a source of learning the espionage business, and this should not be inferred. Readers of spy fiction often do not realize that CI is the theme of most espionage books, with the mole and the double agent dominating the topics. Hitz cites John le Carr?'s Smiley trilogy as excellent examples and spends considerable space on the CI problems developed in several non-fiction books about the Ames, Hanssen, and Edward Howard cases to illustrate the complexities. CI is less of a problem for some countries, Hitz suggests, and he quotes "Paul Redmond, America's version of George Smiley--and a profane, brash, outspoken, caustic, courageous one at that" [p. 62]--as saying that "Americans are just too nice to do counterintelligence well." With regard to assassination in the world of spy fiction, Hitz describes the dilemma created when the British intelligence service, as described by Graham Greene in The Human Factor, poisons a staff member erroneously thought to be a KGB penetration. The issue developed is not so much whether the death solved the immediate problem but whether it is ever right. In the nonfiction world, although the KGB under its legendary leader Lavrenty Beria once employed this alternative, Hitz shows that today the method is "emphatically not on among the Western intelligence services in handling problems with their countrymen." (p. 115). In the chapter titled "Sci-Fi," Hitz discusses the technology employed by fictional characters, including the time-honored tradecraft described in the George Smiley trilogy.[7]3 "None of this does justice to the real world of espionage," he concludes (p. 129). And while there is an element of truth here that becomes evident as Hitz discusses the role of satellites and codebreaking in the Cold War era, there is irony too when one considers that George Smiley's "time honored tradecraft" is still in use, as Hitz's own account of the Ames and Hanssen cases makes quite clear. Throughout The Great Game Hitz provides a number of interesting details. Unfortunately, some of them are contradictory or inaccurate. For example, his asssertion on page 13 that "Sergeant Lonetree was induced by the Soviet intelligence service to open the vaulted area of the US embassy in Moscow to the Soviets for espionage purposes" is contradicted on page 105, where he says it didn't happen "as originally thought."[8]4 Of a somewhat lesser nature, Arnold Deutsch, the man who recruited Kim Philby, was Austrian, not Hungarian; Philby defected in 1963, not the "early 1950s" (p. 33); Ames was arrested on 21 not 22 February 1994 (p. 35); Larry Wu-Tai Chin was caught in the 1980s not the 1970s; and Greville Wynn was anything but "the unsung hero of the Penkovskiy operations" (p. 94). It is also incorrect to say that Robert Hanssen "alone selected the hiding places or 'dead drops,' where he concealed the spy information he was providing them and received the cash in payment" (p. 69). He did choose the first one, but the KGB selected the rest, although he was asked to approve.[9]5 Finally, the "first CIA intelligence chief in Moscow" was not compromised in a honeytrap and sent home; it did happen to the first intelligence officer sent to Moscow in connection with the Popov case. In answering his original question, Hitz concludes that, "no fictional account adequately captures the remarkable twists and turns that a genuine human spy goes through in pursuit of his mission of treachery and betrayal" (p. 189). This is a remarkable position when it is remembered that many of his academic colleagues hold the opposite view.[10]6 They would do well to rethink their positions. On the other hand, what he doesn't say is that no non-fiction account portrays all the vicissitudes of the espionage world either, although some of the recent studies of Cold War cases based on archival materials come close. The Great Game shows the real value of fiction when it examines the morality of espionage. Even when dealt with in the abstract, such issues are worth thinking about before the fact, and fiction does that well. If precedence is an indicator, one thing seems certain. As long as the Great Game continues, we can expect more fiction and non-fiction books about this calling. As Kipling wrote, "When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before."[11]7 ______________________________________________________________________ Footnotes [12]1. For the story of another walk-in, see Barry G. Royden, "Tolkachev, A Worthy Successor to Penkovsky," Studies in Intelligence 47, no. 3: 5-33. [13]2. David Wise, Spy: The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America (New York: Random House, 2002) and Miranda Carter, Anthony Blunt: His Lives (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2001). [14]3. Although Smiley appeared briefly in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, the Smiley trilogy generally refers to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974); Smiley's People (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980); and The Honorable Schoolboy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977). [15]4. See Pete Earley, Confessions of A Spy: The Real Story of Aldrich Ames (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1997). [16]5. See Wise. [17]6. Wesley Wark, Espionage: Past, Present, Future? (Portland, Or: Frank Cass, 1994). [18]7. Rudyard Kipling, Kim (London: Macmillan, 1949). _________________________________________________________________ [19]Hayden B. Peake manages the CIA's Historical Intelligence Collection. References 4. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#author 5. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn1 6. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn2 7. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn3 8. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn4 9. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn5 10. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn6 11. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#fn7 12. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn1 13. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn2 14. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn3 15. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn4 16. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn5 17. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn6 18. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rfn7 19. http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no3/article08.html#rauthor From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:40:56 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:40:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] New Criterion: Pundits & panjandrums by Anthony Daniels Message-ID: Pundits & panjandrums by Anthony Daniels http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/mar05/daniels.htm One of the temptations of world fame (I suppose), especially when it is gained early in life, must be to treat one's own utterances with undue reverence. Their provenance becomes the guarantee not only of their truth but also of their profundity, and even the most casual meanderings or off-scourings of the mind, once expressed in public, are invested with ineffable preciousness. Since I consort but rarely with the world-famous, this is something that I discovered comparatively late in life. I happened to be in Buenos Aires when Elie Wiesel was there. He was to give a public address, followed by questions and answers. I attended along with a large and expectant audience. A man who had survived the Holocaust would surely have something worthwhile to say about the wellsprings of human evil and the purpose of life, two subjects that could scarcely be more important or interesting. It didn't occur to me that one can't go humping profundity about the world as if it were a piece of luggage. Neither, apparently, did Elie Wiesel. Buenos Aires is, of course, a city with one of the largest Jewish populations in the world. The audience was therefore unlikely to be uninformed about the Holocaust, but Wiesel spoke to it, impromptu, as if it were composed of twelve year olds of limited knowledge and less ability. Perhaps he had come to the conclusion that the world, having taken him at his own estimate, was composed exclusively of fools. He was oblivious to the restlessness of the audience that he treated in this fashion, and when at the end of his rambling discourse he was asked what he considered to be specifically Jewish characteristics, he thought for a moment, or rather made as if he thought for a moment (after all, it was not a straightforward question), and said something like, "Jews sing and dance." Did he mean that all Jews sing and dance? Or that only Jews sing and dance? Or both, perhaps? Just as I once drank whisky to great excess at the age of nineteen, and have never been able to drink it since without a rising feeling of nausea, so I have never been able to listen to a world-famous person without a prejudice against him since I listened to Elie Wiesel. I concede that this is not entirely logical, but neither is my aversion to whisky. I tried again in Calcutta to cure myself of my prejudice against world-famous panjandrums. This time it was G?nter Grass, another Nobel Prize winner, though for literature rather than peace. He was in a panel discussion on "The Segregation of Cultures in the Contemporary World: Clash, Convergence or Co-operation?" For some reason, the very subject matter conjured up images of hot-air balloons in my mind, of which I was not able entirely to disembarrass myself. The audience was composed of Calcutta's concerned intellectuals: concerned, that is, with where they were to have dinner afterwards. Some of them had come with the clear intention of asking a question in public, which is to say, of making a speech. The real star of the show was the moderator, a writer and actor called Girish Karnad, who refused to allow them to do so, interrupting them not in mid-sentence but in mid-word, when it became obvious that they were more interested in airing their opinions than in asking a question on the subject--diffuse enough as it was. Rarely have I heard a more intellectually incisive chairman, simultaneously ruthless, witty, and charming. He disallowed at least half of those who spoke from the floor, but amateur windbags are not to be deterred by the prospect of humiliation, any more than professional ones are by the prospect of error. Among the other panelists was Amitav Ghosh, billed as "the most important Indian author in English," and Najam Sethi, a Pakistani journalist from Lahore. Ghosh spoke of an Anglophone conspiracy to dominate the world, physically, economically, and culturally, dating back at least three centuries: I half-expected him to refer to the Protocols of the Elders of Oxford. He saw the European Union--the apparatchiks' new paradise--as the hope of the world, the one possible counterweight to the hegemony of the United States. Needless to say, as a holder of such views he lives part of his time in the United States, where there is a strong market for them, at least on university campuses, which is what counts for writers. For Sethi I conceived a great respect. It was not that I agreed with everything he said, much to the contrary; he illustrated his belief in the possibility of genuine multiculturalism by reference to the different kinds of restaurant to be found in most large cities nowadays. (I have always suspected that, at root, multiculturalism means, at least for westerners, tapas today, tom kha kai tomorrow, and tarte tatin the day after. This is to take the idea that we are what we eat a little too seriously.) But when Sethi compared his own country, Pakistan, unfavorably with India in the matter of intellectual freedom, it was impossible not to admire his deep moral courage. By saying such a thing in a public forum, however obvious its truth, deep in the enemy country, he was taking a personal risk of the kind that G?nter Grass--or any of us--has thankfully never had to take. Of course, our freedom makes any dishonesty on our part all the more reprehensible. Grass ambled, bear-like, onto the stage, which had been arranged like the set of a comfortable living room in a well-made play, complete with sofas and bookshelves. His manner was attractively fragile, ordinary and modest, and I warm to a man who dyes his hair at the age of seventy-eight. He still cares what figure he cuts in the world, which is an all-too-human failing. I can't say I'm an admirer of his prose, though: his kind of picaresque exaggeration is an open invitation to self-indulgence and imprecision. Improbability is made to stand for essence. And nothing Mr. Grass said in Calcutta rose very high above the level of clich?. The picaresque and the utterly conventional, it seems, can coexist comfortably in the same mind. He spoke of the dangers of globalization and "economic flattening," and of the common people as the victims of this process. He spoke of the need to resist the unique power in the world--the United States. He recalled the happy days of Willy Brandt's famous commission on the Third World, with its prophecy that the conflict between the capitalist West and the Communist East would be replaced by that between the rich north and the poor south. And he asked what literature could do in the current circumstances. It could draw attention to issues such as global warming, the shortage of water, and the reasons for terrorism (needless to say, he wasn't thinking here of Dostoyevsky). Indeed, he said, writers would be superfluous if they didn't address such issues. And writers were always on the side of the losers. Always and everywhere? On the side of the Nazis, for example? And is a writer who is not interested in hydrology ipso facto superfluous? This is not to say that an imaginative writer could never legitimately treat of a poor person's struggle to secure a water supply in conditions of shortage, but surely it is going a little far (indeed, it is profoundly totalitarian) to say that he must do so, or risk superfluity, like members of the Russian intelligentsia in the 1840s. The indiscipline of Grass's prose is symptomatic of the indiscipline of his mind. Grass has a special relationship with Calcutta. This was his fourth visit and he lived there for a few months in 1987 and 1988, writing a book (containing many of his pen and ink sketches) about his experiences, published in English as Show Your Tongue. The various predictions he made in that book have done nothing whatever to reduce the certainty of his current opinions and prognoses. This is the hallmark of the true panjandrum. In a paragraph alluding to Subhas Chandra Bose, the Bengali Indian nationalist who broke with Gandhi and threw in his lot first with Hitler and then the Japanese, and to the fact that Bengal, like Germany, was divided between East and West, Grass says: A little later, during a brief trip to Bangladesh, the mere mention of the Bengali F?hrer will unleash almost fanatical hymns of allegiance. What a good thing that at present there is no unifier (living or dead) standing at the German door. This was published in 1989. The timing could hardly have been worse. Whatever one's temptation to laugh, one cannot blame Grass for failing to foresee what others likewise failed to foresee, but it might with decency have instilled in him a certain modesty concerning his powers of political analysis and clairvoyance. Many of his other judgments seem hardly any better. He tells us that all the statistics concerning India in general and Calcutta in particular point to a catastrophe or even an apocalypse (one senses that he derives an illicit pleasure from this, as highly moral and respectable masochists derive pleasure from being whipped or beaten by a dominatrix). According to Grass, the city could only get poorer and poorer and poorer until--presumably--everyone starved to death. I have been visiting Calcutta for nearly thirty years. The reverse is actually the truth. When I first came to Calcutta, lepers waved their shrivelled and deformed limbs in your face through open taxi windows every time the taxis stopped at intersections. Paying them to go away was no solution, for it merely encouraged the others. You learned to trip over human forms on the sidewalks without inquiring too closely whether the forms were alive or dead. At night, every doorway, every nook and cranny became a dormitory, and the municipality arranged for the dead, of whom the dawn always revealed a few, to be swept up daily. It is true that Calcutta still has the power to shock. One can still see people sifting through horrible rotting garbage for something of value. A taxi drew up beside mine and inside I saw something that brought back the memory of a previous epoch, that I thought I had forgotten, and the swiftness of whose recognition surprised me: a face deeply pitted by smallpox. But the last case of smallpox in Calcutta was in 1972, and the man whom I saw whose face was pitted by it was well into his thirties. For those who have visited Calcutta over a period of years, the signs of increasing prosperity are everywhere: far fewer rickshaws, for example, and practically no beggars. All the children who play cricket (about which Indians are fanatical), even in the most restricted of spaces, now have real bats and balls instead of equipment fashioned out of scraps of wood and cloth, as they did formerly. I should guess that India is by far the largest market for cricket bats in the world. Grass predicted that the old and gracious buildings of Calcutta would disappear and yield to hovels as the city grew ever poorer, ever more desperate. (He also seemed to think this was a good thing, because hovels were authentic. "Once back in Germany," he wrote, "[I] measure everything, myself included, by Calcutta.") Well, he was right about the disappearance of the gracious buildings, but quite wrong about the reasons for it. Next to the place I stayed in Calcutta was a wonderful old Indo-Palladian villa, literally falling into ruins before one's eyes. To enter it was to risk death by stucco. There was one protected tenant still living in it--I could watch her at night through the dilapidated shutters moving about in the crumbling interior--but the owner wanted the building to collapse utterly so that he could avoid the city's preservation regulations without having to pay too great a bribe to the regulators, and build a block of luxury apartments on the site instead. He would make a fortune, even if it meant the city became even uglier. Increasing wealth, not poverty, now threatens to destroy the city's architectural heritage, a process that was started by demagogic pseudo-egalitarian regulation. Of course, there is no gain without loss. You don't have to be an inveterate anti-globalist to have reservations, mainly of an aesthetic nature, about India's headlong rush into modernity. Calcutta now has shopping malls, and its middle class can't wait to consume western gewgaws (usually manufactured by the cheap labor of the East) that are grossly inferior, aesthetically, to India's own traditional productions. One of the great pleasures of India used to be its comparative immunity to the cultural hegemony--to coin a phrase--of Anglo-American pop music, but not only does its own popular music increasingly approximate that horrible and savage noise, but its shopping malls positively throb with it. Sensitive Indians themselves are alarmed by the process, though they know that it is unstoppable and that their country's indefinable charms--as well as its more easily defined horrors--will inevitably yield to it. It will take some time, and the old and new India will coexist for years to come. Emerging from a Calcutta shopping mall, where consumerism reigned in all its garish vulgarity, I noticed a large placard attached to the nearest lamppost: Female foeticide is illegal. Once in India, I saw a holy cow grazing on a pile of computer printout. But there is no denying that globalization is lifting Indian cities from the most abject poverty (the countryside might be different, I don't know), even if at the cost of a loss of aesthetic refinement. The duty of intellectuals is to spell out proper distinctions as clearly and honestly as possible. The condition of being a pundit stands in the way of this, for it lends authority to a person rather than to evidence and argument. (Appropriately enough, "pundit" is a word of Indian origin referring to a Brahmin who knows the Sanskrit prayers that accompany the arcane rituals of Hindu puja, or prayer. I once asked a highly educated Indian friend of mine to explain the prayers and ritual to me at a wedding, to which he replied, "I don't know, it's all Greek to me.") The temptations of punditry are great. I have on occasion succumbed to them myself. Once the United Nations Development Program invited me, heaven knows why, to a colloquium in Bamako, Mali, on how the press might improve the image of Africa. (Improving Africa itself was, of course, quite beyond anyone's powers, as a brief glance outside the hotel's entrance made clear. Besides, what is reality set against the power of public relations?) Everyone at the meeting had a certain number of minutes to hold forth, and then there was a discussion afterwards. A captive audience, each member of which is awaiting his ten minutes at the podium, is an attentive audience. I was only a minor pundit, of course. The most senior present was Nadine Gordimer, another Nobel Prize winner. After a Ghanaian woman in national costume had spoken, Miss Gordimer took the floor. "As my sister Susan has said," she began. "Actually," interrupted Susan, "my name's Gloria." I am glad to say that so trivial a detail was not permitted to stand in the way of the important abstract point that the pundit was then trying to make. _________________________________________________________________ Anthony Daniels is a doctor and writer whose most recent books are "Utopias Elsewhere" and "Monrovia Mon Amour". ________________________________________________________ From The New Criterion Vol. 23, No. 7, March 2005 References 1. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/mar05/daniels.htm From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:41:49 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:41:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Scotsman: Let's re-examine what Adam Smith really said Message-ID: Let's re-examine what Adam Smith really said http://news.scotsman.com/print.cfm?id=280242005&referringtemplate=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Escotsman%2Ecom%2Farchive%2Ecfm&referringquerystring=id%3D280242005 Tue 15 Mar 2005 GAVIN KENNEDY WILL THE real Adam Smith stand up, please? There certainly are plenty of phoney versions on parade whenever his name is mentioned. Some on the Right brazenly saw in Smith's name an authority against much of what he opposed on moral grounds. He was cited to oppose shorter working hours, to continue employing women and children in coal mines and dark satanic mills, even in defence of slavery. Smith allegedly advised against interference in the business of business. The cries went up - Laissez faire! Leave the mine and mill owners alone! They know best. The invisible hand will come right in the end. It's all in Smith's Wealth of Nations. Interfere at your peril. Some on the Left naively saw Smith as a compelling authority in favour of state intervention. Wilberforce quoted him against slavery, a practice Smith opposed on moral and economic grounds. Others quoted his support for the government to fund a school in every village so that each child would become literate and numerate. But they did not like his moral sentiments or his political economy. The distortions of Smith's views have conquered popular discourse. Libertarians on the Right vie with voices on the Left and sling quotations out of context - they long since gave up reading his books. The distortions began shortly after Smith died in 1790. The bloody excesses of French Terror in 1793 rocked the British establishment. Ten years earlier, the Americans had forced Britain out of its 13 colonies. While the American Republic was far away, the French version was only a few miles from Dover. A panicky state investigated Smith's friends, searching for evidence that his books were likely to incite British mobs to follow the French example. For his friends it was too close for comfort. Leaders of mobs got 14 years' transportation and there was no assurance Smith's supporters would fair better, for social ostracism in their world was as serious as a voyage to Botany Bay. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who also wrote about political economy. Over the years economics has become a branch of applied mathematics. Smithian moral sentiments were dumped, along with his political economy. His Wealth of Nations adorns the shelves of academe, safely unread by those who should know better. Like his grave just off the High Street in Edinburgh, his legacy is neglected. Worse, it has been purloined. Smith never wrote a word about "capitalism", yet he is hailed as the "high priest of capitalism". He is the "father of modern economics" though he would find much in today's economics unrecognisable as his progeny . He is alleged to be an advocate of "Laissez Faire" though he never used these words and claims that he used English equivalents are tenuous. He did not believe it advisable to leave merchants and manufacturers alone, because they were likely to form monopolies, restrict supply and raise prices. Smith took the long view of society's development. He was never in favour of quick fixes. He considered stability in society more important than correcting even serious deficiencies too quickly. He took a historical view and his books are full of references to classical Greece and Rome and what they taught about government, moral conduct and economic growth, and the need for natural liberty and justice. The "new" economy he discussed in Wealth of Nations was not new to him. He saw a growing commercial society as a revival of the commerce of western Europe that had been overrun by barbarian hordes. His inquiry into the wealth of nations was like a one-man Royal commission, a tour de force, drawing on evidence over the millennia since the fall of Rome and from contemporary evidence he analysed in painstaking detail. Commerce was a revival, not a new revolution. From commerce, established on a prosperous and improved agricultural base, opulence would spread deep into society, itself poverty-stricken to a degree we cannot imagine today. Scotland was a backward, ignorant and fractious country; England was slightly better. But both would rise out of their stagnation if commerce was unburdened from the mercantile politics lasting since the Middle Ages. Smith disapproved of colonies as expensive ways to buy what could be bought in markets. Unnecessary wars to revenge slights on the King's ministers rather than matters of substance were on a scale of prodigality he railed against. He preferred investment and jobs in productive activity that increased wealth. Not that he was a pacifist. Defence was the "first duty of the government" to protect society from barbaric neighbours. He saw society as becoming naturally harmonious through the intense dependence of each person on the labour of every other person and taught that the propensity to "truck, barter and exchange" led to people serving their own interests best by serving the interests of others from whom they needed daily necessities. That is his true legacy, the melding of his moral sentiments with liberty, justice and his economics. It is time his legacy was claimed back. o Gavin Kennedy is a professor at Edinburgh Business School and author of Adam Smith's Lost Legacy, published today by Palgrave Macmillan. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:43:19 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:43:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Reason: Bailey: The Poor May Not Be Getting Richer Message-ID: The Poor May Not Be Getting Richer http://www.reason.com/rb/rb030905.shtml March 9, 2005 But they are living longer, eating better, and learning to read [24]Ronald Bailey ------------------------------------- Wealthier is healthier--and more educated, more equal for women, more electrified, automotive, and computer-literate. So the conventional wisdom in development economics has long been that to boost the prospects of the world's poor, one needs to boost their incomes. This is still true, but as World Bank economist Charles Kenny points out in a [25]provocative article titled "Why Are We Worried About Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging," income growth does not tell the full story. Even though some of the world's poorest people are not earning much more than they were two generations ago, they're still living much better than they were. In fact, many quality of life indicators are converging toward levels found in the richer countries. To illustrate this point, Kenny compares what has happened to life expectancy in Britain and India. The average age span in both countries was 24 years in the 14th century, but Britain then began a gradual rise, and by 1931 its life expectancy was 60.8 years, compared to just 26.8 for its colony. Since then, though, the numbers have begun to converge--by 1999, Indians lived on average to 63, while Brits nudged upward to 77. One of the main reasons for the gap-closing is the fall of infant mortality. In 1900 Britain, the infant survival rate was 846 per 1,000 births, compared to 655 in India. Today, 992 British infants out of every 1,000 survive, compared to 920 Indians. Kenny notes that increasing life expectancy correlates with greater caloric intake. "Worldwide, the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s," Kenny notes. And although he doesn't mention it, one reason is that buying food is a whole lot cheaper than it used to be--the real prices for corn, wheat, and rice have decreased by more than [26]70 percent since 1900. Other social indicators, such as literacy rates, are also converging. In 1913, only 9 percent of Indians could read, compared to 96 percent of Britons. Today, 57 percent of Indians and 100 percent of people in the UK are literate. According to Kenny, between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent of the world. And women have made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. Kenny also observes that what he calls "non-necessary consumption" has been increasing for the world poorest, too. For example, while the bottom 20 percent and the top 20 percent of the world's population both increased their beer drinking between 1950 and 1990, the bottom quintile's consumption grew five times as fast. Incomes in the world's poorest countries have been rising slightly over the past 50 years, so perhaps these large improvements demonstrate that small changes in earning power at the lower income levels have dramatic effects? Surely that's been part of the story, but Kenny points out that incomes have been falling since 1950 in several basket-case countries like Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua, Mozambique, and Bolivia, yet life expectancy, literacy rates and the percentage of kids in primary school have still gone up. So why is the quality of life for the world's poorest people improving, and in fact converging toward levels found in the richer countries? Because improvements become cheaper over time. Kenny notes: "Broadly, the results suggest that it takes one-tenth the income to achieve the same life expectancy in 1999 as it took in 1870. Consider the virtuous circle of agricultural improvements, such as the way discovering how to properly use [27]inorganic fertilizers boosted agricultural production, which increased the calories available to families, which in turn meant they didn't need their kids to work the fields full time, thus permitting them to go to school to become literate, which enabled them to more effectively adopt even better farming techniques, and so forth. Literacy makes educating people about the [28]germ theory of disease a lot easier. Once-expensive medicines like penicillin eventually cost only pennies per pill. Although building infrastructure remains relatively expensive, technology can leapfrog entire costly steps, as has been demonstrated by the lightning-fast growth of cellular-telephone adoption from zero to [29]1.5 billion people. The world's poor have clearly benefited enormously from spillover knowledge and technologies devised in the rich capitalist countries. But they would be a whole lot better off if their incomes increased, too. For that to happen, institutions like private property and the rule of law must be adopted. Poor countries remain poor largely because the incompetent despots who rule over them keep them that way. Poverty was once humanity's natural state, but today it is almost always [30]man-made. ------------------------------------- Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Defense of the Biotech Revolution, Or Why You Should Relax and Enjoy the Brave New World will be published in June by Prometheus Books. References 24. mailto:rbailey at reason.com 25. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4F02KWN-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_cdi=5946&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_artOutline=Y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=273c9d354f2f52b3b14606a5a3b2d69f#bfn25 26. http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.12126/article_detail.asp 27. http://www.microsoil.com/liebigs_law_of_the_minimum.htm 28. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1878pasteur-germ.html 29. http://www.cellular.co.za/stats/stats-main.htm 30. http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091802.shtml From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:44:21 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:44:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] LRB: (Sontag) Terry Castle: Desperately Seeking Susan Message-ID: Terry Castle: Desperately Seeking Susan http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/print/cast01_.html Terry Castle A few weeks ago I found myself scanning photographs of Susan Sontag into my screensaver file: a tiny head shot clipped from Newsweek; two that had appeared in the New York Times; another printed alongside Allan Gurganus's obituary in the Advocate, a glossy American gay and lesbian mag usually devoted to pulchritudinous gym bunnies, gay sitcom stars and treatments for flesh-eating strep. It seemed the least I could do for the bedazzling, now-dead she-eminence. The most beautiful photo I downloaded was one that Peter Hujar took of her in the 1970s, around the time of I, Et Cetera. She's wearing a thin grey turtleneck and lies on her back - arms up, head resting on her clasped hands and her gaze fixed impassively on something to the right of the frame. There's a slightly pedantic quality to the whole thing which I like: very true to life. Every few hours now she floats up onscreen in this digitised format, supine, sleek and flat-chested. No doubt hundreds (thousands?) of people knew Susan Sontag better than I did. For ten years ours was an on-again, off-again, semi-friendship, constricted by role-playing and shot through in the end with mutual irritation. Over the years I laboured to hide my growing disillusion, especially during my last ill-fated visit to New York, when she regaled me - for the umpteenth time - about the siege of Sarajevo, the falling bombs, and how the pitiful Joan Baez had been too terrified to come out of her hotel room. Sontag flapped her arms and shook her big mannish hair - inevitably described in the press as a `mane' - contemptuously. That woman is a fake! She tried to fly back to California the next day! I was there for months. Through all of the bombardment, of course, Terry. Then she ruminated. Had I ever met Baez? Was she a secret lesbian? I confessed that I'd once waited in line behind the folk singer at my cash machine (Baez lives near Stanford) and had taken the opportunity to inspect the hairs on the back of her neck. Sontag, who sensed a rival, considered this non-event for a moment, but after further inquiries, was reassured that I, her forty-something slave girl from San Francisco, still preferred her to Ms Diamonds and Rust. At its best, our relationship was rather like the one between Dame Edna and her feeble sidekick Madge - or possibly Stalin and Malenkov. Sontag was the Supremo and I the obsequious gofer. Whenever she came to San Francisco, usually once or twice a year, I instantly became her female aide-de-camp: a one-woman posse, ready to drop anything at a phone call (including the classes I was supposed to be teaching at Stanford) and drive her around to various Tower record stores and dim sum restaurants. Most important, I became adept at clucking sympathetically at her constant kvetching: about the stupidity and philistinism of whatever local sap was paying for her lecture trip, how no one had yet appreciated the true worth of her novel The Volcano Lover, how you couldn't find a decent dry cleaner in downtown San Francisco etc, etc. True - from my point of view - it had all begun extraordinarily well. Even now I have to confess that, early on, Sontag gave me a couple of the sweetest (not to mention most amusing) moments of my adult life. The first came one grey magical morning at Stanford in 1996, when after several hours of slogging away on student papers, I opened a strange manila envelope that had come for me, with a New York return address. The contents - a brief fan letter about a piece I'd written on Charlotte Bront? and a flamboyantly inscribed paperback copy of her play, Alice in Bed (`from Susan') - made me dizzy with ecstasy. Having idolised Sontag literally for decades - I'd first read `Notes on Camp' as an exceedingly arch nine-year-old - I felt as if Pallas Athene herself had suddenly materialised and offered me a cup of ambrosia. (O great Susan! Most august Goddess of Female Intellect!) I zoomed around, showing the note to various pals. To this day, when I replay it in my mind, I still get a weird toxic jolt of adolescent joy - like taking a big hit of Crazy Glue vapours out of a paper bag. Things proceeded swiftly in our honeymoon phase. Sontag, it turned out, was coming to Stanford for a writer-in-residence stint that spring and the first morning after her arrival abruptly summoned me to take her out to breakfast. The alacrity with which I drove the forty miles down from San Francisco - trying not to get flustered but panting a bit at the wheel nonetheless - set the pattern of our days. We made the first of several madcap car trips around Palo Alto and the Stanford foothills. While I drove, often somewhat erratically, she would alternate between loud complaints - about her faculty club accommodation, the bad food at the Humanities Center, the `dreariness' of my Stanford colleagues (`Terry, don't you loathe academics as much as I do? How can you abide it?') - and her Considered Views on Everything (`Yes, Terry, I do know all the lesser-known Handel operas. I told Andrew Porter he was right - they are the greatest of musical masterpieces'). I was rapt, like a hysterical spinster on her first visit to Bayreuth. Schw?rmerei time for T-Ball. The Sarajevo obsession revealed itself early on: in fact, inspired the great comic episode in this brief golden period. We were walking down University Avenue, Palo Alto's twee, boutique-crammed main drag, on our way to a bookshop. Sontag was wearing her trademark intellectual-diva outfit: voluminous black top and black silky slacks, accessorised with a number of exotic, billowy scarves. These she constantly adjusted or flung back imperiously over one shoulder, stopping now and then to puff on a cigarette or expel a series of phlegmy coughs. (The famous Sontag `look' always put me in mind of the stage direction in Blithe Spirit: `Enter Madame Arcati, wearing barbaric jewellery.') Somewhat incongruously, she had completed her ensemble with a pair of pristine, startlingly white tennis shoes. These made her feet seem comically huge, like Bugs Bunny's. I half-expected her to bounce several feet up and down in the air whenever she took a step, like one of those people who have shoes made of `Flubber' in the old Fred McMurray movie. She'd been telling me about the siege and how a Yugoslav woman she had taken shelter with had asked her for her autograph, even as bombs fell around them. She relished the woman's obvious intelligence (`Of course, Terry, she'd read The Volcano Lover, and like all Europeans, admired it tremendously') and her own sangfroid. Then she stopped abruptly and asked, grim-faced, if I'd ever had to evade sniper fire. I said, no, unfortunately not. Lickety-split she was off - dashing in a feverish crouch from one boutique doorway to the next, white tennis shoes a blur, all the way down the street to Restoration Hardware and the Baskin-Robbins store. Five or six perplexed Palo Altans stopped to watch as she bobbed zanily in and out, ducking her head, pointing at imaginary gunmen on rooftops and gesticulating wildly at me to follow. No one, clearly, knew who she was, though several of them looked as if they thought they should know who she was. In those early days, I felt like an intellectual autodidact facing the greatest challenge of her career: the Autodidact of all Autodidacts. The quizzing was relentless. Had I read Robert Walser? (Ooooh errrg blush, ahem, little cough, um: No, I'm ashamed to say . . .) Had I read Thomas Bernhard? (Yes! - Yes, I have! `Wittgenstein's Nephew'! Yay! Yippee! Wow! Phew! - dodged the bullet that time!) It seemed, for a while at least, that I had yet to be contaminated by the shocking intellectual mediocrity surrounding me at Stanford U. This exemption from idiocy was due mainly, I think, to the fact that I could hold my own with her in the music-appreciation department. Trading CDs and recommendations - in a peculiar, masculine, trainspotting fashion - later became a part of our fragile bond. I scored a coup one time with some obscure Busoni arrangements she'd not heard of (though she assured me that `she had, of course, known the pianist' - the late Paul Jacobs - `very well'); but I almost came a cropper when I confessed I had never listened to Jan?cek's The Excursions of Mr Broucek. She gave me a surprised look, then explained, somewhat loftily, that I owed it to myself, as a `cultivated person', to become acquainted with it. (`I adore Jan?cek's sound world.') A recording of the opera appeared soon after in the mail - so I knew I'd been forgiven - but after listening to it once I couldn't really get anywhere with it. (It tends to go on a bit - in the same somewhat exhausting Eastern European way I now associate with Sontag herself.) The discs are still on my shelf. Given their exalted provenance I can't bear to unload them at the used CD shop in my neighbourhood. And she also flirted - in a coquettish, discombobulating, yet unmistakable fashion. She told me she had read my book, The Apparitional Lesbian, and `agreed with me entirely' about Henry James and The Bostonians. She made me describe at length how I'd met my then girlfriend. (`She wrote you a letter! And you answered? Terry, I'm amazed! I get those letters all the time, but I would never answer one! Of course, Terry, I'm stunned!') Though I was far too cowed to ask her directly about her own love life, she would reveal the occasional titbit from her legendary past, then give me a playful, almost girlish look. (`Of course, Terry, everyone said Jeanne Moreau and I were lovers, but you know, we were just good friends.') My apotheosis as tease-target came the night of her big speech in Kresge Auditorium. She had begun by reprimanding those in the audience who failed to consider her one of the `essential' modern novelists, then read a seemingly interminable section of what was to become In America. (Has any other major literary figure written such an excruciatingly turgid book?) At the end, as the audience gave way to enormous, relieved clapping - thank God that's over - she made a beeline towards me. Sideswiping the smiling president of Stanford and an eager throng of autograph-seekers, she elbowed her way towards me, enveloped me rakishly in her arms and said very loudly: `Terry, we've got to stop meeting like this.' She seemed to think the line hilarious and chortled heartily. I felt at once exalted, dopey and mortified, like a plump teenage boy getting a hard-on in front of everybody. Though otherwise respectful, Allan Gurganus (in the Advocate obit) takes Sontag to task for never having come out publicly as a lesbian: `My only wish about Sontag is that she had bothered to weather what the rest of us daily endure. The disparity between her professed fearlessness and her actual self-protective closetedness strikes a questioning footnote that is the one blot on her otherwise brilliant career.' I have to say I could never figure her out on this touchy subject - though we did talk about it. Her usual line (indignant and aggrieved) was that she didn't believe in `labels' and that if anything she was bisexual. She raged about a married couple who were following her from city to city and would subsequently publish a tell-all biography of her in 2000. Horrifyingly enough, she'd learned, the despicable pair were planning to include photographs of her with various celebrated female companions. Obviously, both needed to be consigned to Dante's Inferno, to roast in the flames in perpetuity with the Unbaptised Babies, Usurers and Makers of False Oaths. I struggled to keep a poker face during these rants, but couldn't help thinking that Dante should have devised a whole circle specifically for such malefactors: the Outers of Sontag. At other times she was less vehement, and would assume a dreamy, George Sand-in-the-1840s look. `I've loved men, Terry; I've loved women . . .' she would begin, with a deep sigh. What did the sex of the person matter, after all? Think of Sand herself with Chopin and Marie Dorval. Or Tsvetaeva, perhaps, with Mandelstam and Sophia Parnok. In Paris, all the elegant married ladies had mistresses. And yet in some way I felt the subject of female homosexuality - and whether she owed the world a statement on it - was an unresolved one for her. Later in our friendship, the topic seemed to become an awkward obsession, especially as I came closer to finishing up an anthology of lesbian-themed literature I'd been working on for several years. She frequently suggested things she thought I should include: most interestingly, perhaps, her favourite steamy love scene from Patricia Highsmith's 1952 lesbian romance novel The Price of Salt. As far as Sontag was concerned, Highsmith's dykey little potboiler - published originally under a pseudonym - was right up there with Buddenbrooks and The Man without Qualities. Something in the story - about a gifted (yet insecure) young woman who moves to Manhattan in the early 1950s to become a theatre designer and ends up falling rapturously in love with a glamorous, outr? older woman - must have once struck a chord: Sontag seemed to dote on it. And invariably she would probe for sapphic gossip - sometimes about opera singers and pop stars, sometimes about other writers. Was it true what everyone said about Joan Sutherland and Marilyn Horne during the rehearsals for Norma? What about June Anderson? And Jessye Norman? Or Lucia Popp, for that matter? (`Of course, Terry, the perfect Queen of the Night.') Did I think Iris Murdoch and Brigid Brophy had had an affair? What was Adrienne Rich's girlfriend like? When was somebody ever going to spill the beans on Eudora Welty and Elizabeth Bowen? Was there some way, I wonder now, that she wanted me to absolve her? Was the fact that she never mentioned, on any of the occasions we talked, her equally prominent female companion - they lived in the same Manhattan building - a sign of grande dame sophistication or some sort of weird test of my character? (Actually I did hear her say her name once; when someone at an otherwise fairly staid farewell dinner gave Sontag a vulgar present at the end of her Stanford visit - a book of glossy photos of the campy 1950s pin-up, Bettie Page - she said: `I'll have to show these to Annie.') I was never quite sure what she wanted. And besides, whatever it was, after a while she stopped wanting it. I visited her several times in New York City and even got invited to the London Terrace penthouse to see the famous book collection. (`Of course, Terry, mine is the greatest library in private hands in the world.') I tried not to gape at the Brice Mardens stacked up against the wall and enthused appropriately when she showed me prized items, such as Beckford's own annotated copy of Vathek. We would go on little culture jaunts. Once she took me to the Strand bookstore (the clerk said, `Hi, Susan' in enviably blas? tones); another time she invited me to a film festival she was curating at the Japan Society. But there were also little danger signals, ominous hints that she was tiring of me. One day in the Village, after having insisted on buying me a double-decker ice-cream cone, she suddenly vanished, even as I, tongue moronically extruded, was still licking away. I turned around in bewilderment and saw her black-clad form piling, without farewell, into a yellow cab. And the last two times I saw her I managed to blow it - horrendously - both times. The first debacle occurred after one of the films at the Japan Society. I'd been hanging nervously around in the lobby, like a groupie, waiting for her: Sontag yanked me into a taxi with her and an art curator she knew named Klaus. (He was hip and bald and dressed in the sort of all-black outfit worn by the fictional German talk-show host, Dieter Sprocket, on the old Saturday Night Live.) With great excitement she explained she was taking me out for `a real New York evening' - to a dinner party being hosted by Marina Abramovic, the performance artist, at her loft in Soho. Abramovic had recently been in the news for having lived for 12 days, stark naked, on an exposed wooden platform - fitted with shower and toilet - in the window of the Sean Kelly Gallery. She lived on whatever food spectators donated and never spoke during the entire 12 days. I guess it had all been pretty mesmerising: my friend Nancy happened to be there once when Abramovic took a shower; and one of Nancy's friends hit the jackpot - she got to watch the artist have a bowel movement. Abramovic - plus hunky sculptor boyfriend - lived in a huge, virtually empty loft, the sole furnishings being a dining table and chairs in the very centre of the room and a spindly old stereo from the 1960s. The space was probably a hundred feet on either side - `major real estate, of course', as Sontag proudly explained to me. (She loved using Vanity Fair-ish clich?s.) She and Abramovic smothered one another in hugs and kisses. I meanwhile blanched in fright: I'd just caught sight of two of the other guests, who, alarmingly enough, turned out to be Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson. Reed (O great rock god of my twenties) stood morosely by himself, humming, doing little dance steps and playing air guitar. Periodically he glared at everyone - including me - with apparent hatred. Anderson - elfin spikes of hair perfectly gelled - was chatting up an Italian man from the Guggenheim, the man's trophy wife and the freakish-looking lead singer from the cult art-pop duo Fischerspooner. The last-mentioned had just come back from performing at the Pompidou Centre and wore booties and tights, a psychedelic shawl and a thing like a codpiece. He could have played Osric in a postmodern Hamlet. He was accompanied by a bruiser with a goatee - roadie or boyfriend, it wasn't clear - and emitted girlish little squeals when our first course, a foul-smelling durian fruit just shipped in from Malaysia, made its way to the table. Everyone crowded into their seats: despite the vast size of the room, we were an intime gathering. Yet it wouldn't be quite right merely to say that everyone ignored me. As a non-artist and non-celebrity, I was so `not there', it seemed - so cognitively unassimilable - I wasn't even registered enough to be ignored. I sat at one end of the table like a piece of anti-matter. I didn't exchange a word the whole night with Lou Reed, who sat kitty-corner across from me. He remained silent and surly. Everyone else gabbled happily on, however, about how they loved to trash hotels when they were younger and how incompetent everybody was at the Pompidou. `At my show I had to explain things to them a thousand times. They just don't know how to do a major retrospective.' True, Sontag tried briefly to call the group's attention to me (with the soul-destroying words, `Terry is an English professor'); and Abramovic kindly gave me a little place card to write my name on. But otherwise I might as well not have been born. My one conversational gambit failed dismally: when I asked the man from the Guggenheim, to my right, what his books were about, he regarded me disdainfully and began, `I am famous for - ,' then caught himself. He decided to be more circumspect - he was the `world's leading expert on Arte Povera' - but then turned his back on me for the next two hours. At one point I thought I saw Laurie Anderson, at the other end of the table, trying to get my attention: she was smiling sweetly in my direction, as if to undo my pathetic isolation. I smiled in gratitude in return and held up my little place card so she would at least know my name. Annoyed, she gestured back impatiently, with a sharp downward flick of her index finger: she wanted me to pass the wine bottle. I was reduced to a pair of disembodied hands - like the ones that come out of the walls and give people drinks in Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast. Sontag gave up trying to include me and after a while seemed herself to recede curiously into the background. Maybe she was already starting to get sick again; she seemed oddly undone. Through much of the conversation (dominated by glammy Osric) she looked tired and bored, almost sleepy. She did not react when I finally decided to leave - on my own - just after coffee had been served. I thanked Marina Abramovic, who led me to the grungy metal staircase that went down to the street and back to the world of the Little People. Turning round one last time, I saw Sontag still slumped in her seat, as if she'd fallen into a trance, or somehow just caved in. She'd clearly forgotten all about me. A fiasco, to be sure, but my final encounter with Sontag was possibly more disastrous: my Waterloo. I had come to New York with Blakey, and Sontag (to whom I wanted proudly to display her) said we could stop by her apartment one afternoon. When we arrived at the appointed time, clutching a large bouquet of orange roses, Sontag was nowhere to be seen. Her young male assistant, padding delicately around in his socks, showed us in, took the roses away, and whispered to us to wait in the living-room. We stood in puzzled silence. Half an hour later, somewhat blowsily, Sontag finally emerged from a back room. I introduced her to Blakey, and said rather nervously that I hoped we hadn't woken her up from a nap. It was as if I had accused her of never having read Proust, or of watching soap operas all day. Her face instantly darkened and she snapped at me violently. Why on earth did I think she'd been having a nap? Didn't I know she never had naps? Of course she wasn't having a nap! She would never have a nap! Never in a million years! What a stupid remark to make! How had I gotten so stupid? A nap - for God's sake! She calmed down after a bit and became vaguely nice to Blakey - Blakey had just read her latest piece on photography in the New Yorker and was complimenting her effusively on it - but it was clear I couldn't repair the damage I'd done. Indeed I made it worse. Sontag asked B. if she had read The Volcano Lover and started in on a monologue (one I'd heard before) about her literary reputation. It had `fallen' slightly over the past decade, she allowed - foolishly, people had yet to grasp the greatness of her fiction - but of course it would rise again dramatically, `as soon as I am dead'. The same thing had happened, after all, to Virginia Woolf, and didn't we agree Woolf was a great genius? In a weak-minded attempt at levity, I said: `Do you really think Orlando is a work of genius?' She then exploded. `Of course not!' she shouted, hands flailing and face white with rage. `Of course not! You don't judge a writer by her worst work! You judge her by her best work!' I reeled backwards as if I'd been struck; Blakey looked embarrassed. The assistant peeked out from another room to see what was going on. Sontag went on muttering for a while, then grimly said she `had to go'. With awkward thanks, we bundled ourselves hurriedly into the elevator and out onto West 24th Street - Blakey agog, me all nervy and smarting. When I sent Sontag a copy of my lesbian anthology a few months later, a thousand pages long and complete with juicy Highsmith excerpt, I knew she would never acknowledge it; nor did she. Enfin - la fin. I heard she was dead as Bev and I were driving back from my mother's after Christmas. Blakey called on the cellphone from Chicago to say she had just read about it online; it would be on the front page of the New York Times the next day. It was, but news of the Asian tsunami crowded it out. (The catty thing to say here would be that Sontag would have been annoyed at being upstaged; the honest thing to say is that she wouldn't have been.) The Times did another piece a few days later - a somewhat dreary set of passages from her books, entitled: `No Hard Books, or Easy Deaths'. (An odd title: her death wasn't easy, but she was all about hard books.) And in the weeks since, the New Yorker, New York Review of Books and various other highbrow mags have kicked in with the predictable tributes. But I've had the feeling the real reckoning has yet to begin. The reaction, to my mind, has been a bit perfunctory and stilted. A good part of her characteristic `effect' - what one might call her novelistic charm - has not yet been put into words. Among other things, Sontag was a great comic character: Dickens or Flaubert or James would have had a field day with her. The carefully cultivated moral seriousness - strenuousness might be a better word - co-existed with a fantastical, Mrs Jellyby-like absurdity. Sontag's complicated and charismatic sexuality was part of this comic side of her life. The high-mindedness, the high-handedness, commingled with a love of gossip, drollery and seductive acting out - and, when she was in a benign and unthreatened mood, a fair amount of ironic self-knowledge. I think she was fully conscious of - and took great pride and pleasure in - the erotic spell she exerted over other women. I would be curious to know how men found her in this regard; the few times I saw her with men around, they seemed to relate to her as a kind of intellectually supercharged eunuch. The famed `Natalie Wood' looks of her early years notwithstanding, she seemed uninterested in being an object of heterosexual desire, and males responded accordingly. It was not the same with women - and least of all with her lesbian fans. Among the susceptible, she never lost her sexual majesty. She was quite fabulously butch - perhaps the Butchest One of All. She knew it and basked in it, like a big lady she-cat in the sun. Perhaps at some point there will be, too, a better and less routine accounting of her extraordinary cultural significance. Granted, Great Man (or Great Woman) theories of history have been out of fashion for some time now. No single person, it's usually argued, has that much effect on how things eventually turn out. Yet it is hard for me to think about the history of modern feminism, say - especially as it evolved in the United States in the 1970s - without Sontag in the absolutely central, catalytic role. Simone de Beauvoir was floating around too, of course, but for intellectually ambitious American women of my generation, women born in the 1940s and 1950s, she seemed both culturally unfamiliar and emotionally removed. Sontag, on the contrary, was there: on one's own college campus, lecturing on Barthes or Canetti or Benjamin or Tsvetaeva or Leni Riefenstahl. (And who were they? One pretended to know, then scuttled around to find out.) She was our very own Great Man. If there was ever going to be a Smart Woman Team then Sontag would have to be both Captain and Most Valuable Player. She was the one already out there doing the job, even as we were labouring painfully to get up off the floor and match wits with her. In my own case, Sontag's death brings with it mixed emotions. God, she could be insulting to people. At the end - as I enjoy blubbering to friends - she was weally weally mean to me! But her death also leaves me now with a profound sense of imploding fantasies - of huge convulsions in the underground psychic plates. Not once, unfortunately, on any of her California trips, did Sontag ever come to my house, though I often sat around scheming how to get her to accept such an invitation. If only she would come, I thought, I would be truly happy. It's hard to admit how long - and how abjectly, like a Victorian monomaniac - I carried this fantasy around. (It long antedated my actual meeting with her.) It is still quite palpable in the rooms in which I spend most of my time. Just about every book, every picture, every object in my living-room, for example - I now see all too plainly - has been placed there strategically in the hope of capturing her attention, of pleasing her mind and heart, of winning her love, esteem, intellectual respect etc etc. It's all baited and set up: a room-sized Venus Fly-Trap, courtesy of T-Ball/ Narcissism Productions. There are her books of course: the vintage paperbacks of Against Interpretation, Styles of Radical Will, Under the Sign of Saturn, the quite-wonderful-despite-what-everybody-says The Volcano Lover. There's Aids and Its Metaphors, On Photography, Where the Stress Falls. The now valedictory Regarding the Pain of Others. And then there are some of my own productions, to remind her, passive-aggressively, I guess, that she's not the only damned person who writes. (Caveat lector: Lilliputian on the rampage!) But then there's heaps of other stuff sitting around, I'm embarrassed to say, the sole purpose of which is - was - to impress her. A pile of `tasteful' art books: Popova, The History of Japanese Photography, Cy Twombly, Nadar, Bronzino, Hannah Hoch, Jeff Wall, Piranesi, Sol LeWitt and Jasper Johns, the big Bellocq volume (with her introduction). My 1930s picture of Lucienne Boyer. My Valentine Hugo photo of Breton and Aragon. The crammed CD cabinet - with the six different versions of Pell?as. (Will I really listen to any of them all the way through again before I die?) My little 19th-century optical toy from Paris: you crank a tiny lever and see a clown head, painted on glass, change expressions as if by magic. Yet now the longed-for visitor - or victim - is never going to arrive. Who will come in her place? At the moment it's hard to imagine anyone ever possessing the same symbolic weight, the same adamantine hardness, or having the same casual imperial hold over such a large chunk of my brain. I am starting to think in any case that she was part of a certain neural development that, purely physiologically speaking, can never be repeated. All those years ago one evolved a hallucination about what mental life could be and she was it. She's still in there, enfolded somehow in the deepest layers of the grey matter. Yes: Susan Sontag was sibylline and hokey and often a great bore. She was a troubled and brilliant American and never as good a friend as I wanted her to be. But now the lady's kicked it and I'm trying to keep one of the big lessons in view: judge her by her best work, not her worst. [14]Terry Castle lives in San Francisco and teaches at Stanford. She is the editor of The Literature of Lesbianism, and the author of Boss Ladies, Watch Out!, a book of essays, many from the LRB. References 14. http://www.lrb.co.uk/contribhome.php?get=cast01 From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:46:08 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:46:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] National Interest: Peter F. Drucker: Trading Places Message-ID: Peter F. Drucker: Trading Places http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=38E285BBD90247A8A54DE7D572D50CD2 Issue Date: Spring 2005, Posted On: 3/17/2005 The New world economy is fundamentally different from that of the fifty years following World War II. The United States may well remain the political and military leader for decades to come. It is likely also to remain the world's richest and most productive national economy for a long time (though the European Union as a whole is both larger and more productive). But the U.S. economy is no longer the single dominant economy. The emerging world economy is a pluralist one, with a substantial number of economic "blocs." Eventually there may be six or seven blocs, of which the U.S.-dominated NAFTA is likely to be only one, coexisting and competing with the European Union (EU), MERCOSUR in Latin America, ASEAN in the Far East, and nation-states that are blocs by themselves, China and India. These blocs are neither "free trade" nor "protectionist", but both at the same time. Even more novel is that what is emerging is not one but four world economies: a world economy of information; of money; of multinationals (one no longer dominated by American enterprises); and a mercantilist world economy of goods, services and trade. These world economies overlap and interact with one another. But each is distinct with different members, a different scope, different values and different institutions. Let us examine each in turn. The World Economy of Information Information as a concept and a distinct category is an invention of the 18th century--of the newspaper in England and the encyclopedia in France. Within a century, information became global with the development of the modern postal system in the 1830s, followed almost immediately by the electric telegraph and the first computer language, the Morse Code. But unlike the newspaper and the encyclopedia, neither the postal service nor the telegraph made information public. On the contrary, they made it "privileged communication." "Public information" by contrast--newspapers, radio, television--ran one way only, from the publisher to the recipient. The editor rather than the reader decided what was "fit to print." The Internet, in sharp contrast, makes information both universal and multi-directional rather than keeping it private or one-way. Everyone with a telephone and a personal computer has direct access to every other human being with a phone and a PC. It gives everyone practically limitless access to information. And it gives everyone the ability to create information at minimal cost, that is, to create his own website and become a "publisher." In the long run, the most important implication is probably the impact of information on mentality and awareness. It creates new affinities and new communities. The woman student in Shanghai who taps into the Internet remains Chinese, but she sees herself at the same time as a member of a worldwide, non-national "information society." Businesses and professional groups such as lawyers and doctors have, of course, had access all along to worldwide information in their own field. But the Internet gives such access to the ultimate customer. In the United States at least (but apparently also in Japan and Europe), the ultimate customer now gets his information about plane schedules and airfares from the Internet rather than from a traditional travel agent. And while a good many book buyers in the United States still pick up and pay for the book of their choice at a bookstore in their neighborhood, an increasing number of them decide what books to buy by reading about them online first. An automobile still has to be serviced by a local dealer. But increasingly, buyers first study both their choice for the new car and their options for trading in their old car online before visiting a dealer. What is already discernible is that, like all new distribution channels, this new information economy will change not only how customers buy, but what they buy. It will change customers' values and expectations, and with them how to promote goods and services, how to market and sell them, and how to service them online. In other words, Internet customers are becoming a new and distinct market. In the early years of the 21st century, power is shifting to the ultimate consumer. There is no distance in this world economy. Everything is "local." The potential customers searching for a product do not know--and do not care--where the products come from. This does not eliminate or even curtail protectionism. But it changes it. Tariffs can still determine where a product or service has to be bought. But they are increasingly unable to protect the domestic producers' price. One example: To get the industrial Midwest with its 140,000 steel workers to vote Republican in congressional elections, President Bush slapped a prohibitive tariff on imports of steel from Europe and Japan in 2001. He got what he wanted: a (bare) Republican majority in the Congress. But while the large steel users (such as automobile makers, railroads and building contractors) were forced by the tariff to buy domestic, they immediately set about cutting their use of steel so as not to spend more on it than they would have had to spend had they been able to buy the imports. Bush's tariff action thus only accelerated the long-term decline of the traditional midwestern steel producers and the jobs they generate. Tariffs, in other words, can still force users to buy domestic, but they are no longer capable of protecting the domestic producers' prices. Those are set through information and on the world-market level. This development underlies the steady shift in protectionism: from tariffs--the traditional way--to protection through rules, regulations and especially export subsidies. World trade has grown spectacularly in the last fifty years. The largest growth has been in subsidized farm exports from the developed world: western and central Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States. Farm subsidies are now the only net income of French farmers, as their crops produce nothing but net losses and are grown only as the entitlement for the subsidies. These subsidies are in fact a major--perhaps the major--cement of the Franco-German alliance, and with it, of the European Union. The international organization designed to set world economic policy is the World Trade Organization (WTO). But its meetings and agreements deal less and less with trade and tariffs, and instead with rules, regulations and subsidies. The discipline of international economics still, in large measure, concerns itself with international trade--that is, with the flow of money, goods and services. But the essence of the new world economy is that it is, above all, an economy of information and truly a global economy. The Global Oligopoly of Money The next major economic crisis will most probably be a crisis of the U.S. dollar in the world economy. It will put to a severe test the oligopoly of the central banks of the developed countries that now rules over the world financial economy. Sixty years ago, in the Bretton Woods meetings of 1944, which tried to refashion a world economy that had been devastated by depression and war, John Maynard Keynes, the 20th century's greatest economist, proposed a supra-national central bank. It was vetoed by the United States. The two institutions that Bretton Woods established instead, the Bank for International Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are, despite their impressive names, auxiliary rather than central--the former mainly financing development projects, the latter providing financial first aid to governments in distress. The Bretton Woods system was never the stable, "non-political" system Keynes wanted. It could not and did not prevent currencies from being overvalued or undervalued. Still, although it limped from one crisis to the next, the Bretton Woods system worked for most of the half-century after World War II. And there was only one reason why it worked (however poorly): the commitment to it of the United States and the strength of the U.S. dollar as the world's key currency. The dollar is still the world's key currency. But the Bretton Woods system is being killed by the U.S. government deficit, which is fast becoming the sinkhole of the world financial economy. The persistent U.S. deficit creates a persistent deficit in the U.S. balance of payments, which make both the U.S. economy and the government increasingly dependent on massive injections of short-term and panic-prone money from abroad. The U.S. savings rate is barely high enough to finance the minimum capital needs of industry. It could, in all likelihood, be raised considerably by raising interest rates. But that is not only politically almost impossible; it would also require that a larger share of incomes go into savings rather than into consumption, with an inevitable collapse of an economy based on consumer spending and low interest rates, as for instance, the U.S. housing market. The government deficit is therefore being financed almost in its entirety by foreign investments in the United States, mostly in government securities like short-term treasury notes and medium-term bonds. The Japanese are converting most, if not all, of their trade surplus with the United States into dollar-denominated U.S. government securities and have thus become the largest U.S. creditor. It is often argued, especially in Washington, that the deficit is mostly an accounting mirage. Defense spending--the main cause of the deficit--enables other free countries to keep their own defense spending low, which then generates the surpluses these countries invest in U.S. government securities. But this is a political argument. The economic fact is that the United States increasingly borrows short term (U.S. securities can be sold overnight) to invest long term and with very limited liquidity. This, needless to say, is an unstable and volatile system. It would collapse if the foreign holders of U.S. government securities (above all, the Japanese) were for whatever reason (such as a crash in their own economy) to dump their holdings of U.S. government securities. It certainly cannot be extended indefinitely, which, among other serious drawbacks, calls into question the long-term viability of the Bush Doctrine's goal of defending and extending the "zone of freedom" around the world. The World Economy of the Multinationals There were 7,258 multinational companies worldwide in 1969. Thirty-one years later, in 2000, the number had increased ninefold to more than 63,000. By that year, multinationals accounted for 80 percent of the world's industrial production. But what is a multinational? Most Americans would answer: a big American manufacturer with foreign subsidiaries. That is wrong in almost every particular. American-based multinationals are only a fraction--and a diminishing one--of all multinationals. Only 185 of the world's 500 largest multinationals--fewer than 40 percent--are headquartered in the United States (the European Union has 126, Japan 108). And multinationals are growing much faster outside the United States, especially in Japan, Mexico, and lately, Brazil. Furthermore, most multinationals are not big. Rather, they are mostly small- to medium-sized enterprises. Typical perhaps is a German manufacturer of specialized surgical instruments who, with $20 million in sales and with plants in eleven countries, has around 60 percent of the world market in the field. And only a fraction of multinationals are manufacturers. Banks are probably the largest single group of multinationals, followed by insurance companies such as Germany's Allianz, financial-services institutions such as GE Finance Corporation and Merrill Lynch, wholesale distributors (especially in pharmaceuticals), and retailers like Japan's Ito Yokado. The traditional multinational was indeed a domestic company with foreign subsidiaries, like Coca-Cola. But the new multinationals are increasingly being managed as one integrated business regardless of national boundaries, and the managers of the "foreign subsidiaries" are seen and treated as just another group of "division managers" rather than as top managements of semi-autonomous businesses. Internally, new multinationals are often not even organized by geography, but worldwide by products or services, such as one worldwide division for cleaning products or short-term inventory loans. They are increasingly organized by "markets": fully-developed markets (such as western and northern Europe or Japan); "developing markets" (eastern Europe, Latin America and parts of East Asia); and the "underdeveloped markets" and big "blocs" (China, Russia and India)--each with different objectives and strategies. Finally, the new multinationals are increasingly not domestic companies with foreign subsidiaries, but are more likely to be domestic companies with foreign partners. They are being built through alliances, know-how agreements, marketing agreements, joint research, joint management development programs and so on. They require very different management skills; they must persuade, not command. The typical old multinational began planning with the questions: "What do we want to achieve? What are our objectives?" The first question in the new multinational is likely to be: "What do our partners value? What do they want to achieve? What are their competencies?" And in turn: "What do they need to know about our values, our goals, our competencies?" We have almost no data on the world economy of the multinationals. Our statistics are primarily domestic. Nor do we truly understand the multinational and how it is being managed. How, for instance, does a multinational pharmaceutical company decide in what country first to introduce a new drug? How does a medium-sized multinational, like the German surgical-instrument maker mentioned earlier, decide whether to keep importing into the United States? To buy a small American competitor who has become available? To build its own plant in the United States and to start manufacturing there? Our dominant economic theories--both Keynes and Friedman's monetarism--assume that any but the smallest national economy can be managed in isolation from world economy and world society. With an estimated 30 percent of the U.S. workforce affected by foreign trade (and a much higher percentage in most European countries), this is patently absurd. But an economic theory of the world economy exists so far only in fragments. It is badly needed. In the meantime, however, the world economy of multinationals has become a truly global one, rather than one dominated by America and by U.S. companies. The New Mercantilism The modern state was invented by the French political philosopher Jean Bodin in his 1576 book Six Livres de la Republique. He invented the state for one purpose only: to generate the cash needed to pay the soldiers defending France against a Spanish army financed by silver from the New World--the first standing army since the Romans' more than a thousand years earlier. Mercenaries have to be paid in cash, and the only way to obtain a large and reliable cash income over any period--at a time when domestic economies had not yet been fully monetized and could therefore not yield a permanent tax--was a revenue obtained through keeping imports low while pushing exports and subsidizing them. It took 300 years--the time until the unification of Germany and Italy in the 19th century--before Bodin's political invention, the nation-state, came to dominate Europe. But his mercantilism was adopted almost immediately by every European government, large or small. It remained the reigning philosophy until Adam Smith showed the absurdity of believing (as mercantilism does) that a nation can get rich by robbing its neighbors. Twenty-five years after Smith, mercantilism was still the doctrine that underlay America's first and most important work in political theory, The Report on Manufacturers (1791) by Alexander Hamilton. And almost a century later, in the second half of the 19th century, Bismarck based the new German Empire on Bodin's mercantilism as adapted to Europe by Hamilton's great German admirer, Friedrich List, in his 1841 book, The National System of Political Economy. However discredited as economic theory, mercantilism, not Adam Smith's free trade, thus became the policy and practice of governments virtually everywhere (except for one century in the UK). But mercantilism is increasingly becoming the policy of "blocs" rather than of individual nation-states. These blocs--with the European Union the most structured one, and the U.S.-dominated NAFTA trying to embrace the entire Western Hemisphere (or at least North and Central America)--are becoming the integrating units of the new world economy. Each bloc is trying to establish free trade internally and to abolish within the bloc all hurdles, restrictions and impediments, first to the movement of goods and money and ultimately to the movement of people. The United States, for instance, has proposed extending NAFTA to embrace all of Central America. At the same time, each bloc is becoming more protectionist against the outside. The most extreme protectionism, as already discussed, consists of rules with respect to agriculture and the protection of farm incomes. But similar protectionism is certain to develop for blue-collar workers in the manufacturing industry, and for the same reason: They are becoming an endangered species, the victims of productivity. In the United States for instance, manufacturing production increased in volume by at least 30 percent during the 1990s. It has at least doubled since 1960, and may even have tripled. (We have only money figures and have to guess at volume.) But manual workers in industrial production in the same period decreased from some 35 percent of the work force to barely more than 13 percent--and their numbers are still going down. Total employment in the manufacturing industry has remained the same proportion of the work force--it probably has even gone up. But the growth has been in white-collar work rather than the manual kind. A mercantilist world economy, however, faces the same problems that led to the ultimate collapse of mercantilist national policies: It is impossible to export unless someone imports. This means, as Adam Smith showed 250 years ago, that the blocs must concentrate on those areas in which they have comparative advantages. In today's technology and world economy, that means concentrating on an area of knowledge work. Such concentration is already beginning. India is emerging as a world leader in applied-knowledge work--its comparative advantage is the 150 million well-educated Indians whose main language is English. China may similarly attain leadership through its world-class competence in manufacturing management--the legacy of the communist emphasis on output and production. And just as it was for the mercantilists of 17th- and 18th-century Europe, an adequate home market (or access to one, as the Swiss and Dutch had to the markets of Germany and central Europe in the 19th century) is the most effective base for being competitive in the world economy. This "home market"--small enough to be protected and big enough to be competitive--is what the "blocs" provide. Thus, the European Union is already in the process of creating the institutions for its bloc to be effective in this world economy: a European Parliament, a European Central Bank, a European Cartel Office and so on. Even the French, reluctantly, are integrating their economy and their industries--and even their agriculture--into the economy, the industries and the agriculture of the EU (provided that the Germans foot the bill). The United States, of course, has been a genuine bloc and a nation-state all along. Its economic institutions have been federal, at least since the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Reserve Banking System. U.S. institutions like the Federal Reserve Bank of New York also act, in emergencies (such as the recent collapse of the Mexican peso) as the agent of NAFTA. What, then, is likely to be the future relationship between these two blocs? The United States has openly announced its policy of extending NAFTA to all of Latin America. And while NAFTA means free trade within the bloc, it also means high protection externally, and especially high protection against Europe. Officially, the United States is still committed to worldwide free trade. But the actual result of its policies is that a zone of preferential trade agreements is gradually emerging around the United States--not unlike the bloc that is the EU. The world economy is thus fast coming to look far more like the mercantilism of Alexander Hamilton than like Adam Smith's free trade. It is fast becoming an "interzonal" rather than an "international" world economy. But a new kind of mercantilist rivalry is emerging in this new economy--one in which the United States suffers from little-noticed disadvantages. For instance, the EU is seeking to export its regulations (and to impose its high regulatory costs on the United States) through international agreements, the reinterpretation of WTO rules, and the growing acceptance of EU standards in third markets. It is also promoting its new currency, the euro, as a rival and alternative to the dollar as the world's reserve currency--a step that, if it succeeded, would greatly reduce the U.S. government's ability to attract foreign funds to finance its deficit and thus maintain the Bush Doctrine. Nor can the United States be certain of maintaining the solidarity of its own bloc in competition with the EU. Several Latin American states are going slow on the negotiations to extend NAFTA for political reasons. The EU is itself seeking closer trade and economic relationships with Latin America through partnership talks with MERCOSUR. And the recent trend of Latin American politics has been to drift away from "neo-liberalism" and towards a Left perennially tempted by anti-yanqu? protectionism. What is different today is that the EU offers these political forces the ability to choose free trade while simultaneously resisting U.S. "hegemony." The United States could therefore find itself with a smaller "home market" than rival blocs, but with the same high-cost regulations, in a world of intense mercantilist competition. For thirty years after World War II, the U.S. economy dominated practically without serious competition. For another twenty years it was clearly the world's foremost economy and especially the undisputed leader in technology and innovation. Though the United States today still dominates the world economy of information, it is only one major player in the three other world economies of money, multinationals and trade. And it is facing rivals that, either singly or in combination, could conceivably make America Number Two. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:47:53 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:47:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Project Syndicate: Steve Fuller: The Vanished Intellectual Message-ID: Steve Fuller: The Vanished Intellectual http://www.project-syndicate.org/article_print_text?mid=1851&lang=1 This spring marks the centenary of the birth of two all-round intellectuals, those ideological avatars of the Cold War era, Raymond Aron and Jean-Paul Sartre. Aron was born on March 14, 1905, Sartre on June 21. Sartre and Aron began their 50-year acquaintance with a shared elite French education that included a formative period in Germany just before the rise of Nazism. Each in his inimitable way displayed the contrariness both loved and loathed in intellectuals: Aron fancied Anglo-American liberalism before it became fashionable, while Sartre remained a Communist sympathiser after the fashion had passed. Aron wrote cool, sleek prose about the most heated geopolitical conflicts, while Sartre could turn any triviality into an existential crisis. Yet they often stood together against the French political establishment. Both joined the Resistance when France was a Nazi puppet state, and both called for Algerian independence after France regained its sovereignty. Unfortunately, Sartre and Aron are also joined in death: both have been disowned, ignored, or underrated by all the academic disciplines - philosophy, literature, sociology, politics - to which their voluminous works might be thought to have contributed. Silenced by death, Sartre and Aron are remembered more for the attitudes they brought to whatever they wrote about than for what they actually said. Theirs is a fate perennially suffered by intellectuals. Great intellectuals like Abelard, Erasmus, Galileo, Voltaire, Zola, and Russell each challenged the pieties of his era, and we now regard their success as a good thing. But most of us are likely to recoil at the methods they used in their work as intellectuals: caricature, deception, and even fabrication. Consider three examples. Abelard is credited with the introduction of theology as a critical discipline in Christianity. Yet, he did so by juxtaposing contradictory quotes taken out of context, showing that neither the Bible nor the Church fathers speak in one voice and that readers must decide for themselves. Similarly, Galileo is now known to have committed what we now call "research fraud" in his famed physical experiments. Assuming he conducted them at all, they very probably did not produce the neat results that he used to assail his opponents. As for Zola, who defended Captain Alfred Dreyfus from charges of treason fueled by anti-Semitism, he was easily convicted for libel because he merely questioned the motives of witnesses without offering any new evidence. All three were subsequently vindicated - sometimes in their lifetimes, sometimes not. What they shared is a paradoxical ethic common to all intellectuals: the end cause of truth justifies whatever means happens to be at your disposal. This is because the whole truth is rarely what passes for the truth at any moment. Such an ethic is abhorrent in today's world, where knowledge is parceled out to academic disciplines like bits of real estate. To an intellectual, an academic may look like someone who mistakes the means of inquiry for its end. But to academics, intellectuals look like ramblers freely trespassing on other people's property, picking the fruits and despoiling the soil. Intellectuals differ from ordinary academics in holding that the truth is best approached not by producing new knowledge, but by destroying old belief. When the Enlightenment philosophers renovated the old Christian slogan, "The truth shall set you free," they imagined a process of opening doors, not building barricades. In short, intellectuals want their audiences to think for themselves, not simply shift allegiances from one expert to another. The intellectual's ethic is both exhilarating and harsh, for it places responsibility for thinking squarely on the thinker's shoulders. Every act of deference thus becomes an abdication of one's own intellectual authority. The slogan "Knowledge is power" may be familiar, but only intellectuals see its full implications. Obviously, greater knowledge enhances our capacity to act. What is much less obvious is that such empowerment requires the destruction of socially sanctioned knowledge. Only then is a society's space for decision opened up, enabling its members to move in many more directions than previously deemed possible. Aron and Sartre developed contrasting, but equally controversial, styles of destroying received belief. Aron preferred demonizing fellow intellectuals as alarmists than conceding that the Cold War might eventuate in a nuclear holocaust. Sartre castigated those who failed to resist oppression when they could have, while excusing those who enforced oppression given the chance. Aron exaggerated the power of reason, while Sartre inflated the power of action. Each wanted to take French society in radically different directions, but both never ceased being critical of the status quo. In the end, the two appear to have thought both in and out of their time. While this makes them awkward candidates for any academic discipline, such is the ambivalence of any intellectual's legacy. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is the author of The Intellectual, a book inspired by Machiavelli's The Prince. From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:51:10 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:51:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Times: (Bobby Fisher) A parting sting as the paranoid wasp flies to freedom at last Message-ID: A parting sting as the paranoid wasp flies to freedom at last http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1541234-3,00.html March 25, 2005 From Richard Lloyd Parry in Tokyo NO ONE expected him to go quietly but, even by his own standards, Bobby Fischer's farewell to Japan yesterday was especially scabrous and hate-filled. After nine months of captivity and bitter legal struggle the former world chess champion flew to freedom in Iceland, spraying his vitriol far and wide. Japanese politicians, he declared, were "gangsters". The US was "Jew-controlled". "This was not an arrest," he said, in the few minutes that he was audible to reporters between his arrival at Narita airport in Tokyo and his departure for Reykjavik. "It was a kidnapping cooked up by Bush and (the Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro) Koizumi. They are war criminals and should be hanged." To underline his point, he unzipped his trousers as he approached the airport, and made as if to urinate on the wall. This is the man who on the night of September 11, 2001, applauded the attacks on the United States as "wonderful news", expressing the hope that Americans as a consequence "will imprison the Jews, they will execute several hundred thousand of them at least". Fischer is politely described as an eccentric -- more outspoken observers call him a paranoid anti-Semite, and a fugitive from justice. His paranoia and anti-Semitism were again in evidence as he flew out of Japan. "The United States is an illegitimate country . . . just like the bandit state of Israel -- the Jews have no right to be there, it belongs to the Palestinians," he told an interviewer aboard the flight. "It's actually a shame to be a so-called American because everybody living there is . . . an invader." And yet there are plenty of people who share none of his extreme views, but for whom his release yesterday was a moment of sweet triumph and blessed relief. In Japan, a team of local lawyers and John Bosnitch, an expatriate Canadian journalist and a one-man Bobby Fischer defence league, have battled unflaggingly on his behalf. In Iceland, politicians of all parties voted unanimously to give him the citizenship that brought about his release. And then there is Miyoko Watai, 54, the head of the Japanese chess federation and Fischer's fianc?e, a woman of quiet gentleness and dignity. What is it that united all these people in defence of a man of such indefensible views as Bobby Fischer? To find the answer one must go back to seven weeks in Reykjavik in the summer of 1972, and one of the great proxy confrontations of the 20th century. The world championship chess match between the American Fischer and the Soviet champion, Boris Spassky, was one of the defining events of the Cold War. "It's really the free world against the lying, cheating, hypocritical Russians," is how Fischer put it, in characteristically robust style. "It's a microcosm of the whole world political situation. They always suggest that world leaders should battle it out hand to hand. And this is the kind of thing we are doing -- not with bombs, but battling it out over the board." The match was characterised by the American's demands and behaviour. After nerve-wrenching brinkmanship, Fischer finally condescended to sit at the board, persuaded by a telephone appeal from Henry Kissinger and the injection of considerable extra funds by the British millionaire Jim Slater. Events then took a miraculous course. Fischer began to play magnificent chess, which he backed up with an extraordinary battery of off-the-board protests that must have put great psychological pressures on both players. Fischer did not turn up for the second game, which was awarded to Spassky; for the third game, Fischer insisted on the exclusion of all cameras and won -- his first ever win against Spassky -- taking a lead in the match. And so the abrasive and poorly educated American defeated the suave Russian; chess was transformed from a hobby pursued by bespectacled nerds to a contest of heroes. Fischer's name and face would be remembered around the world, and above all in Iceland, the tiny country of 270,000 people made famous by the match. Thirty-three years later, enough Icelanders still feel grateful to Fischer for them to put aside reservations about his hateful views, and to welcome him as one of their own. But the groundswell of support for Fischer also has much to do with the cack-handed way that the Japanese and, above all, the US authorities have gone after him, creating sympathy where previously there was none and justifying Fischer's otherwise absurd paranoid fantasies. Why, for example, was last year chosen as the moment to go after the former champion? The crimes of which he is accused were perpetrated years ago. It was in 1992 that Fischer allegedly broke US sanctions against the former Yugoslavia by playing a return match against Spassky, the offence for which the American Government is officially seeking his return to the US. Charges are also reportedly being prepared for tax evasion -- something that Fischer has been boasting about for years. Despite the arrest warrants issued against him, the US Government willingly renewed his passport at foreign embassies in 1997 and 2003. Yet 13 years after his sanction-busting offence -- and without telling him -- the US had revoked his passport. Similarly clumsy was the stubbornness of the Japanese who refused to free Fischer after he had been granted residence in Iceland. Only when he was made a full citizen, his passport delivered in person by Iceland's Ambassador to Tokyo, was he freed from detention. It is this sloppiness that has allowed his supporters to draw a veil over his racism and cast him as the heroic victim of state persecution. "Bobby Fischer has proven that the individual can withstand the combined forces of the world's mightiest governments, whenever he has justice on his side," Mr Bosnitch wrote on the freebobbyfischer.net website yesterday. The more accurate view might be to see the international effort to nail him as merely undignified and Fischer as a paranoid wasp pursued by a tank. Spassky wrote in a letter to President Bush last year from his home in France: "I would not like to defend or justify Bobby Fischer. I am asking only for one thing. For mercy, charity. "Bobby and myself committed the same crime. Put sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell with Bobby Fischer. And give us a chess set." From checker at panix.com Mon Mar 28 22:53:25 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:53:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WSJ: Another Tough Issue Schiavo Case: Brings Forth: Who Pays for Care? Message-ID: Another Tough Issue Schiavo Case: Brings Forth: Who Pays for Care? By SARAH LUECK Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 24, 2005; Page A4 The emotional debate over Terri Schiavo's medical treatment has eclipsed a much smaller but related public-policy issue related to her case: Who pays the bills for those unable to care -- or pay -- for themselves. It is an issue that divides Ms. Schiavo's husband, who wants her to be permitted to die, and her parents, who want her kept alive. It is also a flashpoint between those who want to reduce the government's health-care spending, particularly in Medicaid, and those who defend it. For at least two years, the hospice caring for Ms. Schiavo has covered most costs, said Deborah Bushnell, an attorney who represents Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael. Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and disabled, covers Ms. Schiavo's prescription medications. Ms. Schiavo, who has severe brain damage, also is eligible for Medicare. The federal program provides health coverage to people who are disabled for more than two years. But The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, the Largo, Fla.-based parent corporation of the facility where Ms. Schiavo resides, made an "internal decision" not to bill the government programs for her care, Ms. Bushnell said. In part, the hospice was responding to Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who objected to their daughter being on government assistance, Ms. Bushnell said. The parents said a medical-malpractice settlement of more than $1 million that Mr. Schiavo received should be used for her medical care, not spent on legal fees in the court battle over whether Ms. Schiavo should be kept alive. An attorney for the Schindlers didn't return a request to comment. Louise Cleary, a spokeswoman for the hospice, said she couldn't comment on a specific patient, citing privacy rules. She said the hospice, a nonprofit corporation with several facilities, provided $9.5 million worth of free care to 1,800 patients in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. Under Medicaid, Ms. Schiavo receives painkillers for cramps and medications associated with feeding tubes, Ms. Bushnell said. The monthly cost "probably doesn't exceed a couple hundred dollars," she said. Ms. Schiavo is in Florida Medicaid's "medically needy" program, Ms. Bushnell said. The program, which covers about 35,000 people in the state, is for people with high health costs who don't meet the usual Medicaid income requirements. Ms. Schiavo's attorneys set up what is called a special-needs trust to help her qualify for Medicaid. The trusts, permitted under federal law, allow disabled people under age 65 to qualify for Medicaid even if their assets exceed the normal limits. After death of the patient, the state can recoup Medicaid costs from the trust. In recent years, as Florida has faced budget problems, the medically needy program has been targeted for cutbacks at various times by lawmakers and Gov. Jeb Bush. In March, Gov. Bush proposed restoring funding to the program. Both Gov. Bush and his brother President Bush have said Medicaid rules allowing people to transfer or hide assets ought to be more restrictive, though they haven't commented publicly on the type of trust Ms. Schiavo has. If the Schindlers prevail in the court appeal and Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube is replaced, she could stay alive for many years. The hospice, when deciding to pay most of Ms. Schiavo's bills, "thought it was going to be short term," Ms. Bushnell said. If Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube is hooked up again, donated care is unlikely, she said. "She's going to be on the government dole," Ms. Bushnell said. Write to Sarah Lueck at sarah.lueck at wsj.com7 http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111162674657988316,00.html From HowlBloom at aol.com Tue Mar 29 07:02:39 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:02:39 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Message-ID: Joel--What you say below sounds right to me. If I understand it rightly, time is a recursion of boundary-making, an iteration of a differentiating and aggregating process, a multiplier of the voids spaced between the nodes of isness, and a grower of the clusters between the voids--as in your cellular automata model. It makes sense. And it fits with the notion that time is the most critical aspect of perception, an idea that Jeff Hawkins proposes in On Intelligence, one of the few new-idea-generating books I've read in a long time. Perception in Hawkin's view is a flow, a music. As in music, we spot thje sensory world's ur-patterns, its repetitive themes and their variations. In higher cortical regions, we create invariant representations of a stream of sensations, we sift the themes from of a parade of sense-impacts, we capture the pattern of a surge of impressions that follow each other like the notes in a melody. Hawkins thinks of these invariant representations as "Name that Tune"-style song-spotting. We send the prediction that the name of the tune--the invariant representation-- implies back down to the sensory level of the cortex. If the song title predicts the incoming stream properly, everything is fine. If the incoming signal-surge no longer follows the melody predicted by the song title, more cortical regions are forced to rush in and try other song titles, other invariant representations, other names for the possible melody. The cosmos is process. Time is as critical to understanding as are "things". Perception has to mirror the cosmos to work. So perception is a time-process, a temporal-flow-identifier-and-predictor, a future-projector that works by taking what's past and flipping it forward, sometimes with a new twist. Music is practice for future-projection, for identifying patterns in the flow. New musical styles and new songs are practice for the novelties that may lay around the bend. Howard In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:07:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental Ur-Process involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL RECURSIVE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at all scales. (Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the same patterns.) Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant flow of the Ur-Processes. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 15:47:39 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:47:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Psychology Today: The Perils of Higher Education Message-ID: The Perils of Higher Education Psychology Today, March-April 2005 v38 i2 p64(5) The perils of higher education : can't remember the difference between declensions and derivatives? Blame college. The undergrad life is a blast, but it may lead you to forget everything you learn. Steven Kotler. [ First, a summary from the Chronicles of Higher Education A glance at the March/April issue of Psychology Today: Living it up -- and learning less It is no surprise that college students often stay up all night, eat too much fatty food, and get drunk, but the effects of those activities on learning and memory are surprisingly detrimental, says Steven Kotler, a freelance writer. "It turns out that the exact place we go to get an education may in fact be one of the worst possible environments in which to retain anything we've learned," he writes. Drinking binges don't affect students just until they sober up, he says. Alcohol can have longer-term effects on the brain. An animal study showed that brain cells formed during a bout of drinking did not work properly once they matured and that those cells died faster than normal ones, he says. Eating too much fat and sugar can also have harmful effects on memory and learning, he says. So "students who fuel their studies with fast food have something more serious than the 'freshman 15' to worry about: They may literally be eating themselves stupid," he writes. And staying awake all night, even to study, is not smart, either, Mr. Kotler says. One study showed that people who stayed up for 24 hours after learning a new skill had lost it completely a week later, he says. Different types of memory are refreshed during different sleep phases, so optimal memory performance requires a full eight hours of sleep. "All this news makes you wonder how anyone's ever managed to get an education," he writes. "Or what would happen to GPA's at a vegetarian university with a 10 p.m. curfew." An excerpt of the article is available at --Kellie Bartlett --------------------------------- WE GO TO COLLEGE TO LEARN, TO SOAK UP dazzling array of information intended to prepare us for adult life. But college is not simply a data dump; it is also the end of parental supervision. For many students, that translates into four years of late nights, pizza banquets and boozy weekends that start on Wednesday. And while we know that bad habits are detrimental to cognition in general--think drunk driving--new studies show that the undergrad urges to eat, drink and be merry have devastating effects on learning and memory. It turns out that the exact place we go to get an education may in fact be one of the worst possible environments in which to retain anything we've learned. DUDE, I HAVEN'T SLEPT IN THREE DAYS! Normal human beings spend one-third of their lives asleep, but today's college students aren't normal. A recent survey of undergraduates and medical students at Stanford University found 80 percent of them qualified as sleep-deprived, and a poll taken by the National Sleep Foundation found that most young adults get only 6.8 hours a night. All-night cramfests may seem to be the only option when the end of the semester looms, but in fact getting sleep--and a full dose of it--might be a better way to ace exams. Sleep is crucial to declarative memory, the hard, factual kind that helps us remember which year World War I began, or what room the French Lit class is in. It's also essential for procedural memory, the "know-how" memory we use when learning to drive a car or write a five-paragraph essay. "Practice makes perfect," says Harvard Medical School psychologist Matt Walker, "but having a night's rest after practicing might make you even better." Walker taught 100 people to bang out a series of nonsense sequences on a keyboard--a standard procedural memory task. When asked to replay the sequence 12 hours later, they hadn't improved. But when one group of subjects was allowed to sleep overnight before being retested, their speed and accuracy improved by 20 to 30 percent. "It was bizarre," says Walker. "We were seeing people's skills improve just by sleeping." For procedural memory, the deep slow-wave stages of sleep were the most important for improvement--particularly during the last two hours of the night. Declarative memory, by contrast, gets processed during the slow-wave stages that come in the first two hours of sleep. "This means that memory requires a full eight hours of sleep," says Walker. He also found that if someone goes without sleep for 24 hours after acquiring a new skill, a week later they will have lost it completely. So college students who pull all-nighters during exam week might do fine on their tests but may not remember any of the material by next semester. Walker believes that the common practice of back-loading semesters with a blizzard of papers and exams needs a rethink. "Educators are just encouraging sleeplessness," says Walker. "This is just not an effective way to force information into the brain." WHO'S UP FOR PIZZA? Walk into any college cafeteria and you'll find a smorgasbord of French fries, greasy pizza, burgers, potato chips and the like. On top of that, McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and other fast-food chains have been gobbling up campus real estate in recent years. With hectic schedules and skinny budgets, students find fast food an easy alternative. A recent Tufts University survey found that 50 percent of students eat too much fat, and 70 to 80 percent eat too much saturated fat. But students who fuel their studies with fast food have something more serious than the "freshman 15" to worry about: They may literally be eating themselves stupid. Researchers have known since the late 1980s that bad eating habits contribute to the kind of cognitive decline found in diseases like Alzheimer's. Since then, they've been trying to find out exactly how a bad diet might be hard on the brain. Ann-Charlotte Granholm, director of the Center for Aging at the Medical University of South Carolina, has recently focused on trans fat, widely used in fast-food cooking because it extends the shelf life of foods. Trans fat is made by bubbling hydrogen through unsaturated fat, with copper or zinc added to speed the chemical reaction along. These metals are frequently found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's, which sparked Granholm's concern. To investigate, she fed one group of rats a diet high in trans fat and compared them with another group fed a diet that was just as greasy but low in trans fat. Six weeks later, she tested the animals in a water maze, the rodent equivalent of a final exam in organic chemistry. "The trans-fat group made many more errors," says Granholm, especially when she used more difficult mazes. When she examined the rats' brains, she found that trans-fat eaters had fewer proteins critical to healthy neurological function. She also saw inflammation in and around the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory. "It was alarming," says Granholm. "These are the exact types of changes we normally see at the onset of Alzheimer's, but we saw them after six weeks," even though the rats were still young. Her work corresponds to a broader inquiry conducted by Veerendra Kumar Madala Halagaapa and Mark Mattson of the National Institute on Aging. The researchers fed four groups of mice different diets--normal, high-fat, high-sugar and high-fat/high-sugar. Each diet had the same caloric value, so that one group of mice wouldn't end up heavier. Four months later, the mice on the high-fat diets performed significantly worse than the other groups on a water maze test. [Graphic omitted] The researchers then exposed the animals to a neurotoxin that targets the hippocampus, to assess whether a high-fat diet made the mice less able to cope with brain damage. Back in the maze, all the animals performed worse than before, but the mice who had eaten the high-fat diets were most seriously compromised. "Based on our work," says Mattson, "we'd predict that people who eat high-fat diets and high-fat/high-sugar diets are not only damaging their ability- to learn and remember new information, but also putting themselves at much greater risk for all sorts of neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's." WELCOME TO MARGARITAVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY It's widely recognized that heavy drinking doesn't exactly boost your intellect. But most people figure that their booze-induced foolishness wears off once the hangover is gone. Instead, it turns out that even limited stints of overindulgence may have long-term effects. Less than 20 years ago, researchers began to realize that the adult brain wasn't just a static lump of cells. They found that stem cells in the brain are constantly churning out new neurons, particularly in the hippocampus. Alcoholism researchers, in turn, began to wonder if chronic alcoholics' memory problems had something to do with nerve cell birth and growth. In 2000, Kimberly Nixon and Fulton Crews at the University of North Carolina's Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies subjected lab rats to four days of heavy alcohol intoxication. They gave the rats a week to shake off their hangovers, then tested them on and off during the next month in a water maze. "We didn't find anything at first," says Nixon. But on the 19th day, the rats who had been on the binge performed much worse. In 19 days, the cells born during the binge had grown to maturity--and clearly, the neurons born during the boozy period didn't work properly once they reached maturity." [The timing] was almost too perfect," says Nixon. [Graphic omitted] While normal rats generated about 2,500 new brain cells in three weeks, the drinking rats produced only 1,400. A month later, the sober rats had lost about half of those new cells through normal die-off. But all of the new cells died in the brains of the binge drinkers. "This was startling," says Nixon. "It was the first time anyone had found that alcohol not only inhibits the birth of new cells but also inhibits the ones that survive." In further study, they found that a week's abstinence produced a twofold burst of neurogenesis, and a month off the sauce brought cognitive function back to normal. What does this have to do with a weekend keg party? A number of recent studies show that college students consume far more alcohol than anyone previously suspected. Forty-four percent of today's collegiates drink enough to be classified as binge drinkers, according to a nationwide survey of 10,000 students done at Harvard University,. The amount of alcohol consumed by Nixon's binging rats far exceeded intake at a typical keg party--but other research shows that the effects of alcohol work on a sliding scale. Students who follow a weekend of heavy drinking with a week of heavy studying might not forget everything they learn. They just may struggle come test time. CAN I BURN A SMOKE? If this ledger of campus menaces worries you, here's something you really won't like: Smoking cigarettes may actually have some cognitive benefits, thanks to the power of nicotine. The chemical improves mental focus, as scientists have known since the 1950s. Nicotine also aids concentration in people who have ADHD and may protect against Alzheimer's disease. Back in 2000, a nicotine-like drug under development by the pharmaceutical company Astra Arcus USA was shown to restore the ability to learn and remember in rats with brain lesions similar to those found in Alzheimer's patients. More recently Granholm, the scientist investigating trans fats and memory, found that nicotine enhances spatial memory in healthy rats. Other researchers have found that nicotine also boosts both emotional memory (the kind that helps us not put our hands back in the fire after we've been burned) and auditory memory. There's a catch: Other studies show that nicotine encourages state-dependent learning. The idea is that if, for example, you study in blue sweats, it helps to take the exam in blue sweats. In other words, what you learn while smoking is best recalled while smoking. Since lighting up in an exam room might cause problems, cigarettes probably aren't the key to getting on the dean's list. Nonetheless, while the number of cigarette smokers continues to drop nationwide, college students are still lighting up: As many as 30 percent smoke during their years of higher education. The smoking rate for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 has actually risen in the past decade. All this news makes you wonder how anyone's ever managed to get an education. Or what would happen to GPAs at a vegetarian university with a 10 P.M. curfew. But you might not need to go to such extremes. While Granholm agrees that the excesses of college can be "a perfect example of what you shouldn't do to yourself if you are trying to learn," she doesn't recommend abstinence. "Moderation," she counsels, "just like in everything else. Moderation is the key to collegiate success." STEVEN KOTLER, based in Los Angeles, has written for The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Details, Wired and Outside. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 15:50:07 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:50:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] New Scientist: Automated web-crawler harvests resume info Message-ID: Automated web-crawler harvests resume info http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7181&print=true * 18:34 21 March 2005 A new search engine focused on people can automatically identify online information on individuals and weave it into detailed summaries. Just like Google and Yahoo, ZoomInfo crawls and indexes the web. But instead of serving up the pages in response to a query, it attempts to identify and extract specific information on people. After entering a name into the search box, a user is presented with a list of matching individuals. Clicking through to their resume-like summaries, can reveal their job title, company name, past jobs and universities attended. The site is free to use and went live on Monday. It will be particularly useful to head-hunters, recruiters, journalists and networkers, says ZoomInfo's chief scientist Michel D?cary, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. In future it may serve up paid advertising as well as query responses but right now he says its purpose is to find more subscribers for the company's premium search, which charges recruiters $1000 a month. "I don't know anyone that has tried to do people search in an automated fashion," says Danny Sullivan, the UK-based editor of search industry news website Searchenginewatch.com. Existing people-finding search tools such as Yahoo! People Search and Intelius are indexed manually but automating the process means that a lot more information can be searched and presented to the users, says D?cary. Verbs and nouns Shopping websites such as Froogle and Shopping.com already extract prices automatically from online stores. But this is much easier than figuring out what someone does and where they work from a mixture of company websites, news articles and press releases, says D?cary. InfoZoom deploys algorithms that pick out verbs and proper nouns to home in on names, he says. The algorithms also infer context to weed out phrases that appear to be real people, such as Penny Lane and Harry Potter. Potential new information is also compared to databases of known names, job titles, degrees and universities. Inferring context also enables ZoomInfo to aggregate information found in several places that applies to the same person, and to separate out different people who share the same name, says D?cary. Presidential confusion Although the search engine currently boasts an index of 25 million people, many of their summaries are incomplete and inaccurate, says Sullivan. President George W Bush is listed as the British Prime Minister, the governor of Florida and the Governor of Massachusetts, as well as the president of the US, while some New Scientist employees are listed as editors at a company called "Scientist". "The mistakes you see point to the difficulty of the task and not the sloppiness of the technology," explains D?cary. He says that actors, celebrities and journalists are much harder to index than CEOs and engineers, because their names appear on many different pages and in a variety of different contexts. Privacy experts have criticised the technology for aggregating information about people without their consent. But D?cary says that the information collected only relates to employment and education and is freely available online to a determined searcher anyway. "I think a nefarious person will find more juicy stuff on Google," he says. Weblinks * [19]http://www.zoominfo.com * [21]http://searchenginewatch.com/ * [23]http://people.yahoo.com/ * [25]http://froogle.google.com/ From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 15:52:56 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:52:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Auster: Trying to decipher the liberal position on Terri Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:04:34 -0500 From: Lawrence Auster To: Interested Parties Subject: Trying to decipher the liberal position on Terri; Dear Reader, The Terri Schiavo situation continues to obsess. In this article, I try to explain the seemingly inexplicable hostility of liberals toward those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life. These e-mails that I send from time to time only represent a selection of what appears at View from the Right. Please visit VFR to see more. Sincerely, Lawrence Auster Trying to decipher the liberal position on Terri by Lawrence Auster at View from the Right, "the right blog for the right" What are we to make of the liberals who think that Terri Schiavo, motionless and attached to a feeding tube for the last 15 years, ought to be disconnected from the tube and allowed to die, and that conservatives are theocratic dictators interfering in a private matter, namely the right of Terri's legal guardian, her husband Michael, to make the determination to let her die? The problem with the liberal position is that if Michael had wanted Terri to go on living on the feeding tube, or if Michael had handed over legal guardianship to Terri's parents and they wanted her to go on living on the feeding tube, the liberals would presumably have had no problem with that. So the ostensible liberal position is not that Terri simply ought to die. The ostensible liberal position is that private personal choice--Michael's private personal choice--ought to prevail. And this is where the situation gets tricky. Considering the fact that Terri's parents and siblings very much want her to live despite Michael's efforts to have her die, and considering the fact that Terri's relatives are convinced that Terri has consciousness and is not in a vegetative state, and considering the fact that Michael has a common law wife of many years and two children with her, and so logically ought to divorce Terri and marry the mother of his children and return the guardianship to Terri's parents who are much more involved with Terri's care and want her to live, the exclusive private right of Michael to decide on her life and death ceases to seem so sacred and becomes questionable at the least. Again, if Michael had not wanted Terri to die, liberals wouldn't be thinking twice about this case, notwithstanding their expressions of horror at the idea of a person living her whole life on a feeding tube; they wouldn't be calling conservatives pro-life fanatics for insisting that a person go on living in such a condition, since the liberals themselves would be consenting to Terri's living in that condition. And if the judge had not found (as evidence indicates) that Terri is not in a vegetative state but has a degree of consciousness and responsiveness, and so had not ruled that her tube could be disconnected, the liberals wouldn't be thinking twice about the case. And if the judge had not found (on the basis of questionable evidence) that Terri had once expressed a desire to die if she were permanently disabled, the liberals wouldn't be thinking twice about the case. Thus the whole liberal position rests on three extrinsic facts or questionable factual findings, which could just as easily have gone the other way. Why then the passionate liberal conviction that Terri must die? There is something mysterious at the heart of the liberal position on this issue. Jim Kalb shares my bemusement. Up until 9/11, he tells me, he could more or less understand the liberals' positions on a variety of social issues, even though he didn't share them. Their views had a logic, as twisted as it may have been. But the liberals' take on Terri Schiavo makes no sense to him at all. For example, why must the personal preference of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband who has (understandably) moved on with his life, be seen as sacred and inviolable, but the personal preference of Terri's parents, who have not moved on with their lives but want to care for their daughter, be equated with "theocratic" tyranny that must be resisted at all costs? It can't be explained in terms of any recognizable liberal perspective. Therefore it can only be explained as stemming from sheer liberal reactiveness: conservatives support the Schindlers, so liberals must fight them. As a reader wrote in an e-mail earlier today, a former college professor of his recently said to him (and these were his exact words), "Anything Tom DeLay and those conservatives are for, I'm against." As Mr. Kalb points out, this reactiveness may be simply a further expression of the deep irrationalism that has taken over left-liberals since 9/11. Prior to 9/11, many liberals would have taken the Schindler's side, as representing the rights of an oppressed and helpless individual. After 9/11, they do not. What is it about 9/11 that has had this effect on liberals? I would suggest that the post-9/11 world has placed liberals under an unbearable pressure. The Islamist attack on our country propelled us into a conflict with a mortal enemy. But liberals can't stand the idea of our having an enemy, let alone a mortal enemy, a "them," whose very existence justifies our aggression. Such an enemy must therefore be seen as a product of "root causes" generated by us. Further, in keeping with the inverted moral order of liberalism, the more threatening such an enemy really is, the more vile must be the root causes within ourselves that are creating that enemy. The more evil our enemy, the more judgmental, greedy, cynical, dishonest, uncompassionate, racist, and imperialistic we are for fighting him. If our enemy seeks a theocratic dictatorship over the whole world (which is the actual case), we must be seen as seeking a theocratic dictatorship over the whole world, even though there has never been anything remotely like a theocratic dictatorship in our entire history. Thus the liberals' helpless rage, both against the war on Islamic theocracy and against the (so-called) conservatism that has become dominant in American politics as a result of that war, takes the form of a floating indictment of conservatives as the real theocrats. This attitude is then projected onto any issue between conservatives and liberals that may arise, such as the battle over the fate of Terri Schiavo: Terri's right to live is supported by conservatives; conservatives are theocrats; therefore Terri is a symbol of theocracy, and therefore liberals want her to die. Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 28, 2005 06:56 PM | Comment | Alert: Terri?s defenders are tyrants According to America?s Best Known Formerly Conservative Homosexual, those of us who desire to save Terri Schiavo?s life from (1) her estranged husband who instead of divorcing her is using his legal status as her husband to kill her, and (2) the Florida judge who against all the evidence has declared her to be without consciousness, are the "far right." The members of this "far right," says ABKFCH, want "to use the full weight of government to impose their views. Now many people get a taste of how gays feel. And a chill up their spine." In the one-dimensional world-view of liberals, any non-liberal manifestation?meaning any manifestation not in agreement with whatever position liberals agree is the correct position of the moment?threatens imminent dictatorship, most likely of the theocratic kind. Further, according to this subtle analysis by ABKFCH, among the forces of the "far right" is the economist Lawrence Kudlow. At a comment like that, you almost start giggling: Larry Kudlow?a far rightist! And here I was, thinking a far rightist was, maybe, Wilmot Robertson or David Duke. Posted by Lawrence Auster at 06:08 PM Elian and Terri As we are reminded today at Opinion Journal, five years ago the Florida Family Court claimed jurisdiction over the matter of Elian Gonzalez and announced that it would hear evidence from all the parties, including Elian?s Cuban father and Elian?s U.S. relatives. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting the INS? request that Elian be immediately returned to Cuba (a request driven by the Clinton administration?s desire to please the Castro regime), said the procedure in Family Court must go forward. The U.S. Justice Department then defied the courts, sending an early morning armed raid to seize Elian from his relatives? home. Liberals (sadly joined by some immigration restrictionists who didn?t want to help a single Cuban remain in the U.S., no matter what the circumstances) cheered one of the most lawless and tyrannical acts ever perpetrated by the U.S. government. Now those same liberals, who supported the U.S. government?s gross violation and disruption of a duly instituted court procedure, insist that a grossly flawed court process, leading to the palpably unjust result of an innocent woman being deliberate starved to death simply because her estranged husband wants her to die, must be obeyed to the letter, and, further, that anyone who advocates emergency legislative or executive action to stop this horrible thing from being done is some kind of Christian fascist. And it?s not just liberals who feel this way. A conservative activist in California wrote to me the other day calling me a "theocrat" for my position on this issue. Posted by Lawrence Auster at 10:50 AM From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 15:56:32 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: On the Internet, 2nd (and 3rd and . . . ) Opinions Message-ID: Arts > Critic's Notebook: On the Internet, 2nd (and 3rd and . . . ) Opinions http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/arts/29boxe.html?th&emc=th Here's a list of the lists: [21]Beatrix: A Book Review Review [22]Bookdwarf [23]The Elegant Variation [24]Conversational Reading [25]Golden Rule Jones [26]The Reading Experience [27]Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind [28]Ed Champion's Return of the Reluctant [29]The Museum of Online Museums [30]I Love Music [31]Our Girl in Chicago [32]The Truth Laid Bear On the Internet, 2nd (and 3rd and . . . ) Opinions By [52]SARAH BOXER Published: March 29, 2005 Do you remember Charles and Ray Eames's 1977 film "Powers of Ten," in which the camera zooms back from the surface of the Earth to a far-off point in space? As the details of the planet recede and vanish, new features of the universe appear. Before you know it, you've been sucked into another order entirely. Sometimes the Internet is like that. The traditional objects of culture - books, movies, art - are becoming ever more distant. In their place are reviews of reviews, museums of museums and many, many lists. Ron Hogan, who writes a literary blog called [54]Beatrice.com, recently began a second blog, Beatrix: A Book Review Review. He's not the only one reviewing reviewers. The blogs Bookdwarf, Conversational Reading, The Elegant Variation, Golden Rule Jones, The Reading Experience and Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind - all gloss, grade or review other people's book reviews. On [55]Gawker.com, a writer known as Intern Alexis reviews The New York Times Book Review. The site Edward Champion's Return of the Reluctant also bears down on The New York Times Book Review and its editor, Sam Tanenhaus. Each week the site posts "The Sam Tanenhaus Brownie Watch." It is an act of counting. It compares, among other things, the number of pages devoted to fiction versus nonfiction and the number of women assigned to review nonfiction, promisingthat if there are enough fiction pages or enough women Mr. Tanenhaus will be sent a brownie. Otherwise, "the brownie will be denied." Most book-review reviews are summary, to say the least. Their main purpose, it seems, is to get noticed and linked to by more popular blogs. This, for example, was Golden Rule Jones's assessment of The Chicago Tribune's book coverage on Sunday: "What I liked: Good numbers; timely, worthwhile selections. What I didn't like: Reviews are a little skimpy." What about the other traditional objects of culture: movies, music and art? They, too, are becoming distant objects on the Web. The Museum of Online Museums site lists Web links not only to real museums and exhibitions but also to museums of odd objects (old Christmas lights, microphones and casino matchbook covers) and, yes, even to a museum of lists. The Web site I Love Music appears to be a bulletin board where music lovers can discuss music, but many of the questions posed on the site are in fact invitations to a list-making. One suggested topic was "the foxiest rock critic." Another was "You owned more than one album by them, you listened to them fairly often, you knew in your heart of hearts that they really weren't very good." As these examples suggest, many lists on the Web have distance built into them. Respondents comment less on objects of culture than on themselves, their taste and their memory. The narcissistic lure can be irresistible. Consider a Web diversion recently cooked up by Laura Demanski, a Chicago-based writer and book reviewer, better known on the Web as Our Girl in Chicago (or simply OGIC), who sometimes posts on Terry Teachout's blog, About Last Night. She asked her readers to list the first five movie quotes that popped into their heads. Some 200 quotes came in. "Casablanca" topped the list with seven mentions, each one with a different quote. The most-cited movie quote of all came from "Network," which the Web site gives as : "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" And there was a six-way tie for shortest quote: "Stella!" ("A Streetcar Named Desire") "Thirty-six?" ("Clerks") "Plastics." ("The Graduate") "Willoughby!!!!" ("Sense and Sensibility") "Sincerely." ("Stand By Me") "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!" ("Star Trek II") Ms. Demanski promises "a few general observations" about movie memory. What she really delivers, though, is a great set of lists. Not all lists are so much fun. There are plenty of boring lists on the Web. Everyday, Web contests list their winners. Every blog has a running tab of favorite Web sites. Many of them take a good part of a minute to scroll through. And then there are the Amazonian lists, those offered up by sites like [56]Filmaffinity.com, [57]Muiscplasma.com and [58]Music-map.com. Once you reveal a book, film or musician you already like, these sites will "tell what you will like," Sarah Lazarovic writes on the Web site CBC.ca. Such lists, she writes, are "supplanting the good old-fashioned review as the primary way for consumers to discover new music, movies and literature." In other words, the review is being replaced by a shopping list. Which brings out something important about the economy of the Web. The more lists you're on, the more you're wanted. The premier compliment for a Weblog is to be listed (or linked) by lots of other blogs. The Truth Laid Bear keeps a list of the most-linked sites, a "blogosphere ecosystem." It's like the Social Register. The Web is not really a web after all. It is a list of lists. References 21. http://www.artsjournal.com/beatrix 22. http://www.bookdwarf.com/ 23. http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/ 24. http://esposito.typepad.com/con_read/ 25. http://goldenrulejones.blogspot.com/ 26. http://noggs.typepad.com/the_reading_experience/book_reviewing/ 27. http://www.sarahweinman.com/ 28. http://www.edrants.com/ 29. http://www.coudal.com/moom.php 30. http://ilx.p3r.net/newquestions.php?board=2 31. http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight 32. http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php 52. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SARAH%20BOXER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SARAH%20BOXER&inline=nyt-per From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 16:04:22 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:04:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: A Conversation With Peter Lax: From Budapest to Los Alamos, a Life in Mathematics Message-ID: A Conversation With Peter Lax: From Budapest to Los Alamos, a Life in Mathematics http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/science/29conv.html March 29, 2005 By CLAUDIA DREIFUS In the world of modern mathematics, Dr. Peter D. Lax, professor emeritus at New York University, ranks among the giants. As a teenage refugee from the Nazis, he worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, where met the likes of Hans Bethe, Richard Feynman and Edward Teller. As a young mathematician, he was a prot?g? of John von Neumann, a father of modern computing. Dr. Lax's own work, at N.Y.U.'s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, has often straddled the territory where theoretical mathematics and applied physics meet. He is widely known for his work on wave theory, and his discoveries there are used for weather prediction, airplane design and telecommunications signaling. This month, the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters announced that Dr. Lax, who is 78, would receive its third Abel Prize, accompanied by $980,000, an honor created to compensate for the absence of a mathematics category among the Nobel Prizes. "I don't know what I'll be doing with all that money," he said in an interview last week at his apartment in Manhattan. "I won't give it all away. I'm not rich. Some of it I will give to good causes, mainly in science." Q. When did you come to the United States? A. My parents, my brother and I left Budapest in late November of 1941. I was 15?. We were able to get out - we are Jewish - because my father was a physician. The American consul in Budapest was his friend and patient. And so we went by train across Europe, through Germany in train compartments filled with Wehrmacht troops. We sailed for America from Lisbon on Dec. 5, 1941. While we were on the high seas, the war broke out. So we left as immigrants and arrived in New York as enemy aliens. Within a month, my brother and I were in high school. I went to Stuyvesant. Q. In Hungary, you were a math prodigy. How did the New York public schools measure up? A. I didn't take any math courses at Stuyvesant. I knew more than most of the teachers. But I had to take English and American history, and I quickly fell in love with America. In history, we had a text, and the illustrations were contemporary cartoons. I thought that was marvelous. I couldn't imagine a Hungarian textbook taking such a less-than-worshipful attitude. Q. When were you drafted, and how did the Army affect your career? A. In 1944. I was 18 and I spent six very pleasant months at Texas A&M, at an Army training program in engineering there. Later, I was sent to Los Alamos, and that was like science fiction. There were all these legends everywhere. I arrived about six weeks before the A-bomb test. There was not too much secrecy inside the fence. That was Oppenheimer's policy. People told me, "We're building an atomic bomb, partly radium, but maybe plutonium, which doesn't exist in the universe, but we are manufacturing it at Hanford." Q. Were the personality and policy clashes between Teller and J. Robert Oppenheimer evident even then? A. I was the low man on the totem pole. But I understood what was going on. Looking back, there were two issues: should we have dropped the A-bomb and should we have built a hydrogen bomb? Today the revisionist historians say that Japan was already beaten, and so the bomb wasn't necessary. I disagree. I remember being in the Army when the Germans surrendered, and we all assumed we were going to be sent to the Pacific next. I also think that Teller was right about the hydrogen bomb because the Russians were sure to develop it. And if they had been in possession of it, and the West not, they would have gone into Western Europe. What would have held them back? Teller was certainly wrong in the 1980's about Star Wars. And that is still with us today. And it's draining a lot of money we don't have. What I think was not right of Teller was to bring Star Wars to the White House though the back door, without going through the scientific community. The system doesn't work. It's a phantasmagoria. But once you had Reagan charmed by it and Bush charmed by it, it became very hard to put an end of something that the president wants. Q. What do you think your mentor John von Neumann would think about the ubiquity of computers today? A. I think he'd be surprised. But nobody could have predicted that everybody and their cousin would have personal computers - although I think of all people, he would have figured it out. Nobody can predict things, but you can see where something's heading. He could see very far, very far. He saw the use of computers very broadly. But remember, he died in 1957 and did not live to see transistors replace vacuum tubes. Once you had transistors, you could miniaturize computers. Q. Did you know John Nash, the protagonist of the film "A Beautiful Mind"? A. I did, and I had enormous respect for him. He solved three very difficult mathematical problems and then he turned to the Riemann hypothesis, which is deep mystery. By comparison, Fermat's is nothing. With Fermat's - once they found a connection to another problem - they could do it. But the Riemann hypothesis, there are many connections, and still it cannot be done. Nash tried to tackle it and that's when he broke down. Q. Do you believe that high school and college math are poorly taught? A. By and large, that's correct. I would like to see the schools of education teach much more math than methods of teaching and educational psychology. In mathematics, nothing takes the place of real knowledge of the subject and enthusiasm for it. Q. What do you consider your most significant contributions? A. There are about five or six things that had an impact. Among them is my work on shock waves, where I clarified shock wave theory and combined it with practical numerical methods for calculating flows with shock waves. At Los Alamos, this was important to understand how weapons work, but it is equally important in understanding how airplanes at high speed fly through the air. Ralph Phillips and I came up with the Lax-Phillips semigroup in scattering theory that was a new idea and could be used in quite surprising number of directions. This helped understand radar pictures. Recently Martin Kruskal and his collaborators have unexpectedly discovered brand new completely integrable systems, and I have helped clarify some things about such systems. I was able to analyze, with my student Dave Levermore, what happens to solutions of dispersive systems when dispersion tends to zero. It is a rather surprising new phenomenon, but not easy to express in layman's terms. In a report to the American Philosophical Society I put it into the form of haiku: Speed depends on size Balanced by dispersion Oh, solitary splendor. Q. Has mathematics become too complex for anyone to understand all of it? A. Compared to physics or chemistry, mathematics is a very broad subject. It is true that nobody can know it all, or even nearly all. But it is also true that as mathematics develops, things are simplified and unusual connections appear. Geometry and algebra for instance, which were so very different 100 years ago, are intricately connected today. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 16:06:36 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:06:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm Message-ID: List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html By [44]DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and [45]JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: March 29, 2005 WASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups. "These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!" Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish. "I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information." Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf. The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law Michael Schiavo to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state. Mr. McCullough said he was present when Mr. Schindler agreed to the arrangement in a conversation with Phil Sheldon, the co-founder of a conservative online marketing organization, [47]RightMarch.com, who acted as a broker for Response Unlimited. "So the Schindlers do know the details," Mr. McCullough said on Monday. How much attention they paid to the matter is hard to assess, he added. "The Schindlers right now know that their daughter is starving to death, and if I ask about anything else, they say, 'I don't want to hear about it.' " Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them. Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence. "It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her." Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, [48]www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said. On Sunday, as the Schindlers gave up on their legal battle and their daughter passed her 10th day without food, others continued to rally supporters and solicit money in an effort to restore the feeding tube. "This time, we have a real chance to break through the 'roadblocks' that the enemies of life have been putting up in front of us," said a mass e-mailing from RightMarch.com, asking supporters to urge Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene somehow. The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture." Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did not respond to phone calls yesterday. "I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought." References 44. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICK&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICK&inline=nyt-per 45. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=JOHN%20SCHWARTZ&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=JOHN%20SCHWARTZ&inline=nyt-per 47. http://RightMarch.com/ 48. http://www.terrisfight.org/ From kendulf at shaw.ca Tue Mar 29 16:12:56 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:12:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel References: Message-ID: <010901c5347a$2bbdf150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Joel--What you say below sounds right to me. If I understand it rightly, time is a recursion of boundary-making, an iteration of a differentiating and aggregating process, a multiplier of the voids spaced between the nodes of isness, and a grower of the clusters between the voids--as in your cellular automata model. It makes sense. And it fits with the notion that time is the most critical aspect of perception, an idea that Jeff Hawkins proposes in On Intelligence, one of the few new-idea-generating books I've read in a long time. Perception in Hawkin's view is a flow, a music. As in music, we spot thje sensory world's ur-patterns, its repetitive themes and their variations. In higher cortical regions, we create invariant representations of a stream of sensations, we sift the themes from of a parade of sense-impacts, we capture the pattern of a surge of impressions that follow each other like the notes in a melody. Hawkins thinks of these invariant representations as "Name that Tune"-style song-spotting. We send the prediction that the name of the tune--the invariant representation-- implies back down to the sensory level of the cortex. If the song title predicts the incoming stream properly, everything is fine. If the incoming signal-surge no longer follows the melody predicted by the song title, more cortical regions are forced to rush in and try other song titles, other invariant representations, other names for the possible melody. The cosmos is process. Time is as critical to understanding as are "things". Perception has to mirror the cosmos to work. So perception is a time-process, a temporal-flow-identifier-and-predictor, a future-projector that works by taking what's past and flipping it forward, sometimes with a new twist. Music is practice for future-projection, for identifying patterns in the flow. New musical styles and new songs are practice for the novelties that may lay around the bend. Howard In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:07:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental Ur-Process involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL RECURSIVE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at all scales. (Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the same patterns.) Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant flow of the Ur-Processes. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kendulf at shaw.ca Tue Mar 29 16:32:38 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:32:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel References: Message-ID: <011401c5347c$ebdceac0$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Howard, In reading your commentary I am thrown back to the year I spent at he institute of Konrad Lorenz, before he was awarded the Nobel Prize. What you discuss was then subject of very lively attention especially since Lorenz's institute was paired with an institute on cybernetics, then run by Mittelstaedt. However, the ideas went back to the great Erich von Holst, who had investigated neural functions. What Hawkins speaks about is the ancient, but exceedingly serviceable concept of pattern matching as perception and which von Holst enriched by the "re-afference principle". Lorenz responded by publishing in 1973 what is, in my judgment, his best work, a book on the natural history of cognition, entitled in German "Die Rueckseite des Spiegels" (The backside of the Mirror). I have no idea if it was translated into English. However, I made good use of it and the discussions in Lorenz's institute to write the second chapter of my Life strategies book, only that I applied it broadly to animal behavior, and a lot of human include (intelligence, creativity - among others). I also traced back some of the older literature. Its absolutely fundamental material for an understanding of the evolution of organismal life strategies, let alone higher cognitive functions. It refers to very ancient processes without which life as we know it could not function. The Wednesday morning seminars at Lorenz's institute were the sharpest intellectually I have ever had the pleasure of attending. Unfortunately, some of that excellence arose from the animosity between the three institutes united at Seewiesen by the Max Planck society. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Joel--What you say below sounds right to me. If I understand it rightly, time is a recursion of boundary-making, an iteration of a differentiating and aggregating process, a multiplier of the voids spaced between the nodes of isness, and a grower of the clusters between the voids--as in your cellular automata model. It makes sense. And it fits with the notion that time is the most critical aspect of perception, an idea that Jeff Hawkins proposes in On Intelligence, one of the few new-idea-generating books I've read in a long time. Perception in Hawkin's view is a flow, a music. As in music, we spot thje sensory world's ur-patterns, its repetitive themes and their variations. In higher cortical regions, we create invariant representations of a stream of sensations, we sift the themes from of a parade of sense-impacts, we capture the pattern of a surge of impressions that follow each other like the notes in a melody. Hawkins thinks of these invariant representations as "Name that Tune"-style song-spotting. We send the prediction that the name of the tune--the invariant representation-- implies back down to the sensory level of the cortex. If the song title predicts the incoming stream properly, everything is fine. If the incoming signal-surge no longer follows the melody predicted by the song title, more cortical regions are forced to rush in and try other song titles, other invariant representations, other names for the possible melody. The cosmos is process. Time is as critical to understanding as are "things". Perception has to mirror the cosmos to work. So perception is a time-process, a temporal-flow-identifier-and-predictor, a future-projector that works by taking what's past and flipping it forward, sometimes with a new twist. Music is practice for future-projection, for identifying patterns in the flow. New musical styles and new songs are practice for the novelties that may lay around the bend. Howard In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:07:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental Ur-Process involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL RECURSIVE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at all scales. (Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the same patterns.) Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant flow of the Ur-Processes. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:40:53 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:40:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Brooks: Morality and Reality Message-ID: Morality and Reality Opinion column by David Brooks, The New York Times, 5.3.26 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/opinion/26brooks.html [Letters appended.] The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult. Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished. The true bright line is not between lives, they say, but between life and death. The proper rule, as Robert P. George of Princeton puts it, should be, "Always to care, never to kill." The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living. In some hospital rooms, there are people living forms of existence that upon direct contact do seem even worse than death. Moreover, most of us believe in transcendence, in life beyond this one. Therefore why is it so necessary to cling ferociously to this life? Why not allow the soul to ascend to whatever is in store for it? The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence. On one end of that continuum are those fortunate enough to be able to live fully - to decide and act, to experience the world and be free. On the other end are those who, tragically, can do none of these things, and who are merely existing. Social liberals warn against vitalism, the elevation of physical existence over other values. They say it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence. The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin. Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste. You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices. What begins as an appealing notion - that life and death are joined by a continuum - becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions. You end up exactly where many liberals ended up this week, trying to shift arguments away from morality and on to process. If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics and procedures. They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be. Then, if social conservatives tried to push their moral claims, you'd find liberals accusing them of turning this country into a theocracy - which is an effort to cast all moral arguments beyond the realm of polite conversation. Once moral argument is abandoned, there are no ethical checks, no universal standards, and everything is left to the convenience and sentiments of the individual survivors. What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force. No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates. E-mail: [2]dabrooks at nytimes.com ---------------- The New York Times > Opinion > Terri Schiavo and the Moral Divide (5 Letters) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/l29brooks.html March 29, 2005 Terri Schiavo and the Moral Divide (5 Letters) To the Editor: I disagree with David Brooks's analysis of the moral beliefs of social conservatives and liberals in the Terri Schiavo case ("Morality and Reality," column, March 26). How can conservatives believe that "the value of each individual life is intrinsic" when they support the death penalty and value the life of a fetus more highly than the life of the woman carrying the fetus? If that were their true belief, they would not be so cavalier about sacrificing thousands of American and Iraqi lives so that we can feel that our country is doing something about terrorism. Liberals do not say that "it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence," a belief Mr. Brooks finds "morally thin." Liberals rely on medical science and the rule of law to advise them in such difficult matters. Conservatives appear increasingly indifferent to both medical science and the rule of law. That is not just morally thin. It is morally repugnant. Deborah J. Lee Westport Point, Mass. March 26, 2005 o To the Editor: David Brooks doesn't address the central aspect of the Terri Schiavo case. The circuit court found what it called "clear and convincing evidence" that Ms. Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive indefinitely on a feeding tube. The state is not deciding that Ms. Schiavo's life has less value than Mr. Brooks's or mine, but rather that Ms. Schiavo herself would want the feeding tubes removed. What the "moralists" are really arguing is that a competent Ms. Schiavo would not have the right to refuse the feeding tube and that the laws allowing for living wills, health care directives, health care powers of attorney and the like are immoral. Katharine Blumenthal Chicago, March 26, 2005 o To the Editor: David Brooks calls the social liberals' position in the Terri Schiavo case "morally thin" because it focuses on who makes the decision rather than on what the decision should be. I thought the point about the "right to die" position is that there should not be a universal standard, but that the person himself (or his surrogate) makes the decision for himself. The position that no one can tell me I must be forced to live by extraordinary means is surely based on moral grounds. Barbara Gish-Scult New York, March 26, 2005 o To the Editor: The primary consideration when determining whether someone's life should or should not be artificially prolonged in a vegetative state should be the individual's expressed wishes. As a gastroenterologist, I have both placed and removed hundreds of feeding tubes over the years. Medical professionals do not provide medical care, including that which could be lifesaving, if the patient expresses, or has expressed in the past, that such care is not desired. That Mr. Brooks (as well as Congress, President Bush and the protesters outside Terri Schiavo's hospice) does not seem to take the individual's wishes into account is frightening. David R. Neiblum, M.D. West Chester, Pa., March 26, 2005 o To the Editor: David Brooks reveals the conflict between the positions of social conservatives and liberals in the Terri Schiavo case and criticizes them for failing to offer a compelling moral argument that can be adopted by all. But basic unresolved moral conflicts have existed throughout history. Unlike science's capacity to determine empirical and theoretical truth, ethics provides no objective method to determine moral truth. Moral disagreements can be resolved, not solved, by democratic processes, like those used in the Schiavo case. To aspire to universal moral absolutes reflects a romantic na?vet?. Howard H. Kendler Santa Barbara, Calif., March 26, 2005 The writer is a professor emeritus of psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:41:53 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:41:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Russia Fines Museum Aides for Art Said to Ridicule Religion Message-ID: The New York Times > International > Europe > Russia Fines Museum Aides for Art Said to Ridicule Religion http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/international/europe/29russia.html March 29, 2005 By [1]STEVEN LEE MYERS MOSCOW, March 28 - A Russian court on Monday convicted a museum director and a curator of inciting religious hatred with an exhibition of paintings and sculptures that, to many, ridiculed the Russian Orthodox Church. In a criminal case that tested the boundaries of artistic expression in Russia, the court ruled that the exhibition at the Andrei Sakharov Museum was "openly insulting and blasphemous." It rejected the prosecutor's appeal to sentence the two defendants to prison, however, and instead fined them the equivalent of $3,600 each. The case against the exhibition, titled "Caution! Religion," has deeply divided Russia's religious and artistic groups ever since it opened briefly in January 2003, provoking alternate charges of censorship and animosity toward religious believers. Monday's verdict satisfied neither side entirely. Yuri V. Samodurov, director of the Sakharov Museum, which is named for the late Soviet dissident and human-rights advocate, said he was relieved by the nature of the punishment, though not by the court's ruling. He said he had gone to court with his prescription medicines, assuming that he would immediately be imprisoned. Still, he said, the court's verdict asserted the state's power to dictate the limits of artistic expression. "In essence," he said in a telephone interview, "the court declared a certain kind of art unacceptable." Aleksandr V. Chuyev, a member of the lower house of Parliament who played a role in pressing prosecutors to bring criminal charges against the museum, agreed that the verdict would set a precedent, but one he considered healthy. He said the case had established the legal foundation for prosecutions relating to other exhibitions, as well as pornography, films and other works that offend the faithful. He cited a recent exhibition by an artists' collective called Russia 2, which addressed similar themes at the First Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art last month and also prompted calls from Orthodox leaders for criminal prosecution. "The people and the authorities now understand that religion and the feelings of believers should not be touched on," Mr. Chuyev said in a telephone interview. "They should understand that their rights end where the other person's begin." The exhibition had been open only four days before six men from an Orthodox church in Moscow ransacked the museum, damaging or destroying many of the 45 works on display. Criminal charges against four of the men were dropped, while two others were acquitted last year in a trial that led to the new charges against Mr. Samodurov; the museum's curator, Lyudmila V. Vasilovskaya, who was also convicted and fined on Monday; and one of the artists, Anna Mikhalchuk. Ms. Mikhalchuk, who exhibits under the name Alchuk, was acquitted Monday. She said the verdict in effect erased the separation of church and state in today's Russia. "I am afraid the formulation of the court's ruling will be used as a precedent for the authorities," she said. "It practically crosses out Russia on the list of secular nations." The works addressed spiritual and political aspects of the Orthodox Church, whose influence over politics, if not society generally, has grown since the Soviet Union collapsed. One sculpture depicted a church made of vodka bottles, a biting allusion to the tax exemption the church received in the 1990's to sell alcohol. A poster by Aleksandr Kosolapov, a Russian-born American artist whose work often satirizes state symbols, depicted Jesus on a Coca-Cola advertisement. "This is my blood," it said in English. The court refused a request by prosecutors to destroy the artworks, ordering that they be returned to the artists who created them. The Rev. Aleksandr Shargunov, a priest from the church, St. Nikolai in Pyzhi, whose parishioners attacked the exhibition, derided the fines as too lenient. He described the exhibition as a deliberate and hostile provocation and called for more stringent laws against desecration of icons and other sacred symbols. "The prophecies say that once God is insulted, expect trouble," he said. "And this is what happened." From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:42:50 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:42:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Scientology) Finding Stress, and Some Friction Message-ID: Finding Stress, and Some Friction http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/nyregion/29scientology.html March 29, 2005 By [1]ANDY NEWMAN A corridor of the Times Square subway station may not seem to be the ideal spot to conduct a carefully controlled psychological experiment. For one thing, the soundproofing is entirely inadequate. The confluence of a dozen subway lines creates constantly shifting sonic interference, ranging from mild to deafening, that an overlay of Peruvian panpipe ensembles serves to heighten rather than mask. Moreover, the place is often in a state of open field pedestrian stampede that would daunt a star high school halfback. But there, at the underground crossroads of the world, an army of people who call themselves testers had set up the tools of their trade: a pair of hollow metal bars hooked to a simple electrical meter, and stacks of a paperback book. They were volunteers from the Church of Scientology, and for the last six months, they had been stationed at red-clothed tables in Times Square and several other subway hubs, measuring the baseline stress levels in the brains of all passers-by willing to sit still for a minute and hold the metal bars. In addition to using their "e-meters" to compute the electrical resistance caused by traumatic thoughts, the Scientologists offered, for a "suggested donation" of $8, copies of their textbook, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health." Last night, however, the Scientologists experienced a high-stress event themselves. Plainclothes detectives determined that the books were being sold, not given in exchange for donations, in violation of New York City Transit rules against unlicensed vending, said Paul J. Browne, the deputy commissioner for public information for the Police Department. The detectives issued six people $50 summonses and ejected them from the Times Square station, Mr. Browne said. "There had been an agreement that they could stay there as long as they did not get in people's way, and did not sell the material," Mr. Browne said. "They did not live up to the agreement." Until yesterday, the Scientologists' claim that they were soliciting donations, not selling books, had been buttressed in practice by the legions of police officers who had left them alone. "In no way is it a commercial operation," said the Rev. John Carmichael, president of the Church of Scientology of New York. "We've helped so many people here," Peter Davis, a 20-year-old volunteer from Louisiana, said yesterday afternoon, a few hours before the evictions. Mr. Davis, who like many of his colleagues wore a bright red parka emblazoned with "Get it. Read it. Dianetics," said that distractions like the ecstatic-looking woman playing a musical saw 20 feet away did not contaminate the results of the stress test. "What we're testing," he said, "is what's going on inside the guy's head." To be sure, most straphangers who raced by the table in recent days did not even glance over. But several curious people who did stop to take the free stress test did not seem bothered by the book pitch. Indra Seurattan, a customs broker visiting New York from Trinidad and Tobago, sat down opposite a volunteer named Kiersten, who asked her to hold the metal bars and focus on something that was troubling her. Ms. Seurattan, 42, thought about her job, which has become so demanding that she has not had a good night's sleep for more than a year. The needle on the e-meter slammed to the right. The diagnosis: definitely stressed. Kiersten explained that Dianetics could help her tackle all her problems. Ms. Seurattan was impressed. "I told her: 'I'm waiting on my friend and I don't have enough money. Maybe if I did I'd buy the book.' " A 17-year-old who gave his name only as Brandon told his tester about a quandary involving competing offers from two potential girlfriends. "She said, 'It's understandable that you might be stressed out,' " Brandon said. Brandon, too, said that if he had any money, "I would have bought the book. It seemed like it could help." Scientology, founded 50 years ago by the science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, who died in 1986, claims to be one of the world's fastest-growing religions despite accusations that it is a controlling cult. Its many evangelical adherents include Hollywood luminaries like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. Dianetics, the discipline underlying Scientology, posits that if people identify the unconscious thoughts and associations that are upsetting them, they can defuse them. Mr. Carmichael said that during the course of the subway campaign, the Scientology tables had become "part of Times Square, and part of New York." In fact, one of the posters sold last year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the subway system was a cartoon of Times Square with many references to Scientology, including the stress-test table. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the parent agency of New York City Transit, told The Daily News last October that the poster simply depicted "the actuality of Times Square and what is going on here." But New York City Transit appeared to have decided that what is going on is a violation of its rules. On March 11, the agency's lawyers wrote a letter advising Mr. Carmichael that while its rules allowed "solicitation for religious or political causes," solicitation was different from selling, which is not allowed without the authority's permission. Mr. Carmichael said that the $8 donation was not a requirement. Indeed, a sign sometimes displayed on the table near the books says "suggested donation: $8." But when a reporter presenting himself as a stressed-out New Yorker took the test and suggested a donation of considerably less than $8 for the book, the tester, a young man in a striped tie, balked. "It's a fixed donation," the man said. "The money is just to recover the cost of producing the books." A saleswoman at a major paperback-book printer in the Midwest, who asked that her firm not be identified, provided an estimate for a book with similar specifications to "Dianetics," which has 700 pages, a black-and-white photo insert and a four-color cover. The price: $1.58 per copy for 50,000 copies, not including. distribution and delivery. The church says it has published more than 20 million copies of the book. Charles F. Seaton, director of public affairs at New York City Transit, expressed puzzlement at the church's book distribution policy. "A fixed donation," he said slowly. "Yeah, right." Shortly after the reporter asked the police about paying for the book, the detectives made their visit to the testers, Mr. Browne said. Mr. Carmichael said last night that he was talking with the police, and said that the Scientologists were protected by the United States Constitution. Mr. Davis, the tester in the red parka, said that in any case, moving copies of "Dianetics" was not the church's primary mission. "Even if the guy doesn't buy a book, we've gotten him to take a look at his life and see what's troubling him," Mr. Davis said. "That's a service in itself. "We've had guys sit down who are thinking of committing suicide. I've had people who killed other people. Just by doing the stress test they realize, 'Hey, this is something I need to handle.' " From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:45:25 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:45:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: 'Diabesity,' a Crisis in an Expanding Country Message-ID: Health > Personal Health: 'Diabesity,' a Crisis in an Expanding Country http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/health/29brod.html March 29, 2005 By [1]JANE E. BRODY I can't understand why we still don't have a national initiative to control what is fast emerging as the most serious and costly health problem in America: excess weight. Are our schools, our parents, our national leaders blind to what is happening - a health crisis that looms even larger than our former and current smoking habits? Just look at the numbers, so graphically described in an eye-opening new book, "Diabesity: The Obesity-Diabetes Epidemic That Threatens America - and What We Must Do to Stop It" (Bantam), by Dr. Francine R. Kaufman, a pediatric endocrinologist, the director of the diabetes clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles and a past president of the American Diabetes Association. In just over a decade, she noted, the prevalence of diabetes nearly doubled in the American adult population: to 8.7 percent in 2002, from 4.9 percent in 1990. Furthermore, an estimated one-third of Americans with Type 2 diabetes don't even know they have it because the disease is hard to spot until it causes a medical crisis. An estimated 18.2 million Americans now have diabetes, 90 percent of them the environmentally influenced type that used to be called adult-onset diabetes. But adults are no longer the only victims - a trend that prompted an official change in name in 1997 to Type 2 diabetes. More and more children are developing this health-robbing disease or its precursor, prediabetes. Counting children and adults together, some 41 million Americans have a higher-than-normal blood sugar level that typically precedes the development of full-blown diabetes. 'Then Everything Changed' And what is the reason for this runaway epidemic? Being overweight or obese, especially with the accumulation of large amounts of body fat around the abdomen. In Dr. Kaufman's first 15 years as a pediatric endocrinologist, 1978 to 1993, she wrote, "I never saw a young patient with Type 2 diabetes. But then everything changed." Teenagers now come into her clinic weighing 200, 300, even nearly 400 pounds with blood sugar levels that are off the charts. But, she adds, we cannot simply blame this problem on gluttony and laziness and "assume that the sole solution is individual change." The major causes, Dr. Kaufman says, are "an economic structure that makes it cheaper to eat fries than fruit" and a food industry and mass media that lure children to eat the wrong foods and too much of them. "We have defined progress in terms of the quantity rather than the quality of our food," she wrote. Her views are supported by a 15-year study published in January in The Lancet. A team headed by Dr. Mark A. Pereira of the University of Minnesota analyzed the eating habits of 3,031 young adults and found that weight gain and the development of prediabetes were directly related to unhealthful fast food. Taking other factors into consideration, consuming fast food two or more times a week resulted, on average, in an extra weight gain of 10 pounds and doubled the risk of prediabetes over the 15-year period. Other important factors in the diabesity epidemic, Dr. Kaufman explained, are the failure of schools to set good examples by providing only healthful fare, a loss of required physical activity in schools and the inability of many children these days to walk or bike safely to school or to play outside later. Genes play a role as well. Some people are more prone to developing Type 2 diabetes than others. The risk is 1.6 times as great for blacks as for whites of similar age. It is 1.5 times as great for Hispanic-Americans, and 2 times as great for Mexican-Americans and Native Americans. Unless we change our eating and exercise habits and pay greater attention to this disease, more than one-third of whites, two-fifths of blacks and half of Hispanic people in this country will develop diabetes. It is also obvious from the disastrous patient histories recounted in Dr. Kaufman's book that the nation's medical structure is a factor as well. Many people do not have readily accessible medical care, and still many others have no coverage for preventive medicine. As a result, millions fall between the cracks until they are felled by heart attacks or strokes. A Devastating Disease There is a tendency in some older people to think of diabetes as "just a little sugar," a common family problem. They fail to take it seriously and make the connection between it and the costly, crippling and often fatal diseases that can ensue. Diabetes, with its consequences of heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, amputations and blindness, among others, already ranks No. 1 in direct health care costs, consuming $1 of every $7 spent on health care. Nor is this epidemic confined to American borders. Internationally, "we are witnessing an epidemic that is the scourge of the 21st century," Dr. Kaufman wrote. Unlike some other killer diseases, Type 2 diabetes issues an easily detected wake-up call: the accumulation of excess weight, especially around the abdomen. When the average fasting level of blood sugar (glucose) rises above 100 milligrams per deciliter, diabetes is looming. Abdominal fat is highly active. The chemical output of its cells increases blood levels of hormones like estrogen, providing the link between obesity and breast cancer, and decreases androgens, which can cause a decline in libido. As the cells in abdominal fat expand, they also release chemicals that increase fat accumulation, ensuring their own existence. The result is an increasing cellular resistance to the effects of the hormone insulin, which enables cells to burn blood sugar for energy. As blood sugar rises with increasing insulin resistance, the pancreas puts out more and more insulin (promoting further fat storage) until this gland is exhausted. Then when your fasting blood sugar level reaches 126 milligrams, you have diabetes. Two recent clinical trials showed that Type 2 diabetes could be prevented by changes in diet and exercise. The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group involving 3,234 overweight adults showed that "intensive lifestyle intervention" was more effective than a drug that increases insulin sensitivity in preventing diabetes over three years. The intervention, lasting 24 weeks, trains people to choose low-calorie, low-fat diets; increase activity; and change their habits. Likewise, the randomized, controlled Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study of 522 obese patients showed that introducing a moderate exercise program of at least 150 minutes a week and weight loss of at least 5 percent reduced the incidence of diabetes by 58 percent. Many changes are needed to combat this epidemic, starting with schools and parents. Perhaps the quickest changes can be made in the workplace, where people can be encouraged to use stairs instead of elevators; vending machines can be removed or dispense only healthful snacks; and cafeterias can offer attractive healthful fare. Lunchrooms equipped with refrigerators and microwaves will allow workers to bring healthful meals to work. Dr. Kaufman tells of a challenge to get fit and lose weight by Caesars Entertainment in which 4,600 workers who completed the program lost a total of 45,000 pounds in 90 days. Others could follow this example. Next week: Helping an overweight child. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:51:34 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:51:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Conservatives and Federalism Today Message-ID: I made this compilation a week ago, on March 22. I forgot to look up Human Events, but it was not different. Fred Barnes says the moral issue overrides the federalism issue: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/385ttsvl.asp Andrew C. McCarthy says there is a higher law that overrides the procedural safeguards of the Constitution: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200503180920.asp George Neumayr thinks it's a Federal issue because Democrats are hypocrites: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7919 Rush Limbaugh subscribes to the incorportation doctrine: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032105/content/mtcu.guest.html I see nothing about federalism elsewhere on the American Conservative site or on Front Page. Ann Coulter has also been keeping quiet. There are no items with federalism and schiavo at the Family Research Council, but they urge their readers to support federal efforts to deny Michael custody. And a note from Daniel McCarthy on how the Republicans will benefit either way: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007687.html ------------------ An aside: Thomas Woods, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History gives Max the boot: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/print/articleprint2.html From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:52:46 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:52:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] LAT: Rep. Tom DeLay Took His Own Father Off Life Support in 1988 Message-ID: Rep. Tom DeLay Took His Own Father Off Life Support in 1988 By E&P Staff Published: March 26, 2005 11:00 PM ET [an alert Mike Lynch of Pensacola forwarded this from LA Times. See previous posts regarding Terri Schiavo. --Norman Vickers] NEW YORK Exposing a previously unknown episode, the Los Angeles Times reported late Saturday that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who this week championed political intervention in the Terry Schiavo case, agreed to his own family?s decision in 1988 to take his father off life support and allow him to die. The DeLay's father, 65-year-old drilling contractor Charles DeLay, was badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Tom DeLay was a junior congressman from Texas at the time. The patient was being kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator. ?DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls ?an act of barbarism,? in removing the tube,? the L.A. Times reported. ?In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die." This account was assembled from court files, medical records, and interviews with family members, the paper said. Doctors advised that DeLay?s father would "basically be a vegetable," the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, told the newspaper. When his kidneys failed, the family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do Not Resuscitate." On Dec. 14, 1988, the senior DeLay died. The Times noted similarities between the DeLay and Schiavo cases: ?Both stricken patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine. And neither left a living will.? From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 19:55:08 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:55:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYTMag: The Soul of the New Exurb Message-ID: The Soul of the New Exurb New York Times Magazine, 5.3.27 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/magazine/327MEGACHURCH.html By JONATHAN MAHLER In the spring of 1996, Lee McFarland quit his high-paying job at Microsoft, sold his house and drove his Jeep Cherokee from Redmond, Wash., to Surprise, Ariz. He had come to build a church. McFarland, who was 36 at the time, knew little about leading churches and less about building them: he wasn't even halfway through the correspondence classes he was taking to become an evangelical pastor. Nevertheless, he'd been hired by a small group of Christians in an adjoining community to do just that. And so a few days after he arrived, he put on a pair of slacks and a polo shirt, said goodbye to his wife, Sandy, and their two kids, who had come to Surprise several weeks ahead of him to get settled in their new house, and set out to find believers. For decades, Surprise, which is about 45 minutes northwest of downtown Phoenix, was mostly scrubby cotton, rose and citrus fields, with a small grid of streets where migrant workers lived. In the early 90's, developers discovered the town. By the time McFarland and his family arrived, its population had climbed past 15,000, and more, many more, were on their way. Most of Surprise's new residents were young white families drawn to affordable homes and jobs within commuting distance. Many of them hadn't gone to college but no doubt hoped that their children would. These were the people McFarland was seeking when he started knocking on the doors of one light brown stucco tract home after another. Applying a lesson he learned a month earlier in a church-development seminar in Orange County, Calif., he introduced himself to the locals as the pastor of a new church that he was calling Radiant. From there he expected to begin long, probing conversations about their lives -- what was missing, what their kids liked to do in their free time and so on. But the mothers and fathers who greeted him were barely civil. ''This was,'' as he put it to me not long ago, ''a radically unchurched area.'' No wonder Surprise's three existing churches were struggling. After a few days of trekking through identical streets and cul-de-sacs under the hot Arizona sun, McFarland figured he had better try a different approach. He traded in his business-casual attire for a T-shirt and blue jeans, bought a clipboard and posed as the representative of a secular organization. He limited himself to two questions: ''What's your favorite radio station?'' and ''Why do you think people don't go to church?'' The conversations grew longer, and McFarland's mission became clear. People in Surprise listened to rock music. And they didn't go to church because they didn't have any fancy clothes, didn't like being asked for money and didn't see how any of the sermons they had heard in the past related to their lives. McFarland pledged to change all that. By the following August, he had hired a direct-mail company to send out fliers to everyone in Surprise -- or at least everyone but the Spanish-speaking farm workers who lived in the town's original square mile -- inviting them to Radiant. ''You think church is boring and judgmental, and that all they want is your money?'' it asked. ''At Radiant you'll hear a rockin' band and a positive, relevant message. Come as you are. We won't beg for your money. Your kids will love it!'' On a Sunday in early September 1997, 147 people showed up for Radiant's first service, which was about twice what McFarland had expected. Until construction on the church was finished, services were being held in the auditorium of a public elementary school. McFarland wore an untucked Hawaiian shirt, blue jeans and sneakers. The air-conditioning wasn't working; it was 114 degrees outside and 92 degrees inside. As he talked about how to build better relationships with friends, family members and loved ones, McFarland looked out over his wilting congregation and started thinking that his first sermon might very well be his last. But the following week more than 100 people returned, and the church has been growing steadily ever since. When attendance for Sunday services at Radiant hit about 350 in 1999, McFarland tried to apply the brakes. No more fliers, billboards or newspaper ads. A few hundred felt like the perfect size -- big enough to be vibrant, but small enough that he still knew everyone's name. But then one night McFarland woke up in tears. ''I felt like God was saying: 'Oh, so that's it, huh? You don't care?' '' McFarland remembers. ''I said to God, 'I will never decide how big this church should be.' '' And so a year later, when Radiant moved into what would be its first permanent quarters, weekend attendance was approaching 800. Two years later it hit 2,000, the generally agreed-upon threshold for megachurch status, and McFarland started planning to build a new worship center. Weekend attendance is now about 5,000. To accommodate them all, McFarland leads several services, beginning on Saturday afternoon and continuing through Sunday morning. For Easter, the busiest day of the year, Radiant is expecting 15,000. All of this has come as a big surprise to McFarland.''When we started Radiant, I thought it would be cool if we got to 200,'' he said when I first met him in January. McFarland, a big guy, a little soft around the middle, was wearing a blue T-shirt and black Tommy Hilfiger jeans, and we were sitting in his office, where a wooden baseball bat autographed by Garth Brooks -- ''Pastor Lee, may God guide you, pal'' -- is displayed more prominently than the only thing that passes as religious iconography: a soft-focus painting of a contented-looking bearded man in a white robe. ''I tease people and I go, 'This is my rookie season, this is my first church,' '' McFarland told me, ''and they go: 'Shut up, dude, you're sickening. You're pastor of a church that has grown like a weed.' '' One of the more striking facts to emerge from the 2004 presidential election was that 97 of America's 100 fastest-growing counties voted Republican. Most of these counties are made up of heretofore unknown towns too far from major metropolitan areas to be considered suburbs, but too bustling to be considered rural, places like Lebanon, Ohio; Fridley, Minn.; Crabapple, Ga.; and Surprise, Ariz. America has a new frontier: the exurbs. In a matter of years, sleepy counties stretching across 30 states have been transformed into dense communities of subdivisions filled with middle-class families likely to move again and again, settling in yet another exurb but putting down no real roots. These exurban cities tend not to have immediately recognizable town squares, but many have some kind of big, new structure where newcomers go to discuss their lives and problems and hopes: the megachurch. This is not the megachurch of the 1980's, where baby boomers turned up once a week to passively take in a 45-minute service -- ''religion as accessory,'' as Tom Beaudoin, an assistant professor of religion at Santa Clara University, has described the phenomenon. In a sense, the new breed of megachurches has more in common with the frontier churches of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which served as gathering places for pioneers who had gone West in search of opportunity. In sprawling, decentralized exurbs like Surprise, where housing developments rarely include porches, parks, stoops or any of the other features that have historically brought neighbors together, megachurches provide a locus for community. In many places, they operate almost like surrogate governments, offering residents day care, athletic facilities, counseling, even schools. Taking the comparison one step further, there's even a tax, albeit a voluntary one: members are encouraged to tithe, or donate 10 percent of their income to the church. At Radiant, McFarland says, about one-quarter of the members do. It's hard to imagine a more effective method of religious outreach, which is, after all, the goal of evangelical churches like Radiant. As McFarland told me: ''I'm just trying to get people in the door.'' To that end, Radiant has designed its new 55,000-square-foot church to look more like an overgrown ski lodge than a place of worship. ''For people who haven't been to church, or went once and got burned, the anxiety level is really high,'' McFarland says. '' 'Is it going to be freaky? Is it going to be like what I see on Christian TV?' So we've tried to bring down those visual cues that scare people off.'' In fact, everything about Radiant has been designed to lure people away from other potential weekend destinations. The foyer includes five 50-inch plasma-screen televisions, a bookstore and a cafe with a Starbucks-trained staff making espresso drinks. (For those who are in a rush, there's a drive-through latte stand outside the main building.) Krispy Kreme doughnuts are served at every service. (Radiant's annual Krispy Kreme budget is $16,000). For kids there are Xboxes (10 for fifth and sixth graders alone). ''That's what they're into,'' McFarland says. ''You can either fight it or say they're a tool for God.'' The dress code is lax: most worshipers wear jeans, sweats or shorts, depending on the season. (''At my old church, we thought we were casual because we wore mock turtlenecks under our blazers,'' Radiant's youth pastor told me.) Even the baptism pool is seductive: Radiant keeps the water at 101 degrees. ''We've had people say, 'No, leave me under,' '' McFarland says. ''It's like taking a dip in a spa.'' When the church was under construction, people would occasionally ask McFarland if it was going to have stained glass or a steeple. ''No!'' he'd answer. ''We want the church to look like a mall. We want you to come in here and say, 'Dude, where's the cinema?' '' The spiritual sell is also a soft one. There are no crosses, no images of Jesus or any other form of religious iconography. Bibles are optional (all biblical quotations are flashed on huge video screens above the stage). Almost half of each service is given over to live Christian rock with simple, repetitive lyrics in which Jesus is treated like a high-school crush: ''Jesus, you are my best friend, and you will always be. Nothing will ever change that.'' Committing your life to Christ is as easy as checking a box on the communication cards that can be found on the back of every chair. (Last year, 1,055 people did so.) McFarland's messages are light on liturgy and heavy on what he calls ''successful principles for living'' -- how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt, even how to shake a porn addiction. ''If Oprah and Dr. Phil are doing it, why shouldn't we?'' he says. ''We should be better at it because we have the power of God to offer.'' In his recent book ''The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith,'' Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, writes that ''American faith has met American culture -- and American culture has triumphed.'' Radiant seems the embodiment of this assertion. And yet not exactly. McFarland's long-term plan for his congregants involves much more than playing video games and eating doughnuts. He says that his hope -- his expectation, really -- is that casual worshipers will gradually immerse themselves in Radiant's many Christ-based programs, from financial planning to parenthood and education, until they have eventually incorporated Christian values into every aspect of their lives. This is the vision of the new megachurch, and it's far more expansive than those of yesterday's megachurches and today's smaller churches. ''The larger church expects a much higher level of commitment,'' says Dave Travis, who runs Leadership Network, a strategic consulting firm for megachurches. ''The larger church expects you to be a more passionate follower of Christ, not just in the church, but in your community, your workplace and your home.'' As an evangelical strategy, it seems to be working. Weekly attendance at most American churches has either plateaued or is declining. But megachurches continue to expand -- and multiply. (According to John Vaughan, who runs the Megachurch Research Center in Bolivar, Mo., there were 10 non-Catholic megachurches in America in 1970. Today there are 282.) McFarland is clearly doing something right. There are now 27 other churches in Surprise, but none of them are growing at anything approaching the pace of Radiant. One day in Surprise, I met a pastor who moved there four years ago with his wife and children from Kalamazoo, Mich., to plant a church. After drawing fewer than 10 people for about a year, he folded up shop. When I ran into him he was auditioning for a part-time job with Radiant's band. lee mcfarland first heard the call to ministry one Sunday morning in 1995 at his church outside Seattle. As he tells the story, the pastor was sermonizing about the importance of volunteering free time to the church. ''And then he said: 'But God sometimes takes people and taps them on the shoulder and says, ''I want you to do this as a vocation.'' Sometimes this happens in high school, so you go into a Bible college. But sometimes God waits until your career is developed in another area and then calls you into the ministry as a second-career pastor.' And then he said something really strange: 'Tonight, I think there's someone here that God is calling to do that.' As soon as he said that, I knew. I just felt like God was going, 'It's you, it's you.' '' Within a matter of weeks, McFarland had enrolled in correspondence classes to become a pastor and started arriving at his office at 5 every morning to study for an hour or so before his day at Microsoft began. McFarland had lived outside Phoenix while working for Honeywell in the early 1990's. When he came back to Arizona on a business trip shortly after deciding to join the ministry, he had lunch with his former pastor. McFarland told him he was planning a career change, and the pastor asked him for a resume, in case he heard of any openings. A few months later, McFarland received a call from a group of Christian seniors who lived in Sun City, a retirement community that abuts Surprise. They could see that Surprise was about to take off and had tried luring some of the newcomers to their church, a more traditional place with formal attire, hymns and wooden pews, but they hadn't had much luck. It was clear that if these young families, many of whom had either fallen away from religion or had never attended church regularly, were going to be saved, it would require a very different kind of church led by a pastor who could relate to them. After raising $450,000 to buy a 15-acre plot in Surprise, the retirees received McFarland's name from his former pastor and offered him the job, which paid $26,000 a year. ''I was like: Surprise? I've been to Surprise,'' McFarland recalled during one of our conversations. ''It's a spot on the road that you pass on your way to get gas. It was a miracle that I was willing to come, and it was a miracle that they were willing to hire me.'' Surprise was still little more than a spot on the road, but waves of construction were rippling out from Phoenix. Having started the second half of the 20th century as the nation's 99th largest city, Phoenix had become the sixth largest and was busting out of its own skin. Once most of the land in the nearer suburbs -- Glendale, Mesa, Peoria -- had been built out, developers started moving deeper and deeper into the exurbs, and Surprise was soon expanding in every direction. The process worked something like this: A developer would buy land from a farmer and then ask Surprise to annex it. This guaranteed the developer municipal amenities like police and fire protection; for its part, with each annexation Surprise became more populous. The seemingly endless supply of desert land kept housing costs low, and young families were soon pouring in. During the 1990's, the population of Surprise doubled to 30,000. Commercial development was still ramping up. In 2000, Applebee's was the only sit-down chain restaurant in town, and the wait for a table on a weekend night could be as long as an hour and a half. Then the real boom began. The population of Surprise is now more than 80,000 and is expected to be close to 100,000 by the end of the year. And the city anticipates that there are still more than three decades of furious growth to come. Surprise won't be fully built out until 2040, at which point its population is expected to reach 650,000. There will no doubt be plenty of turnover along the way. According to Robert Lang, an urban expert who studies exurbs at the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech,''If you live in a new community, you will also change communities.'' A sk people at Radiant what first brought them to the church, and you will almost never hear a mention of God. It might have been a billboard: ''Isn't It Time You Laughed Again?'' Or the twice-a-week aerobics class (with free child care) called Firm Believers. Or one of their children might have come with a friend to play video games. For Joe and Jodi Garcia, who moved to Surprise nearly two years ago from Orange County, Calif., it was a flier advertising a sermon series about marriage, ''Sex, Lies and Second Looks.'' Unlike many Radiant worshipers, Joe and Jodi were not new to evangelical Christianity. In 1995, right after Joe had finally defeated a long-running addiction to alcohol and cocaine, both he and his wife (who have been married for 15 years) were saved at the Harvest Crusade, a Christian revival that took place over several nights at Anaheim Stadium. For a while, they listened to Christian radio and attended a nearby megachurch. But by the time they came to Surprise, they'd drifted away from religion. They were also having some problems in their marriage. That's when the flier from Radiant arrived, promising to make their lives better. ''Talking about sex in church -- are you kidding?'' it began. ''Nope.'' They went to Radiant and have been going back ever since. McFarland's sermons reminded Joe that he needed to cut out potential sources of temptation, like many Hollywood movies. ''If you don't prune, you start absorbing all of that stuff, and then take it into your marriage,'' Joe, a slight, intense-looking man with narrow eyes and a goatee, told me one night at Radiant. ''You start saying things like, 'Hey, my wife doesn't dress like that.' '' The Garcias came to Surprise with their two children because they were barely managing to make it in Orange County. They had a lot of debt, and had outgrown their modest home and couldn't begin to afford anything bigger in the area. Some friends told them about Surprise, and they decided to take a look. Phoenix's economy was expanding, so Joe, a network engineer, would probably be able to find work. In July 2003, they sold their Orange County house and bought a bigger one in Surprise. Within a few months, Joe had been hired by a health-care company in Phoenix. (He now works as a computer technician at Radiant.) Soon after the Garcias started attending Radiant, Joe, who was having trouble finding an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Surprise he liked, volunteered to help the church start a branch of Celebrate Recovery, a popular Christ-based program for recovering addicts. Praised by President Bush, Celebrate Recovery was founded by a recovering alcoholic frustrated that he didn't feel comfortable talking about Jesus in A.A. meetings. A.A. has 12 steps; Celebrate Recovery has eight principles, based on Jesus' sermon on the mount. ''A.A. is the higher power of your own understanding, which can be a doorknob,'' says Joe. ''Here our higher power is our lord savior Jesus Christ. He's the one who gives us the strength we need in recovery.'' Joe now leads Celebrate Recovery at Radiant, which is held on Friday nights at the church. The evening begins with a free dinner, after which about 100 people -- alcoholics, drug addicts, co-dependents -- filter into the worship center behind ushers in maroon shirts with ''Follow Me to Recovery'' printed on the back. The Radiant house band plays loud, uplifting Christian rock, and nearly everyone sings along: ''I'm trading my sorrows, I'm trading my shame, for the joy of the Lord.'' Once the offering has been collected, Joe gives a short sermon and then the attendees split up into small groups for their individual recovery meetings before reconvening for dessert at the Soul Cafe. Celebrate Recovery is what church-growth experts refer to as a side door. Before the rise of the megachurch, evangelism was done primarily through the front door -- the Sunday-morning service. Today, large evangelical churches try to offer the yet-to-be-saved as many different entry points as they can. Almost invariably, these side doors lead people into more intimate gatherings, which are intended to keep megachurches from feeling too large and impersonal. The arrival of the small group represents the maturation of the megachurch. Big churches took off in the 1980's precisely because they didn't ask much of the baby boomers who represented the bulk of their congregants. The stage lighting, surround-sound and theater-style seating turned worshipers into audience members. By the late 1990's, it was clear that this formula was no longer working. Slick, performance-oriented churches were drawing people, but they weren't always keeping them. National studies revealed that boomer attendance was dropping. Just as some megachurches had only recently repurposed empty strip malls and multiplexes to accommodate their growing crowds, they were now in danger of being repurposed themselves if they didn't adapt. At the same time, some megachurch pastors began to worry that they weren't really reaching people. Rather, they were producing what the theologian Sally Morgenthaler has called ''a generation of spectators, religious onlookers.'' In order to transform lives, they needed to find a way to deepen involvement -- to encourage people to integrate the church into their everyday lives and build relationships with other Christians. Polls have since confirmed this hunch. Most Christians who say they have been changed by their church attribute it not to their pastors' sermons but to their small groups, where people can share, in the words of Dave Travis, who runs the megachurch consultancy, ''their deepest hopes and hurts.'' This was, after all, the model of Jesus and his disciples: What I've done with you, you now do with other people. Small groups are an important part of McFarland's plan to convert what he calls ''baby Christians'' into ''mature Christians.'' Radiant has groups for everyone: singles, couples with children, couples without children, divorced women, married men, stay-at-home moms, widows. Many use a Christian DVD study kit, ''Life Together: Connecting With God's Family.'' Some groups involve Bible study; others are built around subjects like Christian parenting. Whatever the theme, the goal is always the same: to build what Travis refers to as ''authentic communities.'' Getting casual worshipers to take this next step isn't easy. Only about 800 people, or a little less than 20 percent of Radiant's weekend congregants, participate in any of its 80 small groups. Such numbers are not uncommon. It's rare for small-group participation at a megachurch to break 30 percent, says Eddie Gibbs, a professor of church growth at the Fuller Theological Seminary in California. That said, 800 people do orient their lives around Radiant. Brett and Cristina Bergstrom are two of them. Brett's first encounter with the power of fellowship at Radiant came a few years ago on the church's basketball court. He and Cristina had just been to Sunday services at Radiant for the first time -- their 9-year-old son had been going on Saturday nights with a friend for months -- and Brett, who played basketball in college, noticed that the church held pickup games on Tuesday nights. Brett came back a couple of days later to play and blew out his Achilles' tendon. His 6-feet-7-inch, 280-pound frame toppled like a redwood. ''One of the guys I was playing with asked me if I was a Christian,'' he told me one afternoon in the hot-tub dealership he owns and operates in Surprise. ''When I said yes, they all got down on the floor and prayed with me until the ambulance came.'' For several months, Brett and Cristina attended a Christian parenting class at the church, where they discussed things like how to help their kids handle science class in public school. (''If the teacher is up there teaching evolution as fact,'' Brett told me, ''there's nothing wrong with you asking very pointed questions, and it's a great opportunity to share your faith.'') Brett and Cristina attend a potluck dinner every other Saturday night with couples from the church. On Tuesday nights, Brett leads a Bible study class at the church; on Friday mornings he has breakfast with a group of Christian contractors. ''Now I know what it means to have brothers in Christ -- seeing guys, giving big hugs to each other, just that feeling,'' he told me, explaining the transformative effect that the church's small groups have had on him. ''It's not Radiant magic dust, but Radiant encourages you to let the spirit grow inside you and take down the wall you build up around yourself.'' As soon as he arrived in Surprise, McFarland could see that the city didn't have the infrastructure to support an influx of young families. He sensed opportunity. ''From Day 1 we were going to be a church that was going to really impact our community and provide something very tangible that would solve a problem,'' he says. ''Just helping the community opened a lot of doors, made people feel like we weren't just a church.'' The first problem McFarland set about solving was that of the public schools. The newly arriving parents told him they were terrible. So in the summer of 1998, less than a year after he'd started offering Sunday services, McFarland rented a trailer, strung up a banner and began signing up children for an as-yet-unbuilt charter school, Paradise Education Center; C.E.O., Lee McFarland. ''We had nothing to show them,'' he told me. ''Literally there was just land here.'' It was a measure of just how desperate parents were for an alternative to the public schools that the parents of 225 children turned up, vaccination records in hand, and registered them. Today the school, a ring of single-story white stucco buildings directly across the street from Radiant's massive worship center, is thriving. It has more than 1,000 children, and a waiting list close to 200. Because the school relies on public funds, teachers are required to follow state-approved curriculum guides, but Paradise nevertheless provides free advertising for Radiant. ''To this day parents will come by here and go, 'We just moved to Surprise and my kids go to school here, so tell me about this church,' '' McFarland said. ''We usually say it's a real positive church, real upbeat, kind of a community feel. A great place to get to know people. And they go, 'Great, I'll check it out.' That story has happened hundreds of times.'' Today the problem with Surprise's public schools isn't merely one of quality, it's one of quantity. The city builds two elementary schools every year and a new high school every other year, but parents still complain of overcrowding. Commercial development has started catching up with the population growth. Surprise's main thoroughfare, Bell Road, is now a traffic-choked avenue lined with strip malls filled with all of the usual suspects (Target, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Wendy's, Chick-fil-A, etc.). But it's the affordable homes that draw people to the city. The appetite for houses is so strong that most developments have a lottery system; if there is no lottery, people camp out overnight whenever new properties are about to be released. Demand is pushing up prices. At one development I visited, Legacy Parc, homes are climbing between $5,000 and $15,000 every month. But even with these steady increases, the average house in Surprise goes for $175,000. It's an attractive price for many families who are either trying to make the move into the middle class or remain there in the face of mounting debt and growing expenses. Which explains why the typical Surprise resident, as in many fast-growing exurbs, is a young, white, married couple of modest means. These are people that the Republican Party has always run well with -- it's conventional wisdom among political analysts that young, middle-class couples raising children tend to be conservative -- and in 2004 the G.O.P. made a strong play for exurbanites. Megachurches were a key part of the strategy. Supporters were asked to supply the Bush-Cheney campaign with church directories so it could make sure these churchgoers were registered and planning to vote. ''For the first time we didn't just engage businesspeople or Second Amendment supporters; we engaged people who said they were motivated first and foremost by their values, and these people were often churchgoers,'' Gary Marx, a liaison to social conservatives for the campaign, told me recently. ''We asked them to reach out to their community, and their community is the megachurch.'' Marx also went directly to megachurch pastors, not for endorsements, he says, but to encourage them to help get out the vote. More often than not, he was well received. ''An old-line pastor who went to seminary in the 60's is not going to be open to something like Citizenship Sundays when you pass out registration cards to everyone at the church,'' Marx said. ''But many of the pastors of these megachurches are in their late 30's, early 40's. They were teenagers during the Reagan years, and that's when conservatism and engagement by evangelicals began to become mainstream. So they would be more willing to do voter drives and things like that, more tuned into citizenship and engaging the community beyond soup kitchens.'' Maricopa County, where Surprise is situated, voted 57 percent for Bush to 42 percent for Kerry. In the run-up to the election, Radiant published nonpartisan voter guides in the church bulletin, and McFarland gave a sermon about the importance of voting, though he was careful not to express support for either candidate -- ''God isn't a Republican or a Democrat,'' he said. Still, the very fact that McFarland's sermons are intended to feel ''relevant,'' as he likes to say, means he at times takes on issues like abortion and homosexuality, both of which he believes are sinful. McFarland's views are rooted in his faith, but congregants may, no doubt, draw political conclusions. One Sunday in the middle of February, McFarland jammed with the Radiant band as it warmed the crowd up for his message. When he's in the mood, he sometimes plays the keyboard, but this morning he was just slapping a tambourine against his hip and smiling. McFarland's spiky black hair was standing straight up, and he wore the same basic Jimmy Buffett outfit -- jeans, sneakers and an untucked red Hawaiian shirt -- that he's been wearing for seven years now. The effect was both festive and dorky, like that of a goofy but endearing uncle. Most of the congregants swayed to the music and sang along; some had their eyes closed, their hands raised toward the sky. The leader of the worship band, Pastor Tony, brought things to a climax -- shouting, ''We love you, Jesus!'' over his band's last lingering notes -- and McFarland settled in behind his plexiglass podium to deliver his sermon: ''How to Enjoy Valentine's Day . . . Whether Single or Married.'' He spoke casually, though his sentences all felt scripted, and there was a hint of self-consciousness about his body language -- not so much that he appeared awkward, but enough so that he seemed a little uncomfortable in his role as religious leader. Within minutes, McFarland was talking about his own marriage, and how his chronic failure to properly sort lights and darks led to his banishment from the laundry room. A half-hour later, McFarland instructed the congregants to lower their heads in a brief prayer, and the sermon was over. ''Fire it up, Pastor Tony!' McFarland said as he retreated to the back of the worship room, parked himself by the door and doled out bearhugs to exiting worshipers. McFarland works under the assumption that people don't want to be intimidated by their pastors, that modernity has punctured the myth of the morally superior religious leader. He is replacing the sinner-be-damned fundamentalism that once characterized much of evangelical Christianity with forgiveness. McFarland never talks about transforming your life through struggle, surrender or sacrifice; he talks about being happier by accepting Jesus -- into your office, your kitchen, your backyard, your marital bed, everywhere. ''People aren't looking for the elevated holy man who's got all of the answers,'' he told me one afternoon. ''They want someone to be real with them.'' He has a knack for this, in part because he has the perfect back story for the leader of a church that aims at middle- and lower-middle-class 30-somethings who are looking to improve their lot. McFarland studied engineering at the University of Colorado, and before starting Radiant, he had worked his way up to a $160,000-a-year (plus stock options) job at Microsoft. He often alludes to his first career in his messages; it's a clever evangelical technique, a subtle way of letting people know that he once had what they're aspiring to and gave it up to work for the Lord. McFarland frequently refers to himself as a mail-order pastor. In fact -- and he readily acknowledges this too -- he never finished his pastoral coursework. He can lead Radiant anyway because the denomination to which Radiant belongs, the Assemblies of God, doesn't require its pastors to be ordained. This is not a mere quirk in the bylaws. The Assemblies, a Pentecostal movement that grew out of the preapocalyptic revivalism of the early 20th century and counts John Ashcroft (the son of an Assemblies minister) among its more prominent members, has historically been skeptical of all institutional education, seminaries included. The movement now has its own seminary in Springfield, Mo., but it continues to hew to tenets that most other denominations consider radical. Among other things, the Assemblies treats the Bible as fact and believes in miracles, faith healing and speaking in tongues. The only cue that there is any relationship between Radiant and the Assemblies of God is a small, discreetly placed plaque in the foyer of the main worship room of the church. McFarland never mentions the Assemblies in his sermons for the simple reason that he's afraid it will turn people off. It is only when casual worshipers are considering getting more involved at Radiant that they learn about the Assemblies affiliation, and even then McFarland handles the issue carefully. At a recent three-hour Saturday-morning orientation class for ''new believers'' who want to learn more about the church, he poked fun at the movement -- ''What they're known for is being real Holy Ghost: speaking in tongues, swinging from the chandeliers, all that kind of crazy stuff'' -- and assured his audience that Radiant is ''the most different Assemblies church.'' McFarland grew up in a Lutheran family in St. Louis. He discovered the Assemblies through his wife, Sandy, whose family belonged to the denomination, when they met in Colorado. Before Sandy's parents would allow him to take her out, they insisted that he come to church with them on a Sunday night. McFarland nearly freaked out. ''There was a band up on stage,'' he said, ''people were dancing, and then the pastor comes out. He's 6-foot-6. He's mad at everyone. He's pointing at people: 'You are a sinner!' And I'm like, Gosh, I'm sorry.'' McFarland continued, ''People are flopping around like fish, going, 'Yak, yak, yak,' speaking in tongues, and I'm like, 'What's next, snakes?' '' The service lasted two and a half hours; McFarland was exhausted by the end. Sandy asked him what he thought. ''I said, 'It was cool, but just so we're clear, I will never do that again,' '' he told me. ''Well, don't ever say never to God, because he will rub your nose in it.'' After McFarland and Sandy married, they joined her family's church. He gradually grew more comfortable there, though he never felt fully at home. Eventually, he and Sandy went shopping for another place of worship and wound up at a different Assemblies church, albeit one with less overt spiritual fervor. Radiant's desire to keep the Assemblies at arm's length notwithstanding, McFarland is an unapologetic believer in the movement's doctrines. He even says he speaks in tongues, though when he tells his worshipers the story of how he came to ''exercise the gift'' it sounds as mundane as such a thing can. He was on his lunch break, driving around in his brown Trans Am, listening to the tape of a sermon that a pastor had made for him, when he found himself on the steps of his house speaking a language he had never before spoken. ''I received the Holy Spirit through a cassette tape,'' as he put it. The Assemblies of God has a complicated view of Radiant and other user-friendly churches like it. Some ministers are thrilled with their success; others worry about the cost of trying to appeal to everyone. ''There are people in the Assemblies who are quite concerned that when you have a pastor who says we don't want the vocal gifts of the spirit expressed at weekend services, then the question is raised: 'What's going on here, is this really a Pentecostal church?' '' Gary McGee, a professor of church history at the Assemblies of God seminary, told me. ''My personal opinion is that it's more important to lead someone to Christ than it is to fuss over which method of church worship is being used.'' McFarland says he has heard his share of complaints from fellow Assemblies pastors about ''watered-down'' preaching. ''I had one guy from the Assemblies say to me, 'It's easy to fill a room.' And I was like: 'Oh, yeah? Show me, dude, because we're finding that it takes a lot of work.' '' Expanding the flock through evangelism is a core principle of Christianity, but the modern church-growth movement traces its roots to Donald McGavran, a Christian missionary who worked in India during the first half of the 20th century. What McGavran discovered and articulated in his 1955 book, ''The Bridges of God,'' was that churches can't operate like mission stations, rigidly insisting upon their ways and inviting people to come to them on their terms. Rather, they had to go into villages and make followers of Christ. There was simply no other way to build a dynamic Christian community, which McGavran considered a prerequisite for reaching the unchurched. McGavran's words were written for overseas missionaries who would be encountering people who knew nothing about Jesus, but they resonated powerfully in America. As the 60's progressed, a new generation came of age, one that felt increasingly alienated from the churches in which they'd been raised. At the same time, more and more families were relocating from the cities to outlying areas. It was clear to church leaders that if they wanted to capture these new suburbanites (and a little later, exurbanites), they were going to have to go after them on their turf. The problem was that most pastors had been taught plenty of theology at seminary, but very little about how to actually build a church. So church leaders turned to McGavran for guidance. A nascent industry of church-growth experts adapted his model, encouraging pastors to engage their local communities by treating potential worshipers as consumers. The modern master of church growth is Rick Warren. In the early 1980's, Warren, a fifth-generation Southern Baptist, applied McGavran's philosophies to his Orange County church, Saddleback. Warren's community was cut from a very different cultural cloth than his own family's; things like altar calls, a Southern Baptist staple in which worshipers are exhorted to come to the front of the church and accept Jesus, would never play in the wealthy suburbs of Southern California. Instead, Warren set about building a profile of ''Saddleback Sam''; once he had a sense of his average worshiper's likes (i.e. contemporary music) and dislikes (preachy, guilt-inducing sermons), he built Saddleback to accommodate him. A result was the so-called seeker-sensitive church. Saddleback is now one of the largest churches in the country, with a congregation of more than 15,000, and Warren, a cuddly-looking middle-aged man with a retreating hair line, is no longer just a church pastor. His 2002 book, ''The Purpose-Driven Life,'' which lays out a 40-day program to discover God's purpose for us, has sold more than 20 million copies. Less tangible though no less significant has been Warren's role in influencing more than 100,000 pastors through Saddleback's conferences, Web sites and prepackaged purpose-driven kits. McFarland is an unabashed acolyte. The church-building seminar that McFarland attended before he moved to Surprise was led by Warren, and nearly all of the techniques he has used to build his church -- the informal marketing study; the communication cards; the self-deprecating, Everyman persona; even the untucked Hawaiian shirt -- are taken straight from Warren's playbook. This is not plagiarism. Warren doesn't copyright anything, and he describes his purpose-driven formula as an Intel chip that can be inserted into the metaphorical motherboard of any church. Some 30,000 churches across the denominational spectrum now define themselves as ''purpose-driven.'' As his fame has grown, Warren has come in for plenty of criticism from other pastors. Should churches really be chasing popular culture? Isn't preaching only positive messages a reductive, if not distorted, approach to the Gospels? Shouldn't true believers be in natural conflict with the secular world? ''There's a healthy reaction here against a legalistic religion of dos and don'ts,'' says Gibbs of the Fuller Theological Seminary, referring to the purpose-driven approach. ''The danger, though, is that you end up with a Gospel that endeavors to meet your needs without challenging your priorities.'' Similar criticisms can be made of Radiant. By modeling his church after a mall, McFarland is, deliberately or not, desanctifying it. While his self-helpish sermons clearly resonate with transient exurbanites looking for ways to improve their lives, they can be seen as subverting the real purpose of worship. ''Worship is designed not to make people feel good about themselves . . . but to make them holy,'' Gibbs writes in ''Church Next,'' his book about the future of Christianity in America. Gibbs also wonders about the ultimate effect of the steady diet of sentimental praise songs at places like Radiant: ''Intimate worship that degenerates into a casual overfamiliarity is both presumptuous and embarrassing to those who see God from a transcendental perspective.'' Tom Tunget, a bearish ex-cop in his early 40's, greeted me at the door of his home in Surprise, wearing a T-shirt with a silk-screened image of Jesus, his arms outstretched on the cross. Underneath it were the words ''I love you this much.'' It's a fitting motto for Radiant, where love invariably trumps judgment. Tom led me into the living room, and he and his wife, Cathy, who is also a former cop, told me the story of how they found their way to Surprise. When they retired from the Los Angeles police force several years ago, the Tungents bought a couple of horses and five acres in Colorado. The idyllic small-town life they had imagined turned out to be cold and lonely. Tom's brother lived near Phoenix, so they went to Arizona last summer to look for a piece of rural property. Driving through Surprise one afternoon, however, they noticed a billboard for Radiant and decided to check it out. Within weeks of attending their first service, they sold their land in Colorado, gave their horses to a friend and bought a tract home in a development just a few miles from the church. Now their weeks are packed with Radiant-related activities. McFarland's emphasis on love struck a particular chord with Tom and Cathy. Tom opened up a small binder -- Radiant passes out fill-in-the-blank outlines at every service that worshipers are encouraged to keep -- to help him explain. '' 'Whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so he'll let me tell him about Christ and let Christ save him,' '' he read, quoting one of McFarland's recent sermons. ''Having been deputy sheriffs, we have tended to judge people from what we see them do -- we had to because that's how we stayed alive in that job -- but now it's about not judging people.'' When you ask people how Radiant has changed their lives, they will almost invariably talk about how it helped open their hearts. But there's a kind of narrowing going on here as well, which became clear a few minutes later, when Tom flipped to another passage from a recent sermon. '' 'Some seed fell among the thorny weeds, and the weeds grew up with them and choked the good plants,' '' he read, quoting Luke 8:7. Then he added his exegesis: ''We've had friends who were not Christian, and for me they were like the thorny weeds,'' he said. ''We've had to commit ourselves to friends who could help us grow spiritually.'' The following night I heard this same message, communicated more explicitly, at Radiant's youth service. ''If I asked how many of you have close friends who are unbelievers, a lot of you would probably raise your hands,'' the pastor told the crowd of about 150 teenagers, most of whom looked dressed for a rock concert. ''I'll tell you right now, if one of you is a believer and the other is not, your relationship is doomed.'' Such occasional admonishment notwithstanding, at Radiant, almost everything is expressed in positive terms. When McFarland makes his pitch for tithing, he avoids guilt trips, assuring his congregants that if they give 10 percent of their income to the church, God will make sure that the remaining 90 percent will go further than the full 100 percent ever would have. Even when he tackles a subject like homosexuality, an issue about which the Assemblies is unambiguous in its condemnation, he frames his message as one of compassion, entitling the sermon ''What to Say to a Gay Friend.'' This happens to be something McFarland has personal experience with. His younger brother, who lives in Southern California, is gay. When I asked McFarland to repeat the gist of his sermon about homosexuality, he told me it was the same speech he's given to his brother at least 20 times: ''I don't believe you were born gay. I was your brother; I grew up with you. I was there. I see that you got involved with a tennis pro who was gay when you were 18, and that's when everything switched.'' With his easygoing approach to saving souls, McFarland couldn't be more different from the television evangelists of the 1980's. This is not to say that he's less committed to the ultimate cause. As McFarland sees it, Radiant must continue to add members. ''Churches that have stopped growing,'' he says, ''have stopped hearing the screams of people being sent to hell.'' What remains to be seen is how many of the congregants McFarland is adding are just passing through evangelical Christianity the way that many of them are, no doubt, just passing through Surprise -- in short, whether the exurban megachurch represents the future of Christianity in this country or whether it is just another chapter in the evolving story of the American seeker. For his part, McFarland is already talking about moving the church again to accommodate the ever-expanding crowds. His hero is Joel Osteen, the handsome and charismatic 41-year-old pastor of America's biggest megachurch, Lakewood Church, in Houston. Lakewood has grown so big that Osteen decided to move the church to a former sports arena that seats 16,000. ''I keep saying the growth is going to level off,'' McFarland said. ''Then I think, Well, maybe Joel Osteen said that, too -- and then he decided to lease the Compaq Center.'' Jonathan Mahler, a contributing writer for the magazine, recently wrote about teenagers and antidepressants. His book, ''Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning,'' will be published next month by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:39:20 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:39:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] David Brooks: The Next Church (1996) Message-ID: The Next Church - 96.08 http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/nxtchrch/nxtchrch.htm [This is one of my all-time favorite articles, and I'm very glad it's online. My term for the next church was Rock Christianity. I asked an Orthodox Jewish friend if rock "music" had invaded the synagogues and he sniffed, "Yes, in the *Reform* synagogues." Note the date.] [4]Atlantic Monthly Sidebar Welcome to the Next Church Seamless multimedia worship, round-the-clock niches of work and service, spiritual guidance, and a place to belong: in communities around the country the old order gives way to the new by [5]Charles Trueheart N O spires. No crosses. No robes. No clerical collars. No hard pews. No kneelers. No biblical gobbledygook. No prayerly rote. No fire, no brimstone. No pipe organs. No dreary eighteenth-century hymns. No forced solemnity. No Sunday finery. No collection plates. [6](Related Articles The list has asterisks and exceptions, but its meaning is clear. Centuries of European tradition and Christian habit are deliberately being abandoned, clearing the way for new, contemporary forms of worship and belonging. The Next Church, as the independent and entrepreneurial congregations that are adopting these new forms might collectively be called, is drawing lots of people, including many Americans with patchy or blank histories of churchgoing. It constitutes, its champions believe, a distinctly American reformation of church life, one that transcends denominations and the bounds of traditional churchly behavior. As such, it represents something more: a reconfiguration of secular communities, not just sacred ones. _________________________________________________________________ Visit a [7]multimedia companion to this article, where you can view photos, hear audio clips of church services and contemporary church music, and read additional material about "the next church." _________________________________________________________________ [8]Social institutions that once held civic life together--schools, families, governments, companies, neighborhoods, and even old-style churches--are not what they used to be (if ever they were what we imagined). The new congregations are reorganizing religious life to fill that void. The Next Church in its fully realized state can be the clearest approximation of community, and perhaps the most important civic structure, that a whole generation is likely to have known or likely to find anywhere in an impersonal, transient nation. The churches are remarkable chiefly for their size. Many of these (mostly Protestant) congregations count thousands of people in attendance on a weekend--in some cases more than 10,000. For their hugeness they are often known, and often chagrined to be known, as megachurches. Among the other labels one hears are full-service churches, seven-day-a-week churches, pastoral churches, apostolic churches, "new tribe" churches, new paradigm churches, seeker-sensitive churches, shopping-mall churches. No two of these terms mean quite the same thing, but together, like the blind men with the elephant, they describe the beast rather well. These very large and dynamic congregations may at the moment number no more than 400, but they are the fastest-growing ones in the country. Half of all churchgoing Americans, to cite a figure treasured in the Next Church community, are attending only 12 percent of the nation's 400,000 churches. To look at it another way, half of American Protestant churches have fewer than seventy-five congregants. Big congregations endow a church with critical mass, which makes possible sizable budgets and economic efficiencies (such as very low staffing ratios) and formidable volunteer pools, and thus the capacity to diversify almost infinitely in order to develop new "product lines" that meet the congregation's needs and involve members in unpaid service. Still, to understand what the Next Church means, one cannot ignore hundreds more churches that are small to middling but willing and determined (or desperate) to think big--to be "intentional" about growing, to use an adjective commonly heard in their midst. For these churches this is not an abstract decision. The mainline denominations are bleeding. Their churches have more pew than flock, and unless they change, they have more history than future. Little congregations of fewer than a hundred at worship, in rural communities and inner cities, are shutting their doors at the rate of fifty a week, by one estimate. The Next Church movement [9]makes many traditional church leaders, and many active Christians, nervous, because it implies a rejection of the tried and the once-true and the somehow holy; it also suggests to many people an unseemly market-driven approach to building the Kingdom of Heaven. But its obvious success in building congregations and communities alike is making many believers out of skeptics. For the past year I've been visiting these churches and talking to their pastors and members to understand what makes them work. AN ISLAND IN THE STREAM I APPROACHED [10]Mariners Church, on a gentle hill above Newport Beach, California, through its parking lot. At the entrances to the asphalt expanse men and women in reflective orange jackets waved on a procession of hundreds of cars entering by twos the acres of parking places being vacated by the outflow from the earlier service. Mercifully, confusion did not reign. The new architecture of faith is inconspicuous. The seven-year-old sanctuary of Mariners is an understated horizontal brick pile with barely a peak in its auditorium roof, let alone anything suggesting a spire. Walking from my car, I realized that no door to the church building was visible--a mischievous design considering that Mariners, like other churches of this ilk, has figurative doors that are uncountable. And on the side away from the parking lot are real glass ones constantly admitting people--these days 3,500 at four services every weekend, and many hundreds more during the week. The Next Church rarely sleeps. The doors of Mariners open onto a tree-lined semicircular courtyard that was packed that Sunday morning with hundreds of people standing and talking together in the sunshine. A few, wearing name tags, approached and shook hands with everyone arriving; in the case of a stranger they gave a simple friendly greeting and no more. An orchestra played upbeat soft rock somewhere within, wafting melody and song to the outside. The dress was California casual. Children scurried everywhere. A cappuccino cart with parasol stood to one side, dispensing the secular sacrament. And along the periphery of the courtyard one shaded table after another announced the church's various "ministries," support groups, and fellowship opportunities--each a point of entry into the Mariners community. [11]To name a few open for inspection and inquiry that morning: a seminar on effective single parenting; twelve-step recovery meetings by category (alcohol, drugs, abuse) and freeway coordinates; a parents-of-adolescents meeting; a class for premarital couples; another for "homebuilders"; something called Bunko Night ("Tired of shopping? Low on funds?"); a "women in the workplace" brunch; a "fellowshippers" (seniors) meeting; a men's retreat ("Anchoring Deep"); women's Bible studies; a baseball league; a passel of Generation X activities; "grief support ministries"; worship music, drama, and dance; "discovering divorce dynamics"; a "belong class" for new members; and "life development" ("You will learn to know yourself and begin to see where God has a place of service for you. This is a can't miss class"). Needless to say, Mariners is also the home seven days a week of kid-oriented activity--a lot of it. Wandering away from this bazaar, I climbed a few steps to another part of the grounds and happened upon a clutch of men and women, mostly in their twenties and thirties, standing together in shorts and T-shirts around a baptismal pool--actually a turquoise hot tub. A pastor in shirtsleeves called them one by one, and they came forward and declared to their attending friends and families, seated in folding chairs before them, "My name is ------, and I accept Jesus Christ as my savior" or "my personal savior." Then, one arm gripped by the pastor, each stepped down and into what, it became clear from their looks of surprise, was a very cold bath. Just as the baptist gave their heads a final push to total immersion, they would grab their noses. When they came up shivering and born again, their friends and family were applauding. I made my way with hundreds of others to the sanctuary and found a seat along a carpeted aisle. I was in a handsome and dramatically sloped modern amphitheater. After some energetic songs of celebration, led by a sextet of male and female singers and a twelve-piece orchestra of saxophones, synthesizers, guitars, and drums (none of the songs composed before 1990, and all of them of club quality), the people of Mariners heard from a few of their number. A tall and smartly dressed woman shared a little about her Bible-study experience, and the help she got from the Bible in accepting her husband instead of trying to change him. A couple talked about the new-members' class they had just completed. The wife explained that she had gone from saying "I go to Mariners Church" to "I belong to Mariners Church." The husband was asked how he and his wife had made "a small place out of this big place"--a fair and worrisome question that many newcomers wonder about. He spoke of finding "a sense of connectedness" in the small-group activities he had joined and a "new purpose in serving God in several ministries." Then we heard from the forty-one-year-old senior pastor of Mariners, Kenton Beshore, who spoke discursively and often wittily on "Enclaves and Community." One riff caught my attention. It drew on the Scriptures: "I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not stand against it." Beshore explained to his flock, "Hell wants to build walls all around this church, and every church in our community, so the world doesn't see. It doesn't see our love and fellowship . . . it doesn't see our unity." "Hell," he went on, "is about building gates. Hell," he said again, pausing a beat, "is a gated community." The laughter rose slowly from the crowd. "No, no, no," Beshore said abashedly, after letting the mirth coalesce. "If you live in a gated community, I'm not saying that." But he was, in a way. "Not only does Hell want to build walls around a church, but it wants to build walls around you . . . because if you become a little private gated community . . . you're not going to be generous; you're going to live in fear." Jesus, he told them, "tears down walls between you and between you and the community." The jest about gated communities must have hit home with hundreds of people there who do, at various levels of middle-class attainment, live in secure communities widely decried as an emblem of modern isolation and of class and racial mistrust. A church like Mariners--indeed, any church--is inevitably a gathering of like-minded people who may also be demographically alike. That makes for insiders and outsiders. Beshore's discussion of walls suggested both the appeal of the Next Church and its constant challenge. These busy and tight-knit congregations of thousands, inside and outside traditional Protestant denominations, have become sanctuaries from the world ("islands in the stream," to use a phrase often heard in these parts), and as such they are proving themselves to be breeding grounds for personal renewal and human connectedness. Yet they stay alive and purposeful--and true to God's will, as they see it--only by growing: by remaining vigilantly open and aggressively attractive to the world. Following Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, they seek to be "all things to all men"--not forgetting the rest of the sentence, "that some might be saved." By taking on roles as various as those of the Welcome Wagon, the USO, the Rotary, the quilting bee, the book club, the coffee shop, and the mixer--and, of course, the traditional family and school--they have become much more than the traditional churches that many Americans grew up in and have long since lost. Belonging to Mariners or any other large church conveys membership in a community, with its benefits of friends and solace and purpose and the deep satisfaction of service to others. When we were talking in his office one day, Beshore described the Next Church strategy as succinctly as I was to hear it. "We give them what they want," he said, "and we give them what they didn't know they wanted--a life change." One recently returned churchgoer at Mariners, Bonnie Leetmaa, described the phenomenon this way: "Our government has let us down. Our workplace is not secure. Our communities are falling apart. Churches and synagogues are serving the community." She added, "It's been the best-kept secret of the last couple of decades." "WHO IS OUR CUSTOMER?" BOB Buford, a Texas businessman and author who became one of my guides in the world of the Next Church, showed me a handsome framed woodcut on the wall of his study, in Dallas's exclusive Turtle Creek district, one day. It read, "What is our business? Who is our customer? What does the customer consider value?" The words come from [12]Peter Drucker, the high priest of management theory, who has recognized the pastoral-church phenomenon as one of the signal events of the late twentieth century--part of [13]a sweeping and spontaneous reorganization of social structures and relationships. "What is our business?" That would be FDFX. I saw this mysterious acronym on a T-shirt, and eventually figured out what it meant. It comes from a chronically invoked Next Church mission statement: turning irreligious or unchurched people into Fully Devoted Followers of Christ. "Who is our customer?" That would be [14]Baby Boomers, mostly. This is not exactly niche marketing. The postwar birth cohort, after all, is the biggest and currently the most powerful one out there, the flushest and the most fecund. Boomers are a needy and a motivated bunch--with lots of experience in shopping for spiritual comfort. Many of today's new churchgoers trafficked in [15]heightened awareness in the 1960s, gravitated to [16]gurus and self-actualization movements in the 1970s, and dabbled in [17]New Age nostrums in the 1980s. Members of the same generation that cleaved to [18]Robert Bly's "Iron John" and embraced Bill Moyers's [19]Joseph Campbell now read [20]James Redfield's The Celestine Prophecy and have taken a fancy to angels. Might God have a market opportunity here? Churches like Mariners are drawing a flock of previously unchurched or unhappily churched people by being relentlessly creative about developing forms of worship--most symbolically and definingly, music--that are contemporary, accessible, "authentic." Next Church services are multimedia affairs. Overhead projectors allow the preacher to sketch his point the way a teacher would on a chalkboard, or to illustrate his message with a cartoon, an apt quotation, or a video clip. Lyle E. Schaller, an independent scholar and the author of dozens of books on the large-church movement, suggests that these are the descendants of the stained-glass window, another nonverbal storytelling device. (Overhead projectors are also used instead of hymnals and prayer books, and to project the Scriptures of the day.)A personal testimonial, or a two- or three-person dramatic sketch, illustrates with true-life vignettes the point the pastor is making in his message (it's almost never called a sermon). In congregations of this size communion at the altar can be impractical; the communion services I saw were special rather than regular occasions, and because kneeling sequentially in such numbers is logistically tricky, the sacraments are administered standing up at strategic locations in the amphitheater. A leading pastor in this movement, Leith Anderson, of Wooddale Church, in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, likes to talk about "reading the culture" and "translating the culture." The culture is suspicious of old-church "European" atmospherics, ritual, and language--suspicious of old institutions in general. Some of these churches "are dramatizing a truth that missionaries have known for decades," the church scholar George Hunter writes in his new book, Church for the Unchurched. "To reach nonChristian populations, it is necessary for a church to become culturally indigenous to its `mission field'"--whether that is Asia, Africa, Latin America, or Exurbia. "When the church's communication forms are alien to the host population, they may never perceive that Christianity's God is for people like them." Christian denominations in America are among the few institutional expressions of European culture still left standing, and their bulwarks of belief and tradition are mighty. The Anglican liturgy and music that I grew up with, for instance, and that I still savor on Sunday mornings for their grandeur and familiarity, seem to me to have the air of eternity. But they are, after all, a fairly recent expression of the faith. Anderson, in his recent book A Church for the 21st Century, put this in perspective. While the New Testament speaks often about churches, it is surprisingly silent about many matters that we associate with church structure and life. There is no mention of architecture, pulpits, lengths of typical sermons, or rules for having a Sunday school. Little is said about style of music, order of worship, or times of church gatherings. There were no Bibles, denominations, camps, pastors' conferences, or board meeting minutes. Those who strive to be New Testament churches must seek to live its principles and absolutes, not reproduce the details. We don't know many of the details, and if we reproduced the ones we do know, we would end up with synagogues, speaking Greek, and the divisive sins of the Corinthians. Hunter points out that Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German vernacular, and the Lutheran Church adapted then-contemporary folk music, including drinking songs. The Methodists under the Wesley brothers "agreed to become more vile" to reach the common people--preaching in fields and town squares. They coached their adherents to speak "in the most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed." General William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, memorably said, "Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?" To illustrate what he sees as the absurdity of institutional resistance to new forms of worship and service, Schaller recalled for me some earlier controversies that divided churches: "Should we have a telephone in the church building? Should we have indoor plumbing? You don't want them doing that in God's house!" This is not ancient history. I met the young pastor of a Church of Christ congregation who was lamenting that his denomination still forbids the use of any musical instruments in its worship services. In fact it is music, more than any other issue or symbol, that divides congregations on the cusp of growth. The pipe organ, the old hymnal, and the robed choir are emblems of continuity and cohesion to those who uphold tradition, of encrustation and exclusion to those who don't. Whether a church uses contemporary music or not defines which kind of people it wants. When it uses contemporary music, it's saying it wants unchurched people--particularly those of childbearing and child-rearing age. Proponents of culturally "authentic" church music can be blunt. Howard Clark, the pastor of the Northwest Bible Church, in Dallas, remembers a young staff member saying to him, "I don't have an organ. None of my friends has an organ. Why should I listen to an organ on Sunday?" Chuck Fromm, who is the chairman of Maranatha! Music, a company that supplies churches with contemporary praise and worship music, told me, "We better think about our sound and how we are reaching our community, or we will be the Amish of the twenty-first century." THE WAGES OF SUCCESS ONE young woman who recently joined Mariners Church after shopping around for a few years remarked to me that when she first saw "all the Beemers and Jaguars in the parking lot, I wondered, How could these people love God?" Mariners (now Mariners Southcoast Church, since its merger with a neighboring megachurch) draws from one of the wealthiest and most Republican precincts in America--southern Orange County, California. "They're the new rich," Kenton Beshore told me. "Many in our church run companies, and are high-paid guys who went to Princeton or Harvard or Stanford. They're executives and entrepreneurs." He was not (just) boasting. He was making a point: "They got the world they wanted. But it wasn't the world they wanted." Many of his parishioners have tried everything else--money especially, and maybe booze or drugs or infidelity or overeating. "The Alcoholics Anonymous definition of insanity,"he said, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Bill Hybels, the pastor of [21]Willow Creek Community Church, in South Barrington, Illinois, the country's ultimate megachurch, described this as "success panic," and he doesn't restrict the syndrome to the affluent. One Sunday morning at Willow Creek, I heard a message from a breezy, funny speaker named John Ortberg. Quoting Ecclesiastes 6:7, he said, "All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied." He told the congregation of 2,400, "Your cravings, if you could get to the heart of them, are for the eternal." Bonnie Leetmaa, the returned churchgoer at Mariners, remembers how her brother brought the question down to earth: "As soon as people realize they're going to die, they go back to church." That reckoning often follows from parenthood. Children have brought many unchurched people or lapsed Christians back to churches they felt they had no need for without progeny. The story and the ritual and even the community of church remind parents and children of eternal continuities and provide them with a fairly well tested cheat sheet of moral precepts. Rules are in vogue, and we are enjoying a tonic renaissance of belief in sin and virtue. (The source of wisdom cited most frequently in my conversations, after God, was [22]William Bennett.) Even the most stubbornly traditional churches, if they have any critical mass at all, are putting children's education, child care, and teen activities up there with music as essential ingredients to attract Boomer families and, in the years ahead, the following generation, usually called Busters (for the post-Boom baby "bust," born after 1964). The new churches understand something about their demographic target market which Wade Clark Roof, a sociologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, describes in his excellent study of Boomer spirituality, A Generation of Seekers. [Their] concern is to experience life directly, to have an encounter with God or the divine, or simply with nature and other people, without the intervention of inherited beliefs, ideas, and concepts. Such striving is understandable, not simply because secondhand religion can be empty of meaning, but because only personal experience is in some sense authentic and empowering. Its means may be market-driven, culturally sensitive, and cutting-edge, but this does not make the Next Church "progressive" or "liberal" on the fundamentals. What the new churches are is expressed well by the [23]Fellowship of Las Colinas, in Irving, Texas, in its official statement of purpose:"We exist to reach up--which is worship (expressing love to God); to reach out--which is evangelism (or sharing Christ with others); and to reach in--which is discipleship (becoming fully devoted followers of Christ)." Although not usually fundamentalist in the sense so poorly received in liberal churchgoing and secular America, these churches are proudly evangelical--that is, they are devoted to missions and conversion--and take the Bible very seriously if not always literally. God's word is the only thing about these churches that is considered sacred, and yet their people invoke Jesus as often and as familiarly as other people talk about their friends. These are not television ministries; they are cohesive congregations. Their adherents are not the people who faint in revival tents, who knock on one's door with pamphlets, or who demonstrate at abortion clinics. The average megachurch person, no matter how intense his or her love of God, is a more buttoned-up, socially inhibited person--an average American, that is. A woman I met at [24]Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, in suburban Minneapolis, told me, "We don't throw up our hands and act crazy. We're Lutherans, after all." A CHURCH OF OPTIONS BOOMERS as customers are accustomed to eclecticism, which is the embodiment of choice. In spontaneous imitation of that other late-century cathedral, the mall, the megachurch offers a panoply of choices under one roof--from worship styles to boutique ministries, plus plenty of parking, clean bathrooms, and the likelihood that you'll find something you want and come back again. This is what the customer considers value. I saw written up in the local paper a smallish Episcopal church in Orange County that every Sunday morning offers a traditional service, a contemporary service, and a charismatic service. Another minister I met, Stanley Copeland, of Pollard United Methodist Church, in Tyler, Texas, referred to his own worship menu as "chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry." He told me, "We do not want to be a church just for people who are already Christian. We are not a church of the Way. We are a church of options." I saw lots of options in my travels. Ed Young, the dynamic young pastor of the Fellowship of Las Colinas, has a particular zest for marketing his business through direct-mail drops touting Las Colinas's popular Saturday-evening service and messages ("A Succsexful Marriage") to targeted ZIP codes in his area. More than 3,000 people worship at one of Las Colinas's four weekend services, owing at least in part to enormous mailings such as the 92,000-piece mail drop on Young's Easter series "The Future of the Family." Sports are a big deal at Las Colinas. The church organizes a thirty-eight-team basketball league, starting with children of both sexes in grades one through six. It has sponsored a baseball clinic led by the New York Yankees. To anticipate the objections of just about every male Texan, services conclude in time for watching parties for the Dallas Cowboys football games--which are on view on a big screen outside the sanctuary for church attendees to take in as part of their post-worship fellowship. For those for whom Sundays are truly sacred, Las Colinas offers the Saturday-night service. People may drive forty-five minutes to an hour to get to a church like this--but then, as normal Americans, they're in the habit. Bob Buford explains, "People don't work in their neighborhoods. People don't shop in their neighborhoods. People don't go to the movies in their neighborhoods. So why should anyone expect them to go to church in their neighborhoods? They'll drive right by small churches in their neighborhood to get to attend a larger one that offers more in the way of services or programs." He shook his head at the contrast between Ed Young's operation and the "stone church on the corner where the guy is preaching on the Hittites." "The program offerings are overwhelming" at Las Colinas, he said. "The sound systems are state-of-the-art; the message is relevant and well communicated. People will demand from their church all the Willow Creek stuff, and if they don't get it, they'll go to Willow Creek. It's Wal-Mart versus the corner grocery. It ain't a fair fight." Probably the most spiritually energized and musically charged service I attended was in Minneapolis, at the Church of the Open Door. David Johnson's congregation of several thousand meets three times a weekend in a somewhat blighted former high school in the northwestern blue-collar reaches of the city. It was eight o'clock one rainy winter morning when I drove there, parked in a muddy lot, and hustled inside down grim tiled corridors lined with rusty lockers. Upstairs, through a room with dozens of (by now familiar) booths advertising the activities and help that the church offers during the week, I found my way into a cavernous gymnasium arrayed with folding chairs down the center and basketball bleachers along either side. The congregation, unlike many of the Dockers-clad Volvo drivers of more-prosperous megachurches, was mostly in jeans and wool shirts. For all its simplicity, the Church of the Open Door used overhead projectors for Scripture and song lyrics. This may seem a luxury, but it is cheaper than buying 2,000 hymnals and 2,000 prayer books. It's also smarter: for one thing, projecting words and lyrics on a screen means no mass page-flipping by parishioners with their heads bowed. I don't think it's an accident that the singing I heard in all these churches was booming and enthusiastic--partly because of the simplicity and almost childish repetitiveness of the music, but also because the people had their chins up and their hands free. Thus the spontaneous clapping and swaying of hips and, occasionally, the single hand outstretched to God. At the Church of the Open Door that morning there was singing for forty minutes straight. It was indescribably uplifting, sore legs notwithstanding, and a programmatic mark of this kind of church--sustained celebration in song. The outstanding lead vocalist carried the energy of her praise to the limits of modesty. Exhausted from her song, she whispered into her microphone to a hushed auditorium, "Thank you, Lord, for the victory." Johnson then appeared and presented one in a series of messages on money, in which he explored all the barriers to giving to the church and what he took to be the cause: his parishioners' ongoing "struggle with financial bondage." Unlike many big-church orators, who have a cool, crisp, Lettermanesque manner, Johnson was animated and often shouting--Jimmy Swaggart without the sweat and tears. But his manner was Next Church in its heavy dose of comic attitude. Roaming the stage histrionically around his clear-plastic lectern, Johnson spoke, like Jesus, in tongues the people before him could understand--indeed, in an array of over-the-top voices: I could hear the motivational speakers of late-night television, along with Joe Pesci and Robin Williams. Johnson interrupted himself, the way stand-up comics do, to introduce another deep-voiced character who said, "Gee, Dave--this doesn't sound very spiritual." Johnson as Johnson answered, "Somebody better talk about this stuff. This is God stuff. It's not a money thing. It's not a sex thing. It's a character thing. A spiritual thing. A God thing." The membership of most of the churches I visited was predominantly white, although in almost every one I could see a sprinkling of black and brown and Asian families. Most pastors plead that they attract the people who happen to live in their communities (defined as an agglomeration of ZIP codes). But they don't look happy about it. Lyle Schaller, the church scholar, told me that race and ethnicity are "still a very significant line of demarcation" in most of American church life (except for very large, multicultural, charismatic congregations). The same impulse that drives people to worship with their own social kind, or to make the choice of a church a statement about the way they see themselves in the world, keeps them racially unmixed. In this sense the gated community lives. One way these churches address the problem and meet the need is to plant their own minority-specific churches. The rise of Afrocentric thinking has found powerful expression in hundreds of newer and larger black churches in America. At Concord Missionary Baptist Church, in South Dallas, the Reverend E. K. Bailey is content to be a magnet for what he calls "buppies"--black upwardly mobile professionals. They need the specialized ministry that an African-American church like Concord can deliver, he says. "They're often one of a kind in a white organization. They're all stressed-out in that culture. Here they can be who they are, feel they have something to add as much as anyone else." Concord's worship rituals don't look exactly like those at the typical large churches, but that reflects the fact that the black church in America long ago tapped its culture, and developed a form of worship and a gospel-music tradition that now seem almost as timeless as the King James Version. In Next Church circles there is a keen interest in creating churches, or services within churches, that minister to Americans in their twenties. I heard more than one exegesis of the differences in tastes and expectations, spiritual and otherwise, between Boomers and Busters. Carol Childress, who has studied generational preferences, says that [25]Busters as churchgoers tend to be skeptical of the megachurch excesses and seek "authenticity"above all else. Other differences in tastes and expectations, I suspect, are merely those between twenty-five-year-olds and forty-five-year-olds at any point in time. But I did glimpse something of the Buster style in Chris Seay, the pastor of the University Baptist Church, in Waco, Texas, who is mellow as only a twenty-four-year-old can be. Seay ministers to a flock of twentysomethings and younger people that has grown to 1,200 in just twelve months of meeting in an old downtown movie theater. When we met, in Dallas last year, Seay told me about a couple of attractions that University Church is known for. He said it offered the best rock music by the best rock musicians in Waco. He talked about their "sound"--"a cross between Pearl Jam and Hootie and the Blowfish." His church also offers small groups, or "cells," called together, say, to watch the television program Friends and then discuss it among themselves, before Bible study. (In Boomer congregations the program of choice is Cheers, in reruns, with its theme song of connectedness in a world of anomie:"where everybody knows your name . . .") At University Church on Sundays the seamlessness of the Boomer church gives way to something like spontaneity. Seay says of his worship services, "We don't know what's going to happen next--or we make it seem like we don't know what's going to happen next." Seay, a third-generation pastor, says this about Busters: "It's not that we don't trust God; it's that we don't trust the institutions. They've let us down. But I don't think Busters have rejected Christ." His mission is to "communicate to seekers in a safe place," he says. "They need a place where it's safe to say, `I don't believe this whole God thing. I think it's a lot of malarkey.'" Like the mainline denominations, though perhaps with more success, new, large, independent churches attempt to live with intense divisions among their flock over abortion and homosexuality. Some, like Michael Foss, the pastor of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, in suburban Minneapolis, are fiercely agnostic. "I'm convinced you can be a Christian on either side of those issues," Foss told me when we talked last fall. "One of the tragedies of the culture is the tendency to draw lines where they needn't be drawn. Christians ought to quit throwing rocks at Christians. We don't have to agree on everything. And these are side issues. What we're about is spiritual renewal." Such dangerously free thinking is not always apparent among the Next Church pastors I spoke to. Like politicians, they put varying degrees of emphasis on teaching people the biblical injunctions on these matters, and in their hands Scripture stacks up pretty heavily against people who terminate viable pregnancies or enjoy nonprocreative sexual relations of any type. But it seemed to me also that their conclusion was always that compassion was necessary--vigilance against the sin, forgiveness for the sinner. This is a matter of common sense to many of the Next Church pastors I met. Randy Frazee, the pastor of Pantego Bible Church, in Arlington, Texas, told me, "I think we've got to redefine church. There are a whole lot of people out there with a major failure in their lives--and they never find themselves acceptable in church again. They're spiritually hungry, but they feel like second-class citizens." Many of them, he said, grew up in the Catholic Church; indeed, lapsed or renounced Catholics contribute mightily to the ranks in Protestant megachurches. Many of Frazee's congregation were living out of wedlock, and "I was willing to accept them for who they are. The church is not for those that are perfect." VACUUM-CLEANER MINISTRY? WHEN I asked Ed Young, the pastor of Las Colinas, if his church could keep getting bigger and bigger, he answered, "As long as we keep getting smaller and smaller." The riddle is worth pondering. Growing churches and congregations, like growing businesses, have a reflexive thirst for market share. They tend to equate rising numbers with self-worth and bricks and mortar with godliness. But growth is also an expression of the evangelical mission. When I marveled to Bill Hybels, of Willow Creek, about his church's phenomenal growth and size--more than 15,000 attend a worship service every weekend--he frowned. "There are two million people within a one-hour drive of this place," he said. "In business parlance, we've got two percent of market share. We've got a long way to go." Not only self-styled evangelicals are growth-minded. Bill Tully, the rector of St. Bartholomew's, a distinguished old mainline Episcopal church in New York City, is watching the large-church "restoration acts" across the country with an appreciation of the inherent tensions of growth. "People come to church to be touched, to belong," he told me in an E-mail message one day. "We form local congregations as if they were clubs. And then we behave as if they were clubs. But clubs are anti-growth." Tully added, "Working to keep a church at a comfortable number is almost always self-defeating. Organically, that's stasis, and it spells death eventually. A church that consciously grows will learn to ask of everything that it pursues, Does this help us grow? or does this keep us the way we are?" It is not accidental that the latest generation of large churches, with their huge auditoriums and balconied atriums, some with food courts and fountains, resemble secular gathering places. (Banks and colleges used to build their buildings to look like Gothic cathedrals.) Walking into a church like Mariners, or Willow Creek, one can easily imagine oneself in a corporate headquarters or a convention hotel. By adopting nonthreatening architecture, the large churches are finding another way to lower psychological barriers against the church edifice. The multi-use church facilities, often the biggest and finest in their communities (Willow Creek has the largest auditorium in metropolitan Chicago), open their doors to every kind of community group for meetings. Once people get used to hanging around a nice building, the theory goes, they may take a flyer on something deeper. Big congregations, far from being a deterrent, are a marketing asset: they lend the anonymity that allows newcomers, shoppers, the curious ("seekers," in the parlance), to feel comfortable checking out a new church. (When, last March, I walked into a little country church in Virginia just before the service started, every head turned to see who had come in.) The rule is that newcomers do not wish to be singled out for attention--until such time, of course, as they do. Experience has taught these churches that after the initial exposure, size can soon alienate the potential new member. At Willow Creek a while ago word came back that some newcomers felt overwhelmed by the size of the church, and even some members who were trying hard and sounded cheerful actually despaired of ever finding a place in its vast and impersonal honeycomb of God-driven busyness. As it sought to address this problem, Willow Creek found echoes of the solution in the secular world. Lee Strobel, a Willow Creek leader who wrote one of the best-selling books in megachurch literature, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, likes to illustrate the concept by referring to an ad for the Continental Bank of Chicago (now BankAmerica)that confronted popular mistrust of huge, impersonal institutions. Continental, the campaign said, was "the big bank with the little bank inside." The small-group system that Willow Creek gave its own expression to, which has itself been widely adopted by even not-so-mega churches, encourages every new member to join a cell of usually no more than ten people, led by a lay person. Such a cell, says Willow Creek's small-groups czar, Jim Mellado, "is the basic unit of church life." Some 10,500 of the more than 15,000 worshippers at Willow Creek, and comparable proportions at other churches, belong to small groups--some for singles, some for couples, some by sex and age, many by location. The old men who push Willow Creek's fleet of fifty industrial vacuum cleaners down the miles of halls every night are part of hall-vacuuming small groups. Whatever its affinity, every small group includes some Bible study and God talk--which are, after all, the point of the exercise. The perfume of these groups may be Christian, but their integument is social. Ideally if not always practically, your cellmates are the ones who are there for you when your parent dies, or when you're lugging your stuff to a new apartment, or when you have to go to the doctor all of a sudden and you need someone to pick up the kids after school. Relationships, that is. Neighbors. Family, when so many people seem not to have a family anymore. What used to happen naturally, at least in the small-town America we mythologize, today needs a little more deliberateness. "We have to work at keeping the village," a small-group enthusiast at a church in Minneapolis told me. These churches' need to shore up smallness in the tide of bigness echoes such management nostrums as creative teams at ad agencies and quality circles on assembly lines, and such marketing conceits as designer boutiques within department stores and editors' imprints within publishing behemoths. Whether the churches maintain formal ties to their denominations or never had any to begin with, they reflect the impulse to customize, to bring institutions closer to their clientele, and to design them on a scale that will be not only approachable but ultimately irresistible. A THIRD FORCE WHAT may at first go unremarked when one beholds all the small-grouping and service being provided for people who come to these churches is the service being provided by all those people who are already there. Teaching Sunday school and arranging flowers and passing the plate have long been the formal obligations of any Protestant congregation's core. But the degree and intensity of participation in the Next Church is on a wholly different scale. The churches, even the ones with enormous paid staffs (Willow Creek has nearly 200 full-time paid employees), can truly be said to be led and staffed by their laity. The overwhelming reality is that the bulk of the people who make the church function are volunteers. Some of these churches have adopted the pitch, "At ------ you won't have to sign anything, sing anything, say anything, or give anything"(until you are ready to, that is). But once people have learned the secret handshake, as it were, they are expected and asked to play an active role--and many of them are eager to be put to work. (To the list of reasons that send Boomers to church from the wasteland of their unchurched life I would add: gratitude.) Just as significant as the existence of 1,400 small groups of seven to ten people each at Willow Creek is the work of 1,400 small-group leaders, each one responsible to team leaders and on up the line to the pastoral staff. One of the basic elements of large-church management is identifying the "gifts" of people in order to fit them to the church's various ministries. The larger the church population, the more ambitious the church mission, the more customized the service, the more rewarding the ministry. Willow Creek, for example, is famous for its active car-repair ministry, in which weekend grease jockeys fix up the cars of fellow parishioners who can't afford professional service or restore clunkers to life and donate them to the poor. Service is its own reward. Hybels remarked to me, "There isn't a personality charismatic enough to get a volunteer to vacuum the floors of the church at night. Something has to be going on in his heart." What brings people to their gift of service is a desire to do something that--perhaps unlike their day job, perhaps unlike their evenings--matters. Among the things that they didn't realize they wanted when they came back to church, in the view of many people I met, was not just a changed life but the chance to change the lives of others. Peter Drucker has written approvingly of what he calls the pastoral churches as yeasty new sources of nonprofit-sector volunteerism. In the view of Drucker and some of his disciples, Bob Buford among them, these churches are an integral part of a potent and largely unseen "third force" of volunteer productivity and philanthropy that is picking up what the private sector has forsaken and the public sector has squandered. The potential may be dazzling, but the current base line is impressive too: giving to religious institutions in 1993 made up 61 percent of all household charitable giving; the average contribution from households where no one volunteered was $425, and from households where someone did, $1,193. Collection plates may have been replaced in many large churches by less threatening buckets at the door for exiting churchgoers. But the preponderance of the giving that supports these big institutions--and churches in general--is not so spontaneous. Well-organized stewardship ministries promote the virtues of tithing and orchestrate high levels of donor participation and dollar contributions. The giving makes possible such imposing places as Saddleback Valley Community Church, in Mission Viejo, California, whose seventy-nine-acre campus, now under construction, will eventually include a 10,000-seat auditorium, a fellowship hall, a day-care center, and office quarters. The price, borne by the more than 11,000 worshippers at Saddleback, is likely to exceed $50 million. Drucker says that Americans today go to church for reasons very different from those of two generations ago. Then attendance was steered by heritage, habit, and social status. "Now," he told me recently, "it is an act of commitment, and therefore meaningful. It is no longer an act of conformity, and therefore meaningless. People need community, yes, and they need a spiritual identity, yes, but they also need responsibility. They need the feeling that they contribute." Reminding me that "this is not a church story, it's a volunteer story," Drucker told me about a woman he knew who was a senior vice-president in a Fortune 500 company and left her job to run a social-service agency for two years. When he asked her why, she said, "Look. The company pays me very well. I enjoy it. But I'm Goddamned if I know what the company is trying to do. At the agency it took me two years to straighten it out, and I can see the results." GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY WILLOW Creek Community Church, the Fellowship of Las Colinas, Saddleback Valley Community Church, Mariners Church, Wooddale Church, Calvary Chapel, the Church of the Open Door, the Community of Joy, House of Hope, Gateway Cathedral, New Life Fellowship . . . these places have something in common:they whisper no word of a denomination. In some cases that's because the church belongs to none. The Next Church is sui generis, a house built of local materials and independent pluck and zeal. In other cases the church would just as soon not mention that it owes allegiance to any remote earthly institution. In a few cases the church doesn't even call itself a church. At Wooddale Church the "Baptist" is silent. When I visited him there, Leith Anderson showed me the results of a focus group he mined some years ago. A randomly selected group of local residents was asked to react to a list of names that Wooddale Baptist Church was considering in conjunction with its move to spacious (and now already overcrowded) new acreage. He found, as have others across the country, that putting "Baptist" in a name is to the unchurched about the surest turnoff there is. Though many congregations in the Next Church retain nominal membership in mainline or evangelical denominations, and some are thriving as parts of a greater ecclesiastical whole, what they are concealing in the names they have chosen is at the heart of the great convulsion going on in American church life: the challenge to denominations. Unaffiliated churches have led the way in acting independently, creatively, aggressively, competitively, intentionally, to build huge communities of people whose lives orbit the church seven days a week. In most cases they have had no help from denominations--no staffing, liturgy, financing, or brand recognition. Indeed, a few dozen of these churches are big and influential enough to constitute denominations in everything but name: they train pastors and lay leaders, they "plant" and counsel churches, they publish their vision, and they seek new followers. One midwestern Episcopal rector I met, who later asked for anonymity, took the long view. "Denominations as we know them are a historical anomaly," he said to me recently. "The very large churches are becoming the new dioceses--and they don't take a big cut of your income to do it." [26]Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, in California, one of the granddaddies of the large-church movement (it began as the home of the "Jesus people," sometimes called "Jesus freaks," of the 1960s), has spawned some 700 other Calvary Chapels across the United States and abroad. About forty of them have congregations numbering in the thousands. Calvary Chapels would be a small denomination if it wanted to call itself one. Willow Creek is a more contemporary example of the new proto-denomination. As it grew and its renown spread in the church world, Willow Creek soon felt overwhelmed --not just by the numbers of people flocking to its worship and other ministries but also by the numbers of pastors and church elders from around the world who wanted to hear the story, learn the lessons, and receive the wisdom. To handle these professional seekers, Willow Creek created a kind of parachurch organization called the [27]Willow Creek Association, a group of churches from more than sixty denominations (or none), whose membership now numbers 1,700. Their leaders, clergy and lay, come to Willow Creek by the thousands for seminars, and receive continuing education and advice from newsletters, books, audiotapes and videotapes, and specialized consulting from Hybels and his staff. The clientele can pick and choose from a cafeteria of concepts and strategies and materials that Willow Creek has developed, from using short dramatic sketches in worship services to organizing small groups to reaching the unchurched and developing FDFX. This is no Vatican. The big "teaching churches" like Willow Creek, Saddleback, Wooddale, and a few dozen others emphasize to their pupils the need to customize an approach to the market. Hybels is quick to say that he does not wish to create many little Willow Creeks, and several other pastors, unprompted, ticked off lists of differences between the way they do things and the way Willow Creek does things. (It's not always fun being the big boy on the block: when Hybels gave an interview to Christianity Today, the cover line accompanying his photo was "Selling Out the House of God?") The teaching churches also share strategies and lessons among themselves, and across denominational lines, through such organizations as Teaching Church Network, founded by Leith Anderson, and Leadership Network, established by Bob Buford. One of the tools Leadership Network uses is NetFax, a series of one-page briefings, pointers, lists, and quotable quotes from the likes of Peter Drucker, Ken Blanchard, Lyle Schaller, and Alvin Toffler, which regularly reaches 3,800 pastors and others. "The fact is, these large churches have more in common with each other than with other churches in their denomination," Buford told me, as we drove down the freeway to our third worship service of the morning one Sunday last summer. Just as significant for the next generation of these large churches, and for the established Protestant denominations, is that they are training their pastoral staffs themselves. They would rather identify their own best pastors and create a priesthood (another word they don't use) in their own image than take whichever stranger the bishop wants to send their way every five years. Next Church pastors may go outside for some limited academic seminary training, but their real education began the day they joined the church and started growing in its midst. The most fully developed follower of Christ, in the prevailing theologies of these places, is one who becomes a minister himself or herself, forsaking all other occupations for the ultimate mid-career change and act of faith. Willow Creek is led by such as Greg Hawkins, who left a career trajectory that included a Stanford M.B.A. and a position at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, and Lee Strobel, probably the only reporter and editor on a major U.S. daily paper (The Chicago Tribune) to switch careers and become a religious leader. Drucker would consider such trajectories a large-church archetype. These new pastors may join the staff of the church or lead a church plant--be it geographic, to serve a new community, or ethnic, to serve a growing minority, or demographic, to serve a new generation. Before podding off from Wooddale Church, Leith Anderson told me, the designated pastor is given a "hunting license" to scout the parent congregation for a core group with all the essential knowledge and skills to form the new church. He and other church leaders at Wooddale are currently planning the first church plant into another denomination. "We are not in the business of building denominations," Anderson told me over dinner one evening in St. Paul with his wife, Charleen. "We are in the business of building the kingdom of God." GETTING INTENTIONAL I HAD a telephone conversation last spring with Loren Mead, a pioneering church consultant and the founder of The Alban Institute, an ecumenical think tank, in Bethesda, Maryland. Mead described his years of attendance at an Episcopal church in Washington that in the 1960s and 1970s was famous for breaking ground with its contemporary worship services. A Washingtonian and an Episcopalian, I remembered it too, as a place with guitars for sound and five-grain bread for the host and a fearless crusader against injustice for a priest. I told Mead that in that era, when I was a student at [28]Phillips Exeter Academy, my friends and I had been involved in creating and leading experimental worship services in the old school church. Our challenge from Edward Stone Gleason, the school minister, was to reach our fellow students, newly unshackled from Exeter's nearly 200-year-old church-attendance requirement and, as adolescents in the late sixties, in no frame of mind to worship voluntarily. As "deacons" of the church, we tried to break through to them in worship services by singing Beatles songs and performing scenes from Samuel Beckett and slipping in as much Holy Scripture as we could. We built it, and they did come--some of them. Yet Mead and I--and Gleason, too--have long since returned to traditional, old-fashioned churches with eighteenth-century hymns and stained-glass windows and beautiful prayers we can recite without even thinking. Mead and I traded notes on the phone about the contemporary music we'd heard in the megachurches we'd visited. "I could like it," he said, "but I have a feeling I couldn't like it long. It's like the Top Forty." He is comfortable now in the traditional church he has returned to in Washington. He said, "I like the familiarity. When I go to church, I'm going home in a way." As an old-fashioned Episcopalian who has seen and admired examples of the Next Church across the country, I returned from my reporting feeling more impatient with the creaky, lazy, obscure, complacent, and sometimes forbidding dimensions of my familiar church. I also came away with a new appreciation for the interior logic of evangelism. Evangelicals are about the business of growing the flock, broadening God's market share, spawning new Christians and leading them to a mature faith and a life of service. The Next Church leaders and their congregations are willing to say so, and to act accordingly, in ways that would scare many of the people in my church out of their wits. For old-church people like me, the church provides safety from those who believe other than we do, and safety from pressure to act on our supposed convictions and faith by seeking out others to share them. A gated community, in other words. In familiar and safe surroundings, I understand, we take comfort and draw closer to God. But might we be missing something--something as important as giving as good as we're getting? I'm not a natural mark for megachurch membership. Along with the crankiest old codgers I bemoaned the mild changes made to the Book of Common Prayer in 1979 to render it more intelligible and more inclusive in its language. I attend a beautiful, traditional old stone church with the finest organ, choir, and music director in my city. I look to few things as warmly as singing great lungfuls of old hymns on Sunday morning and kneeling for that transcendent moment of grace at the communion rail. But I also wonder whether, as Mead put it, "we're speaking a foreign language to younger people," and whether my church is not in danger of withering away. And whether it doesn't deserve that fate if it doesn't get intentional, and soon. Illustrations by Tom Garrett The Atlantic Monthly; August 1996; The Next Church; Volume 278, No. 2; pages 37-58. References 5. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/contrib.htm#Trueheart 6. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/nxtchrch/nxtindx.htm 7. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/nxtchrch/nxtside.htm 8. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96apr/kicking/kicking.htm 9. http://www.usit.net/public/CAPO/friendly/cure/armstrong.html 10. http://www.marinerschurch.com/ 11. http://www.marinerschurch.com/this_week.html 12. http://earthview.sdsu.edu/CALed/PDrucker.html 13. http://www.theatlantic.com/election/connection/ecbig/soctrans.htm 14. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/ISSUE/25OUTBAS.HTM 15. http://www.summum.org/meditate.htm 16. http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/SRE/SSR/guru.html 17. http://websyte.com/alan/newage.htm 18. http://www.crocker.com/~gisland/gender.html 19. http://www.jcf.org/ 20. http://www.maui.net/~shaw/celes/celestine.html 21. http://www.willowcreek.org/ 22. http://www.townhall.com/empower/benn0126.html 23. http://www.mach2media.com/flc 24. http://vcn.com/~perbes/pofpeace.html 25. http://boris.qub.ac.uk/tony/coupland/god/seattletimes.html 26. http://calvarychapel.com/ 27. http://www.willowcreek.org/wcaindex.html 28. http://www.exeter.edu/ From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:44:23 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Chess) All the moves Message-ID: http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2109755&window_type=print Pauline Stafford 17 December 2004 BIRTH OF THE CHESS QUEEN. A history. By Marilyn Yalom. 276pp. Pandora. Pounds 19.99. - 0 86358 444 6. US: HarperCollins. $24.95. - 0 06 009064 2 The queen is the most powerful and versatile piece on the chessboard. This was not always so. The Indian game, true to its origins as one of military strategy, placed the general beside the king. First in the Persian and then in the Arab-Muslim world, the general became and remains the vizier. But as the game spread in medieval Europe, the vizier was himself replaced by the queen: haltingly and slowly, as in the Iberian peninsula, where Muslim and Jewish influence remained strong, but, by the end of the Middle Ages, everywhere. Initially the queen's, like the vizier's, movements were circumscribed. In the latter part of the fifteenth century that changed dramatically. Her movements, and the game, were transformed. "Love chess", "Queen's chess" or rather "Lady's chess", "mad queen's / Lady's chess" - "alla rabiosa", "de la dame enragee" - became a fast-moving game, increasingly one for professionals, ironically marginalizing women players. Marilyn Yalom's tantalizing book addresses these changes and metamorphoses. Where, when and why was the chess queen born; where, when and why did she become such a formidable piece? Yalom's answers tie her to the development of women's power in medieval Europe, to the significance of queens, even of specific, individual ones, and to the institutionalization of queenship. The queen in medieval Europe was a potentially important political figure. In a world where familial politics and the royal court and household were central, the wife of the king, mother of heirs and mistress of the household, was not a private woman but a public figure, often an active and influential one. By the tenth century she was, in some parts of Europe, consecrated like her royal spouse. At the end of that century, in the 980s, much of Europe was ruled by women. Theophanu, Empress-regent of the Ottonian Empire, Emma, queen-regent of Western Francia, and Beatrice, duchess-regent in Lotharingia in the modern Rhineland, ruled in the name of under-age sons. The dowager empress Adelaide linked them all as motherin-law, mother and aunt, herself wife, mother, grandmother, sister, daughter and heiress of kings and emperors. These women embody the factors that laid the foundations of female royal power and intermittently produced, as here, not merely women's influence, but female rule. Chess, played at courts where such women flourished, reflects this. The protean medieval symbolism of the game and its queen were rooted in the court's nexus of military and domestic upper-class secular life. In the proto-Romance age of the Carmina Burana, the king was devastated by the loss of his queen, wife and lover; the thirteenth-century Italian Dominican, Cessolis, projected onto the queen the virtues of the ideal wife and mother. The sixteenth-century Frenchman, Du Pont, poured his misogynistic venom into her meanings -misleading, liar, lazy - his misogyny, as so often, pinpointing the sexual, domestic power of the woman whom he attacked. In that same century Teresa of Avila would reassert the battling king's wife, making her a metaphor for the "holy war" of the individual against evil. The courtly locus of the queen's transformation is underlined by that of the Indian elephant-piece. It also metamorphosed during its spread into Europe, more variously than the general - becoming a standard-bearer, count, old man, bald one, fool or bishop - but in most cases into a figure associated with courts and their internal structures. A link between the chess queen and her real-life medieval counterparts is likely, but Yalom's attempt to bind their respective stories more tightly is questionable. She associates the birth of the chess queen with the tenth-century apotheosis of female power in Adelaide and Theophanu. It was in the late 990s, at Einsiedeln within their Empire, that the first mention of the chess queen occurred, in the first European description of the game. In Spain the late fifteenth century saw not only a newly powerful chess queen, but a great female ruler in Isabella of Castile. Such seductive conjunctures are siren voices. In scant early medieval sources first mention is no necessary indication of first or even recent appearance: as Yalom herself points out, the Einsiedeln monk takes the queen's presence on the board for granted. The chess queen's new powers in the late fifteenth century coincide with those of Isabella. But her transformation was paralleled by that of the bishop, or equivalent piece, in Spain and also in Italy, both areas hitherto more or less resistant to the chess queen, though both great centres of chess-playing. This marks a shift in the game itself whose relationship with the powers of contemporary women is unlikely to be straightforward. Conversely, throughout much of the Middle Ages the queen on the board remained a limited piece, lagging behind both the literary elaboration of her symbolism and the power of some real women, like Eleanor of Aquitaine or Blanche of Castile, whom Yalom, somewhat unconvincingly, includes in her story. This attractive book certainly whets the appetite and is full of interest. But the chess queen's fascinating history calls for a more nuanced understanding of queenship, if such an institution existed, of the interaction of symbol and meaning and of the complex interplay of historical change. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:45:08 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:45:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: Priests and peasants Message-ID: http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2108198&window_type=print Priests and peasants Hugh Wybrew 16 July 2004 RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION. Vera Shevzov. 358pp. Oxford University Press. ?30 (US $49.95). - 0 19 515465 7. Since the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union there has been a revival of interest both in the Russian Orthodox Church, and in its immediate pre- Revolutionary history. Vera Shevzov, an assistant professor in the Department of Religion and Biblical Literature at Smith College, has written a fascinating study of Orthodoxy as it was experienced by ordinary Russians in the decades between the great reforms of the 1860s - beginning with the liberation of the serfs in 1861 - and the Revolution of 1917. Drawing largely on archival material only recently easily accessible, she examines what it meant to belong to the Orthodox community at a time when the Russian Empire was fast approaching its fatal crisis. Reforms in the governance of the Empire initiated a new era in the life of the State Church. The peasants were now free to lead their lives by themselves. The educational efforts of both Church and State improved their religious knowledge, and encouraged them to play a less passive part in church life. In particular the Revolution of 1905, which gave other faith communities legal rights, initiated a period of intense self-examination in the Church. It culminated in the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-18, which restored the Moscow Patriarchate and reformed Church structures. Hotly debated in those years was the definition of "Church" itself. Two principal views emerged. Some, in line with the reorganization of the Church imposed by Peter the Great in the early eighteenth century, began with the nationwide institution. They emphasized the role of the bishops and clergy, and, under the influence of Roman Catholic teaching, often distinguished them as teachers from the laity who were taught. Others, influenced by the ecclesiology of sobornost ("catholicity" or "togetherness") advocated by Khomiakov, began with the parish, the local community, and emphasized the unity of clergy and laity in one community of faith. This debate remained unresolved by 1917. In the life of ordinary Orthodox believers, most of whom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries lived in villages, the church building was central. It was the sacred space around which was constituted the worshipping community, whose members were responsible for building and maintaining it. Churches played a key role in the celebration of village feasts, some of which celebrated major festivals in the ecclesiastical calendar, while others were local in character. Chapels, too, were significant. They were constructed by individuals or local communities in places sanctified by a miracle or by the appearance of an icon. Icons were omnipresent in Orthodox life and devotion. Many were considered miracle-working, and were the objects of special veneration. Among the most popular were icons of Mary the Mother of God. Shevzov illustrates these aspects of Russian Orthodox life with abundant instances drawn from the material she has studied. Her book reveals the crisis in self- understanding faced by Orthodoxy on the eve of the Revolution in 1917. Unable to agree even about the character and nature of the Church itself and the role of the laity within it, churchmen disagreed about whether to concentrate on the renewal of the parish or the restoration of the Patriarchate. Meanwhile believers lived their lives as members of the Orthodox community in the framework of a complex Christian narrative in which Scripture, liturgical tradition, and local and personal experience were interwoven. They were aware of the institutional aspects of Orthodoxy: the Holy Synod in St Petersburg and the local bishop rather closer at hand. But alongside the bishop's authority believers often set that of Mary, experienced more intimately through her icons. If Russian Orthodoxy was passing through an internal crisis, it was also faced with external problems. Modernization in Russia, as elsewhere, brought many difficulties for the Church. Religious faith was questioned, and often rejected, by the intelligentsia, even if at the beginning of the twentieth century some of its members began to take a renewed interest in Orthodoxy. A still greater crisis loomed. Hardly had the Church succeeded in calling the long-awaited Local (that is, Russian) Council than it was confronted by the militant atheism of the Soviet Union. Its internal debates were forcibly suspended, to be resumed only after the collapse of the Soviet Empire and its Communist regime. Vera Shevzov's book is not only of immense interest as a historical study, but contributes to an understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church today, which despite the immense changes of the Communist period has still to resolve some of the issues of the immediate pre-Revolutionary period, including those of the parish and the role of the laity. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:46:13 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:46:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Hillbillies) Hayseed hunks and moonshine Message-ID: Hayseed hunks and moonshine http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2107671&window_type=print Scott Saul 28 May 2004 HILLBILLY. A cultural history of an American icon. By Anthony Harkins. 324pp. Oxford University Press. ?22.50 (US $35). 0 19 514631 X The 1938 film Kentucky Moonshine features an inspired bit of repartee between three would-be hillbillies and a rifle-bearing mountaineer, with the Ritz Brothers playing a trio of unsuccessful New York performers who bet that their luck would change if only they could capitalize on the rage for "hillbilly music" (as "country music" was first known in the United States). So they disguise themselves as hillbillies - putting on weatherbeaten slouch hats, fake beards and bedraggled clothes - and head for the Kentucky mountains, where they hope to intercept a New York-based radio host who himself is looking to exploit the hillbilly craze by broadcasting his show live on location. Unfortunately for the Ritz team, they stumble upon the ever-feuding Hatfield clan, who approach the brothers with shotguns at the ready. The brothers try to defuse the tension by assuring the Hatfields that "we're hillbillies", but the family patriarch will have none of it: "What in tarnation", he asks, "is hillbilly?". The question hits on an ironic truth: the hillbilly persona was largely a figment of the metropolitan imagination, a caricature drawn at a considerable distance from the mountains of Appalachia and the Ozarks that were the hillbilly's ostensible home. The Ritz Brothers' hillbilly costumes, for instance, derived from a cartoon series named "The Mountain Boys" that ran regularly in Esquire, a magazine designed for an audience of middle-class male urbanites. In Hillbilly: A cultural history of an American icon, Anthony Harkins plumbs this irony to its depths, delivering a well-researched and richly illustrated tour of the hillbilly's life in the modern entertainments of music, film, television and newspaper comic pages. As Harkins documents through an impressive array of sources, the hillbilly has served time and again as a comic foil for the anxieties and hopes that have attached to modernization: he was the hick whose gift for common sense allowed him to puncture the snobbery of city slickers, the lazybones who never had to bend himself to the discipline of the Fordist factory, the shack-dweller whose poverty could be played for laughs. The hillbilly, Harkins suggests, was a particularly malleable figure in the popular imagination since his virtues and vices were always intertwined: his unconditional love of family could shade into the perversion of incest and his common sense could be revealed as a wilful ignorance of the modern world. The hillbilly lived in a land that time forgot - but that musicians, cartoonists and film producers all gravitated to, since it spoke to whatever fantasy of rural life they wished to entertain. Only rarely, as in that moment in Kentucky Moonshine, did the cartoon question its own cartoonishness. Harkins also flags a crucial, though sometimes unremarked, aspect of the hillbilly figure: his whiteness. He convincingly argues that the hillbilly -lovable, backward and supposedly isolated from ongoing battles over racial justice - was often enlisted in an oblique defence of racial purity and segregationist politics. The figure of the hillbilly gave its audience a way of "thinking through" the protocols of race in the US, often at a great remove from the facts. So, in the popular music of the 1920s and 30s, the "hillbilly records" of white string bands were marketed against the "race records" of early blues musicians - an act of market segmentation that belied the actual terms of exchange between the two groups, as country musicians like Uncle Dave Macon learned much of their repertoire from black musicians and began their careers performing in blackface in medicine shows. Likewise, television's Beverly Hillbillies found success in the 1960s as proud partisans of the Confederacy, saluting the rebel flag and celebrating Jefferson Davis as the best President in the nation's history; Jed Clampett and his kin nostalgically recalled a South without black people while settling in a California that was, ever so conveniently, lily-white. The hillbilly has stood as a figure for whiteness in its most unadulterated form or, more specifically, as a figure for the fate of whiteness in a country struggling to own up to its multiracial past and present. Hillbilly is written in a style that befits its subject matter: it is vivid but no-nonsense, delighting in a good yarn while appreciating the ironies that are often buried when a story runs in a too familiar groove and ends in a too predictable conclusion. The book works hard to be even-handed, and its main limitation derives from its congeniality, its author's unwillingness to paint anyone in an unflattering light. Harkins frequently prefers to generalize about American culture in toto rather than devote attention to the conflicts that structure that culture, and does not situate individual actors as clearly in the political world as he might. For instance, he discusses a "Li'l Abner" comic strip parodying John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, but does not consider how the Steinbeck novel inspired leftist artists and activists affiliated with the Popular Front, scuttling an opportunity to compare "Li'l Abner"'s strain of "populism" with others. Likewise, the book underlines how the hillbilly came to represent the nation's rural poor, but deals only intermittently with larger (and quite relevant) debates about the responsibility of the State to its poorest citizens. Still, Hillbilly is meticulous and slyly sophisticated - a clear-eyed case study of how the mass media in the US served up nostalgia in the most contemporary of forms. A 1930s string band named the Hornellsville Hillbillies plugged themselves as "A Modern Up-To-Date Old-Time Band": Anthony Harkins illuminates the unexpected truth in advertising. From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:47:35 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:47:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Overton Journal: In Small Town, the Fight Continues for Texas Sovereignty Message-ID: The New York Times > National > Overton Journal: In Small Town, the Fight Continues for Texas Sovereignty http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/national/13overton.html?ei=5070&en=55f728a380a6e274&ex=1108962000&pagewanted=print&position= By SIMON ROMERO OVERTON, Tex. - The road to the capitol winds through a landscape of pine trees, rusting pump jacks and a few tidy churches in this East Texas town. Literature in the lobby describes how citizens can apply for passports or enlist in the interim defense forces. The building is the headquarters of the Republic of Texas, a sometimes militant organization whose members repudiate the authority of Austin and Washington and believe Texas should be a sovereign nation. The group gained notoriety eight years ago when some members took a couple hostage in the Davis Mountains of West Texas, and endured a weeklong siege by more than 100 police officers, after which a follower who fled into the mountains was killed. The leader of the faction involved in the standoff is still in prison. But after several years of infighting and the expulsion of renegade splinter cells, the group has resurfaced here in Overton under a new leader, Daniel Miller. Mr. Miller, recently interviewed in Houston, said he wanted to distance the organization from its violent past and from its image as a white-supremacy movement. He said his new platform advocates Texas sovereignty without the use of guns or explosives. "We are not extremists," said Mr. Miller, 31, dressed in a tailored suit and cowboy boots. "We simply believe we were illegally occupied by the United States in the 1800's." When he is not handling republic affairs, Mr. Miller helps operate a business that sells touch-screen ordering equipment for restaurants. Some people in this town of 2,100 are concerned about the group. Among them is Edward J. Williams, Overton's chief of police. In an interview in his office, he described an incident in late January at the capitol, which was once a hospital. A member of the group, Scott William Taylor of Dallas, said in a statement to Chief Williams that he had given another member, Dale Strictland of Overton, about $1,000 to buy an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. A melee erupted after Mr. Strictland failed to deliver the weapon, Chief Williams said, with at least one man suffering severe injuries to his head after being hit with a beer bottle. "I normally wouldn't be alarmed by a few boys getting into a fisticuffs thing," Chief Williams said. "But this is a group with a violent past in parts of Texas. However ludicrous their beliefs might sound to you and me, we can't forget that Jim Jones got a bunch of folks to drink Kool-Aid with him down in Guyana. You could shave one side of your head and have a loyal following around here by nightfall." Yet Overton does not appear to be a fertile recruiting center even for a kinder, gentler Republic of Texas. Residents seem to have accepted the organization's presence, but only a few openly voice support for it. "No one really approves of them," said Diana Sieber, who owns a hair salon down the street from the capitol. "They're not the best kind of publicity for our community." Brenda Tompkins, a waitress at Granny's restaurant, said, "One of them came in here and gave me one of their silver coins with a star on it," referring to the alternative currency the group has minted. "They're low-profile mostly." The organization re-established itself here in 2003 with the acquisition of the building that would become the capitol, the first time the group has had an official base. Chief Williams said that since then, there have been a number of confrontations with local officials. He said his officers have fined or issued arrest warrants for group members. Violations included carrying Republic of Texas passports instead of a driver's license; driving unregistered vehicles; and redesigning license plates to show a Texas that includes significant chunks of territory in New Mexico and narrow strips of land in Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. Group members say those areas are part of Texas, wrongly wrested away by Washington. Republic of Texas members have responded, the chief said, by marching into the local district attorney's office and threatening to fire him, and claiming in lengthy letters to county officials that jurisdiction over such matters lies with their own government, which includes a president, Mr. Miller; cabinet secretaries; and militia-style sheriffs, deputies and rangers. Much of the group's ideology is associated with nostalgia for the nine years when Texas was an independent country after seceding from Mexico in 1836. The blue Burnet flag from that time, with a large gold star in its center, flies over the capitol. Group members believe that Texas's referendum in 1845 in favor of joining the United States was illegal, as were the settlements of land claims that Texas then had against neighboring Mexican and American territories in the West. They also advocate the creation of an alternative monetary system using minted silver and gold coins. One coin made of one gram of silver has a large Texas star in its center and the word "Overton" emblazoned around it. The organization's beliefs are spelled out in the book "Texans Arise," written by Mr. Miller and Lauren Savage, the vice president. "We believe independence is an achievable goal," Mr. Miller said in the interview. Mr. Miller was vague about how to accomplish this, but he said that establishing a parallel government and performing government functions like issuing passports were essential. "People feel disenfranchised," he said. "In Overton we've found a quiet area to forward our views." Mr. Miller acknowledged that the group was still almost entirely Anglo, although he said he was encouraging factions to look for a broader range of members. He also said he was discouraging activities like armed patrols of the Mexican border to limit immigration. And he said his administration, unlike some splinter cells, did not base its political philosophy on Old Testament beliefs, did not oppose women's suffrage and did not support a return to a legal system permitting slavery. But some who know the group's history in Texas are not convinced that the group's changes are more than superficial. "It only behooves some extremist groups to attempt to appeal to a broader audience in order to recruit new members," said Dena Marks, associate director of the Anti-Defamation League's office in Houston, which tracks the Republic of Texas and other militia-style groups in the state. "The core beliefs of Republic of Texas, which include establishing Texas as a sovereign entity, have not changed." Mr. Miller said the republic has thousands of so-called citizens, but declined to give a specific number. The headquarters here, its walls covered with maps of Greater Texas and oil paintings of 19th-century battle scenes, is mostly quiet during the week. On weekends, members from throughout Texas flow into the building for meetings. Nathan Harvey, a caretaker at the headquarters who is not a member, said he remained skeptical about the ideas put forward by group members, but that by meeting them, he had at least gained a better understanding of the Alamo siege of 1836. "I always thought it was a battle for American independence," Mr. Harvey said. "Now I understand it was a battle for the independence of Texas." From checker at panix.com Tue Mar 29 20:49:35 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:49:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Science: Forbidden Knowledge Message-ID: Science: Forbidden Knowledge [Send me your own lists of the top five forbidden areas, with or without the right to distribute them using your name. [First, the summary from the Chronicle of Higher Education. Then the article from Science itself, followed by supplementary materials.] News bulletin from the Chronicle of Higher Education, 5.2.11 http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/02/2005021104n.htm Scientists Censor What They Study to Avoid Controversy and 'Lunatic-Proof' Their Lives, Researchers Find By LILA GUTERMAN Unwritten social and political rules affect what scientists in many fields study and publish, according to a paper published today in Science, and those constraints are even more prevalent than formal constraints, such as government or university regulations. The paper is based on interviews with 41 researchers at top academic departments in fields such as neuroscience, drug and alcohol abuse, and molecular and cellular biology. The interviews were conducted by Joanna Kempner, Clifford S. Perlis, and Jon F. Merz, of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Brown University, and the University of Pennsylvania, respectively. They asked the researchers if they or any of their colleagues had ever refrained from doing or publishing research. Almost half of those interviewed said they felt constrained by formal controls, but the respondents said they felt even more affected by informal ones. Many of the scientists interviewed said they had found out their research was "forbidden knowledge" only after papers reporting their results had been published. One respondent told the interviewers that a colleague's graduate student had a job offer rescinded when the would-be employer found out the student had worked on a study of race and intelligence. Another researcher stood accused of "murderous behavior" after doing an anonymous survey in which he was incapable of intervening when respondents said they were infected with HIV and were having sex without a condom. Many other researchers said they simply chose not to do studies, or not to publish completed ones, because of concern about controversy. Several said they did not study dogs or other higher mammals because of fears of animal-rights activism. "I would like to lunatic-proof my life as much as possible," one told the interviewers. Mr. Merz, an assistant professor in Penn's department of medical ethics, said the study was not designed to determine the abundance of constraints on science. But, he said, just from the small group the researchers interviewed, it is clear that people feel constrained "fairly frequently." "It's a source of bias, another source of nonobjectivity in science," he continued. "It's hard to measure. We don't know really what's not being done." ---------------- Forbidden Knowledge Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 854 , 11 February 2005 Joanna Kempner,1 Clifford S. Perlis,2 Jon F. Merz3* There is growing concern about the politicization and social control of science, constraining the conduct, funding, publication, and public use of scientific research (1). For example, human cloning and embryonic stem cell creation have been regulated or banned (2), activists have been lobbying Congress to remove funding from certain government-sponsored research (3-5), and science journal editors have been compelled to develop policies for publication of sensitive manuscripts (6, 7). Forbidden knowledge embodies the idea that there are things that we should not know (8-15 ). Knowledge may be forbidden because it can only be obtained through unacceptable means, such as human experiments conducted by the Nazis (9, 11 ); knowledge may be considered too dangerous, as with weapons of mass destruction or research on sexual practices that undermine social norms (8, 9, 12); and knowledge may be prohibited by religious, moral, or secular authority, exemplified by human cloning (10, 12). Beyond anecdotal cases, little is known about what, and in what ways, science is constrained. To begin to fill this gap, we performed an interview study to examine how constraints affect what scientists do. In 2002-03, we conducted 10 pilot and 41 in-depth semistructured interviews with a sample of researchers drawn from prestigious U.S. academic departments of neuroscience, sociology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, industrial psychology, drug and alcohol abuse, and computer science. We chose diverse disciplines to gauge the range, rather than prevalence, of experiences. We asked subjects to consider their practices and rationales for limiting scientific inquiry or dissemination and to tell us about cases in which research in their own discipline had been constrained. Respondents reported a wide range of sensitive topics, including studies relating to human cloning, embryonic stem cells, weapons, race, intelligence, sexual behaviors, and addiction, as well as concerns about using humans and animals in research. Nearly half the researchers felt constrained by explicit, formal controls, such as governmental regulations and guidelines codified by universities, professional societies, or journals. Respondents generally agreed that formal controls offered important protections. Less consensus surrounded the necessity, efficiency, or good sense of specific policies. Stem cell research was repeatedly identified as an example of an overly restricted area. Many respondents expressed a preference that scientists--not policy-makers--determine which research is too dangerous. We were surprised, however, that respondents felt most affected by what we characterize as "informal constraints." Researchers sometimes only know that they have encountered forbidden knowledge when their research breaches an unspoken rule and is identified as problematic by legislators, news agencies, activists, editors, or peers. Studies by Kinsey et al. (16, 17), Milgram (18), Humphreys (19), Herrnstein and Murray (20), and Rind et al. (21 ) were attacked only after publication. Many researchers (42%) described how their own work had been targeted for censure. One researcher was accused by activists of "murderous behavior" because he was incapable of reporting HIV+ subjects who admitted to unsafe sex practices in an anonymous survey. A sociologist published an article that undermined the central claim of a particular group, who allegedly then accused him of funding improprieties. In other cases, the mere threat of social sanction deterred particular types of inquiry. Several researchers said that their choices to study yeast or mice instead of dogs were guided by fears of retribution from animal rights groups. As one respondent commented, "I would like to lunatic-proof my life as much as possible." Drug and alcohol researchers reported similar fears, stating that they had not pursued studies that might provoke moral outrage. Finally, there may be unspoken rules shared by the community. As one respondent stated, "every microbiologist knows not to make a more virulent pathogen." We failed to detect a coherent ethos regarding production of forbidden knowledge. Respondents at once decried external regulation and recognized the right of society to place limits on what and how science is done. They stated that scientists are "moral" and "responsible," but acknowledged cases in which scientists were sanctioned for acting outside the mainstream of their disciplines. They also said that, although information and "truth" had inherent utility, full and open publication was not always possible. Whereas most respondents worked hard to avoid controversy, others relished it. In summary, formal and informal constraints have a palpable effect on what science is studied, how studies are performed, how data are interpreted, and how results are disseminated. Our results suggest that informal limitations are more prevalent and pervasive than formal constraints. Although formal constraints will bias science--by affecting what is studied and how it is studied--these biases are relatively transparent and amenable to political change. Informal constraints, in contrast, may be culturally ingrained and resistant to change, leaving few markers by which to assess their effects. We believe it is important to observe these constraints, assess their effects, and openly debate their desirability for science and society. References and Notes 1.. R. A. Charo, J. Law Med. Ethics 32, 307 (2004). 2.. G. Q. Daley, New Engl. J. Med. 349, 211 (2003). 3.. J. Kaiser, Science 300, 403 (2003). 4.. J. Kaiser, Science 302, 758 (2003). 5.. J. Kaiser, Science 302, 966 (2003). 6.. J. Couzin, Science 297, 749 (2002). 7.. Journal Editors and Authors Group, Science 299, 1149 (2003). 8.. C. Cohen, New Engl. J. Med. 296, 1203 (1977). 9.. D. Smith, Hastings Center Rep. 8 (6), 30 (1978). 10.. G. Holton, R. S. Morison, Eds., Limits of Scientific Inquiry (Norton, New York, 1979). 11.. D. Nelkin, in Ethical Issues in Social Science Research, T. L. Beauchamp, R. R. Faden, R. J. Wallace, L. Walters, Eds. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 1982), pp. 163-174. 12.. R. Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography (Harcourt Brace, New York, 1996). 13.. D. B. Johnson, Monist 79, 197 (1996). 14.. B. Allen, Monist 79, 294 (1996). 15.. D. B. Johnson, Sci. Eng. Ethics 5, 445 (1999). 16.. A. C. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1948). 17.. A. C. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1953). 18.. S. Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (Harper Row, New York, 1974). 19.. L. Humphreys, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places (Aldine, Chicago, 1970). 20.. R. Herrnstein, C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996). 21.. B. Rind et al., Psychol. Bull. 124, 22 (1998). 2.. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. We thank all respondents for their participation; B. Sitko for assistance; and C. Bosk, A. Caplan, J. Drury, C. Lee, and B. Sampat for comments. Supported by the Greenwall Foundation (J.K., C.S.P., J.F.M.) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (J.K.). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1School of Public Health, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA. 2Department of Dermatology, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI 02903, USA. 3Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308, USA. *Author for correspondence. E-mail: merz at mail: med.upenn.edu ------------ Science Supporting Online Material Kempner et al., p. 1 Science Supporting Online Material Forbidden Knowledge Joanna Kempner, Clifford S. Perlis, Jon F. Merz Materials and Methods There are no empirical data on forbidden knowledge in science. To begin to fill this gap, we performed this interview study to examine why and in what ways scientists constrain and censor their work. This supplement describes our methods and sample. Pilot Study We began the study by generating an interview guide and holding 10 pilot interviews with researchers from a diverse range of disciplines, including psychiatry, psychology, epidemiology, genetics, economics, criminology, and physics. Our intent was to develop a survey instrument to systematically examine the frequency with which scientists reported problems of forbidden knowledge. Our pilot interviews, however, showed us that survey methods would be inadequate. Few researchers could easily recall instances in which they decided not to proceed with a particular line of research. Simply, researchers generally had little insight into what they do not do, and why. We thus redesigned the study to be a qualitative interview study using semistructured interviews. This approach allowed us to explain questions and probe respondents for more information. This style of interviewing is particularly useful when the respondent has not previously elaborated their perspective on a particular topic (S1). In addition, the interview format allowed the interviewer to develop rapport with and trust of each respondent, which was helpful in eliciting potentially sensitive information. Interview Guide Drawing on the results of the pilot study, we further refined the interview guide. The final guide consists of four sections. To put the respondents at ease and to acquaint them with the concept of forbidden knowledge, the interview began by asking researchers to identify a relevant, well-publicized controversy in their field. Respondents were then asked to comment on their own experiences as well as the experiences of their colleagues. We asked, for example, whether their work had ever been the target of controversy, and had they or one of their colleagues ever shied away from a topic in order to avoid controversy. In the third section, we asked a series of close-ended, specific questions about practices and experiences. Finally, each interview ended with 4 attitudinal questions about scientific freedom and social and professional constraints (S2). The interview guide is available from the authors. The revised guide was tested with 2 local researchers, and modified slightly thereafter. These 2 interviews are included in our study sample. Interview Sample We developed a multistage cluster sample of academic researchers drawn from six subject areas (microbiology, neuroscience, sociology, computer science, industrial/organizational psychology, and researchers from various disciplines who conduct drug and alcohol studies). We chose these research areas because they often address controversial topics. We identified the 10 top ranked Science Supporting Online Material Kempner et al., p. 2 universities in each discipline using 2002 U.S. News & World Report rankings. Drug and alcohol researchers were identified from key word searches of the NIH CRISP database (http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/) for investigators funded in 2001-02 for research on addiction and related issues. From lists of faculty, we randomly chose names to solicit for participation, with replacement of those who did not respond or refused. Including the two test subjects, we solicited a total of 95 individuals and successfully contacted 76. We completed 41 interviews (43% of the total sample). In total, we interviewed 10 sociologists, 9 microbiologists, 9 drug and alcohol researchers, 6 industrial/organizational psychologists, 6 neuroscientists, and 1 computer scientist. There was no difference in response rates across disciplines (.2 = 4.4 with 5 df, P = 0.49). Our total sample included 10 women and 31 men, ranging in age from 28 to 76, with a median age of 46. Respondents ranged in academic rank, with 21 full professors, 6 associate professors, 12 assistant professors and 2 adjunct lecturers. We did not have the data to stratify by or to examine response rates by gender, age, and rank. Interview Method All interviews were performed by one of us (J.K.) and audiotaped. Thirty-eight interviews were conducted by telephone and three were conducted in person. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. All respondents completed the interview. Coding and Analysis Each interview was transcribed and analyzed using QSR's NVivo2, a qualitative data analysis program (S3). We developed our coding categories using a grounded theory approach (S4). These categories coded respondents' stories about forbidden knowledge by person (who is the subject of the story), topic (the subject matter of the research project in question), research process (at what stage in the research did the event occur), and nature of constraints (what were the sources of concern or limits reported by respondents). Each of the three authors coded a third of the transcripts. Each of the transcript codes was then checked by another coder. Disagreements were settled by consensus. This coding system allowed us to uncover emerging themes, relations, and perspectives of the respondents. Limitations This study focused on a relatively small sample of academic researchers chosen from topic areas suspected of raising controversial political and moral issues. The types of forbidden knowledge and frequencies observed in our sample are not generalizable to the scientific community at large. References S1. J.A. Holstein, J.F. Gubrium, The Active Interview (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995). S2. J. Kempner, C. S. Perlis, J. F. Merz, unpublished observations. S3. NVivo2 Qualitative Data Analysis Program Version 2.0.161 (QSR International Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia, 1998-2002). S4. A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1990). From isaacsonj at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 20:58:28 2005 From: isaacsonj at hotmail.com (Joel Isaacson) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Message-ID: Howard: Your intuitions and metaphors below are generally on target. But rather than the music metaphor I have used RESONANCE mechanisms within a technically-specific CA-based model of visual perception. In addition to Hawkins' book I'd recommend also Christof Koch's book on "The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach" (2004). Since Val Geist goes today into past events at the Konrad Lorenz Institute, I also have some historical notes that may shed some additional light on my approach -- In the mid-1980s I applied for DoD support to apply my cellular automata (BIP & DIP) to problems of automated visual pattern recognition. I called it ?Dialectical Machine Vision?. I did receive that support. Later I learned that a Program Officer from the Office of Naval Research, Boston Office, took my application to MIT for informal review. One of the people who recommended it was Christof Koch, at that time a visiting scientist in neurobiology (vision) and a groupie of the AI Lab. Since the early 1980s I had been in extensive dialogue with Marvin Minsky and many of his grad students who took my CAs to Ed Fredkin?s CA-group for implementation and testing ? it worked just fine, but no one quite understood why, or how to apply it in AI. In 1994 I found out that Christof Koch had established himself at Caltech and also became a collaborator with Fransis Crick, then at the Salk Institute. Their ambitious program was to discover neural correlates of consciousness (NCC), primarily thru the study of vision and visual awareness. My report to DoD/ONR (1986) was squarely within that direction? so, I reestablished contact with Koch, and later sent him a copy of my report on ?Dialectical Machine Vision?. During that period Francis Crick published his book ?The Astonishing Hypothesis? (1994), in which he postulated a ?reverberatory? mechanism between the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) and area V1 in the visual cortex, along the visual pathway. That was very close to a ?sensation-resonance? process between LGN & V1 that had emerged from my CAs in 1986. So, at that time I wrote this to Christof Koch: >From jdi Wed Mar 23 23:09:49 1994 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 23:09:49 CST From: jdi at cs.wustl.edu (Joel D. Isaacson) To: koch at klab.caltech.edu Subject: Need some feedback Cc: jdi X-Status: Students in my graduate AI course are getting curious about your (and/or F.C.'s) reaction to the "Dialectical Machine Vision" stuff, and so, frankly, am I. Tonight we reviewed in class 3 elements: "The Astonishing Hypothesis," "A History of the Mind" by Nick Humphrey, and the "Dialectical Machine Vision" paradigm. Some students observed that a 3-way convergence on "reverberatory" neural-circuitry as a basis for "awareness" is in the making. Then someone put the following triangualr diagram on the chalkboard: Crick-Koch, 1990/92/94 [visual neuroscience] Tentative hypotheses V1 / \ - - / \ - - / \ - - / \ V2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V3 Isaacson, 1987 Nick Humphrey, 1992 [BIP/DIP] [Psychology/ Speculative theory Evolutionary Biology] supported by artifacts Speculative theory where the interior of the triangle hold the basic theme of "REVERBERATORY" NEURAL-CIRCUITRY AS A BASIS FOR VISUAL "AWARENESS". I wish to prompt you to react to these thoughts. Thanks, -- jdi Subsequently we had more discussion, and later Francis Crick asked for his own copy of my report, which I provided. Crick took his time, but ultimately wrote to me that: ?I have discussed your report with Christof Koch. We both feel it is rather too remote from our view of the brain to be of much help to us.? Well, my report included also (indirect) criticism of the ?central dogma? (concerning the roles of DNA, RNA, etc., etc.) as established by Crick & Watson some 25 years prior. In the ?Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Thomas Kuhn tells us that it is nearly impossible to dislodge established paradigms, as long as their developers are still alive? James Watson is alive and well, but the late Francis Crick sadly passed away in July of last year... so, when Eshel now writes about a new biology for the 21st century he is possibly timing it right... -- Joel > > > >Joel--What you say below sounds right to me. If I understand it rightly, >time is a recursion of boundary-making, an iteration of a differentiating >and >aggregating process, a multiplier of the voids spaced between the nodes of >isness, and a grower of the clusters between the voids--as in your >cellular >automata model. It makes sense. > >And it fits with the notion that time is the most critical aspect of >perception, an idea that Jeff Hawkins proposes in On Intelligence, one of >the few >new-idea-generating books I've read in a long time. Perception in >Hawkin's >view is a flow, a music. As in music, we spot thje sensory world's >ur-patterns, >its repetitive themes and their variations. > >In higher cortical regions, we create invariant representations of a stream >of sensations, we sift the themes from of a parade of sense-impacts, we >capture the pattern of a surge of impressions that follow each other like >the >notes in a melody. Hawkins thinks of these invariant representations as >"Name >that Tune"-style song-spotting. We send the prediction that the name of >the >tune--the invariant representation-- implies back down to the sensory >level of >the cortex. If the song title predicts the incoming stream properly, >everything is fine. If the incoming signal-surge no longer follows the >melody >predicted by the song title, more cortical regions are forced to rush in >and try >other song titles, other invariant representations, other names for the >possible melody. > >The cosmos is process. Time is as critical to understanding as are >"things". > >Perception has to mirror the cosmos to work. So perception is a >time-process, a temporal-flow-identifier-and-predictor, a future-projector >that works by >taking what's past and flipping it forward, sometimes with a new twist. >Music is practice for future-projection, for identifying patterns in the >flow. >New musical styles and new songs are practice for the novelties that may >lay >around the bend. Howard > >In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:07:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, >isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: > >I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. >In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those >Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental >Ur-Process >involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL >RECURSIVE >DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many >Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at >all >scales. >(Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the >same >patterns.) > >Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant >flow of the Ur-Processes. > > > > > >---------- >Howard Bloom >Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces >of >History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to >the >21st Century >Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core >Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute >www.howardbloom.net >www.bigbangtango.net >Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: >Epic >of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: >The >Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American >Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological >Society, >Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, >International >Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; >executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. >For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: >www.paleopsych.org >for two chapters from >The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, >see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer >For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big >Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Mar 29 23:05:42 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:05:42 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] FYI re $3/gallon and rising Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050329180513.01dd9fd0@incoming.verizon.net> >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:37:22 -0500 >To: support at abcnews.go.com >From: "Paul J. Werbos, Dr." >Subject: ABCNEWS.com EDITORIAL >Cc: pwerbos at nsf.gov > >Re Ned Potter's story on "an unlikely coalition" on ABCNews last night -- > >GREAT start, but you missed half the story. > >You mentioned an "unlikely coalition," but you missed half >the coalition. Since I have been coordinating the other half, de facto, >I hope you'd be interested in the other half. You interviewed >the neoconservative hawk half in depth, but the technology and environment >half >is what makes it all real. > >Suppose you were reporting to a hungry man in front of you. >The full story is: "You are about to starve to death, but there is food on >the table right behind you." To avoid imposing too many words on the poor >fellow, someone shortens your story to: "You are about to starve to death." >If no one reports the second half, he will die. But the "he" who is about >to starve >is you and me and people in general. > >The neoconservatives you cite are being coordinated by IAGS, >www.iags.org. >They have done great work in waking people up to negative trends which >add up to something ten times as big as the Iraq War, current nuclear >proliferation and $3/gallon >all combined. But they have only just >begun to talk about how we can actually SOLVE the problem realistically. >Thus it is not surprising that your consultant, seeing only half the >story, ended >up saying "we really can't do much here and now." That WAS true. It IS no >longer true. >There are new technologies and new information which the lawyers and >social scientists generally >do not know about. > >To explain the full story, the "whole" coalition -- friends of IAGS (like >Gaffney), >environmentalists (NRDC) and TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE >(IEEE, the world's largest professional society, 300,000 engineers, >and related groups) -- organized a joint briefing on March 17 >at the Rayburn Building. Press was invited -- but that day there was >more interest in drug use in baseball, >feeding tubes for corpses and Michael Jackson's sexual behavior ... >When people are desperate, I guess they like to escape from reality a bit .. >but it's really a shame that there couldn't be coverage of a new >strategy to actually solve the problem. I was VERY thrilled that you have >decided >to address these concerns... but the payoff only comes if you look at the >other half. > >In fact -- there IS a way we could reduce oil dependency as much as IAGS >claims >(a factor of three or so in 20-40 years), AND ALSO reduce carbon dioxide >emissions by >a similar amount -- enough to possibly prevent the melting of the Arctic >Ice Cap -- without >reducing economic growth one bit. (And no, it's not a matter of just >throwing $300 billion >mindlessly into a coalition of pigs at the trough.) A FEW elements of that >strategy are in the >"Setting America Free" document at www.iags.org. But, >as your consultant observed, >those elements are incomplete. For a more complete grand strategy, see: > >www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > >Some key elements behind the strategy: > >Economists ALONE and engineers ALONE would have no hope of charting a >viable course through >these complex waters. It requires a kind of crossdisciplinary effort, >grounded in understanding of the >nuts-and-bolts technical realities, able to see past the biased technology >advocates of all stripes, >but also grounded in economics. That's why no one has really seen a viable >strategy here before -- >until the leading experts in ENGINEERING linked up to expertise in energy >economics. >Barriers to communication between engineers (reality?) and social science >(lawyers, policy types) >have been a growing problem in the US lately. Interviews with Nobel Prize >Winners (who typically know >more about DNA than about cars and electricity) do not solve the problem, >though Rick Smalley has helped a bit >at times. > >Even the brightest people can get nowhere -- spin in useless circles like >a dog chasing its own tail -- >if they ask the wrong question. Lots of people have focused all their >energy on the quesion: "What can we >do that gets used here and now, with technology and options that are 100 >percent proven?" >Asking that question only leads to stuff like endless time debating >drilling in Anwar, the Kyoto treaty, >the bulk of the current energy bill -- all of which adds up to maybe 15% >of the problem, NOT ENOUGH >TO GET US OUT OF THE HOLE. Lots of energy and thought, but no solution. >Wrong question. > >Other people have asked: "How can we visualize the utterly perfect >CO2-free world of the future, >devoid of all the dirt and grime of today?" Thus we get the purest version >of the hydrogen economy, >with cars carrying hydrogen in liquid form or in cryogenic tanks, with >righteous displays of >concern about someday making it real but not any kind of realistic >near-term schedule >(and no prospect of one). > >We and IAGS have worked hard to ask a different QUESTION: "What could we >do to minimize >the expected waiting time between now and the time when we cut oil >dependency (or CO2 emissoins) by a factor of three or four?" > >That's the question we need to ask, if we want to get large enough results >before the problems >all kill us. And it does have an answer!!!! > >And folks -- "kill us" is not an exaggeration. If nuclear proliferation >multiplies more than ten-fold >in places like the Middle East, and competition for the last remaining oil >grows >ten-fold -- well, let's just say that my role here was motivated by some >very realistic geopolitical scenario >work I saw in the summer of 2003. We need to take the time to try to stay >alive, here, >and get the job done. Going through the motions would not be enough to >save us. >I do hope you can help provide the missing necessary links in this chain. > >Best of luck, > >Dr. Paul J. Werbos > >P.S. As it says on the slides at >www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt, >these are my own personal views and not the official views of my employer, >the US National Science Foundation. But I did my best to vet the slides >for accuracy, by asking for feedback from a WHOLE lot of people >before giving the talk at Rayburn. There is a World Bank URL >on solar thermal farms which I found out out about late, which I'd like to ad, >but it doesn't change the basic story. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Wed Mar 30 06:34:49 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:34:49 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Message-ID: I envy you this experience, Val. But you're right. I suspect it's more than von Holst and Lorenz who apply here. It's the spirit of the German holistic biologists of the 19th Century--including Goethe. They saw overarching form and its development from sperm and egg or from seed and pollen as one of the key mysteries of science. On your advice, I just ordered a copy of the translation, published under the title: Behind The Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge. Warmly--Howard In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:37:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, kendulf at shaw.ca writes: Dear Howard, In reading your commentary I am thrown back to the year I spent at he institute of Konrad Lorenz, before he was awarded the Nobel Prize. What you discuss was then subject of very lively attention especially since Lorenz's institute was paired with an institute on cybernetics, then run by Mittelstaedt. However, the ideas went back to the great Erich von Holst, who had investigated neural functions. What Hawkins speaks about is the ancient, but exceedingly serviceable concept of pattern matching as perception and which von Holst enriched by the "re-afference principle". Lorenz responded by publishing in 1973 what is, in my judgment, his best work, a book on the natural history of cognition, entitled in German "Die Rueckseite des Spiegels" (The backside of the Mirror). I have no idea if it was translated into English. However, I made good use of it and the discussions in Lorenz's institute to write the second chapter of my Life strategies book, only that I applied it broadly to animal behavior, and a lot of human include (intelligence, creativity - among others). I also traced back some of the older literature. Its absolutely fundamental material for an understanding of the evolution of organismal life strategies, let alone higher cognitive functions. It refers to very ancient processes without which life as we know it could not function. The Wednesday morning seminars at Lorenz's institute were the sharpest intellectually I have ever had the pleasure of attending. Unfortunately, some of that excellence arose from the animosity between the three institutes united at Seewiesen by the Max Planck society. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: _HowlBloom at aol.com_ (mailto:HowlBloom at aol.com) To: _paleopsych at paleopsych.org_ (mailto:paleopsych at paleopsych.org) Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] From Eshel--A Glitch in Genetic-centrism--Joel Joel--What you say below sounds right to me. If I understand it rightly, time is a recursion of boundary-making, an iteration of a differentiating and aggregating process, a multiplier of the voids spaced between the nodes of isness, and a grower of the clusters between the voids--as in your cellular automata model. It makes sense. And it fits with the notion that time is the most critical aspect of perception, an idea that Jeff Hawkins proposes in On Intelligence, one of the few new-idea-generating books I've read in a long time. Perception in Hawkin's view is a flow, a music. As in music, we spot thje sensory world's ur-patterns, its repetitive themes and their variations. In higher cortical regions, we create invariant representations of a stream of sensations, we sift the themes from of a parade of sense-impacts, we capture the pattern of a surge of impressions that follow each other like the notes in a melody. Hawkins thinks of these invariant representations as "Name that Tune"-style song-spotting. We send the prediction that the name of the tune--the invariant representation-- implies back down to the sensory level of the cortex. If the song title predicts the incoming stream properly, everything is fine. If the incoming signal-surge no longer follows the melody predicted by the song title, more cortical regions are forced to rush in and try other song titles, other invariant representations, other names for the possible melody. The cosmos is process. Time is as critical to understanding as are "things". Perception has to mirror the cosmos to work. So perception is a time-process, a temporal-flow-identifier-and-predictor, a future-projector that works by taking what's past and flipping it forward, sometimes with a new twist. Music is practice for future-projection, for identifying patterns in the flow. New musical styles and new songs are practice for the novelties that may lay around the bend. Howard In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:07:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: I actually think more in terms of an Ur-Process that leads to Ur-Patterns. In my view, our cognitive apparatus is comprised of zillions of those Ur-Processes, interlocked in certain ways. The very elemental Ur-Process involves local recursive discrimination of differences. Repeat: LOCAL RECURSIVE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES is a key. Interlocution of many Ur-Processes yields global Ur-Patterns that are pervasive in Nature, at all scales. (Biology and genetics are subsumed under these processes and involve the same patterns.) Such Ur-Patterns come to our awareness as "snapshots" during the incessant flow of the Ur-Processes. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ____________________________________ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005 _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 12:08:02 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:08:02 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotech Gadgets to Be Built by Algae? Message-ID: <01C534DE.120E7A90.shovland@mindspring.com> John Roach for National Geographic News March 29, 2005 Ancient, single-celled organisms that are lowly anchors in the marine food chain may soon be integral players in the lofty realm of nanotechnology, the science of the very small. Nanotech materials and devices measure less than a hundred nanometers, a unit of measurement that is one billionth of a meter. By contrast, a human hair is about 20,000 nanometers thick. According to scientists and market analysts, the world is on the cusp of a nanotechnology revolution: The teeny, tiny materials and devices are beginning to show up everywhere from clothing and sporting goods to computer electronics and medical equipment. But a limitation to the pending revolution is the high expense and inefficiency of making materials and devices at the nanoscale, according to Gregory Rorrer, a chemical engineer at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Rorrer believes a solution to the problem may lie in diatoms, single-celled marine life-forms that have been around since the age of the dinosaurs. The algae are well known for their crucial role at the base of the marine food pyramid and for ridding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In addition, diatoms have a unique ability to pull silica from seawater and mill it into intricately-structured, rigid shells, Rorrer said. The organisms create their shells by employing special proteins and subcellular organs to first assemble silica nanoparticles, which are composed of just a few hundred atoms. The proteins and subcellular organs then orchestrate the assembly of those nanoparticles into shells, Rorrer said. "You've two levels of structure-these nanoparticles and then, what's way more interesting, is you can take these particles, and each one is like a little brick, and they are assembled into ornate microstructures," the chemical engineer said. Last July Rorrer's lab at Oregon State University was awarded a four-year, 1.3-million-dollar (U.S.) grant from the National Science Foundation to develop a process that harnesses diatom shell-construction to create nanostructured materials. (The foundation also funds National Geographic News's Pulse of the Planet news series, of which this story is a part.) Products may include flexible computer screens, cheap and efficient solar cells, filtration devices, and drug delivery vehicles that can target, for example, a single cancer cell. Nanomaterials Rorrer's lab aims to incorporate elements such as silicon, germanium, titanium, and gallium into the diatoms' silica shells. At the nanoscale, these elements follow the laws of quantum mechanics instead of Newtonian physics, giving them unique and commercially desirable properties. (Newtonian physics denotes well-known forces like gravity, while quantum mechanics describes laws of physics that apply at very small scales, such as those found in atoms.) At the nanoscale, for example, the metal germanium glows blue when energy is applied to it. This has a host of applications in electronic and medical imaging technologies, Rorrer said. The process to incorporate germanium nanoparticles in silica is "doable but difficult with existing technology," the scientist said. The conventional process involves vaporizing a germanium crystal in a vacuum with a high-energy laser beam and coaxing the vaporized atoms to glom onto a silica surface. "That has to be done at a high temperature [and] at a high vacuum and [with] all the equipment associated with the control of that," Rorrer said. "We do essentially the same thing by growing living organisms in a vat." The trick for Rorrer and his Oregon State University colleague, Chih-hung Chang, is to add just enough dissolved metal to the vat to allow the diatoms to absorb it without dying. To date "the concept for germanium incorporation has been proven," Chang said. "We will work on incorporating other metals very soon." Another advantage to using diatoms, Rorrer said, is that when the algae divide, they make a perfect copy of themselves, meaning "we can make a gazillion of these, and they are all the same." Shapes In addition to the ability of the diatoms to absorb these metals and create nanostructured materials, each diatom species makes shells with unique designs. And there are tens of thousands of diatom species. Which means there are "tens of thousands of micro-templates," Rorrer said. "Some have holes, some ribs, some oval, some square-and all the microfabrication has been done by the organisms. We just put additional material on it." In the future, the researchers hope they can use these diatoms to make intricate designs at the microscale that are currently not possible with existing technology. To find the appropriate template, all a researcher would need is a searchable database of natural diatom designs. Genetic engineering may also one day make it possible to control diatom design. From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 12:14:40 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:14:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Gene Finding with Hidden Markov Models Message-ID: <01C534DE.FE821850.shovland@mindspring.com> The application of phylogeny to HMMs is improving gene annotation | By Karen Heyman Haemophilus influenzae made history in 1995 when it became the first free-living organism to have its genome completely sequenced. In the decade since, some 180 or so organisms have followed suit. For every one of these genomes, the sequence is only the beginning. The challenge for the computational biologists charged with making sense of the data: to find the gene sequences hidden within those strings, billions of bases long, of As, Cs, Gs, and Ts. The genome annotation strategies these computer scientists cum biologists have developed clearly have come a long way. The most recent iteration (version 4.0) of the Drosophila genome annotation, for instance, updated only 25 predictions out of 13,472 protein-coding genes. But improvements can still be made. "If they were 100% reliable, then they would have been run on the April 2003 complete human sequence and that would've been it. Those would have been your genes," says David Haussler, who directs the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Instead, the human gene count has been downsized by nearly one-third, from 35,000 genes to closer to 25,000. Much of the field's slow progress stems directly from the contradiction at the heart of the field of computational biology: the attempt to wed the logic of math to the messiness of biology. Algorithms can be simple, elegant, and fast, but they may not capture biology, which is often anything but simple. "I think what people overlooked was the complexity of biology," says Zhirong Bao, coauthor with Sean Eddy of Recon, a software program for identifying repeat sequences. "They start with simple and beautiful graph theories and implement them in software, assuming that all their DNA sequences are going to behave like their perfect nodes in their perfect graphs." Now as more genomes are sequenced, researchers are looking to bring their computations in line with the underlying biology. They are creating software that incorporates phylogenetics, the descriptions of evolutionary distance, into the field's favorite computational tool, the hidden Markov model (HMM). LEGACY LEGOS Eddy, associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis and coauthor of the textbook, Biological Sequence Analysis: Probabilistic Models of Proteins and Nucleic Acids (Cambridge University Press), has dubbed HMMs "the Legos of computational sequence analysis."1 HMMs are special instances of graphical models, which were originally developed by computer scientists studying machine learning and speech recognition. In technical parlance, says Eddy, HMMs "describe a probability distribution over an infinite number of sequences." To the uninitiated, they resemble a cross between a flow chart and a doodle. In order to understand conceptually how HMMs work, consider their origin in speech r ecognition, says Haussler. In that field, a computer is asked, given a speech wave, what are the phonemes (sounds) that it encodes. The wave is the measured signal; the phonemes are the "hidden" signals that give the HMM its name. "There is a probabilistic relationship between phonemes," Haussler explains. "After a 'th' sound can easily come an 'r' or an 'ah' or several other types of sounds, but not, for example, a 'k' sound. A hidden Markov model for speech incorporates all possible phonemes, and for each phoneme the probability that it's followed by any other phoneme." Haussler says the HMM also "models the stochastic relationship between each phoneme and the speech wave one might measure for it. In this way it can be used to infer the sequence of phonemes that best fits a given segment of recorded speech." Translating that to molecular biology, he explains, the measured signal is the sequence of nucleotides, while the hidden signal is their function. "Biology is trying to speak a language to us, and the HMM model is helping us to distinguish the phonemes of that language." Structurally, says Lincoln Stein of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, "HMMs work when you have information that moves from left to right, [when] the probability of an event to the right is dependent on previous events to the left." That logical structure ensures that almost all annotation problems can be cast as HMMs, says Eddy. "You've got an observed residue, and there's one or more labels [or 'states'] that you can attach to it." He continues, "You don't know what the states are. So as you move from left to right, you ask, 'what state am I in,' which is 'what label do I attach to this residue now?"' So, just as in speech recognition, there is a measured signal (the residue) and a hidden one (its label or function). That's not to say HMMs will solve every problem, says Stein. Noncoding RNA genes, for instance, in which function is encoded both in sequence and in secondary structure, present a particular problem. "The problem with folding is that there's a kind of symmetry. You move left to right and then right to left, depending on where you are in the fold," he says. Taking their cue from computational linguistics, biologists address these and similar problems using stochastic context-free grammars. SCFGs are really "just HMMs extended to a second dimension," says Eddy. "A lot of the concepts are the same in HMMs and SCFGs. SCFG algorithms are just a little nastier to work with, much more memory and compute time needed, which is the big thing limiting us from deploying SCFGs on every cool computational RNA problem we can think of." Courtesy of Sean Eddy PLAN 7 FROM OUTER SPACE? This diagram shows the Plan7 architecture used in the gene finding software, HMMER. Squares indicate match states (modeling consensus positions in the alignment). Diamonds indicate insert states (modeling insertions relative to consensus) and special random sequence emitting states. Circles indicate delete states (modeling deletions relative to consensus) and special begin/end states. Arrows indicate state transitions. HMMS EVOLVE Molecular biologists use the term generically, yet many classes or implementations of HMM exist, each of which is adapted to particular annotation challenges. Eddy's own work concentrates on identifying structural and catalytic RNAs. His lab uses a subclass of HMMs called profile HMMs, which were presented in 1992 by Haussler and Anders Krogh as an alternative to profiles, the then-popular approach to protein classification. "A profile is the technical term for the model used to represent a family of related proteins," says Haussler. Essentially, he says, it is "a computer trick" for deciding how to classify a given protein. But profiles turned out to be incomplete models, and Krogh and Haussler's innovation was to attack the same problem using HMMs. They were not the first researchers to apply HMMs to biology, but Krogh and Haussler's work2 on profile HMMs electrified the field. "Their technical report flew through the community," Eddy recalls. Today, profile HMMs drive the popular protein sequence-analysis software, HMMER. Now Haussler, along with other researchers in the United States and Europe, is again generating excitement in the annotation community. This time the hubbub surrounds so-called PhyloHMMs, implementations that combine HMMs with phylogenetics to drive better gene prediction.3 Among their more popular current incarnations is the "conservation graph" on the UCSC Genome Browser. Haussler's graduate student, Adam Siepel, created the conservation graph. PhyloHMMs should help with the "sequence weighting" problem that has plagued earlier attempts to use HMMs to extract information from multiple sequences. "If you just make a naive kind of assumption about these sequences all being independent, you introduce biases into your analyses," explains Siepel. The original workaround was to assign arbitrary weights. "People came up with these ad hoc ways of adding weights," says Siepel. For instance, if the human genome was being compared to those of the chimp and the mouse, the researcher might assign less weight to the chimp sequence than the mouse, because the two primates are so closely related that it can be difficult to identify which sequences are under evolutionary pressure. Eddy says that these models have so little genuine statistical basis that he calls them "sequence weighting crap." ? 2005 Nature Publishing Group WHERE'S THE SPLICE SITE? This "toy" HMM is trying to find the 5' splice site (5) in a sequence containing an exon (E)-intron (I) boundary. (Reprinted with permission from S. Eddy, Nat Biotechnol, 22:1315-6, 2004.) By including phylogeny in the model, though, the weighting begins to make biological sense, says Eddy. "With sequence-to-sequence phylogenetic correlation, because the species are actually related to each other, the number of parameters goes down. There's a phylogenetic tree that now says how these sequences are related to each other." Still he warns, "The mathematics is a complicated beast, but this is where the field has to go." Haussler and Siepel4 have used PhyloHMMs to create software they call "ExoniPhy," which detects new, novel sequences that are conserved from genomes by modeling how codons evolve. "We're trying to find genes that are not supported by cDNA evidence, not supported by sequenced mRNAs or ESTs," says Siepel, "Many genes, we believe, are being missed by the experimental techniques that are used to fish out mRNAs. One of the problems is that these genes are very rarely expressed or they're expressed at very low levels, so for example you might have a gene that's turned on in the ninth day of development for a few hours and then afterwards it's turned off, and so it never shows up in these libraries of mRNA." A phylogenetic approach assumes that a critical gene, even a rarely expressed one, will be highly conserved. "Even if it's hard to find the mRNA, it's going to have an evolutionary signature in the genome, so we're trying to use these evolutionary footprints to help find genes that haven't been able to be found," concludes Siepel. He says his team believes it has detected "at least several hundred genes" that are strongly supported by the evolutionary/cross-species evidence, but they are not supported or only very weakly supported by cDNA evidence. They are now working on validating their predictions in the lab. TWINSCAN 3.0 Other researchers, including Michael Brent, are trying similar approaches. Brent, a colleague of Eddy's at Washington University, created TWINSCAN, a gene-prediction tool that works by comparing two genomes. His lab is now working on a TWINSCAN update dubbed N-SCAN.5 As the name implies, N-SCAN allows comparisons between unlimited numbers of genomes. Tests of the program have been encouraging, Brent says. "With N-SCAN, we're now up to more than one-third of the known genes [in the human genome] predicted exactly right. With more compact genomes like worms, we can get more than 60% of the known genomes exactly right." Courtesy of Adam Siepel A REAL-WORLD PHYLO-HMM: The conservation graph from the University of California, Santa Cruz, human genome browser [] is based on a PhyloHMM. This plot shows the known gene structure alongside the computer gene predictions and genomic comparisons with other species for the MET proto-oncogene. Boxes represent exons, while lines with chevrons represent introns. Like ExoniPhy, N-SCAN combines HMM work with phylogenetic concepts, but Brent cites important distinctions. "The ExoniPhy model is based on an improvement to the classical continuous-time Markov chain model of DNA evolution. The key to that is that you have a phylogenetic tree which has branch lengths that represent the amount of evolution that's gone on since the common ancestor, but the pattern of evolution is the same throughout the entire tree." In other words, the model assumes that the tolerance for substituting a C for a T in a particular position doesn't change throughout evolutionary history. Instead, what changes is how much time, hence opportunity, there has been for such a substitution to actually occur. (Haussler says Siepel is currently writing code that relaxes that assumption.) By contrast, says Brent, "Our model is more flexible; it doesn't have that assumption. It allows for one branch to develop a separate pattern of evolution at a given site from another branch." Nevertheless, he praises ExoniPhy as "elegant" and says, "It has a higher specificity, a lower false-positive rate on exons than anybody else." Such subtle distinctions ensure that no one program will be best suited for every application, says Lior Pachter, a mathematician at UC-Berkeley, and author of SLAM,7 which does simultaneous gene finding and sequence align ment. Indeed, the very idea of comparing various programs amuses Pachter. "People like to write programs like SLAM or TWINSCAN and then they compare them to other programs, and always in their comparisons they come out getting better results," he says. "But of course, it's impossible that everybody has the best program." >From his experiences working on the mouse genome, Pachter observes, "There are certain genes that have certain properties that make them easy to predict and then we all agree, but there are a lot of cases where we disagree." He advises biologists, "It's always a good idea to try all the available tools. It's not always that one program is universally better than the other in every case." Consider phylogenetics-based programs, for instance. Roderic Guigo of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Catalonia, Spain, developer of the comparative gene-prediction program called SGP2,6 notes that the phylogenetics data that make PhyloHMM-based programs so powerful are also their Achilles' heel. "While in general more accurate than purely ab initio methods," he writes in an E-mail, "a drawback of the PhyloHMM gene predictors is that they require the sequence of one or more genomes at the appropriate phylogenetic distance: C. elegans and C. brigasse, human and mouse, Fugu and Tetraodon, etc. [On occasion], such a second sequence does not exist." One thing is certain: Even when these computer tools are finally perfected, biology will still be done at the bench, not at the keyboard. "Ultimately all computer predictions must be tested in the laboratory," says Haussler, "The more you predict, the more wet lab validation there is to be done." While lay people may find it ego-deflating that the gene set keeps shrinking, experimental biologists may find it something of a relief. References 1. SR Eddy "What is a hidden Markov model?" Nat Biotechnol 2004, 22: 1315-6. [PubMed Abstract ][Publisher Full Text ] 2. A Krogh et al, "Hidden Markov models in computational biology: Applications to protein modeling," J Mol Biol 1994, 235: 1501-31. [PubMed Abstract ][Publisher Full Text ] 3. A Siepel, D Haussler "Phylogenetic hidden Markov models," Statistical Methods in Molecular Evolution (Edited by: Nielsen R). New York: Springer 2005., 4. A Siepel, D Haussler "Computational identification of evolutionarily conserved exons," Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB) 2004., 5. SS Gross, MR Brent "Using multiple alignments to improve gene prediction," Proceedings of RECOMB 2005, in press. , 6. M Alexandersson et al, "SLAM: Cross-species gene finding and alignment with a generalized pair hidden Markov model," Genome Re 2003, 13: 496-502. [Publisher Full Text ] 7. G Parra et al, "Comparative gene prediction in human and mouse," Genome Res 2003, 13: 108-17. [PubMed Abstract ][Publisher Full Text ][PubMed Central Full Text ] From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 12:16:22 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:16:22 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy Message-ID: <01C534DF.3B73E6D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Contact: Carl Blesch cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu 732-932-7084 x616 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are likely to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy vehicles. In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium that can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of pyramids with facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) across, onto which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This sets up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. "The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," said Ted Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze chemical reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly discovered process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling hydrogen in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel distribution infrastructure from scratch. By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like today's gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based on the one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted under the vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less susceptible to deactivation. When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical reaction. In such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, making new forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua Chen and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat surface of iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make uniform arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces from the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium catalyzes ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional studies to characterize the process more completely. ### The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants from the U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. From paul.werbos at verizon.net Wed Mar 30 12:46:28 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:46:28 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy In-Reply-To: <01C534DF.3B73E6D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C534DF.3B73E6D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050330072400.01e54fd0@incoming.verizon.net> At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >Contact: Carl Blesch >cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >732-932-7084 x616 >Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are likely >to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >vehicles. Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to silence the voice which responds in only one word: "nanobrains." The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism be so stupid? Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks this way?" It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in clarity of thinking between the organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for corpses and those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion after all these years. (Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of church choir singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling Frankenstein in the middle...) Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces particularly hard a couple of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum possible benefit of the doubt. And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did even discuss a bit about the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the showstoppers, in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the Future. But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. For example, see the chicken and egg slide at www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... We don't HAVE a thousand years here. Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist lunacies in a similar cynical way. ----------- There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of the insanities of individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how this works: ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one direction they ignore what's coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially responsive people who trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total failure of the Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, albeit in a slightly different way. In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's house (after the first bug White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his key OSTP on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all times... it was a very conscious philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very open to fun rambling discussions.. which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. Good vibes... well... it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance the principles of love and of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental trash on this issue, on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care of anyway... at a price. At a severe price. But... the clock ticks... >In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American Chemical >Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium that >can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of pyramids with >facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) across, onto >which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This sets >up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," said Ted >Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze chemical >reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly discovered >process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling hydrogen >in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel distribution >infrastructure from scratch. >By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric nitrogen >into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like today's >gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based on the >one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted under the >vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less susceptible >to deactivation. >When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical reaction. In >such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, making new >forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua Chen >and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat surface of >iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make uniform >arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces from >the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium catalyzes >ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional studies to >characterize the process more completely. >### >The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants from the >U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 30 14:03:17 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:03:17 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050330072400.01e54fd0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C534DF.3B73E6D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050330072400.01e54fd0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <424AB1A5.3010402@solution-consulting.com> This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. Lynn PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables (or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own paradigms. Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Contact: Carl Blesch >> cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >> 732-932-7084 x616 >> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >> NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >> likely >> to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >> Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >> could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >> vehicles. > > > Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to > silence the voice > which responds in only one word: > "nanobrains." > > The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism > be so stupid? > Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks > this way?" > It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in > clarity of thinking between the > organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for > corpses and > those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion > after all these years. > (Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of > church choir > singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling > Frankenstein in the middle...) > > Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces > particularly hard a couple > of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum > possible benefit of the doubt. > And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did > even discuss a bit about > the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the > showstoppers, > in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the > Future. > > But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. > For example, see the chicken and egg slide at > www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... > > We don't HAVE a thousand years here. > > Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- > and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more > sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy > is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways > to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who > supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. > And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist > lunacies > in a similar cynical way. > > ----------- > > There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater > than the sum of the parts, > and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of > the insanities of > individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how > this works: > ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one > direction they ignore what's > coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially > responsive people who > trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total > failure of the > Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, > albeit in a slightly different way. > In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's > house (after the first bug > White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his > key OSTP > on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all > times... it was a very conscious > philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very > open to fun rambling discussions.. > which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. > Good vibes... well... > it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance > the principles of love and > of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. > > In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental > trash on this issue, > on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care > of anyway... at a price. > At a severe price. > > But... the clock ticks... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >> Chemical >> Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >> describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >> that >> can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >> fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >> pyramids with >> facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >> across, onto >> which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >> sets >> up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >> "The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >> said Ted >> Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >> department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >> chemical >> reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >> A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >> cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >> discovered >> process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >> hydrogen >> in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >> engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >> distribution >> infrastructure from scratch. >> By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >> nitrogen >> into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >> atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >> today's >> gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >> on the >> one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >> under the >> vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >> nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >> nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >> susceptible >> to deactivation. >> When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >> traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >> reaction. In >> such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >> yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >> traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >> Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >> nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >> making new >> forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >> In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >> Chen >> and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >> surface of >> iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >> uniform >> arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >> from >> the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >> crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >> approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >> create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >> catalyzes >> ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >> studies to >> characterize the process more completely. >> ### >> The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >> Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >> into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >> involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >> science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >> from the >> U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 15:26:53 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:26:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy Message-ID: <01C534F9.D9821850.shovland@mindspring.com> Interesting about Empirically Validated Treatments. Once the biochemical issues have been settled, it seems to me that almost anything you do in the therapeutic setting helps. There is also a parallel in medicine, where they are talking more about outcomes. For example, it is fairly well known that the effects of angioplasty and bypasses often fade fairly quickly, so one wonders why they are done in the first place. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. Lynn PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables (or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own paradigms. Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Contact: Carl Blesch >> cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >> 732-932-7084 x616 >> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >> NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >> likely >> to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >> Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >> could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >> vehicles. > > > Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to > silence the voice > which responds in only one word: > "nanobrains." > > The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism > be so stupid? > Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks > this way?" > It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in > clarity of thinking between the > organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for > corpses and > those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion > after all these years. > (Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of > church choir > singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling > Frankenstein in the middle...) > > Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces > particularly hard a couple > of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum > possible benefit of the doubt. > And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did > even discuss a bit about > the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the > showstoppers, > in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the > Future. > > But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. > For example, see the chicken and egg slide at > www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... > > We don't HAVE a thousand years here. > > Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- > and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more > sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy > is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways > to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who > supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. > And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist > lunacies > in a similar cynical way. > > ----------- > > There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater > than the sum of the parts, > and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of > the insanities of > individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how > this works: > ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one > direction they ignore what's > coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially > responsive people who > trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total > failure of the > Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, > albeit in a slightly different way. > In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's > house (after the first bug > White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his > key OSTP > on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all > times... it was a very conscious > philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very > open to fun rambling discussions.. > which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. > Good vibes... well... > it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance > the principles of love and > of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. > > In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental > trash on this issue, > on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care > of anyway... at a price. > At a severe price. > > But... the clock ticks... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >> Chemical >> Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >> describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >> that >> can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >> fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >> pyramids with >> facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >> across, onto >> which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >> sets >> up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >> "The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >> said Ted >> Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >> department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >> chemical >> reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >> A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >> cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >> discovered >> process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >> hydrogen >> in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >> engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >> distribution >> infrastructure from scratch. >> By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >> nitrogen >> into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >> atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >> today's >> gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >> on the >> one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >> under the >> vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >> nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >> nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >> susceptible >> to deactivation. >> When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >> traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >> reaction. In >> such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >> yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >> traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >> Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >> nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >> making new >> forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >> In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >> Chen >> and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >> surface of >> iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >> uniform >> arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >> from >> the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >> crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >> approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >> create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >> catalyzes >> ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >> studies to >> characterize the process more completely. >> ### >> The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >> Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >> into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >> involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >> science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >> from the >> U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 30 16:01:10 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy In-Reply-To: <01C534F9.D9821850.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C534F9.D9821850.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <424ACD46.8050103@solution-consulting.com> At twelve weeks, there is no difference between cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and psychoanalytic therapy, even though the APA supports CBT as the treatment of choice. That is one example of many, many studies. Combining medication and therapy has an additive effect. In one study, 52% of psychotherapy patients were improved, 55% of medication patients, but 85% of combined patients were improved. (Kelly, et al, 2000, NEJM). Complete remission (<10 on Beck Depression Inventory): 24% CBT, 22% meds, and 42% combination. Another medical example is arthroscopic knee surgery. Since I am a finalist for Worst Knees in an Adult Male, I have an interest in this. Moseley et al., 2002 NEJM reported that there is no relationship between procedures done to 'help' the knee and outcome. Some patients got sham surgery and some got actual clean-up of the meniscus, and months later there was no difference. Both groups rated their knees as much improved. People do procedures that they were trained to do. People do procedures that there is a market for. People do procedures for which they get paid. Here is an inspiring counter example: in 1991, Neil Jacobson published an editorial in Jl Beh Ther in which he admitted that his Marital Behavioral Exchange Therapy to improve marriages, did not, in fact, improve marriages. He abandoned behavioral marital exchange (you change to make me happy and I will change to make you happy) in favor of John Gottman's paradigms. I remember my utter astonishment when I read that, because it is very painful for me to admit I have been wrong. Jacobson gave 10 years of his highly published life to behavioral exchange and to renounce that was an act of the highest moral courage. Lynn Salt Lake City where we have four inches of brand new snow right outside my library window and three feet in the mountains, and I have a full day of work today and tomorrow and cannot go skiing. oh the horror, the horror. Steve Hovland wrote: >Interesting about Empirically Validated Treatments. > >Once the biochemical issues have been settled, it seems >to me that almost anything you do in the therapeutic >setting helps. > >There is also a parallel in medicine, where they are talking >more about outcomes. For example, it is fairly well known >that the effects of angioplasty and bypasses often fade >fairly quickly, so one wonders why they are done in the >first place. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy > >This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen >storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. >He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling >studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of >hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked >came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or >a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when >he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they >appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field >was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. > >Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten >norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing >problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are >precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there >is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical >medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is >no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the >technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common >factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one >that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. >Lynn > >PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks >piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical >trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables >(or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, >both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own >paradigms. > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > >>At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Contact: Carl Blesch >>>cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >>>732-932-7084 x616 >>>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>>NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >>>likely >>>to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >>>Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >>>could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >>>vehicles. >>> >>> >>Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to >>silence the voice >>which responds in only one word: >>"nanobrains." >> >>The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism >>be so stupid? >>Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks >>this way?" >>It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in >>clarity of thinking between the >>organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for >>corpses and >>those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion >>after all these years. >>(Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of >>church choir >>singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling >>Frankenstein in the middle...) >> >>Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces >>particularly hard a couple >>of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum >>possible benefit of the doubt. >>And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did >>even discuss a bit about >>the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the >>showstoppers, >>in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the >>Future. >> >>But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. >>For example, see the chicken and egg slide at >>www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt >>And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... >> >>We don't HAVE a thousand years here. >> >>Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- >>and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more >>sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy >>is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways >>to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who >>supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. >>And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist >>lunacies >>in a similar cynical way. >> >>----------- >> >>There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater >>than the sum of the parts, >>and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of >>the insanities of >>individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how >>this works: >>ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one >>direction they ignore what's >>coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially >>responsive people who >>trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total >>failure of the >>Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, >>albeit in a slightly different way. >>In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's >>house (after the first bug >>White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his >>key OSTP >>on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all >>times... it was a very conscious >>philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very >>open to fun rambling discussions.. >>which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. >>Good vibes... well... >>it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance >>the principles of love and >>of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. >> >>In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental >>trash on this issue, >>on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care >>of anyway... at a price. >>At a severe price. >> >>But... the clock ticks... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >>>Chemical >>>Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >>>describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >>>that >>>can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >>>fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >>>pyramids with >>>facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >>>across, onto >>>which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >>>sets >>>up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >>>"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >>>said Ted >>>Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >>>department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >>>chemical >>>reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >>>A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >>>cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >>>discovered >>>process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >>>hydrogen >>>in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >>>engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >>>distribution >>>infrastructure from scratch. >>>By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >>>nitrogen >>>into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >>>atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >>>today's >>>gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >>>on the >>>one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >>>under the >>>vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >>>nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >>>nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >>>susceptible >>>to deactivation. >>>When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >>>traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >>>reaction. In >>>such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >>>yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >>>traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >>>Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >>>nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >>>making new >>>forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >>>In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >>>Chen >>>and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >>>surface of >>>iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >>>uniform >>>arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >>>from >>>the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >>>crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >>>approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >>>create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >>>catalyzes >>>ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >>>studies to >>>characterize the process more completely. >>>### >>>The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >>>Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >>>into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >>>involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >>>science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >>>from the >>>U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 30 16:21:19 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:21:19 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Off topic: therapeutic idea In-Reply-To: <01C534F9.4BF55EC0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C534F9.4BF55EC0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <424AD1FF.90401@solution-consulting.com> That is very interesting. I haven't read Perricone, and now I think I had better do it. I just reserved three of his books (the fellow writes a lot!) at the library, and one of the books I am number 31 in the queue, and another I am #70! He won't be going to the dance with me any time soon! Up until now, I thought flax oil was the best to convert to EPA, thanks for the alert. One question: price? Could it be more cost-effective to take widely available flax oil or is borage cost-competitive? I am working at home for another hour and on the way to work I will stop at a health food place and compare. Total agreement on Alaskan salmon. The salmon at Albertsons is farm raised and I have been told that it is low in EPA/DHA. Have you googled grass fed beef and Omega-3 oil? Apparently if you can purchase grass fed beef, it is equal to wild salmon for omega-3. A fellow here in Utah (Utah State, the aggie school) did the research. It is fattening the beef with soy and barley and so on that gives it the omega-6 and saturated fat load. Does Perricone mention that? Lynn ps: I forwarded this interesting stuff to paleo in case others are interested in depression Steve Hovland wrote: >Per Nicholas Perricone, MD (The Perricone Prescription etc) >Borage Oil may convert in the body more readily than >Flaxseed Oil. Available in capsules from health food stores. > >He also advocates Alaskan or Sockeye salmon as a >premier source of EFA's. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy > >This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen >storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. >He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling >studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of >hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked >came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or >a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when >he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they >appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field >was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. > >Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten >norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing >problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are >precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there >is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical >medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is >no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the >technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common >factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one >that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. >Lynn > >PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks >piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical >trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables >(or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, >both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own >paradigms. > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > >>At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Contact: Carl Blesch >>>cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >>>732-932-7084 x616 >>>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>>NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >>>likely >>>to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >>>Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >>>could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >>>vehicles. >>> >>> >>Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to >>silence the voice >>which responds in only one word: >>"nanobrains." >> >>The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism >>be so stupid? >>Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks >>this way?" >>It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in >>clarity of thinking between the >>organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for >>corpses and >>those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion >>after all these years. >>(Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of >>church choir >>singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling >>Frankenstein in the middle...) >> >>Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces >>particularly hard a couple >>of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum >>possible benefit of the doubt. >>And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did >>even discuss a bit about >>the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the >>showstoppers, >>in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the >>Future. >> >>But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. >>For example, see the chicken and egg slide at >>www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt >>And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... >> >>We don't HAVE a thousand years here. >> >>Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- >>and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more >>sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy >>is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways >>to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who >>supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. >>And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist >>lunacies >>in a similar cynical way. >> >>----------- >> >>There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater >>than the sum of the parts, >>and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of >>the insanities of >>individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how >>this works: >>ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one >>direction they ignore what's >>coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially >>responsive people who >>trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total >>failure of the >>Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, >>albeit in a slightly different way. >>In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's >>house (after the first bug >>White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his >>key OSTP >>on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all >>times... it was a very conscious >>philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very >>open to fun rambling discussions.. >>which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. >>Good vibes... well... >>it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance >>the principles of love and >>of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. >> >>In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental >>trash on this issue, >>on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care >>of anyway... at a price. >>At a severe price. >> >>But... the clock ticks... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >>>Chemical >>>Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >>>describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >>>that >>>can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >>>fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >>>pyramids with >>>facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >>>across, onto >>>which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >>>sets >>>up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >>>"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >>>said Ted >>>Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >>>department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >>>chemical >>>reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >>>A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >>>cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >>>discovered >>>process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >>>hydrogen >>>in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >>>engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >>>distribution >>>infrastructure from scratch. >>>By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >>>nitrogen >>>into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >>>atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >>>today's >>>gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >>>on the >>>one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >>>under the >>>vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >>>nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >>>nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >>>susceptible >>>to deactivation. >>>When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >>>traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >>>reaction. In >>>such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >>>yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >>>traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >>>Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >>>nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >>>making new >>>forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >>>In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >>>Chen >>>and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >>>surface of >>>iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >>>uniform >>>arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >>>from >>>the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >>>crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >>>approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >>>create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >>>catalyzes >>>ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >>>studies to >>>characterize the process more completely. >>>### >>>The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >>>Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >>>into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >>>involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >>>science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >>>from the >>>U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 16:34:25 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:34:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: Off topic: therapeutic idea Message-ID: <01C53503.48604590.shovland@mindspring.com> I think Borage Oil may be more expensive but it seems to me that shortly after I started taking it I had a change in my baseline mood, for the better. I am no longer perseverating about my hate for Bush :-) Whenever I think about him I say, yeah I hate him, and then I laugh. So I'd say it's worth the money. I take a capsule of Borage and a capsule of Flax in the morning. Perricone also gets into new things like peptides and neuropeptides. He is a dermatologist, but I think by following his passions he has made a breakthrough that effects general health, both physically and mentally. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:21 AM To: Steve Hovland; The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: Off topic: therapeutic idea That is very interesting. I haven't read Perricone, and now I think I had better do it. I just reserved three of his books (the fellow writes a lot!) at the library, and one of the books I am number 31 in the queue, and another I am #70! He won't be going to the dance with me any time soon! Up until now, I thought flax oil was the best to convert to EPA, thanks for the alert. One question: price? Could it be more cost-effective to take widely available flax oil or is borage cost-competitive? I am working at home for another hour and on the way to work I will stop at a health food place and compare. Total agreement on Alaskan salmon. The salmon at Albertsons is farm raised and I have been told that it is low in EPA/DHA. Have you googled grass fed beef and Omega-3 oil? Apparently if you can purchase grass fed beef, it is equal to wild salmon for omega-3. A fellow here in Utah (Utah State, the aggie school) did the research. It is fattening the beef with soy and barley and so on that gives it the omega-6 and saturated fat load. Does Perricone mention that? Lynn ps: I forwarded this interesting stuff to paleo in case others are interested in depression Steve Hovland wrote: >Per Nicholas Perricone, MD (The Perricone Prescription etc) >Borage Oil may convert in the body more readily than >Flaxseed Oil. Available in capsules from health food stores. > >He also advocates Alaskan or Sockeye salmon as a >premier source of EFA's. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy > >This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen >storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. >He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling >studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of >hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked >came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or >a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when >he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they >appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field >was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. > >Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten >norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing >problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are >precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there >is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical >medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is >no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the >technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common >factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one >that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. >Lynn > >PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks >piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical >trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables >(or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, >both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own >paradigms. > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > >>At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Contact: Carl Blesch >>>cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >>>732-932-7084 x616 >>>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>>NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >>>likely >>>to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >>>Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >>>could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >>>vehicles. >>> >>> >>Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to >>silence the voice >>which responds in only one word: >>"nanobrains." >> >>The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism >>be so stupid? >>Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks >>this way?" >>It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in >>clarity of thinking between the >>organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for >>corpses and >>those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion >>after all these years. >>(Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of >>church choir >>singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling >>Frankenstein in the middle...) >> >>Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces >>particularly hard a couple >>of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum >>possible benefit of the doubt. >>And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did >>even discuss a bit about >>the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the >>showstoppers, >>in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the >>Future. >> >>But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. >>For example, see the chicken and egg slide at >>www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt >>And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... >> >>We don't HAVE a thousand years here. >> >>Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- >>and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more >>sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy >>is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways >>to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who >>supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. >>And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist >>lunacies >>in a similar cynical way. >> >>----------- >> >>There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater >>than the sum of the parts, >>and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of >>the insanities of >>individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how >>this works: >>ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one >>direction they ignore what's >>coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially >>responsive people who >>trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total >>failure of the >>Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, >>albeit in a slightly different way. >>In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's >>house (after the first bug >>White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his >>key OSTP >>on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all >>times... it was a very conscious >>philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very >>open to fun rambling discussions.. >>which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. >>Good vibes... well... >>it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance >>the principles of love and >>of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. >> >>In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental >>trash on this issue, >>on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care >>of anyway... at a price. >>At a severe price. >> >>But... the clock ticks... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >>>Chemical >>>Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >>>describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >>>that >>>can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >>>fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >>>pyramids with >>>facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >>>across, onto >>>which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >>>sets >>>up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >>>"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >>>said Ted >>>Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >>>department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >>>chemical >>>reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >>>A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >>>cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >>>discovered >>>process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >>>hydrogen >>>in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >>>engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >>>distribution >>>infrastructure from scratch. >>>By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >>>nitrogen >>>into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >>>atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >>>today's >>>gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >>>on the >>>one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >>>under the >>>vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >>>nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >>>nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >>>susceptible >>>to deactivation. >>>When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >>>traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >>>reaction. In >>>such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >>>yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >>>traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >>>Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >>>nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >>>making new >>>forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >>>In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >>>Chen >>>and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >>>surface of >>>iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >>>uniform >>>arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >>>from >>>the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >>>crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >>>approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >>>create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >>>catalyzes >>>ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >>>studies to >>>characterize the process more completely. >>>### >>>The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >>>Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >>>into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >>>involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >>>science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >>>from the >>>U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00020.html >> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 16:40:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:40:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: Off topic: therapeutic idea Message-ID: <01C53504.255E3740.shovland@mindspring.com> Another piece of the depression puzzle is John Gray's "The Mars and Venus Diet & Exercise Solution." He identifies low seratonin as the primary cause of female depression and low dopamine as the primary cause of male depression. Unfortunately he does not give citations in the book, although I heard him on the radio and he doesn't seem to be making it up. Both Perricone and Gray directly or indirectly identify inadequate protein intake as a cause of many problems. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:21 AM To: Steve Hovland; The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: Off topic: therapeutic idea That is very interesting. I haven't read Perricone, and now I think I had better do it. I just reserved three of his books (the fellow writes a lot!) at the library, and one of the books I am number 31 in the queue, and another I am #70! He won't be going to the dance with me any time soon! Up until now, I thought flax oil was the best to convert to EPA, thanks for the alert. One question: price? Could it be more cost-effective to take widely available flax oil or is borage cost-competitive? I am working at home for another hour and on the way to work I will stop at a health food place and compare. Total agreement on Alaskan salmon. The salmon at Albertsons is farm raised and I have been told that it is low in EPA/DHA. Have you googled grass fed beef and Omega-3 oil? Apparently if you can purchase grass fed beef, it is equal to wild salmon for omega-3. A fellow here in Utah (Utah State, the aggie school) did the research. It is fattening the beef with soy and barley and so on that gives it the omega-6 and saturated fat load. Does Perricone mention that? Lynn ps: I forwarded this interesting stuff to paleo in case others are interested in depression Steve Hovland wrote: >Per Nicholas Perricone, MD (The Perricone Prescription etc) >Borage Oil may convert in the body more readily than >Flaxseed Oil. Available in capsules from health food stores. > >He also advocates Alaskan or Sockeye salmon as a >premier source of EFA's. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy > >This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen >storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. >He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling >studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of >hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked >came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or >a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when >he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they >appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field >was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. > >Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten >norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing >problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are >precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there >is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical >medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is >no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the >technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common >factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one >that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. >Lynn > >PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks >piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical >trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables >(or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, >both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own >paradigms. > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > >>At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Contact: Carl Blesch >>>cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >>>732-932-7084 x616 >>>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>>NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >>>likely >>>to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >>>Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >>>could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >>>vehicles. >>> >>> >>Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to >>silence the voice >>which responds in only one word: >>"nanobrains." >> >>The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism >>be so stupid? >>Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks >>this way?" >>It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in >>clarity of thinking between the >>organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for >>corpses and >>those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion >>after all these years. >>(Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of >>church choir >>singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling >>Frankenstein in the middle...) >> >>Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces >>particularly hard a couple >>of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum >>possible benefit of the doubt. >>And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did >>even discuss a bit about >>the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the >>showstoppers, >>in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the >>Future. >> >>But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. >>For example, see the chicken and egg slide at >>www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt >>And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... >> >>We don't HAVE a thousand years here. >> >>Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- >>and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more >>sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy >>is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways >>to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who >>supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. >>And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist >>lunacies >>in a similar cynical way. >> >>----------- >> >>There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater >>than the sum of the parts, >>and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of >>the insanities of >>individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how >>this works: >>ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one >>direction they ignore what's >>coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially >>responsive people who >>trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total >>failure of the >>Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, >>albeit in a slightly different way. >>In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's >>house (after the first bug >>White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his >>key OSTP >>on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all >>times... it was a very conscious >>philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very >>open to fun rambling discussions.. >>which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. >>Good vibes... well... >>it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance >>the principles of love and >>of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. >> >>In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental >>trash on this issue, >>on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care >>of anyway... at a price. >>At a severe price. >> >>But... the clock ticks... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >>>Chemical >>>Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >>>describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >>>that >>>can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >>>fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >>>pyramids with >>>facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >>>across, onto >>>which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >>>sets >>>up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >>>"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >>>said Ted >>>Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >>>department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >>>chemical >>>reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >>>A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >>>cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >>>discovered >>>process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >>>hydrogen >>>in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >>>engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >>>distribution >>>infrastructure from scratch. >>>By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >>>nitrogen >>>into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >>>atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >>>today's >>>gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >>>on the >>>one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >>>under the >>>vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >>>nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >>>nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >>>susceptible >>>to deactivation. >>>When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >>>traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >>>reaction. In >>>such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >>>yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >>>traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >>>Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >>>nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >>>making new >>>forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >>>In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >>>Chen >>>and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >>>surface of >>>iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >>>uniform >>>arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >>>from >>>the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >>>crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >>>approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >>>create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >>>catalyzes >>>ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >>>studies to >>>characterize the process more completely. >>>### >>>The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >>>Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >>>into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >>>involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >>>science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >>>from the >>>U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00020.html >> From unstasis at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 16:42:15 2005 From: unstasis at gmail.com (Stephen Lee) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:42:15 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Live Howard Bloom events and video excerpts of Howard at WIE's Unbound Message-ID: <951ad0705033008426b1a25e@mail.gmail.com> Well things have been busy around here lately, so thought it would be a good idea to give you all a bit of an update. Howard is scheduled to have a quite packed week of interesting and varied live events from May 7th to the 14th. Look here for the latest info. http://howardbloom.net/bloomweek.htm What is Enlightenment? Magazine has put together a 7 minute promotional introduction of Howard's last talk of their Voices from the Edge series ( http://www.wie.org/voices ) at a link here: http://www.wie.org/unbound/media.asp?ifr=hpf&id=55 The entirety of the talk and audio of other events Howard has had with them is also available with membership to their site which has many other cutting edge thinkers available as well in various multimedia formats. Thank you very much. Stephen Lee Howard Bloom's assistant -- -- If Nothing Is Then Nothing Was But something is everwhere Just because -- http://www.freewebs.com/rewander http://hopeisus.fateback.com/story.html From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 16:45:17 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:45:17 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy Message-ID: <01C53504.CD31A010.shovland@mindspring.com> Having been in therapy for almost 6 years, I would say that 12 weeks is not long enough for a valid study. A year might tell something. It depends on the courage and motivation of the client. You would probably agree that many people drop out before they get very far. Indeed, many drop out just when they are coming to something that would really help. These days I think I would start any new client on EFA and protein boosts along with talk. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:01 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy At twelve weeks, there is no difference between cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and psychoanalytic therapy, even though the APA supports CBT as the treatment of choice. That is one example of many, many studies. Combining medication and therapy has an additive effect. In one study, 52% of psychotherapy patients were improved, 55% of medication patients, but 85% of combined patients were improved. (Kelly, et al, 2000, NEJM). Complete remission (<10 on Beck Depression Inventory): 24% CBT, 22% meds, and 42% combination. Another medical example is arthroscopic knee surgery. Since I am a finalist for Worst Knees in an Adult Male, I have an interest in this. Moseley et al., 2002 NEJM reported that there is no relationship between procedures done to 'help' the knee and outcome. Some patients got sham surgery and some got actual clean-up of the meniscus, and months later there was no difference. Both groups rated their knees as much improved. People do procedures that they were trained to do. People do procedures that there is a market for. People do procedures for which they get paid. Here is an inspiring counter example: in 1991, Neil Jacobson published an editorial in Jl Beh Ther in which he admitted that his Marital Behavioral Exchange Therapy to improve marriages, did not, in fact, improve marriages. He abandoned behavioral marital exchange (you change to make me happy and I will change to make you happy) in favor of John Gottman's paradigms. I remember my utter astonishment when I read that, because it is very painful for me to admit I have been wrong. Jacobson gave 10 years of his highly published life to behavioral exchange and to renounce that was an act of the highest moral courage. Lynn Salt Lake City where we have four inches of brand new snow right outside my library window and three feet in the mountains, and I have a full day of work today and tomorrow and cannot go skiing. oh the horror, the horror. Steve Hovland wrote: >Interesting about Empirically Validated Treatments. > >Once the biochemical issues have been settled, it seems >to me that almost anything you do in the therapeutic >setting helps. > >There is also a parallel in medicine, where they are talking >more about outcomes. For example, it is fairly well known >that the effects of angioplasty and bypasses often fade >fairly quickly, so one wonders why they are done in the >first place. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy > >This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen >storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. >He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling >studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of >hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked >came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or >a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when >he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they >appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field >was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. > >Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten >norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing >problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are >precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there >is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical >medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is >no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the >technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common >factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one >that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. >Lynn > >PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks >piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical >trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables >(or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, >both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own >paradigms. > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > >>At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Contact: Carl Blesch >>>cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >>>732-932-7084 x616 >>>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>>NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >>>likely >>>to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >>>Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >>>could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >>>vehicles. >>> >>> >>Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to >>silence the voice >>which responds in only one word: >>"nanobrains." >> >>The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism >>be so stupid? >>Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks >>this way?" >>It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in >>clarity of thinking between the >>organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for >>corpses and >>those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion >>after all these years. >>(Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of >>church choir >>singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling >>Frankenstein in the middle...) >> >>Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces >>particularly hard a couple >>of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum >>possible benefit of the doubt. >>And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did >>even discuss a bit about >>the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the >>showstoppers, >>in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the >>Future. >> >>But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. >>For example, see the chicken and egg slide at >>www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt >>And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... >> >>We don't HAVE a thousand years here. >> >>Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- >>and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more >>sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy >>is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways >>to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who >>supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. >>And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist >>lunacies >>in a similar cynical way. >> >>----------- >> >>There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater >>than the sum of the parts, >>and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of >>the insanities of >>individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how >>this works: >>ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one >>direction they ignore what's >>coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially >>responsive people who >>trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total >>failure of the >>Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, >>albeit in a slightly different way. >>In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's >>house (after the first bug >>White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his >>key OSTP >>on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all >>times... it was a very conscious >>philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very >>open to fun rambling discussions.. >>which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. >>Good vibes... well... >>it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance >>the principles of love and >>of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. >> >>In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental >>trash on this issue, >>on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care >>of anyway... at a price. >>At a severe price. >> >>But... the clock ticks... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >>>Chemical >>>Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >>>describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >>>that >>>can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >>>fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >>>pyramids with >>>facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >>>across, onto >>>which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >>>sets >>>up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >>>"The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >>>said Ted >>>Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >>>department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >>>chemical >>>reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >>>A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >>>cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >>>discovered >>>process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >>>hydrogen >>>in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >>>engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >>>distribution >>>infrastructure from scratch. >>>By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >>>nitrogen >>>into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >>>atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >>>today's >>>gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >>>on the >>>one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >>>under the >>>vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >>>nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >>>nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >>>susceptible >>>to deactivation. >>>When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >>>traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >>>reaction. In >>>such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >>>yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >>>traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >>>Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >>>nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >>>making new >>>forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >>>In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >>>Chen >>>and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >>>surface of >>>iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >>>uniform >>>arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >>>from >>>the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >>>crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >>>approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >>>create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >>>catalyzes >>>ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >>>studies to >>>characterize the process more completely. >>>### >>>The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >>>Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >>>into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >>>involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >>>science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >>>from the >>>U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00018.html >> << File: ATT00019.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 30 17:13:01 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:13:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy Message-ID: <01C53508.AD19B200.shovland@mindspring.com> One problem with "The Hydrogen Economy" is that it sounds like another "monoculture" solution. We would go from Oil to Hydrogen. What we really need to be safe and prosperous is diversity of energy sources- everything from oil to wind. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:03 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology could promote hydrogen economy This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He had modeled hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes, and at a conference he was asked about it. He replied that he didn't think it was feasible, that his modeling studies showed it wasn't. He was skeptical about the possibility of hydrogen being a transportation fuel. Afterwards, the guys who asked came up and offered him a grant. (I think they were from LiquideAire or a competitor) He was surprised and asked why they'd offer him money when he didn't think that was the right direction. They replied that they appreciated his honesty. They found that generally the hydrogen field was full of people who were full of enthusiasm for unrealistic models. Frank posted recently about how scientists are constrained by unwritten norms of what is allowed and what is forbidden. It is an ongoing problem. Groups don't like core beliefs to be challenged, yet these are precisely what keeps us from seeing the next step. In psychology there is this big push toward Empirically Validated Treatments, aping physical medicine, yet Wampold and others have shown conclusively that there is no significant difference in distinct treatments because it is not the technique of treatment that actually heals the patient, it is the common factors. This will be a huge shift of the psychology paradigm, and one that will come only slowly, and the old true believers die off. Lynn PS: RE: Zombies, Paul, did you read Frank's posting of the David Brooks piece on Schievo from NYT? It was excellent, and points out the ethical trouble with characterization of brain-disabled people as vegetables (or, more pejoratively, corpses). It is an ugly business on both sides, both the pro-life and right-to-die people have some holes in their own paradigms. Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 07:16 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Contact: Carl Blesch >> cblesch at ur.rutgers.edu >> 732-932-7084 x616 >> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >> NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Say "nanotechnology" and people are >> likely >> to think of micro machines or zippy computer chips. But in a new twist, >> Rutgers scientists are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that >> could provide hydrogen for tomorrow's fuel-cell powered clean energy >> vehicles. > > > Upon careful analysis of this technological effort, I find it hard to > silence the voice > which responds in only one word: > "nanobrains." > > The only really serious scientific puzzles are : "How can an organism > be so stupid? > Is there any hope for survival for an endangered species which thinks > this way?" > It is not obvious that there is even a qualitative difference in > clarity of thinking between the > organisms that want to devote their lives to secure feeding tubes for > corpses and > those who believe in the fundamentalist form of the hydrogen religion > after all these years. > (Re the former, I had a kind of dream image last night of a kind of > church choir > singing a hymn praying to have their zombie back, and a smiling > Frankenstein in the middle...) > > Actually, when the purist hydrogen wave was shoved in our faces > particularly hard a couple > of year ago, I did try to think hard about how to give it maximum > possible benefit of the doubt. > And -- biased myself by the VERY heavy political pressures -- I did > even discuss a bit about > the hope for nanotube-based hydrogen storage to solve ONE of the > showstoppers, > in the initial version of my energy paper in the 2003 State of the > Future. > > But... there are all the others, and they don't add up. > For example, see the chicken and egg slide at > www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > And there are those who pretend that thousand year eggs are real... > > We don't HAVE a thousand years here. > > Furthermore, cost and efficiency problems are overwhelming -- > and, above all, there are three long-term alternatives all far more > sustainable, and near at hand. The purist version of hydrogen economy > is an effective rationalization for going to sleep, when we do have ways > to really solve our problems much closer at hand. One wonders who > supports this out of a desire to keep the rest of us asleep. > And indeed, there are certain folks who exploit other fundamentalist > lunacies > in a similar cynical way. > > ----------- > > There are some perverse nonlinear effects here. The whole is greater > than the sum of the parts, > and the collective level of insanity is often greater than the sum of > the insanities of > individual humans. The previous paragraph gives ONE example of how > this works: > ambitious people with very narrow blinders (focusing so hard in one > direction they ignore what's > coming to eat them out of left field) manipulating other socially > responsive people who > trust the manipulators more than they should. In fact... the total > failure of the > Clinton-Gore energy independence efforts reflect this same phenomenon, > albeit in a slightly different way. > In fact,, I have a very vivid memory from 1994, walking out of Gore's > house (after the first bug > White House PNGV conference)... and hearing an explanation from his > key OSTP > on this... of their policy of maintaining a simple party line at all > times... it was a very conscious > philosophy. Unlike some of the corpse-feeders, they were very very > open to fun rambling discussions.. > which is deceptive... because they were not really open to reality. > Good vibes... well... > it reminds me of the issue people have raised about trying to balance > the principles of love and > of truth, and about how people lose it if they chose one over the other. > > In the end, if humanity in general is too fuzzy to take out its mental > trash on this issue, > on its own, I have a gut feeling that the problem will be taken care > of anyway... at a price. > At a severe price. > > But... the clock ticks... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In a paper to be published April 20 in the Journal of the American >> Chemical >> Society, researchers at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, >> describe how they make a finely textured surface of the metal iridium >> that >> can be used to extract hydrogen from ammonia, then captured and fed to a >> fuel cell. The metal's unique surface consists of millions of >> pyramids with >> facets as tiny as five nanometers (five billionths of a meter) >> across, onto >> which ammonia molecules can nestle like matching puzzle pieces. This >> sets >> up the molecules to undergo complete and efficient decomposition. >> "The nanostructured surfaces we're examining are model catalysts," >> said Ted >> Madey, State of New Jersey professor of surface science in the physics >> department at Rutgers. "They also have the potential to catalyze >> chemical >> reactions for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries." >> A major obstacle to establishing the "hydrogen economy" is the safe and >> cost-effective storage and transport of hydrogen fuel. The newly >> discovered >> process could contribute to the solution of this problem. Handling >> hydrogen >> in its native form, as a light and highly flammable gas, poses daunting >> engineering challenges and would require building a new fuel >> distribution >> infrastructure from scratch. >> By using established processes to bind hydrogen with atmospheric >> nitrogen >> into ammonia molecules (which are simply one atom of nitrogen and three >> atoms of hydrogen), the resulting liquid could be handled much like >> today's >> gasoline and diesel fuel. Then using nanostructured catalysts based >> on the >> one being developed at Rutgers, pure hydrogen could be extracted >> under the >> vehicle's hood on demand, as needed by the fuel cell, and the remaining >> nitrogen harmlessly released back into the atmosphere. The carbon-free >> nature of ammonia would also make the fuel cell catalyst less >> susceptible >> to deactivation. >> When developing industrial catalysts, scientists and engineers have >> traditionally focused on how fast they could drive a chemical >> reaction. In >> such situations, however, catalysts often drive more than one reaction, >> yielding unwanted byproducts that have to be separated out. Also, >> traditional catalysts sometimes lose strength in the reaction process. >> Madey says that these problems could be minimized by tailoring >> nanostructured metal surfaces on supported industrial catalysts, >> making new >> forms of catalysts that are more robust and selective. >> In the journal article, Madey and postdoctoral research fellow Wenhua >> Chen >> and physics graduate student Ivan Ermanoski describe how a flat >> surface of >> iridium heated in the presence of oxygen changes its shape to make >> uniform >> arrays of nanosized pyramids. The structures arise when atomic forces >> from >> the adjacent oxygen atoms pull metal atoms into a more tightly ordered >> crystalline state at temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (or >> approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit). Different annealing temperatures >> create different sized facets, which affect how well the iridium >> catalyzes >> ammonia decomposition. The researchers are performing additional >> studies to >> characterize the process more completely. >> ### >> The Rutgers researchers are conducting their work in the university's >> Laboratory for Surface Modification, which provides a focus for research >> into atomic-level phenomena that occur on the surface of solids. It >> involves the overlapping disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials >> science and engineering. Their work is supported in part by grants >> from the >> U. S. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:21:17 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:21:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: Jerry A. Coyne: Legends of Linnaeus Message-ID: Jerry A. Coyne: Legends of Linnaeus The Times Literary Supplement, 4.2.25 [This is a very good review that does not skirt the issues of the reality of race. It is similar to what Armand Leroi did on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. Coyne's standard of proof goes way, way up, however, when the subject wanders into psychological differences among human races. As equality-inequality gets replaced with pluralism-universalism as the prinicpal left-right political axis during the 21st century, this jacking up the standard of proof will diminish. I'm writing a meme, called "Racial (Not Racist) Science," in which I'll be arguing that raced-based education will start emerging five years after the Republicans have left.] When "Europeans were governed by laws, Asians by opinions and Africans by caprice" RACE. The reality of human differences. By Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele. 287pp. Basic Books. ?19.99. - 0 8133 4086 1 When I apply to a United States government agency for a research grant, I'm asked to tick a box specifying whether I'm American Indian / Alaska Native, Asian, Black /African American, Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander, or White. While there are people whose mixed ancestry puts them somewhere outside these boxes, in general one's race - even as categorized on government forms - is self-evident. Nevertheless, immediately below the boxes there's a disclaimer: "The categories in this classification are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being anthropological in nature". On the basis of biological indicators such as ancestry or skin colour, I've specified my race, but now I'm told that all I've done is specified membership in a particular "social-political construct". Presumably lost on the bureaucrats who create such forms is the irony that America's geneticists - experts on the biological basis of differences among groups - are being assured that the self-assessment they make on biological grounds is, in fact, not biological. This contradiction captures the tension beneath much of the current debate on race. It also highlights the peculiar American slant on this debate. While my colleagues in the United Kingdom must also specify their ancestry when applying for government funds, they are not subjected to double-speak disclaimers. Racism in the US, courtesy of a society built largely on slavery, has an especially long and sordid history, and remains a divisive hot-button issue. In many discussions of American social policy, racism is the proverbial elephant in the living room: recognized but carefully ignored. Is race a real biological phenomenon or merely a social-political construct an illusion about nature that is ungrounded in genetic reality and based solely on our need to categorize? While these two views seem mutually exclusive, they are simultaneously embraced by a popular liberal stance in the US. Many who favour affirmative action for disadvantaged minorities deny that race is biologically real, even though affirmative action involves preferential treatment of individuals belonging to specified biological groups. Ultimately, the reality or non-reality of race is an empirical biological question. But biologists - who are quite happy to study racial variation in other species - become anxious when they forsake squirrels and salamanders and turn instead to humans. Biologists are just as squeamish about discussions of human race as the rest of us. Perhaps more so: scientists are sensitive to accusations that bringing the authority of their field to bear on race can stigmatize minorities or legitimize racism. Despite its practitioners' ambivalence, the modern science of human genetics has accumulated a great deal of data on race. What, then, do these data tell us? As a recent issue of the prestigious journal, Nature Genetics, devoted to human race reveals, the story is apparently still murky. While one paper asserts that "traditional 'racial' designations in humans are not bounded discrete categories but are fluid, socially defined constructs", another claims, "The emerging picture is that populations do, generally, cluster by broad geographic regions that correspond with common racial classifications (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas)". Some aspects of race are not controversial: black couples produce black children and white couples white children, regardless of where they live. But do these readily visible indicators of race - skin colour, hair type, etc - serve as markers for more profound differences, including behaviour and intelligence? This is the key question. With the human genome project completed, and human genetics, fuelled by new data, steaming ahead, science can surely now address (and, one hopes, answer) this question. To biologists, races are sets of populations within a species that are both geographically separated and differ genetically in at least one trait. Sometimes, depending merely on whether a biologist is a taxonomic lumper or splitter, a race gets its own name, and is designated a "subspecies". There are plenty of animal races, including mouse populations that differ only in coat colour or number of chromosomes, and sparrow populations that differ in size and song. Using this standard biological definition, Homo sapiens clearly has races, differing in constellations of traits such as skin and eye colour, and colour and form of the hair. Nobody has trouble distinguishing a Japanese from a Finn, even though recent mixing of humans has produced individuals who are intermediate and unclassifiable. The golfer Tiger Woods, for example, is often identified as black, but most of his genes are from East Asian ancestors. Well, if races exist, how many are there? We can't answer this question because human physical variation occurs in nested groups, and where one draws the lines is arbitrary. In his notorious book The Origin of Races (1962), the anthropologist Carlton Coon opted for five: Caucasoid (European and Middle Eastern), Capoid (Bushmen), Congoid (black African), Australoid (Australian aborigines) and Mongoloid (Asians). But these groups can themselves be subdivided: Mbuti Pygmies, for example, could be considered a race on the basis of height, and Swedes clearly differ from Bedouins, though both are "Caucasoid". What happens when we forsake skin colour, nose shape and hair type, and look instead at less visible forms of genetic variation - differences at the DNA or protein level - in standard racial groupings (Coonian or otherwise)? Remarkably, virtually all the variation uncovered using various high-tech molecular techniques fails to correlate, or correlates only weakly, with the classical physical variation that determines race. The first of these studies was done using the relatively crude techniques available in 1972. The evolutionist R. C. Lewontin calculated that 85 per cent of the genetic variation in our species occurs among individuals within an average population, another 8 per cent among populations within a race, and only 6 per cent among morphologically defined races. More recent DNA studies have confirmed this result. Reviewing these data, the geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues note: "The differences in human groups, even very distant ones and no matter whether the groups are defined on a racial or on a geographic basis, represent only a small fraction of the global genetic diversity of our species". The discrepancy between physical "racial" traits and the variation in most genes can be seen by measuring skin pigmentation in humans. Here the result is reversed: 88 per cent of variation in skin colour occurs among races. Clearly there is a difference between the geographical distributions of variation in genes coding for the physical traits that distinguish human groups, and of variation in the genes that do other things. The dichotomy between DNA and morpho-logy, however, is completely understand- able given the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. The key aspect of human races is that they are young. Although our lineage split off from that of chimpanzees about 6 million years ago, all modern humans descend from a relatively small group that spread out of Africa, beginning about 60,000 years ago. It's an evolutionary fact of life that large differences between groups can arise only when they have, at most, limited contact with each other, and thus are not capable of exchanging genes. There has thus been only a very short time for racial differences to have arisen between human isolates: differences must have necessarily arisen in 60,000 years, only 1 per cent of the interval since we diverged from apes. This is roughly 3,000 generations, a mere eye-blink in evolutionary time. The disparity between "racial" and overall genetic variation tells us two profoundly important things. First, the genes for physical differences are not representative of the genome as a whole; that is, the degree to which skin colour differs between two people is not a good indicator of their overall genetic difference. Second, no matter how one demarcates human races, the total genetic difference among them is trivial. So does this mean that we can ignore human race? No. These conclusions do not mean that races do not exist, nor that their differences are uninteresting. Racial differences can tell us about the evolutionary factors that have driven differentiation. Sickle-cell anaemia, for example, is most common in blacks whose ancestors came from Equatorial Africa. Because carriers of the sickle-cell mutation have some resistance to falciparum malaria, it is likely that the high frequency of this mutation in African and African-derived populations resulted from natural selection in response to malaria in tropical Africa. Ancestry in this and other cases can also help diagnose genetically based disease. What about the major "racial" traits: skin colour, hair type, etc? Why are these differentiated geographically? Skin colour is the easiest to explain in terms of natural selection. The darker skin of tropical groups probably protects them from intense ultraviolet light and lethal melanomas, while the pale skin of higher- latitude groups allows penetration of the skin by light necessary for the synthesis of essential vitamin D. Yet many differences between groups are not so easily explained as adaptations to the environment. How, for example, can we account for the eye folds of Asians, or the longer noses of Caucasians? Here, "sexual selection" is a possibility. In this process, a trait's advantage comes not from enhancing one's ability to survive (the purview of natural selection), but from enhancing one's access to members of the opposite sex. A famous example is the elaborate tail of the male peacock, a species in which females prefer males with more ornate tails. Perhaps the big noses of whites, and curly hair of blacks, are human versions of the peacock's tail. Darwin (who conceived the idea of sexual selection) was the first to suggest that such selection could explain the differences among human groups, based on different preferences in different places. Sexual selection operates most effectively on observable traits. The peacock's tail, or its equivalent, must be readily visible. If sexual selection played a powerful role in human racial differentiation, we would expect those genes that affect appearance to be more prone to racial differentiation than genes that do not. And that, you'll recall, is exactly what geneticists have found. Moreover, sexual selection is an attractive explanation for "racial" features for two other reasons. First, through language and other vehicles of culture, humans have a remarkable ability to disseminate ideas and opinions. Such cultural evolution can occur much faster than genetic evolution: an idea can spread through an entire population in a matter of hours. (When I was young, the rumour that Paul McCartney's supposed death was encrypted in a Beatles song swept the US within a single day.) A new mutation, however, can take many generations to spread through a population, even if it is strongly favoured by natural selection. Now imagine that the idea or fad in question involves the preferred appearance of one's mate. For example, an empress in China might prefer men with straight black hair and almond-shaped eyes. By creating a fashion, her preference spreads culturally to all her female subjects and, lo and behold, in the next generation the curly-haired and round-eyed individuals will be largely replaced by individuals with straight black hair and almond-shaped eyes. It is this interaction between cultural transmission and genetic evolution that makes the idea of sexual selection especially appealing. Second, sexual selection can in principle act incredibly fast (its rate depends on the strength of the preference and the rate of its cultural spread), making it an ideal candidate for effecting the rapid evolutionary differentiation of physical traits that has occurred since our migration from Africa. However, the most controversial aspects of race centre not on DNA or hair texture, but on behaviour. Many assume that physical indicators of race are mirrored by equally striking genetic differences in temperament and intelligence. On the other hand, many scientists feel that, given the results of Lewontin and others, the population genetics of our species militates against this possibility. Because most of the genetic variation in our species does not correlate with race, we would not expect a priori that particular traits would be differentially distributed among the races. However, it is still possible that some variation that matters in our society - say, variation underpinning differences in intelligence - does in fact lie within that small proportion of variation that correlates with race. We do not know the genes underlying such traits, and therefore it is impossible to resolve the issue of whether there is a genetic correlation of intelligence or personality with race. Thus some have used an alternative (and far less satisfactory) method: ignore genetics, measure the traits themselves in individuals from different groups, and ask whether such variation correlates with race. This practice has a famously ugly history. It provides a convenient way, given a little bad science, to confirm one's prejudices. In his eighteenth-century classification of humans, the botanist Carolus Linnaeus noted that Europeans are "governed by laws", Asians "governed by opinions" and Africans "governed by caprice". Happily, these attitudes have changed, but claims that resurrect the spirit, if not the letter, of Linnaeus still surface regularly. The Bell Curve (1994) by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, for example, argued that the higher IQ of whites than of blacks rested on genetic differences. Clearly, the time is ripe for an objective, scientifically informed book on human variation. Regrettably, Race: The reality of human differences, by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, is not that book. It is not that the authors are unqualified to write such a book. Sarich is a well-respected evolutionary geneticist and Miele is the senior editor of Skeptic magazine. Some of what they say about the biology of race is thoughtful and provocative. Unfortunately, this topic occupies only a third of the book. The rest is a confusing melange: a canned history of anthropological controversies, a tedious discussion of how to date human evolution using variation in molecules (a method pioneered by Sarich), and a dubious argument that an evolutionary view of race makes affirmative action impractical. Sarich and Miele eventually take the bull by the horns, but ultimately fail to make their case that races show substantial, genetically based differences in behaviour, temperament and intelligence. Reviewing the data, Sarich and Miele conclude that races are indeed genetically differentiated in many aspects of temperament and intelligence. They rely on four lines of evidence, but each of these is flawed: The argument from dogs. Sarich and Miele compare human races to dog breeds. Both show large differences in traits but small differences in DNA. And we all know that dog breeds have different temperaments: sheepdogs are obedient, chihuahuas irascible, and terriers pugnacious. In what they call the "canine comparison", Sarich and Miele argue that because dog breeds, like human races, arose by selection (although in dogs this selection was imposed by humans), one can draw conclusions about humans from dogs. Ergo, we expect large differences of temperament between races. But this argument is absurd. Many breeds of dogs were deliberately selected for behaviours useful to humans - sheepdogs to follow the shepherd's commands - but there is no evidence that human races have undergone selection for different temperaments. Differences in athletic performance. Sarich and Miele quote extensively from Jon Entine's Taboo (2000), which maintains that genetic differences between races explain differences in athletic abilities. On the basis of fragmentary evidence, Entine claims that blacks are superior runners because of special musculature, physiology and bone structure. It is clear that blacks dominate other groups in both long-and short-distance running, and it is equally clear that different African groups excel in different areas: East Africans in distance-running, and West Africans in sprinting. But even if Entine is right, he fails to explain the difference in athletic ability among populations of Africans. Moreover, it is arguable whether athletic ability is a socially important behaviour. Behaviour of newborn infants. To support inborn racial differences in temperament, Sarich and Miele cite the work of the American psychologist Daniel Freedman, who studied the behaviour of newborn infants. Less than forty-eight hours old, these babies had little or no contact with their mothers, so any differences in behaviour were presumed to be genetic. Indeed, Freedman found significant differences among races. Chinese and American Indian newborns, for example, were more placid and easier to calm than whites, while black newborns had superior head and muscle control. But even if we ignore the potential influence of prenatal environment on these differences, their social implications are uncertain. The different "behaviour" of black infants, for example, probably reflects an accelerated rate of development, which leads to stronger muscles. While Freedman's findings are provocative, their relevance to adult behaviour is completely unclear. Differences in IQ. Sarich and Miele make much of the thirty-point difference in IQ between whites and sub-Saharan blacks. Using their "evolutionary default hypothesis" - if races have diverged in physical traits, they must also have diverged in other traits - they imply that much of this difference is genetic. But there is no evidence for this supposition, nor does it follow that all traits must follow the pattern of pigmentation, as shown by the similarity of DNA among races. Moreover, differences between groups can be based on culture or environment rather than genetics, or a combination of these. Since the end of the Second World War, for example, the Japanese on average have increased in height nearly 5 inches, and are predicted to outgrow Americans within a decade. This gain of height, however, was caused not by evolution, but by improved standards of living. It is remarkable how little we really know about the genetics of human behaviour. But what is more disturbing than the weakness of these data is Sarich and Miele's willingness to extract from them such strong conclusions. Scientists should exercise special care when dealing with issues of social importance. While pigmentation may have diverged due to selection based on sunlight or temperature, and facial features by sexual selection, what do we expect for behaviour and intelligence? Is there any reason to think, for instance, that Caucasians experienced especially strong selection for high intelligence, or Asians for placid behaviour? One can make up ex post facto stories, but they are just that -stories. One can just as easily claim that high intelligence would be adaptive in all groups. Donald E. Brown's book Human Universals (1991) lists numerous traits found in all societies, including crying, gossip, jokes, music-making, fear of snakes and a preference for sweets. It is the unjustified assumption that physical differences are invariably accompanied by evolved behavioural ones that turns race from a biological reality into a flawed social construct. Sarich and Miele devote their final chapter to the social implications of race. They weigh three alternative societies: a meritocracy, in which race is ignored; affirmative action, in which members of some races are given preference; and "resegregation", the cultural separation of races. Unsurprisingly, they defend the meritocracy, as "it most clearly corresponds with what both of us were taught was 'the American way'", and "it has produced the greatest economic gain for the greatest number of people in the history of the world". Their evolutionary justification, of course, is that races are genetically unequal in different ways, and the meritocracy is best served by allowing the free expression of these inequalities: "Imposing equality requires the use of government force, thereby reducing individual freedom . . . it also hamstrings individual initiative and the intellectual and economic growth that comes with it". Others, of course, would disagree, noting that societies can also be judged by how humanely they treat the least advantaged. Old-age pensions, welfare and free medical care might be considered more important than new cars and iPods. Responding to Stephen Jay Gould's assertion that "human equality is a contingent fact of history", the authors argue: "No, we say. If there's one thing the evolutionary process cannot produce, it is equality". Sarich and Miele are wrong: some universal human traits are produced by the evolutionary process and are by definition "equal" in different people. The kind of divergent evolution Sarich and Miele see as rampant in humans typically takes time, great spans of it. The critical fact here is that the evolutionary youthfulness of human races has simply not allowed enough time for wholesale genetic differentiation among groups. Yes, certain traits - skin colour, hair type, etc - have diverged courtesy of natural and sexual selection, but these are special cases. Throughout the entire genome and across the entire planet, then, we see evidence supporting Gould's contention: each group - race - embraces virtually the same pool of genetic variation. Unlike some of my colleagues, who condemn any exploration of the genetics of race as pernicious, I applaud Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele for trying to bring rigour to a famously unrigorous area. Unfortunately, that rigour is sadly lacking when they try to buttress their claim that significant biological differences exist among human groups. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:24:53 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:24:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Brooks: Whose Team Am I On? Message-ID: Whose Team Am I On? Opinion column by David Brooks, The New York Times, 5.3.29 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29brooks.html [I rarely cover sports, but this gets into the wider topic of loyalty. Why do we form loyalties to things that are completely artificial?] If you had chanced upon the front door of Grace Church School on lower Broadway on a sunny morning in the fall of 1969, you might have come upon a radiant boy clutching a brown paper bag that contained a piece of sacred turf harvested from Shea Stadium, where the New York Mets had recently won the world championship of baseball. That boy grew up, slightly, and in the early spring of 1986, he vowed that he would ask his girlfriend to marry him the day the Mets won their 30th game of the season. The Mets got off to an unnervingly fast start that year, and the young man decided to postpone his proposal until the 40th win. But he followed through with it, and the marriage has even endured what his wife calls his Metsomnia - his tendency to toss and turn sleeplessly after his favorite baseball team has suffered a painful defeat. And yet we are the playthings of fate and lead lives filled with strange twists, and I (for it is time to throw off the artfully constructed mask) now find myself contemplating the uncontemplatable: that I will switch my allegiance from the beloved Mets to the new team of my adopted town. I will become a fan of the Washington Nationals. Already I feel the tug, the love that dare not speak its name. I own several Nationals caps. Some friends and I have bought season tickets. In the midst of this spiritual crisis I have begun to ask the fundamental question. What is the nature of the loyalty that binds us to our teams? Can a team be tossed aside even though it has given you (especially during the 1970's) some of the worst years of its life? Certainly our loyalty to a team has little to do with the players who happen to be on it at any given moment. If the Yankees and the Red Sox swapped all their players, their fans would blink for a few seconds, but then go on cheering for their same old team just as passionately. No, upon reflection, the love of a team comes in three flavors. For some people, the love of a team is like the love of one's nation. The team is the embodiment of the place we are from, our community and volk. If my love for the Mets is of this sort, then it is proper that I transfer my affections to the Nats. For I have immigrated to Washington, and we immigrants are obliged to set nostalgia aside and assimilate to our new civilization. As Marshall Wittman writes on his Bull Moose blog, "No dual loyalty for the national pastime." For other people, the love of a team is primarily a psychological connection. It is a bond forged during a lifelong string of shared emotions - the way I felt when Tommie Agee made that diving catch in 1969, the way I have suffered through the disappointment of Mo Vaughn. If my love of the Mets is of this sort, then it would be wrong to abandon the team, for to abandon the Mets would be to abandon myself. It would be to abandon a string of formative experiences, a core of my identity. It would send me off on a life of phoniness and self-alienation. Finally, a love for a team can be a philosophical love, a love for the Platonic ideal the team embodies. For teams not only play; they come to represent creeds, a way of living in the world. The Red Sox ideal is: nobility through suffering. The Cubs ideal is: It is better to be loved than feared. The Yankee ideal is: All cower before the greatness that is Rome. The Mets ideal is: God smiles upon his darlings. The history of the Mets teaches that miracles happen and the universe is a happy place. If this is the nature of my love, then I can only love the team so long as it still embodies this ideal. My own love is mostly of this third type, and I have endured this spiritual crisis because the Mets, with all their big-money signings, have come to seem less like darlings. Perhaps the young players Jos? Reyes and David Wright will rekindle the flame, but I go into the season adrift and uncertain, tempted by my lowdown cheating heart, caught between a lifetime love and an enticing new fling. E-mail: [2]dabrooks at nytimes.com From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:25:46 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality Message-ID: The New York Times > Science > Commentary: When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/science/29comm.html March 29, 2005 By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS I have recently begun to wonder whether I am completely out of touch with the mainstream, and if so, what that implies. When I was a young student it became clear to me that the remarkable success of the scientific method, which changed the world beyond belief in the four centuries since Galileo, made the power and efficacy of that method evident. Moreover, scientific ideas are not only powerful but so beautiful that they are on par with the most spectacular legacies of civilization in art, architecture, literature, music and philosophy. This is what makes the current times so disconcerting. We like to think that spectacular intellectual developments bring progress, so that future generations may benefit from what has come before. But this is often an illusion. I remember the shock wave generated four years ago when the Taliban government in Afghanistan destroyed thousands of statues, including two priceless and awe-inspiring archaeological artifacts, the world's largest standing statues of Buddha, created almost 2,000 years ago. The Taliban claimed that Islamic law prohibited the creation of idolatrous images of human faces that might be used for worship. I remember sharing the feeling of incredible sadness to know that the world had forever lost a precious part of its intellectual heritage. It was difficult to believe that in the 21st century such a return to the dark ages could happen anywhere. Those images came to mind again as I followed recent news of incidents in the United States in which fundamentalist dogma and its fear of the intellectual progress that comes from understanding nature has trumped the scientific method. These actions attack intellectual pillars of our civilization that are every bit as real as monumental statues of Buddha. The "reality-based community," as one White House insider so poetically referred to it recently, is losing the fight for hearts and minds throughout the country to a well-orchestrated marketing program that plays on sentiment and fear. The open intrusion of religious dogma into the highest levels of government is stunning. Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court speaks of "the fact that government derives its authority from God" (during oral arguments before the court about displays of the Ten Commandments) while the president of the United States has argued that evolution is a theory not a fact. The effort to blur the huge distinction between faith and science, between empirically falsifiable facts and beliefs, was on display again this month in two very different contexts. Congressional leaders ignored the conclusions of the doctors who have actually examined Terri Schiavo and judges who have listened to the evidence. Senator Bill Frist, previously a heart surgeon who must have once known better, shunned the conclusions of these doctors and, without ever having examined Ms. Schiavo himself, stated his "belief" that she was not in a vegetative state. Meanwhile, on a much less emotionally tragic but no less intellectually puzzling front, the Templeton Foundation continued with its program to sponsor the notion that science can somehow ultimately reveal the existence of God by once again awarding its annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion not to a theologian, but to a physicist. Dr. Charles Townes, the winner, is a Nobel laureate whose scientific work has been of impeccable distinction; his prime contribution to religion appears to be his proudly proclaiming his belief in God as revealed through the beauty of nature. I confess that my immediate reaction was the same as it has been to all of Templeton's recent awards to scientists. If this is the most significant progress in religious thought, beating out the work of distinguished theologians throughout the world, then it is a sad reflection on such progress. Of course, I rather believe that it reflects on the foundation's misguided goals and methods. Nature's beauty inspires religious fervor in some scientists. For others, like the Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Weinberg, it merely reinforces their belief that God is irrelevant. The point here, which should be obvious, is that science and religion are separate entities: science is a predictive discipline based on empirically falsifiable facts; religion is a hopeful discipline based on inner faith. Theologians as ancient as St. Augustine and Moses Maimonides recognized that science, not religion, was the appropriate and reliable method to try to understand the physical world. Yet it is precisely this ancient wisdom that is now under attack. Foes of evolution and the Big Bang in this country do not operate with the direct and brutal actions of the Taliban. They have marketing skills. Openly condemning evolution as blasphemous might play well to the fundamentalist true believers, but it wouldn't play well in the heartland, which is the real target. Thus the spurious argument is created that evolution isn't good science. This "fact" is established by fiat. The Discovery Institute in Seattle supports the work of several Ph.D.'s who then write books (and op-ed articles) decrying the fallacy of evolution. They don't write scientific articles, however, because the claims they make - either that cellular structures are too complex to have evolved or that evolution itself is improbable - have either failed to stand up to detailed scrutiny or involve no falsifiable predictions. What is being obscured in this manufactured debate is that the underlying intent has little to do with evolution, or the age of the earth. The fundamentalist attack is on the basic premise that physical phenomena have physical causes that can be revealed by use of the scientific method. Because science does not explicitly incorporate a deity in its considerations, some fundamentalists believe that it undermines our moral order, just as the Buddha statues presented a threat to the fundamentalist Islamic moral order. The pillar of our humanity that is most under attack is our remarkable ability to understand nature. We claim that in places like Afghanistan the enemies of truth are the enemies of freedom and democracy. If the scientific method is out of the mainstream in our country it is time to take a stronger stand against the effort to undermine empirical reality in favor of dogma. Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss is chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University. His new book, "Hiding in the Mirror," will appear this fall. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:27:25 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:27:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: For Chronic Fatigue, Placebos Fail the Test Message-ID: Health > For Chronic Fatigue, Placebos Fail the Test http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/health/29tire.html March 29, 2005 By NICHOLAS BAKALAR Many doctors believe that sugar pills are likely to be effective for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, trusting that a placebo will help relieve the mental and physical exhaustion that characterize the illness. But a new study has found that people who have the syndrome respond at a lower rate to placebos than patients with other diseases. The paper was published in the March-April issue of Psychosomatic Medicine. Studies suggest that placebos relieve the symptoms for about 30 percent of patients suffering from a wide variety of illnesses. Migraine headaches, for example, respond at a rate of about 29 percent to placebo treatment, major depression at about 30 percent and reflux esophagitis at about 26 percent. In some diseases, placebo treatments are even more effective - 36 to 44 percent of patients with duodenal ulcers improve on placebos, depending on how many of the treatments are offered each day. But by pooling results from more than two dozen studies, the researchers, led by Dr. Hyong Jin Cho, a professor of psychiatry at King's College London, found that, among people with chronic fatigue syndrome, only 19.6 percent responded to placebos, not the 50 percent found by previous, less systematic studies. To Dr. Cho, the results were both unexpected and disappointing: he says he believes placebos can be a legitimate and useful form of medical treatment. He concluded not that placebos were unhelpful in treating chronic fatigue but that their use should be perfected. "At the clinical practice level," he wrote, "the overall low placebo response emphasizes the need to enhance" the placebo effect in treating the illness. To many doctors, chronic fatigue syndrome seems like a perfect candidate for placebo treatment, Dr. Cho and his colleagues write. Its symptoms are often indistinct: in addition to general fatigue, patients complain of muscle and joint pain, headaches, memory impairment and mood disturbances. Moreover, the symptoms frequently fluctuate over time, and they are more acute when the patients are paying close attention to them. The illness has no cure, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that as many as 500,000 Americans suffer from it. Dr. Cho and his colleagues speculate that the skepticism about the illness on the part of health care professionals may damage the trust between doctor and patient - a factor that may influence the effect of a placebo. According to the study, placebos presented as medical or alternative-complementary treatments have a greater effect with chronic fatigue patients than do those offered as psychiatric interventions. The researchers suggest that this may be because most patients have a firm prior belief that the illness is physical. They make no judgment about the accuracy of that belief. But Dr. Brian Fallon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, offers a different interpretation. The fact that chronic fatigue syndrome responds so poorly to placebo treatment, he said, provides evidence that the syndrome has a physiological basis, though one that is still poorly understood. "The finding by Dr. Cho and colleagues will come as no surprise to patients with C.F.S. who experience debilitating fatigue despite numerous treatment interventions," Dr. Fallon said. "That the placebo response in C.F.S. was far lower that in primary psychiatric disorders such as depression highlights the distinct nature of C.F.S. and how little we know." Whatever conclusions may be drawn from the study's results, Dr. Cho says he sees placebo treatments as important. "Many alternative therapies may provide a cure that depends on this powerful placebo effect," he said in an e-mail message. "I'm not using the term pejoratively, since empathy and time spent with the patient by the professionals in this area are indeed of important therapeutic value." From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:33:18 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:33:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WorldNetDaily: Terri's money used to pay for starvation death Message-ID: Terri's money used to pay for starvation death http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43510 Saturday, March 26, 2005 By Sarah Foster [Were I to get anywhere close to Terri's condition, I want my wife to unplug me, get a new husband (which she would be very easy for her to do), pocket the rest of the malpractice money, and get a second life. [The author of the article seems to only dimly realize that legislators are quite aware that individuals are quite prone to follow their perceived self-interest that what the legislators would have them to and that procedures are built into the justice system that reflect this.] When a jury awarded Terri Schiavo more than $1 million in a medical malpractice suit against her two physicians in 1992, it did so believing the money would be used to pay for the brain-injured woman's long-term care and rehabilitation. But instead of the therapy he promised he'd provide for Terri, her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, 41, who is also her legal guardian, used most of the money to pay attorneys to arrange his wife's death; ?and he did this with full court approval. The money awarded Terri was placed in a trust fund, and a judge approved all expenditures ?from pedicures to attorney bills. The latter has skyrocketed over the years, as Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, battled their son-in-law in the Florida courts over their daughter's right to live. By June 2001, the trust fund money had dwindled to $350,000. Today, just $40,000 to $50,000 remains. Deborah Bushnell, who has represented Michael Schiavo since 1993 in a series of legal skirmishes with the Schindlers, this month told the Associated Press she has been paid $80,309 since becoming involved in the case. "Right to die" advocate and attorney George Felos, who was hired surreptitiously by Schiavo in 1997 to win court approval for Terri's death by removing her feeding tube, has been paid $348,434, according to Bushnell. Informed sources say an additional $50,000 should be added to that figure. Four years ago, the St. Petersburg Times reported records showed Felos was paid more than $200,000 between 1997 and June 2001, while Bushnell garnered $27,000 between 1993 and June 2001 ? which means she has been paid more than $50,000 in just four years. Schiavo, too, was reimbursed $6,000 for legal costs. The fees include not only standard attorney services, such as preparing briefs and taking depositions, but thousands of dollars for "dealing with the media," records show. The payoff has been the continuous slanting of news stories in newspapers and on television of the battle over Terri?s life, beginning after the trial in 2000. Both attorneys claim they have not been paid since 2002, but Felos recently admitted to the St. Petersburg Times that the American Civil Liberties Union is helping underwrite Schiavo's litigation. Spending Terri's money in litigation is highly unusual, according to Pat Anderson, who represented the Schindlers in their fight with Michael Schiavo from 2001 through most of 2004. Most guardianships don't prosecute or defend legal actions, Anderson told WorldNetDaily. "They just go along, uneventfully, and the guardian reports to the court once a year," she said. "The guardian pays doctor bills, arranges for medical care, buys baseball game tickets, pays for haircuts and toenail clippings, nothing controversial." Anderson said court approval is required to pay attorney fees out of a guardianship estate, but because generally the fees are modest, a guardianship attorney, such as Bushnell, only applies once a year. "Obviously, in order to have a successful guardianship practice, an attorney must have a lot of guardianships ? or a major lawsuit," she noted. Terri's account balance had dropped to about $100,000 by 2002, at which time a strategy was devised to qualify her for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the indigent and disabled. In situations like this, after assets are sold the remaining money goes into trust and can only be used for certain specified purposes, Anderson said. Upon the patient's death any remaining money goes to the government. In exchange, the government extends Medicaid benefits. Questionable circumstances Terri Schiavo suffered major trauma in February 1990 when she collapsed at age 26 under disputed circumstances in the St. Petersburg, Fla., apartment she shared with her husband. Oxygen to her brain was cut off for about eight minutes, leaving her unable to talk and dependent on a tube through her abdomen for food and hydration. Medical reports that surfaced in 2002 strongly indicate Terri was a victim of beating and strangulation, but at the time of her collapse, her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, never considered such a possibility and agreed to Michael being named as guardian. They did not realize this would give him total control over all aspects of her life ?-- where she lived, what medical treatment she received and who could visit her. Two years after their daughter's collapse, in the hope of getting funding for her long-term care, the Schindlers endorsed Schiavo bringing a medical malpractice suit against Terri's two gynecologists for negligence. At the trial in November 1992, Schiavo's lawyers argued that Terri's collapse was caused by a potassium imbalance, brought on through an "eating disorder," specifically, bulimia. Though there was never any evidence she was bulimic, the jury held the doctors responsible for not diagnosing that condition and awarded $1.4 million to Terri for her care and rehabilitation and $630,000 to her husband for "loss of spouse." After the attorneys had taken their cut of nearly 50 percent, Terri was left with more than $750,000, and Schiavo had $300,000 to spend as he wished. He used his award money to pay for training to be a nurse, something he had promised the jury he'd do so he could take care of Terri personally. He also bought a gold Honda Acura. A trust fund for the disabled woman was established at a local bank, with the money invested in blue chip stocks such as Coca-Cola, Walt Disney and Proctor & Gamble; corporate and U.S. Treasury bonds; and a money market account. In April 1993, Terri's money was valued at $776,254. According to a financial planner, it's been estimated that if the principle had not been touched, the fund during the mid- to late 1990s would have grown and at the same time generated an annual income of at least $70,000. This easily would have paid for her care in the finest nursing home in Florida, including rehabilitation. However, under Florida law, if Terri should die, Schiavo as spouse and guardian stood to inherit her entire trust fund. No sooner was Terri's money in the bank than Michael Schiavo refused to begin the long-awaited rehabilitation program. He directed the nursing home where she lived not to give her antibiotics for various infections and had a "do not resuscitate" order attached to her chart. He later testified doctors had advised him that her condition was hopeless and if she became ill he should "let her die." As his wife's legal guardian, Schiavo is permitted to use her money, but only if what he spends it on is in her "best interests." He has said he is trying to do that by following her wishes not to be kept alive "artificially" and denies his decision to remove her feeding tube has anything to do with the fact he is the beneficiary of her estate. "This suit was brought on her behalf to implement her wishes," said attorney Felos. The Schindlers tried to wrest the guardianship from their son-in-law but were unsuccessful, and the two sides began their battle in the Florida courts, which in time escalated into what some observers consider the most important euthanasia litigation in history. It was the first case in which family members fought each other over whether a patient in a so-called "persistent vegetative state," but otherwise in good health, should have a feeding tube removed so he or she would starve to death. Follow the money In any litigation, a paper trail is created as the parties file documents and judges issue orders. A second trail ? a money trail ? is created by attorneys when they file itemized fee petitions to the court to recoup their costs. Fee petitions may include details about phone calls ? when they were made, to whom, what was talked about and how long each call lasted. They show how much was paid to expert witnesses, how much time was spent on research, preparing testimony and affidavits, taking depositions and appearing in court. The fee petitions also give information about the various schemes and strategies being devised. Reading a fee petition is like following the marks an explorer cuts on trees to show the way through a forest. But after the trial in 2000, Bushnell and Michael Schiavo had the petitions sealed from the public. Bushnell charged $165 an hour for the first few years but later raised that to $185 an hour. For the first year of guardianship litigation ?from Sept. 21, 1993, to Sept. 16, 1994, Bushnell billed $5,622 for 35 hours, plus $1.75 for two faxes ? one from attorney Steve Nilson, of an amended deposition; one from Gyneth Stanley, attorney for the bank which acted as "guardian of the property of Theresa Marie Schiavo." The high figure was due to the courtroom battle between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers, who were desperately attempting to oust their son-in-law from his entrenched position as "guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo." Costs included a "telephone conference with Steve Nilson regarding issues of do not resuscitate and no treatment and timing to raise issues" ($82.50); "Telephone Conference with Mike Schiavo re: do not treat decision" ($49.50); and "Telephone Conference with Michael Schiavo regarding problem with nursing home complaining" ($49.50). While Schiavo could pay Bushnell with money from his wife's trust fund, the Schindlers had few funds at their disposal, and their attorneys over the years have worked for low fees or on a pro bono ?basis, providing services for free. 'Marital debts' Another cost borne by Terri's estate ? unrelated to the guardianship litigation ? came in late 1994 when Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Pinick allowed Schiavo to take nearly $10,000 from the fund to pay her "share" of a bank loan they had co-signed the summer before her collapse. According to records obtained by WND, the couple borrowed $11,500, in June 1989, to pay some "marital debts." But with Terri incapacitated and not working, Schiavo fell behind on the payments and the debt mushroomed. A payment plan was negotiated, with a total owed of more than $18,000. Rather than use his own resources and award money, Schiavo persuaded the court to reimburse him $3,525 from her trust fund for one-half the monthly payments healready had made on his wife's share of the note and to pay the bank $5,772.17 for her half of the final payment due. Pinick signed the order authorizing payment on Dec. 8, 1994, in time for Christmas. A deadly agenda At first, Schiavo clearly was hoping his wife would become ill and he could "let her die" as several doctors had advised him. The more deadly scheme to euthanize her by starvation was in the talking stages by late 1995, ? three years before it was formalized in the courts in 1998, according to the fee petitions. Bushnell contacted Felos by phone Dec. 13, 1995, asking for "assistance with analysis of life-prolonging procedures statute ... ." They talked for half an hour, at a cost to Terri's trust fund of $82.50. In 1996, Bushnell obtained permission from Judge Pinick to seal the annual financial reports from Terri's parents. She also asked him to deny the Schindlers copies of the annual reports on Terri's care and information about her medical condition, but Pinick didn't go that far. He ruled that the parents were to be notified of any change in Terri's condition and that treatment would have to be given for any illness for at least five days. In February 1997, Bushnell phoned Schiavo "re: associating George Felos to handle removal of life support issue" at a cost to Terri of $54. On March 5, 1997, Schiavo signed a contract with Felos "to represent him in connection with the withdrawal and/or refusal of medical treatment ..." at the rate of $195 an hour, with costs to be "borne by the client." There was no mention of starving Terri to death by removing her feeding tube. The agreement was contingent on approval of the Pinellas County Probate Court. In fact, the client paid nothing. As usual, all costs would be repaid out of Terri's trust fund. In mid-April, Bushnell petitioned the court in Michael Schiavo's name for permission to employ and pay George Felos "for representation in connection with the issue of withdrawal and/or refusal of medical treatment," at the rate of $195 an hour. Evidently everyone associated with the case except the Schindlers understood that "medical treatment" included providing food and water through a feeding tube. With the petition, Bushnell submitted a formal order she had prepared for Judge Mark Shames to sign, authorizing the hiring of Felos. At this point, she hit a temporary roadblock: the order signed by Judge Thomas Pinick a year earlier that Terri's parents were to be notified in case there was a change in her medical condition. Shames returned Bushnell's prepared order stamped "NOT SIGNED," with a note handwritten on it that Terri's parents needed to be told about this. 'Gently and informally' Bushnell shot back a response, assuring Shames that Schiavo was "aware" of the "difficult issues" in the case and urging he sign the order even though the Schindlers hadn't been notified and wouldn't be for a while. "It is anticipated that the parents will initially be approached gently and informally by Attorney Felos regarding this issue, that Hospice will be involved, and that counseling will be provided to the guardian and the parents to assist with the decision-making process," Bushnell explained. "... Attorney Felos, the guardian, and I feel that the receipt of a petition for payment of attorney fees regarding this issue would not be the best and kindest way for the ward's parents to learn that this issue is being considered." No reason was given as to why the local hospice was to be brought into the picture, but that became obvious in April 2000 when Michael Schiavo and Felos had Terri removed surreptitiously and without prior court approval from the nursing home where she'd lived since 1994 and relocated at the Woodside Hospice, a facility of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, of which Felos had been a board member since 1996, a fact he did not disclose. After receiving assurances that the Schindlers would be notified eventually, Shames signed the order May 14, 1994. Felos waited more than three months to inform the Schindlers ? "kindly and informally" ? of Schiavo's plans. Word came in a casual letter sent by regular post, and at first Robert Schindler couldn't believe what he was reading. 'Sucker-punched' Dated Aug. 20, 1997, the letter was from an attorney he had never heard of, telling them in an offhand way that he had been hired by their son-in-law to arrange Terri's death. Worse,? it appeared a court had approved the idea without so much as a hearing. "I felt sick at my stomach," Schindler told WND. "I couldn't believe it. It was like being sucker punched right in the gut. I never, ever thought Michael would go that far." "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schindler," the letter began. "The court in your daughter's guardianship, ... has authorized the guardian to employ me in connection with the withdrawal and/or refusal of medical treatment for your daughter Theresa. I have handled many cases exploring the appropriateness of terminating life-sustaining medical treatment and have also worked in the past as a Hospice patient volunteer. I know first hand how difficult it is making such determinations. ..." Nothing definite was decided the Schindlers were told; the writer was simply "obtaining information" about Terri's treatment and prognosis for recovery and what her wishes might be if she could "express herself." They were advised to contact the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, a network of hospice facilities based in Largo, Fla., for patients terminally ill from a disease and beyond hope of recovery. "Whatever the end point of this process may be," the letter continued, "you may find it a great benefit talking or meeting with a Hospice professional. I have been told that Sandy Sunter, with Hospice, is aware of Theresa's case. I know Sandy to be highly skilled as well as deeply compassionate." The letter was signed "George Felos." Schindler said he wasn't taken in for a minute. It was clear a "final determination" had been made, with Terri's death as the "end point." When he recovered from the initial shock, he phoned Felos to see if there wasn't "a bit of wiggle room." Couldn't something be worked out that would allow Terri to live? Was Michael Schiavo so determined to see his wife dead that he would consider no alternative? Felos said matters had gone too far and there could be no turning back. That was news to Schindler. Sandra Sunter, the woman Felos suggested as a contact at the hospice, is a licensed mental health counselor. Schindler figured he didn't need a counselor, ?he needed an attorney. No deep pocket Unlike Schiavo, Terri's dad didn't have a deep pocket to dip into for legal fees, but an attorney he knew put him in touch with Pamela Campbell, a guardianship attorney, who agreed to take the case on a pro bono basis. Felos didn't bill for services until after the trial that was held in January 2000; then he presented a bill for nearly $75,000. Although Bushnell billed for the initial phone call in 1995, Felos himself did not charge for advice he might have provided prior to March 5, 1997, when Schiavo actually met with him and they signed a contract. To cover a few pre-trial costs, Bushnell obtained court approval for an advance to Felos of $7,500. By the time the trial was completed the sum total of fees and costs was $81,760.17 for the period from March 5, 1997, to Jan. 28, 2000. This included payments to paralegals, researchers and expert witnesses. Dr. Victor Gambone -- Terri's physician, who certified her as being PVS, a condition from which he said she could never recover -- received $1,250 as an expert witness while Dr. James Barnhill, a Florida neurologist, received $4,200 for testifying her brain was gone and had been replaced with spinal fluid. Despite later testimony and statements from dozens of other doctors, including neurologists, the label PVS has stuck, as has the depiction of Terri not having a brain. When the $7,500 advance was deducted, the firm of Felos and Felos received $74,230. Some of the work done by the firm was done by Felos' wife and law partner, Constance Felos. The couple has since divorced. And what did Felos do to earn that money? The initial conference with Schiavo lasted 80 minutes ($260); on Aug. 18, 1997, he reviewed the file and drafted letters to doctors and the "sucker-punch" letter to the Schindlers ($292.50); talked to Bob Schindler Aug. 26, after he received the letter ($113.75). Every minute, every hour the clock was ticking on Terri and the tab was growing exponentially. The principle of her estate was being depleted quicker than it could generate revenue. But with the financial report closed to the parents, the Schindlers had no idea how much was being spent. After the trial, Felos billed on a more regular basis every few months, with a particularly large invoice for the two months following the trial, much of it for "dealing with the media." During the trial, the Schindlers began to realize this was not going to be a slam dunk. They had assumed no judge would allow Terri's feeding tube to be removed. "The whole thing was ludicrous," said Schindler, recalling his feelings before the trial. "I actually believed it would be thrown out of court. Even when the trial started, I thought Greer would just throw it out. Everything seemed like a grade B or grade C movie, ? =everything seemed so weak that they were presenting to the court. I just didn't see how that could ever happen." But it did, and on Feb. 11, 2000, Greer signed an eight-page order directing the removal of Terri's feeding tube. The Schindlers, stunned, wondered how they could continue the fight lacking the necessary financial resources. Then, in a sudden groundswell of support, a small group of dedicated pro-life activists cobbled together a grassroots campaign. Doctors, too, came forward to testify that Terri was not PVS, but they spoke too late. The order had been signed. Lawyers appeared, who agreed to carry the case to the appeals court. A computer guru volunteered his services, and at his own expense developed a website, serving as webmaster until mid-2003, at no cost to the Schindlers. Public opinion ran high in favor of the parents and against a husband who wanted her out of the way. Schiavo may have won in the trial court, but he was losing in the court of public opinion. Felos began a counter-campaign of his own, but not for free. Massaging the media In June 2000, Felos billed $11,700 for attorney time for the two-month period from Jan. 28 to March 28, with many of the items essentially damage-control measures. These include hours spent with Schiavo doing media interviews, "calls to and from client regarding how to obtain balanced media coverage, media interviews," "numerous calls to and from media representatives and interviews," a call from Schiavo regarding radio talk show and libel issues." One of the overseers in the county clerk's office, Ms. Story, balked at approving the invoice because of its many media-related items. Story said the court wanted to know why the expenditure of attorney time dealing with the media was of any benefit to Terri. Felos explained in a letter to Judge Greer that the Schindlers had initiated a "broad-based media campaign," and it was necessary to "correct inaccuracies and falsehoods in respondents' media portrayal of the case." Attacks against Schiavo were "strident," and "he has directly been called a 'murderer' on television and radio." Felos said Michael Schiavo did not feel qualified to answer the charges, and counted on him to present his cause to the media: "A client may be concerned about misspeaking in front of the media or even, through a misstatement, making statements which could be construed as an admission against interest in the case, thus damaging the cause of action of the Ward." Felos was particularly chagrined at a letter of Schindler's, posted on the website, that included some "extremely inflammatory language, such as 'Terri has been sentenced to death. We do not understand how in a civilized society, Terri's life was even put on trial.'" Michael Schiavo, according to Felos, was being "unfairly maligned and held up to public ridicule," and as guardian should have "the reasonable right, through counsel, to counter such an attack. Otherwise, persons may be reluctant to act as guardians, and may be very reluctant to undertake legal action to enforce the Ward's rights if the guardian concludes that his or her reputation or livelihood cannot be defended in the proceeding." As with every request Felos made during the six years he presided over the case, Greer agreed and approved the billing, including the charges for "dealing with the media." For Schiavo and Felos, it was money well spent. From that time onward, the mainstream media, ?local and national, ? have framed the story their way, particularly the Associated Press, the St. Petersburg Times and the New York Times. Terri Schiavo continues to be described as being in a persistent vegetative state, while dozens of doctors and therapists say otherwise. The case is characterized as a "right to die" case, while many believe it's more accurately a "right to live." The reason given for removal of her feeding tube is "so she can die." In addition, Michael Schiavo's long-term adulterous relationship with another woman, with whom he has had two children, is downplayed or ignored. Also ignored is the once-sizable inheritance he stood to gain from his legal wife's death. Instead, he is portrayed as a loving husband desperately trying to carry out Terri's wishes despite her parents, who stubbornly refuse to "let her go." Bobby Schindler, one of Terri's two siblings, told WND he is amazed at the strength and determination of the opposition against his parents and Terri by the courts, media and government. "I don?t get it," he said. "An awful lot of people want my sister dead, and they've spent a lot of money killing her. What I can?t figure out is why." From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:34:39 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:34:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Ann Coulter: Starved for Justice Message-ID: Ann Coulter: Starved for Justice http://anncoulter.com/ [not permanent] March 24, 2005 Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service). So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans. In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago -- back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family -- despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family. None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used. To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.) As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation? Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism." I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature -- or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court." As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too. It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays. Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband. Florida state court judge George Greer - last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death -- determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman. Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan -- although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them. Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers. Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request -- a more humane death, by the way -- the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police. What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous -- literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped -- solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.) President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived. If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:39:05 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:39:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Blogcritics.org: Peterson's son Elian Gonzalez abducted by Jackson 5--El queso existe! Message-ID: Blogcritics.org: Peterson's son Elian Gonzalez abducted by Jackson 5--El queso existe! http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/201006.php Peterson's son Elian Gonzalez abducted by Jackson 5--El queso existe! Posted by [168]Leoniceno on March 26, 2005 08:10 PM (See [169]all Today, in a shocking twist of fate, Scott Peterson discovered that he had murdered Terri Schiavo, leaving Laci Peterson in a brain-dead coma. Peterson is now taking legal action to have his sentence reversed, on the basis that all the legal documents have the wrong name on them. [tinyscott.jpg] "I am just outraged at the enormous injustice the U.S. legal system has done me," said Peterson, "I deserve a fair trial, and I cannot receive one when everyone assume that I murdered someone named 'Peterson' rather than 'Schiavo'." O.J. Simpson was on hand to comfort Peterson in his mistaken identity plight. "You know, man, you could get another trial based on this. I would offer you the legal team that got me off, man, but that would cost me money." Instead Simpson gave Peterson a self-published volume titled 'The Poetry of the O.J. Simpson Trial.' The book was very short, containing only the phrase "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." Simpson emphasized to Peterson the transformational power of poetry. Peterson ground his teeth and stared at his feet. Peterson later claimed to be inspired, though, and shared some of his poetry with the A.P. I look like Ben Affleck I was in Paris, really I was. Isn't it a nice day No Peterson's lawyer expressed confidence that Peterson's poetry would connect with jurors. ------------------------------------------- [elian.case.vs.jpg] [fidel-castro-pic.jpg] The parents of Laci Peterson were upset not only by the revelation that their daughter had been in a hospice in Florida, but that the grand-child that they lost was none other than Elian Gonzalez, now living in Cuba. Fidel Castro had been raising Gonzalez in an abandoned Cuban resort. "Here we were thinking that our grand-child had been murdered when in fact he is a teenaged Cuban boy whose mother has been brain-dead since before his birth!" said Peterson's mother. Fidel Castro, in an interview with Weekly World News, told reporters that Elian Gonzalez was abducted before his birth by pasty-faced pop singers with black hair and umbrellas. He is now taking legal action to make sure that Michael Jackson's family can never harm Gonzalez again. "There they were holding umbrellas--and it wasn't even raining! Mi madre es el padre de los monos!" said Castro. Michael Jackson was outraged by the accusations levelled against him by the super-annuated dictator. "I have never had any relationship with this boy Looly-lamb Gonna-beds--pardon me, Elian Gonzalez. Anyone who says so is just--well, they're just being mean! said Jackson, who was unable to complete the interview. Jackson offered Castro a box of Havana cigars as settlement in the case. Castro took it, saying, "It's best to appease those filthy capitalists. El queso existe!" None of the nation's judges were interested in taking on this titanic legal muddle. They petitioned Bush to sign an excutive order exiling the involved parties to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Bush complied, and the nationed breathed a titanic sigh of relief. "Now," said Bush, "let's talk about my social security reforms..." From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:39:20 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:39:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Blogcritics.org: The Schiavo - Schindler Family Feud Message-ID: Blogcritics.org: The Schiavo - Schindler Family Feud http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/29/155921.php Posted by [168]Z.Z. Bachman on March 29, 2005 03:59 PM (See [169]all posts by Z.Z. Bachman) [174]Tube Feeding Bonnie Bruce Book from Jones & Bartlett Publishers Release date: 15 February, 2001 In a retrospective reversal of sorts, [175]Scott Ott describes the last hours of Michael Schiavo as he nears his long awaited nirvana after seven traumatic years of ordeal being deprived of the death of his wife... (2005-03-29) -- Attorney [176]George Felos today said that his client, Michael Schiavo, entered the 11th day of [177]depriving his wife of food and water looking peaceful and 'as beautiful as I've seen him in years.' 'Death by dehydration is not the awful specter that so-called 'pro-lifers' have portrayed it to be,' said Mr. Felos as he stood outside of [178]Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice. 'I was actually in the room with the Schiavos. Michael looked very peaceful. He looked calm. I saw no evidence of any bodily discomfort whatsoever, even though he's not receiving morphine.' 'As [179]Terri gets closer to death,' Mr. Felos added, 'her husband's face has actually taken on an almost euphoric appearance.'" - [180]Scott Ott / ScrappleFace All eyes (and cameras) will be on the family reunion after Terri passes. The [181]autopsy and [182]cremation services planned should make it to prime time. It's rumored that FOX Network and Trump Industries are picking up the rights to the new reality TV show. The Schiavo - Schindler Family Feud. Where for one year the "loving" families are forced to live next door to each other in a typical suburban setting while being filmed by inconspicuous TV camera crews. Join the weekly excitement and share in the intrigue as they lob verbal pleasantries at each other and exchange small arms fire during a typical Memorial day BBQ. Each episode ends with a boardroom meeting at the "hospice" where an "activist" judge sentences a family member to either a forced feeding with a [183]Corpak Low-Profile Gastrostomy Device (LPGD) or a 3 hr. morphine drip of their choosing. -- [184]ZZB References 168. http://zardozz.com/zz/ 169. http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Z.Z.%20Bachman 170. http://blogcritics.org/category.php?category=32 171. http://blogcritics.org/category.php?category=135 172. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/29/155921.php#comments 173. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0834219395/pageturners0c 174. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0834219395/pageturners0c 175. http://info.detnews.com/weblog/bloggerbios.cfm?bloggerid=56 176. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/schiavo/index.html 177. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ustube0330,0,4923535.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines 178. http://www.terrisfight.org/ 179. http://www.blogsforterri.com/ 180. http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002137.html 181. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/29/125352.shtml 182. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/29/125028.shtml 183. http://www.csonline.net/sbaker/cp4.htm 184. http://zardozz.com/zz/2005/03/scrappleface-michael-schiavo-looks.html From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:57:25 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:57:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Online, Anything and Everything Can Be a Museum Piece Message-ID: The New York Times > Arts > Arts Special > Critic's Notebook: Online, Anything and Everything Can Be a Museum Piece http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/arts/artsspecial/30virtual.html March 30, 2005 By [1]SARAH BOXER THE age of MoMA, the Museum of Modern Art, is over. The age of MoOM, the Museum of Online Museums, is upon us. In the 1960's, deep in the age of MoMA, Andy Warhol painted a stack of plywood cubes to look like Brillo boxes. That was the end of art, the philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto proclaimed. He didn't mean that after Warhol there would be no more art, but rather that anything could be art. If anything could be art, then it follows (by about 40 years) that a collection of anything - birth-control packages, grains of sand from all over the world, Swedish magazines with Ingrid Bergman on the cover, bossa nova album covers, lederhosen, nostrums, moist towelettes, microphones, "misused" quotation marks, Japanese milk bottle pull-tabs, stickers peeled off East Village streets between 1992 to 1995 and air-sickness bags - could and will be a museum. The Museum of Online Museums ([2]www.coudal.com/moom.php) is a Web site that features a long list of links to museums and galleries on the Internet. The site, maintained by Coudal Partners, a design and advertising firm in Chicago, has so many links that it has an annex ([3]www.coudal.com/archive.php?cat=cat_moom). Some links take you to the Web sites of real museums - the Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Most lead to more obscure online collections. Some are fabulous. Some are not. In the scary foods group you have some choices. The main branch of MoOM offers the Museum of Burnt Food ([4]www.burntfoodmuseum.com), where you'll find King Tut's tomato and freestanding apple cider. (Look, Ma, no cup!) But the Museum of Food Anomalies ([5]www.hanttula.com/exhibits/freakyfood/index.htm) is more educational. Among the Siamese fruits and the snacks resembling the Virgin Mary, you'll find many foods looking irked or horrified by their eaters. The Grocery List Collection ([6]www.grocerylists.org) is compulsive reading. Among the 700 shopping lists is one that includes "potoes, chese, pease, smokes." My favorite is a short list scrawled on the back of an envelope with a return address of Christ's Gospel Fellowship, Spokane, Wash. Under the words "Urgent - Needed" are "knife + sheath," written in red ink, then scratched out and replaced with "hatchet sheath." MoOM has a number of links to candy wrapper galleries. One, the Collection of Candy Cigarette Packaging ([7]http://cardhouse.com/a/candy/bigthumb.htm), is fabulous. A grid of cigarette candy packs greets you on entering the site. One glimpse makes you feel like a kid in a candy store. A second makes you queasy. That's the point. Consume enough and, the Web site promises, "Eventually you'll get pretend cancer." Click on any of the packs, and you'll meet its maker. How about that nice box of Viceroys, I mean Viceyos? The producer, who gets a whole page, is Productos Glodis, a Mexican company that specializes in candy names that are jumbles of famous brands: Viceyo, Pall Mali, Poots, Marlbaro, Enson & Hedge, Ralfigi, Acmel, Delgado, Parlamen, Faro. "It just doesn't get any better than Productos Glodis," the site says. There is an old-fashioned feel to the Museum of Coat Hangers ([8]homepage.mac.com/marchesbaugh/moch/intro.html). There's even a lobby. In the first gallery (beginning in 2000 B.C.), you'll see the earliest depiction: a tiny coat hanger floating below the knees of a figure carved into the walls of the Temple of Mentuhotep II in West Thebes. In its half-decade of existence, the Museum of Online Museums has evolved. Peek in the annex, where the individual collections are organized by the date they were posted on the site. You'll notice that at the beginning, among the galleries of condiment packets and unfortunate Christmas cards, were a few mainstream exhibitions, including Duke University's collection of magazine and newspaper ads, the Getty Museum's "Devices of Wonder" show and an exhibition of Ben Katchor's musty drawings at the Jewish Museum. Those are seeds of the MoOM beanstalk: commerce, contraptions and nostalgia. MoOM is growing at a fearful pace. A glance at the annex indicates that back in 2001 there would be a new post roughly once a month. Now the museum (or at least the annex) adds nearly one collection a day. I just checked out the Gallerie Abominate of Really Bad 3-D ([9]www.jackals-forge.com/abom.html). At the top of the page is a message both casual and desperate: "HI THERE im afraid that for the forseeable future the gallery will not be updated so please do not send me any pictures or captions. Sorry but i dont really have the time anymore." References 1. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SARAH%20BOXER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SARAH%20BOXER&inline=nyt-per 2. http://www.coudal.com/moom.php 3. http://www.coudal.com/archive.php?cat=cat_moom 4. http://www.burntfoodmuseum.com/ 5. http://www.hanttula.com/exhibits/freakyfood/index.htm 6. http://www.grocerylists.org/ 7. http://cardhouse.com/a/candy/bigthumb.htm 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/arts/artsspecial/www.homepage.mac.com/marchesbaugh/moch/intro.html 9. http://www.jackals-forge.com/abom.html From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 19:58:41 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:58:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Wearing Their Beliefs on Their Chests Message-ID: The New York Times > Fashion & Style > Wearing Their Beliefs on Their Chests http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/fashion/29dres.html March 29, 2005 [Click the URL to get to a slide show.] By [1]RUTH LA FERLA Late last week, Trapper Blu, a ski and snowboarding instructor from Wanship, Utah, dropped in with his family at Christopher's, a T-shirt shop in Greenwich Village, and tried on a shirt emblazoned with an image of Jesus and the slogan "Put Down the Drugs and Come Get a Hug." "I would wear this, you bet," Mr. Blu, 23, said, scrutinizing his reflection in the mirror. "The shirt is funny," he added, as he tweaked the brim of his cowboy hat, "but it doesn't make fun of Jesus or anything." A few blocks south at Urban Outfitters, part of a youth-oriented chain that sells T-shirts along with shag rugs, coffee mugs and multitiered hippie skirts, Jurek Grapentin, visiting from Germany, looked on as a young friend of his examined a shirt printed with a rosary entwined with the words "Everybody Loves a Catholic Girl." "It's a nice message," Mr. Grapentin, 22, said. "Catholic people most of the time can be so traditional in their thinking. To me this looks more new, more in." Mr. Blu and Mr. Grapentin are among the legions of the faithful, or the merely fashionable, who are increasingly drawn to the religious themes and imagery - portraits of saints, fragments of scripture - that have migrated in recent months from billboards and bumper stickers to baseball caps, T-shirts, flip-flops and even designer clothing. Such messages are being embraced by a growing number of mostly young people, who are wearing them as a testament of faith or, ironically, as a badge of hipness. "There is no question, religion is becoming the new brand," said Jane Buckingham, the president of Youth Intelligence, a trend-forecasting company. "To a generation of young people eager to have something to belong to, wearing a 'Jesus Saves' T-shirt, a skullcap or a cabala bracelet is a way of feeling both unique, a member of a specific culture or clan, and at the same time part of something much bigger." There was a time when such symbols were worn discreetly and were purchased mostly at gift shops or Bible stores. Now, emboldened perhaps by celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Paris Hilton, who are photographed brandishing spiritual messages on shirts and caps, aspiring hipsters and fashion groupies as well as the devout are flaunting similar items, which are widely available at mass-market chains and online. A casual survey of the Internet last week, including mainstream marketers like Amazon.com, turned up T-shirts, bowling bags, belt buckles and dog tags by the hundreds bearing messages like "Inspired by Christ," "Give All the Glory to God," "I {sheart} Hashem" (a Hebrew term for God), "Moses Is My Homeboy" and "Buddha Rocks." Plastic tote bags and tank tops bearing images of Jesus and the saints stock the shelves of drugstore and cosmetics chains like Walgreens. Some items have worked their way up the fashion chain to stores like Atrium, a New York sportswear outlet popular with college students, which offers polo shirts with images from the Sistine Chapel; and Intuition, a Los Angeles boutique that sells rosaries, cabala bracelets and St. Christopher medals as fashion jewelry. Come fall, members of the fashion flock, at least those with pockets deep enough, will find chunky sweaters that read "Jesus Loves Even Me" from Dsquared, a label that only a season earlier traded in fashions stamped with obscene images and slogans; a Derek Lam blanket wrap embroidered on the back with a torso-length cross; and Yves Saint Laurent coats and evening dresses seeded with ecclesiastical references. Fashions with spiritual messages are just the latest expression of religion as a pop phenomenon, one that has steadily gained ground with consumers since the best-selling "Left Behind" series of novels, based on a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy, turned up on bookshelves, and "The Passion of the Christ" became a box-office hit. Their popularity arrives at a time when faith-based issues, including school prayer and the debate over the definition of life, are dividing Americans, a rift reflected to some degree among those who wear the new fashions. Tanya Brockmeier, 19, another German visitor browsing last week at Urban Outfitters, wears a cross and sees nothing amiss in wearing a religious-theme T-shirt, "so long as it looks modern," she said. "These things are a way of showing my faith." But Larry Bullock, 41, treasures a T-shirt with an image of Jesus as a D. J. Mr. Bullock, the general manager of the Civilian, a gay club on Fire Island, N.Y., was brought up as a Roman Catholic. "But for me," he said, "wearing this shirt is a way of mocking the rhetoric that goes on over religion, which I think is just ridiculous." The commodification of religious faith "is born of a consciousness that any religious movement, to stay viable, has to speak the idiom of the culture," said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religion at Barnard College in New York. Dr. Balmer also observed that airing one's religious views in public, which would have been regarded as unseemly or even presumptuous 20 years ago, has become acceptable. "We live in a multicultural, pluralistic environment," he said, "and acknowledge implicitly that individuals have a right to differentiate themselves. In fact, there is cachet in that." Whatever is driving the popularity of message-driven merchandise, it is generating robust sales. Last year sales of apparel and accessories at Christian bookstores and gift shops reached about $84 million, according to the Christian Booksellers Association, a trade association of retailers. Teenage Millionaire, the Los Angeles-based makers of the "Jesus Is My Homeboy" T-shirt, a million of which have been sold, reported $10 million in sales last year, up from $2 million three years ago. The Solid Light Group of Columbus, Ohio, which sells T-shirts with legends like "Jesus Rocks," does not disclose sales figures but is projecting a 40 percent increase from a year ago. "Ours has become a mainstream business," said Debbie Clements, a sales manager of the company. "It won't be too much longer before you see more designers in the secular marketplace doing religious fashions." Chris Rainey, the director of marketing for Kerusso, a company in Berryville, Ark., that sells wristbands that say "Live for Him" and T-shirts with messages like "Dead to Sin, Alive to Christ," maintains that his wares make faith seem relevant. "We're just doing what a lot of churches have started to do, using marketing to reach a new generation," he said. Still, the concept of religion as a wearable commodity rankles some consumers. "I would not wear clothing with a religious message," said Megan Schnaid, 27, a New York University graduate student from Los Angeles. "I'm not used to putting my faith on such loud display." Many retailers, too, balk at selling fashions with an aggressively religious bent. Aurelio Barreto, who runs a Southern California chain of five stores called C28 (a reference to the biblical verse Colossians 2:8), recalled that when he first tried to sell his Not of this World line of tank tops and hoodies to secular stores at California malls, he was shown the door. "I was told, 'There is no way we will buy this,' " Mr. Barreto said. " 'We're not going to have God in here.' " Michael Macko, the men's fashion director of Saks Fifth Avenue, who viewed the Dsquared collection in Milan last winter, said he was somewhat taken aback. "Hmm, I thought, 'Religion as a fashion theme. That's a little different from corduroy or camel. How do we handle this?' " Undeterred, Saks bought the Dsquared line for its stores across the country. "We bought it as a fashion item, not as a moral statement," said Ronald Frasch, the chief merchant of Saks. "We sell crosses, and it's not a big step from crosses to sweaters." Not surprisingly, some secular retailers stock religious-based paraphernalia because they are loath to miss an opportunity. "We don't just want all the punks and rockers to walk into the store," said Priti Lavingia, the owner of the T-Shirt Stop in Marino Valley, Calif., which carries the Not of This World line. "Maybe 20 percent of the people in this area are very religious," Ms. Lavingia said. "I want their business also." From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:00:51 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:00:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: New Mix: Outside In Message-ID: The New York Times > Arts > Arts Special > New Mix: Outside In http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/arts/artsspecial/30cotter.html March 30, 2005 [There's a special section in the print edition devoted to museums. At least temporarily, it can be viewed at http://nytimes.com/museums.] By [1]HOLLAND COTTER Art museums are our most conservative cultural institutions. How can they not be? Their first job is to collect fragile objects and preserve them from harm. But the conservatism is ideological too. Those objects, most of us are taught, represent humanity at its best, its most heroic or refined. Museums preserve that vision, which many of us have a big stake in holding on to. That's why they are stoutly built, like temples and banks. It's the look of Classical. Unassailable. Forever. But in the 1980's and 90's, a new kind of thinking - which was actually a continuation of an old kind of thinking that started with the empowerment movement of the 60's - began raising unsettling questions about all of this. About the vision thing, for example. Whose vision of culture are we talking about, anyway? Yours? Mine? Ours? Theirs? In the case of modern art, what makes West best? In the case of old, traditional or non-Western art, who really deserves to own these magnetic objects, the people who made them or those who collected them? Who can rightly assign values to them: good, bad; major, minor; worthy, unworthy? Who says that a Renaissance altarpiece is high art, while a 21st-century portable shrine from South India is folk art, or artifact or craft? And, finally, who says that charismatic objects like these, once collected, have lost their spiritual power? Mainstream art museums say so, or rather the people who founded, supported and ran them. On the one hand, these cornucopian institutions are an homage to the richness of the human past. At the same time, they are advertisements for power in the present: the power of wealth, the power of possession, the power to enforce particular perspectives on the way history was and is. In the world of politics, power is pretty upfront: you argue; you face off; you declare war. In culture, the playing out is subtler, but can be, in its way, no less ruthless and devastating. By excluding certain kinds of objects, or by presenting them as relics of a dead past, a museum can degrade a culture just as surely as time and weather can. Fortunately, a museum can also reverse this process. And that has been happening, sometimes with vigor, sometimes with foot dragging, in America over the last 20 years. Whatever the motivating trend - call it postmodernism, pluralism, multiculturalism - the status of non-Western art is beginning to change in mainstream institutions, including sleeping giants in New York like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the recently repackaged Museum of Modern Art, from obscurity to varying degrees of prominence. Some of these changes are straightforward. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, among the most eminent of America's universal art museums, opened permanent galleries devoted to the arts of Africa and Oceania just last spring, and hired a curator to oversee them. The spaces are small, but the institutional statement they make is not. Exhibitions that would once have been confined to small or culturally specific museums are appearing in mainstream venues. Last year, for example, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, presented "Inverted Utopias: Avant-Garde Art in Latin America," the first comprehensive exhibition in the United States to address vanguard art throughout South America in the 1960's and 70's. For anyone who assumed that great Latin American art began and ended with Frida Kahlo, the show must have been a revelation. As it would have been to those who assumed Conceptualism was a Euro-American invention. In fact, some of its most important developments originated in South America, Asia and Africa. Avant-garde African art? For many people, African art still evokes "tribal" sculpture, nothing more. But the reality is very different, as was demonstrated on a colossal scale by "The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in Africa, 1945-1994," which traveled from Europe to Chicago and arrived in 2002 at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center, the Museum of Modern Art's contemporary outpost in Queens. Not only did the show offer largely unfamiliar painting, sculpture and photography of thrilling range, it also departed from standard exhibition genres, combining conventional fine art media and a survey of material culture that included music, films, literature, design, advertising and theater. And while certain mainstream museums are taking what for them are adventurous directions, culturally specific institutions are demonstrating mainstream-scale ambition. The Asia Society in New York has put together major surveys of contemporary Asian art, in each case partnering with other institutions. In 1998, "Inside Out: New Chinese Art," also appeared at P.S. 1; "Edge of Desire: Recent Art in India" is currently at the Asia Society and the Queens Museum of Art. And El Museo del Barrio, which began in the 60's as a neighborhood workshop-gallery for Nuyorican artists, recently presented a substantial selection of work from the Museum of Modern Art's Latin American collection. This was followed by a historical survey, with substantial loans from South America, of Latin American portraiture. Clearly, the major Latino museum in this increasingly Latin city is looking to attract an audience beyond the demographic suggested by its title. Yet it is still our culturally specific institutions that are generating the most innovative, even radical thinking about exhibition styles. Many of these museums venture into cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary terrain that larger institutions shy away from. And they tackle difficult subjects like the role of sacredness in art that mainstream museums do not go near. The Museum for African Art in New York, under the direction of its founder, Susan Vogel, revolutionized the concept of what art institutions could be and could do. In one show after another, beginning in 1984, she subjected conventions of display to scrutiny, to suggest how the traditional museum, with its controlled ambience and edited information, dictates and circumscribes approaches to art. Mixing fine art and ethnological resources - dioramas, films, field photographs and theatrical lighting - Ms. Vogel attempted to convey the kinetic dimension of African objects, which is all but absent in most displays. Her work inspired many other curators in the field, including those who designed the new African Voices installation at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington as a dense layering of visual and aural elements, creating a total immersion in African culture. The National Museum of the American Indian, first at the George Gustav Heye Center in Lower Manhattan and now in its new home on the Mall in Washington, seems to be on the same track. But in transforming its institutional image from art museum to cultural history center, designed for American Indians by American Indians, it pushed the ratio of object to context in extreme directions. To visitors familiar with the museum's fabulous collection of Native American work, this de-emphasis on art was dismaying. Yet it makes some sense when you consider that many of the objects in question don't conform to Euro-American definitions of art as a passive medium of contemplation and exchange. In the Native American view, as the museum explains it, the process of creation is more important than the end product. And when objects are valued in themselves it is because they have a spiritual potency that requires they be kept from public view. Such beliefs make heavy demands on the average museum. But the reality is that if you are going to seriously embark on the job of presenting non-Western cultures, you are going to run up against fundamental challenges to your own conventions. And how to be true to the spirit of religious art within the secular precincts of a Western museum remains a question. Again, the Museum for African Art led the way with one answer in its 1993 exhibition "Face of the Gods: Art and Altars of Africa and the African Americas." Organized by the art historian Robert Farris Thompson, the show examined the trans-Atlantic links between African and New World religious traditions. And it did so by treating its subject as alive in the present rather than locked in the past. The museum invited priests from Brazilian and Afro-Cuban Caribbean religions to build active altars in the galleries. The results were electrifying, not just because some of the altars were gorgeous, but because visitors to the show regularly included religious devotees. They came to look and to worship. Many left money at the altars as offerings, which the museum staff periodically collected to pay for refurbishing the ephemeral structures. Some critics saw in "Face of the Gods" a new realness in art presentation. Others detected a retooling of romantic exoticism. There was no question of the show's impact, however, and it spawned some memorable successors. One was "Sacred Arts of Haitian Vodou," organized for the U.C.L.A. Fowler Museum of Cultural History in 1995. It, too, attracted religious devotees. Another has been "A Saint in the City: Sufi Arts of Urban Senegal," also from the Fowler and recently at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art at the University of Florida in Gainesville. In its original Los Angeles setting, both Muslim and Buddhist visitors came to the galleries for prayer and meditation. Nor is the interdisciplinary approach to display restricted to African-related shows. In the past decade, several museums - among them the Newark Museum and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Washington - have been presenting South Asian ritual art in a similar spirit, though usually in more conventional look-but-don't-touch formats. The painstaking creations by Tibetan monks of the sand mandala called Kalachakra, or Wheel of Time, also fall into this category. Several American art and natural history museums have commissioned monks to produce a mandala on site, a process that usually takes several days and is open for public viewing, blurring the line between performance art and ritual. A logical question is: Why aren't the exhibition principles used for non-Western art also applied to showing Western Christian religious art? I'm thinking of those sculptures and paintings originally in churches, where they were actively worshipped, and in some cases still are. One obvious answer is that such objects are still active in Western culture and don't have the comfort zone of unfamiliarity that, say, African objects have. In a word, they're just too "hot," and might invite disruptive responses. There are exceptions. For a show on African-American religion at the Anacostia Museum and Center for African American History and Culture, which is part of the Smithsonian in Washington, the curators created a chapel-like setting with pews and piped-in music. To many of the show's black visitors, the context was instantly familiar, and they sang along with Mahalia Jackson as they absorbed historical information. Such participation is never invited at a museum like the Met, though in certain recent exhibitions of religious art, subtle efforts have been made to acknowledge the work's nature and function. This was true in the great Tilman Riemenschneider show in 2000, which, through a strategic positioning of sculpture and the use of carefully composed object labels, evoked the specific religious sensibility of the Northern Gothic. At the same time, the suggestion of a spiritual dynamic was so discreet as to pass unnoticed unless you were alert to it. So, the show both departed from and adhered to the age-old Western museum ploy of cleaning up socially and ritually messy realities, of turning lived experiences into art experiences. And part of the museum audience wants it that way, resisting heterodox intrusions on art viewing, which has its own devotional rituals. An exhibition titled "Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art" at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art last year, which presented Buddhist religious objects from the vantage of a practitioner, was accused in the local press of promoting Buddhism as a religion. It is one thing for art museums to be Temples of Beauty, but quite another for them to be religious shrines. IN short, issues surrounding art and religion remain provocative, as do the exhibitions that address them head-on. At the same time, certain museums are tackling comparably radical ideas in more traditional forms. There is a growing trend toward transcultural or intercultural shows that trace aesthetic connections between far-flung cultures, and do so in ways that fit smoothly into mainstream museum settings. And while such exhibitions may stick to old-style display, they can turn history on its head. In 2007, the Museum for African Art will have a show, organized by its new curator, Enid Schildkrout, of woven baskets from West Africa and South Carolina. Shown together, these objects tell a story of how rice-growing techniques were transported from Africa through the slave trade to America. There, new research suggests, slaves were valued not merely for their labor, but for their expertise in rice farming techniques, which white owners exploited and sought to control. This kind of focused, revisionist take on a specific history is still rare in mainstream museums, which feel compelled to sell art through spectacle, and keep complications and provocations to a minimum. Yet, changes creep in. A 2002 show, "Genesis: Ideas of Origin in African Sculpture," organized at the Met by its curator of African art, Alisa LaGamma, included an ethnographic film of sculptural headdresses being worn in performance, a modest "first" in multimedia terms, but a giant step for the Met. So was the inclusion, in another show, of African contemporary art with traditional "tribal" objects. But no need to panic. Other changes at the Met stop well short of revolution. Object labels in galleries have been allowed to grow in length. And in general, providing more contextual information seems to be the direction museums are taking. To an older, more conservative generation of observers this constitutes an erosion of aesthetic supremacy. But you don't need to be a genius to figure out that people who don't like labels can ignore them; and those who want information can now have more. And where does the art institution of the moment, the new Museum of Modern Art, stand on all of this? Well, of course, the new Modern is still very much the old Modern. In its heart of hearts, it is still wedded to an art-object-speaks-for-itself formalism. And it will surely be a very long intercultural time before we'll be seeing an altar set up in its spanking white precincts. Yet there is a huge revisionist task to be undertaken if the Modern is to fully justify its name. I'm speaking of the need for a broadening of the museum's past and present definition of Modern Art to include African, Asian, Latin American and Eastern European modernisms; or, put another way, for an institutional acknowledgment of a global modernism, of which Western European and North American modernism were a tremendously important part, but only a part. I wonder if, at this point, in fact, it might not make sense for the museum to stop collecting vertically and start collecting horizontally, to stop acquiring contemporary art and concentrate instead on filling out the yawning international gaps in its 20th-century Modernist collection. Perhaps it could then exhibit what it finds under a curatorial staff that would include African and Asian specialists along with the Latin-American specialist, Paulo Herkenhoff, already on board. O.K., I'm dreaming. Meanwhile, though, redefining steps have taken place, notably in the unruly reinstallations that closed the old 53rd Street building. A residue of those experiments has been carried over into the new installation, where a bit of African work is integrated into the photography collection, and a handful of Latin American artists join some of their starry European colleagues. It's great, in the new galleries, to encounter two utopians, the Uruguayan avant-garde painter Joaqu?n Torres-Garc?a and Piet Mondrian, deep in conversation, and to find the Venezuelan artist Armando Rever?n sharing cosmopolitan space with Picasso and Giacometti. Difference and relatedness, that's what I see, and a mainstream museum that could change the course of that stream. We just get a hint of that now. But the story can expand only outward from here. References 1. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=HOLLAND%20COTTER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=HOLLAND%20COTTER&inline=nyt-per From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:03:40 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:03:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Out West, Way Out: The Melted Dog: Memories of an Atomic Childhood Message-ID: The New York Times > Arts > Arts Special > Out West, Way Out: The Melted Dog: Memories of an Atomic Childhood http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/arts/artsspecial/30atom.html March 30, 2005 By [1]JUDITH MILLER LAS VEGAS THE dog had melted. The rumor raced through our school, John S. Parks Elementary, here the day after "Harry" was detonated at dawn in May 1953 at the Nevada Test Site, a mere 65 miles northwest from what was then my home. The story was that a family in Indian Springs, only 25 miles away from ground zero, had returned to their ranch house after the test to find their beloved pet reduced to a puddle of blood, bones and clumps of matted hair. The government had supposedly suppressed the incident. There probably never was a dead dog, but there was genuine cause for anxiety. Harry's radioactive debris, in fact, spread unexpectedly to St. George, a tiny farming town in neighboring Utah whose residents were advised to "shelter in place" with their doors and windows shut until the radioactive danger passed. On a major freeway near the site, some 40 cars registered low, but above-average, levels of radioactivity. The Atomic Energy Commission instructed car owners to hose down their vehicles and themselves. Neither the unusually rainy weather nor the flulike symptoms reported by some residents were related to the blast, the commissioners said. The radioactive "snow" found as far away as Rhode Island elicited little public debate. Memories of the awe, pride and subliminal terror associated with living near what some historians now call the cold war's major "battlefield" enveloped me as I toured the new $3.5 million Atomic Testing Museum, the latest tourist attraction in America's most bizarre city. Located less than a mile east of Las Vegas Boulevard, the Strip to locals, the 8,000-square-foot museum, which opened in February, chronicles much of this unique part of America's atomic history, the 47 years of atmospheric and underground nuclear testing from 1945 to 1992 when a worldwide testing moratorium took effect. By then, 1,054 tests had been conducted, 90 percent in Nevada. For years, the government and much of the press tried to downplay the danger of radiation while appealing to patriotism. The tests were being conducted not to give the neon city that still never sleeps a "Roman holiday" or to irritate "a few self-centered Las Vegans," wrote Hank Greenspun, my father's friend who owned the Las Vegas Morning Sun. The tests were needed "to maintain our lead" over what we then called the "Reds." Moreover, as Mr. Greenspun wrote in his popular Where I Stand column, a copy of which is included in the museum's archive of some 310,000 testing-related documents, Las Vegas depended on tourist dollars. "Panic can spread where no danger exists," he warned, chiding "sensation-seeking reporters" whose "frivolous" accounts threatened not only national security but also the city's economy. The public-relations strategy to make Nevadans "feel at home with neutrons trotting around" and to encourage "local pride in being in the limelight," according to government memos written shortly before the controversial experiments began, was effective, as the museum's "popular culture" display attests. Throughout the 1950's, I tore off the labels on Kix cereal boxes to send away for an atomic bomb ring. I also had an "atomic buster" toy pistol like those on display, but not the silver Christmas tree ornaments decorated with symbols of the atom. The junior Girl Scouts, or Brownies, did not get the embroidered "atomic energy" Boy Scout merit badges that were on display. But I recall the salt-and-pepper shakers shaped like Fat Man and Little Boy, America's first two atomic bombs, dropped on Japan, on my friends' Formica kitchen tables. I coveted the iconic postcard on display - the distinctive mushroom cloud rising behind Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn, the D.I., as my parents and everyone else called it. At bars in hotels like this and in the Sahara, the Flamingo, the Dunes and the Sands - there was no replica of Venice or the Eiffel Tower - tourists and the town's 50,000 residents sipped gin, not vodka martinis and other atomic cocktails, or as the subtitle of the drinks recipe book on display proclaims, "Mixed Drinks for Modern Times." In one corner hangs a blowup of the cover of the June 21, 1952, edition of Collier's magazine. A dozen or so children are lying face down in a schoolyard, hands cupped over their heads, abandoned bikes nearby. "A is for Atom," the cover declares. We "atomic kids" knew how to protect ourselves against "the big one." There are also two copies of the orange warning posters issued by the Clark County Civil Defense Agency, which we were told to post in a "prominent place near your telephone or in your kitchen." Keep a "well-balanced" supply of food on hand, the officials said. I lingered for some time by a display of a male and female mannequin blown off their chairs in a makeshift basement shelter. Having survived a test at the site, the plastic people had been shown off in 1953 at J. C. Penney. "Before" and "after" photographs were published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, with a warning: "These mannequins could have been real people; in fact, they could have been you." The female was wearing a cinch-belted full skirt like the one my mother used to wear. By the late 50's, as the novelty of atomic testing wore thin and concerns about safety and radiation deepened, the town fathers decided to generate buzz to keep visitors coming to Las Vegas and parking along Highway 95 to watch the dawn tests. On display is a life-size paper cutout of their solution - Miss Atomic Bomb of 1957. The museum store sells Miss A-Bomb refrigerator magnets for $8. Las Vegas was proud of its status as the city of skin, sin and sex, rather than the family entertainment center it has tried to become. The transformation has made what is among the nation's fastest-growing cities even more surreal, as are aspects of the museum itself. It prominently displays a sign marking the entry to the test site at Gate 100, for instance. A sign welcoming 1950's visitors to Mercury, the Atomic Energy Commission's home in a secret enclave then, is in neon. Nearby are black-and-white photographs of daily life at the test site, portraying the scientists and other nuclear weaponeers at work and play. Contemporary descriptions of the testing effort now read like Orwell. Atomic bombs were "humane" and "merciful," articles of the day state, a stance the museum wisely shuns. Americans discovered the devastating effects on the health of some of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who drilled on the atomic battlefield during the tests only years later. Published in 1980, "Atomic Soldiers," a slender volume by Howard Rosenberg, now an investigative journalist for ABC, discussed the soldiers' ailments and explored the critical debates that have raged ever since testing began in Nevada: the effects of fallout, the relationship between low-level radiation exposure and cancer, and what he calls "the elitism that allowed a few men to make decisions that affect us all." The effects on civilians like me who grew up in and around Las Vegas may never be known, given the paucity of epidemiological studies. Americans remain polarized by the testing, a division the exhibition mentions but does not stress. Some historians argue that the testing helped prevent the use of nuclear arms and ultimately helped prompt the Soviet Union's collapse. Others argue that the stockpile of tens of thousands of weapons too horrifying to use fueled the nuclear arms race, fostering global proliferation and instability that threaten us with Armageddon to this day. The secrecy that took root here has now infected much of government. It is no accident that the exhibition ends with fragments of both the Berlin Wall and the Twin Towers. Who is visiting these riveting, if often creepy, cold war artifacts? Most of the 800 visitors or so a week are baby boomers like me or teenagers, many of whom have pronounced the exhibition "cool," said William G. Johnson, the museum's director, a self-described "cold war archaeologist." Troy E. Wade II, the chairman of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation, which pioneered the project and who for years conducted the countdown at ground zero, hopes to eventually attract thousands. Polls show that 39 million people visited Las Vegas in 2003, he said, 68 percent of whom wake up not knowing what they will do that day. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:06:02 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:06:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYTBR: Susan Sontag: A Report on the Journey Message-ID: The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > Essay: A Report on the Journey http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/books/review/20SONTAGL.html February 20, 2005 Just weeks before she died last December, Susan Sontag completed this introduction to ''Under the Glacier,'' by the Nobel laureate Halldor Laxness. The novel, translated by Magnus Magnusson, will be published by Vintage International (paper, $14) next month. The long prose fiction called the novel, for want of a better name, has yet to shake off the mandate of its own normality as promulgated in the 19th century: to tell a story peopled by characters whose options and destinies are those of ordinary, so-called real life. Narratives that deviate from this artificial norm and tell other kinds of stories, or appear not to tell much of a story at all, draw on traditions that are more venerable than those of the 19th century, but still, to this day, seem innovative or ultraliterary or bizarre. I am thinking of novels that proceed largely through dialogue; novels that are relentlessly jocular (and therefore seem exaggerated) or didactic; novels whose characters spend most of their time musing to themselves or debating with a captive interlocutor about spiritual and intellectual issues; novels that tell of the initiation of an ingenuous young person into mystifying wisdom or revelatory abjection; novels with characters who have supernatural options, like shape-shifting and resurrection; novels that evoke imaginary geography. It seems odd to describe ''Gulliver's Travels'' or ''Candide'' or ''Tristram Shandy'' or ''Jacques the Fatalist and His Master'' or ''Alice in Wonderland'' or Gershenzon and Ivanov's ''Correspondence From Two Corners'' or Kafka's ''The Castle'' or Hesse's ''Steppenwolf'' or Woolf's ''The Waves'' or Olaf Stapledon's ''Odd John'' or Gombrowicz's ''Ferdydurke'' or Calvino's ''Invisible Cities'' or, for that matter, porno narratives, simply as novels. To make the point that these occupy the outlying precincts of the novel's main tradition, special labels are invoked. Science fiction. Tale, fable, allegory. Philosophical novel. Dream novel. Visionary novel. Literature of fantasy. Wisdom lit. Spoof. Sexual turn-on. Convention dictates that we slot many of the last centuries' perdurable literary achievements into one or another of these categories. The only novel I know that fits into all of them is Halldor Laxness's wildly original, morose, uproarious ''Under the Glacier.'' Science fiction first. In 1864 Jules Verne published ''Journey to the Center of the Earth,'' the charming narrative of the adventures of a party of three, led by a German professor of mineralogy -- the irascible mad-scientist type -- who have lowered themselves into an extinct volcanic crater on a glacier in Iceland, Snaefells, and eventually exit upward through the mouth of an active volcano on another island, Stromboli, off the coast of Sicily. And Snaefells is again the designated portal of another unlikely fictional mission just over a hundred years later, in 1968, in a novel by Iceland's own Halldor Laxness, written with full mocking awareness of how the French father of science fiction had colonized the Icelandic site. This time, instead of a journey into the earth, mere proximity to the glacier opens up access to unexpected, cosmic mysteries. Imagining the exceptional, which is often understood as the miraculous, the magical or the supernatural, is a perennial job of storytelling. One tradition proposes a physical place of entry -- a cave or a tunnel or a hole -- which leads to a freakish or enchanted kingdom with an alternative normality. In Laxness's story, a sojourn near Snaefells does not call for the derring-do of a descent, a penetration, since, as Icelanders who inhabit the region know, the glacier itself is the center of the universe. The supernatural -- the center -- is present on the surface, in the costume of everyday life in a village whose errant pastor has ceased to conduct services or baptize children or bury the dead. Christianity -- Iceland's confession is Evangelical Lutheran -- is the name of what is normal, historical, local.* (The agricultural Viking island converted to Christianity on a single day at the Althing, the world's oldest national parliament, in 999.) But what is happening in remote Snaefells is abnormal, cosmic, global. Science fiction proposes two essential challenges to conventional ideas of time and place. One is that time may be abridged, or become ''unreal.'' The other is that there are special places in the universe where familiar laws that govern identity and morality are violated. In more strenuous forms of science fiction, these are places where good and evil contend. In benign versions of this geographical exceptionalism, these are places where wisdom accumulates. Snaefells is such a place -- or so it is stipulated. People lead their mundane, peculiar lives, seemingly unfazed by the knowledge of the uniqueness of where they live: ''No one in these parts doubts that the glacier is the center of the universe.'' Snaefells has become a laboratory of the new, the unsettling: a place of secret pilgrimage. As a species of storytelling, science fiction is a modern variant of the literature of allegorical quest. It often takes the form of a perilous or mysterious journey, recounted by a venturesome but ignorant traveler who braves the obstacles to confront another reality that is charged with revelations. He -- for it is always a he -- stands for humanity as apprenticeship, since women are not thought to be representative of human beings in general but only of women. A woman can represent Women. Only a man can stand for Man or Mankind -- everybody. Of course, a female protagonist can represent The Child -- as in ''Alice in Wonderland'' -- but not The Adult. Thus, both ''Journey to the Center of the Earth'' and ''Under the Glacier'' have as their protagonists and narrators a good-natured, na?ve young man who submits his will to that of an older authority figure. Verne's narrator is the eminent Professor Lidenbrock's orphaned nephew and assistant, Axel, who cannot refuse the invitation to accompany his uncle and an Icelandic guide on this adventure, though he is sure that it will cost them their lives. In Laxness's novel, which opens on a note of parody, the narrator is a nameless youth whom the bishop of Iceland in Reykjavik wants to send to the village at the foot of Snaefells Glacier ''to conduct the most important investigation at that world-famous mountain since the days of Jules Verne.'' He is to find out what has happened to the parish there, whose minister -- pastor Jon Jonsson, known as Primus -- has not drawn his salary for 20 years. Is Christianity still being practiced? There are rumors that the church is boarded up and no services held, that the pastor lives with someone who is not his wife, that he has allowed a corpse to be lodged in the glacier. The bishop tells the young man he has sent countless letters to Primus. No answer. He wants the young man to make a brief trip to the village, talk to the pastor, and take the true measure of his spiritual dereliction. And beyond science fiction. ''Under the Glacier'' is at least as much a philosophical novel and a dream novel. It is also one of the funniest books ever written. But these genres -- science fiction, philosophical novel, dream novel, comic novel -- are not as distinct as one might suppose. For instance, both science fictions and philosophical novels need principal characters who are skeptical, recalcitrant, astonished, ready to marvel. The science fiction novel usually begins with the proposal of a journey. The philosophical novel may dispense with the journey -- thinking is a sedentary occupation -- but not with the classical male pair: the master who asks and the servant who is certain, the one who is puzzled and the one who thinks he has the answers. In the science fiction novel, the protagonist must first contend with his terrors. Axel's dread at being enrolled by his uncle in this daft venture of descending into the bowels of the earth is more than understandable. The question is not what he will learn but whether he will survive the physical shocks to which he will be subjected. In the philosophical novel, the element of fear -- and true danger -- is minimal, if it exists at all. The question is not survival but what one can know, and if one can know anything at all. Indeed, the very conditions of knowing become the subject of rumination. In ''Under the Glacier,'' when the generic Na?ve Young Man receives his charge from the bishop of Iceland to investigate the goings-on at Snaefells, he protests that he is completely unqualified for the mission. In particular -- ''for the sake of appearances,'' he adds slyly -- he instances his youth and lack of authority to scrutinize a venerable old man's discharge of his pastoral duties, when the words of the bishop himself have been ignored. Is the young man -- the reader is told that he is 25 and a student -- at least a theological student? Not even. Has he plans to be ordained? Not really. Is he married? No. (In fact, as we learn, he's a virgin.) A problem then? No problem. To the worldly bishop, the lack of qualifications of this Candide-like young Icelander is what makes him the right person. If the young man were qualified, he might be tempted to judge what he sees. All the young man has to do, the bishop explains, is keep his eyes open, listen and take notes; that the bishop knows he can do, having observed the young man take notes in shorthand at a recent synod meeting, and also using the -- what's it called? a phonograph? It was a tape recorder, says the young man. And then, the bishop continues, write it all up. What you saw and heard. Don't judge. Laxness's novel is both the narrative of the journey and the report. A philosophical novel generally proceeds by setting up a quarrel with the very notion of novelistic invention. One common device is to present the fiction as a document, something found or recovered, often after its author's death or disappearance: research or writings in manuscript, a diary, a cache of letters. In ''Under the Glacier,'' the anti-fictional fiction is that what the reader has in hand is a document prepared or in preparation; submitted rather than found. Laxness's ingenious design deploys two notions of ''a report'': the report to the reader, sometimes in the first person, sometimes in the form of unadorned dialogue, which is cast as the material, culled from taped conversations and observations from shorthand notebooks, of a report that is yet to be written up and discovered. The status of Laxness's narrative is something like a Mobius strip: report to the reader and report to the bishop continue to inflect each other. The first-person voice is actually a hybrid voice; the young man -- whose name is never divulged -- frequently refers to himself in the third person. ''The undersigned'' he calls himself at first. Then ''Emissary of the Bishop,'' abbreviated to ''EmBi,'' which quickly becomes ''Embi.'' And he remains the undersigned or Embi throughout the novel. The arrival of the emissary of the bishop of Iceland is expected, Embi learns when he reaches the remote village by bus one spring day; it's early May. From the beginning, Embi's picturesque informants, secretive and garrulous in the usual rural ways, accept his right to interrogate them without either curiosity or antagonism. Indeed, one running gag in the novel is that the villagers tend to address him as ''bishop.'' When he protests that he is a mere emissary, they reply that his role makes him spiritually consubstantial with the bishop. Bishop's emissary, bishop -- same thing. And so this earnest, self-effacing young man -- who sometimes refers to himself in the third person, out of modesty, not for the usual reason -- moves from conversation to conversation, for this is a novel of talk, debate, sparring, rumination. Everyone whom he interviews has pagan or post-Christian ideas about time and obligation and the energies of the universe: the little village at the foot of a glacier is in full spiritual molt. Present, in addition to elusive pastor Jon -- who, when Embi finally catches up with him (he now earns a living as the jack-of-all-trades for the whole district), shocks the youth with his sly theological observations -- is an international conclave of gurus, the most eminent of which is Dr. Godman Syngmann from Ojai, California. Embi does not aspire to be initiated into any of these heresies. He wishes to remain a guest, an observer, an amanuensis: his task is to be a mirror. But when eros enters in the form of the pastor's mysterious wife, Ua, he becomes -- first reluctantly, then surrendering eagerly -- a participant. He wants something. Longing erupts. It becomes his journey, his initiation, after all. (''The report has not just become part of my own blood -- the quick of my life has fused into one with the report.'') The journey ends when the revelatory presence proves to be a phantom, and vanishes. The utopia of erotic transformation was only a dream, after all. But it is hard to undo an initiation. The protagonist will have to labor to return to reality. Dream novel. Readers will recognize the distinctive dream world of Scandinavian folk mythology, in which the spiritual quest of a male is empowered and sustained by the generosity and elusiveness of the eternal feminine. A sister to Solveig in Ibsen's ''Peer Gynt'' and Indra in Strindberg's ''A Dream Play,'' Ua is the irresistible woman who transforms: the witch, the whore, the mother, the sexual initiator, wisdom's fount. Ua gives her age as 52, which makes her twice as old as Embi -- the same difference of age, she points out, as Saint Theresa and San Juan de la Cruz when they first met -- but in fact she is a shape-shifter, immortal. Eternity in the form of a woman. Ua has been pastor Jon's wife (although she is a Roman Catholic), the madam of a brothel in Buenos Aires, a nun and countless other identities. She appears to speak all the principal languages. She knits incessantly: mittens, she explains, for the fishermen of Peru. Perhaps most peculiarly, she has been dead, conjured into a fish and preserved up on the glacier until a few days earlier, and has now been resurrected by pastor Jon, and is about to become Embi's lover. This is perennial mythology, Nordic style, not just a spoof of the myth. As Strindberg put it in the preface to his forgotten masterpiece, ''A Dream Play'': ''Time and space do not exist.'' Time and space are mutable in the dream novel, the dream play. Time can always be revoked. Space is multiple. Strindberg's timelessness and placelessness are not ironic, as they are for Laxness, who scatters a few impure details in ''Under the Glacier'' -- historical grit that reminds the reader this is not only the folk time of Nordic mythology but also that landmark year of self-loving apocalyptic yearning: 1968. The book's author, who published his first novel when he was 19 and wrote some 60 novels in the course of his long (he died at 95) and far from provincial life, was already 66 years old. Born in rural Iceland, he lived in the United States in the late 1920's, mostly in Hollywood. He hung out with Brecht. He spent time in the Soviet Union in the 1930's. He had already accepted a Stalin Peace Prize (1952) and a Nobel Prize in Literature (1955). He was known for epic novels about poor Icelandic farmers. He was a writer with a conscience. He had been obtusely philo-Soviet (for decades) and was then interested in Taoism. He read Sartre's ''Saint Genet'' and publicly decried the American bases in Iceland and the American war on Vietnam. And ''Under the Glacier'' does not reflect any of these literal concerns. It is a work of supreme derision and freedom and wit. It is like nothing else Laxness ever wrote. Comic novel. The comic novel also relies on the na?ve narrator: the person of incomplete understanding and inappropriate, indefatigable cheerfulness or optimism. Pastor Jon, Ua, the villagers: everyone tells Embi he doesn't understand. ''Aren't you just a tiny bit limited, my little one?'' Ua observes tenderly. To be often wrong, but never disheartened; gamely acknowledging one's mistakes, and soldiering on -- this is an essentially comic situation. (The comedy of candor works best when the protagonist is young, as in Stendhal's autobiographical ''La Vie de Henry Brulard.'') An earnest, innocent hero to whom preposterous things happen attempts, for the most part successfully, to take them in his stride. That the nameless narrator sometimes says ''I'' and sometimes speaks of himself in the third person introduces a weird note of depersonalization, which also evokes laughter. The rollicking mixture of voices cuts through the pathos; it expresses the fragile false confidence of the comic hero. What is comic is not being surprised at what is astonishing or absurd. The bishop's mandate -- to underreact to whatever his young emissary is to encounter -- sets up an essentially comic scenario. Embi always underreacts to the preposterous situations in which he finds himself: for example, the food that he is offered every day by the pastor's housekeeper during his stay -- nothing but cakes. Think of the films of Buster Keaton and Harry Langdon; think of the writings of Gertrude Stein. The basic elements of a comic situation: deadpan; repetition; defect of affectivity; deficit (apparent deficit, anyway) of understanding, of what one is doing (making the audience superior to the state of mind being represented); na?vely solemn behavior; inappropriate cheerfulness -- all of which give the impression of childlikeness. The comic is also cruel. This is a novel about humiliation -- the humiliation of the hero. He endures frustration, sleep deprivation, food deprivation. (No, the church is not open now. No, you can't eat now. No, I don't know where the pastor is.) It is an encounter with a mysterious authority that will not reveal itself. Pastor Jon appears to have abdicated his authority by ceasing to perform the duties of a minister and choosing instead to be a mechanic, but he has actually sought access to a much larger authority -- mystical, cosmic, galactic. Embi has stumbled into a community that is a coven of authority figures, whose provenance and powers he never manages to decipher. Of course they are rogues, charlatans -- and they are not; or at any rate, their victims, the credulous, deserve them (as in a much darker, Hungarian novel about spiritual charlatans and rural dupes, Krasznahorkai's ''Satantango''). Wherever Embi turns, he does not understand, and he is not being helped to understand. The pastor is away, the church is closed. But unlike, say, K. in Kafka's ''The Castle,'' Embi does not suffer. For all his humiliations, he does not appear to feel anguish. The novel has always had a weird coldness. It is both cruel and merry. Visionary novel. The comic novel and the visionary novel also have something in common: nonexplicitness. An aspect of the comic is meaninglessness and inanity, which is a great resource of comedy, and also of spirituality -- at least in the Oriental (Taoist) version that attracted Laxness. At the beginning of the novel, the young man continues for a bit to protest his inability to carry out the bishop's mission. What am I to say? he asks. What am I to do? The bishop replies: ''One should simply say and do as little as possible. Keep your eyes peeled. Talk about the weather. Ask what sort of summer they had last year, and the year before that. Say that the bishop has rheumatism. If any others have rheumatism, ask where it affects them. Don't try to put anything right. . . .'' More of the bishop's wisdom: ''Don't be personal -- be dry! . . . Write in the third person as much as possible. . . . No verifying! . . . Don't forget that few people are likely to tell more than a small part of the truth: no one tells much of the truth, let alone the whole truth. . . . When people talk they reveal themselves, whether they're lying or telling the truth. . . . Remember, any lie you are told, even deliberately, is often a more significant fact than a truth told in all sincerity. Don't correct them, and don't try to interpret them either.'' What is this, if not a theory of spirituality and a theory of literature? Obviously, the spiritual goings-on at Glacier have long since left Christianity behind. (Pastor Jon holds that all the gods people worship are equally good, that is, equally defective.) Clearly, there is much more than the order of nature. But is there any role for the gods -- and religion? The impudent lightness with which the deep questions are raised in ''Under the Glacier'' is remote from the gravitas with which they figure in Russian and in German literature. This is a novel of immense charm that flirts with being a spoof. It is a satire on religion, full of amusing New Age mumbo jumbo. It's a book of ideas, like no other Laxness ever wrote. Laxness did not believe in the supernatural. Surely he did believe in the cruelty of life -the laughter that is all that remains of the woman, Ua, to whom Embi had surrendered himself, and who has vanished. What transpired may seem like a dream, which is to say that the quest novel concludes with the obligatory return to reality. Embi is not to escape this morose destiny. ''Your emissary crept away with his duffel bag in the middle of the laughter,'' Embi concludes his report to the bishop; so the novel ends. ''I was a little frightened and I ran as hard as I could back the way I had come. I was hoping that I would find the main road again.'' ''Under the Glacier'' is a marvelous novel about the most ambitious questions, but since it is a novel it is also a journey that must end, leaving the reader dazzled, provoked and, if Laxness's novel has done its job, perhaps not quite as eager as Embi to find the main road again. *A literal translation of the original Icelandic title is ''Christianity at Glacier.'' From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:08:52 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:08:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Wiki: Philosophy_of_education Message-ID: Philosophy_of_education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Philosophy of education is the study of such questions as what education is and what its purpose is, the nature of the knowing mind and the human subject, problems of authority, the relationship between education and society, etc. Since at least [7]Rousseau, philosophy of education has been linked to greater or lesser degrees to theories of [8]human development. The philosophy of education recognizes that the enterprise of civil society depends on the education of the young, and that to educate children as responsible, thoughtful and enterprising citizens is an intricate, challenging task requiring deep understanding of ethical principles, moral values, political theory, aesthetics, and economics; not to mention an understanding of who children are, in themselves and in society. Critics have accused the philosophy of education of being one the weakest subfields of both [9]philosophy and [10]education, disconnected from philosophy (by being insufficiently rigorous for the tastes of many "real" philosophers) and from the broader study and practice of education (by being too philosophical, too theoretical). However, its proponents state that it is an exacting and critical branch of philosophy and point out that there are few major philosophers who have not written on education, and who do not consider the philosophy of education a necessity. For example, [11]Plato undertakes to discuss all these elements in The Republic, beginning the formulation of educational philosophy that endures today. There are certain key voices in philosophy of education, who have contributed in large part to our basic understandings of what education is and can be, and who have also provided powerful critical perspectives revealing the problems in education as it has been practiced in various historical circumstances. There is one particular strand in educational philosophy that stands out as of extreme importance in the present time, which may be identified as the "Democratic Tradition", because it is a product of philosophers who, seeking to establish or preserve democracy, turn to education as a method of choice. Contents [12]1 The democratic tradition of educational philosophy [13]1.1 Plato [14]1.2 Rousseau [15]1.3 B.F. Skinner [16]1.4 Dewey [17]1.5 Freire [18]2 Critical responses and counter-philosophies [19]2.1 Hannah Arendt [20]2.2 E.D. Hirsch [21]2.3 Neil Postman and the Inquiry Method [22]3 Related topics [23]4 See also [[24]edit] The democratic tradition of educational philosophy [[25]edit] Plato [26]Plato is the earliest important educational thinker. Education is, of course, a relatively minor part of his overall philosophical vision, but it is an important one. He saw education as the key to creating and sustaining his [27]Republic. He advocated extreme methods: removing children from their mothers' care and raising them as wards of the state, with great care being taken to differentiate children suitable to the various castes, the highest receiving the most education, so that they could act as guardians of the city and care for the less able. Education would be holistic, including facts, skills, physical discipline, and rigidly censored music and art. For Plato, the individual was best served by being subordinated to a just society. [28]Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the first thinker to conceive of systematic public education in the modern sense, followed Plato in many respects, adapting him to the particular situation of American democracy in his own time. Plato should be considered foundational for democratic philosophies of education both because later key thinkers treat him as such, and because, while Plato's methods are autocratic and his motives meritocratic, he nonetheless prefigures much later democratic philosophy of education. Plato's belief that talent was distributed non-genetically and thus must be found in children born to all classes moves us away from aristocracy, and Plato builds on this by insisting that those suitably gifted are to be trained by the state so that they may be qualified to assume the role of a ruling class. What this establishes is essentially a system of selective public education premised on the assumption that an educated minority of the population are, by virtue of their education (and inborn educability), sufficient for healthy governance. This is different in degree rather than kind from most versions of, say, the American experiment with democratic education, which has usually assumed that only some students should be educated to the fullest, while others may, acceptably, fall by the wayside. [[29]edit] Rousseau [30]Rousseau, though he paid his respects to Plato's philosophy, rejected it as impractical due to the decayed state of society. Rousseau also had a different theory of human development--where Plato held that people are born with skills appropriate to different castes (though he did not regard these skills as being inherited), Rousseau held that there was one developmental process common to all humans. This was an intrinsic, natural process, of which the primary behavioral manifestation was curiosity. This differed from Locke's [31]tabula rasa in that it was an active process deriving from the child's nature, which drove the child to learn and adapt to its surroundings. As Rousseau wrote in his [32]Emile (book), all children are perfectly designed organisms, ready to learn from their surroundings so as to grow into virtuous adults. But, due to the malign influence of corrupt society, they often failed to do so. Rousseau advocated an educational method which consisted of removing the child from society (i.e., to a country home) and alternately conditioning him through changes to environment and setting traps and puzzles for him to solve or overcome. Rousseau was unusual in that he recognized and addressed the potential of a problem of legitimation for teaching. He advocated that adults always be truthful with children, and in particular that they never hide the fact that the basis for their authority in teaching was purely one of physical coercion--"I'm bigger than you." Once children reached the age of reason (about 12), they would be engaged as free individuals in the ongoing process of their education. [[33]edit] B.F. Skinner [34]B.F. Skinner's perhaps largest contribution to education philosophy in his text [35]Walden Two wherein he details the failings of society and education, as one is intricately and intrinsically linked to the other. [36]Skinner shares [37]Rousseau's lack of faith in society. His [38]behaviorist theories play largely in his proposed ideas of [39]social engineering. [[40]edit] Dewey See entry on [41]John Dewey. [[42]edit] Freire A Brazilian who became committed to the cause of educating the impoverished peasants of his nation and collaborating with them in the pursuit of their liberation from oppression, [43]Paulo Freire contributes a philosophy of education that comes not only from the more classical approaches stemming from Plato, but also from modern Marxist and anti-colonialist thinkers. In fact, in many ways his Pedagogy of the Oppressed may best be read as an extension of or reply to [44]Frantz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth, which laid strong emphasis on the need to provide native populations with an education which was simultaneously new and modern (rather than traditional) and anti-colonial (that is, that was not simply an extension of the culture of the colonizer). Freire is best-known for his attack on what he called the [45]banking concept of education, in which the student was viewed as an empty account to be filled by the teacher. Of course, this is not really a new move--Rousseau's conception of the child as an active learner was already a step away from the [46]tabula rasa (which is basically the same as the "banking concept"), and thinkers like [47]John Dewey and [48]Alfred North Whitehead were strongly critical of the transmission of mere facts as the goal of education. More challenging, however, is Freire's strong aversion to the teacher-student dichotomy. This dichotomy is admitted in Rousseau and constrained in Dewey, but Freire comes close to insisting that it should be completely abolished. Of course, this is strictly inconceivable in absolute terms (there must be some enactment of the teacher-student relationship in the parent-child relationship), but what Freire suggests is that a deep reciprocality be inserted into our notions of teacher and student. Freire wants us to think in terms of teacher-student and student-teacher, that is, a teacher who learns and a learner who teaches, as the basic roles of classroom participation. This is one of the few attempts anywhere to implement something like democracy as an educational method and not merely a goal of democratic education. Even Dewey, for whom democracy was a touchstone, did not integrate democratic practices fully into his methods. (Though this is in part a function of his peculiar attitudes toward individuality.) However, in its early, strong form this kind of classroom has sometimes been criticized on the grounds that it can mask rather than overcome the teacher's authority. [[49]edit] Critical responses and counter-philosophies [[50]edit] Hannah Arendt [51]Hannah Arendt largely avoided education as a subject, but she did so for reasons which are very interesting to educational philosophy. Her thoughts on the subject are recorded in one of the essays collected in Between Past and Future, entitled, "The Crisis in Education." In this essay, Arendt proceeds to argue that any attempt to create democracy through educational methods was a form of tyranny... (Continuation pending) [[52]edit] E.D. Hirsch [53]E.D. Hirsch would surely identify himself as someone interested in educating for democracy, but he is grouped separately here because his philosophy is basically a counter to Deweyan pragmatic education, and because, like Arendt, he is concerned with preparing children for an existing order, rather than working towards a new one, let alone instituting the practice of democracy as a part of education. Hirsch is responsible for promoting the [54]cultural literacy movement. [[55]edit] Neil Postman and the Inquiry Method [56]Neil Postman has been a strong contemporary voice in both methods and philosophy of education. His 1969 book "Teaching as a Subversive Activity" (co-authored with Charles Weingartner) introduced the concept of a school driven by the [57]Inquiry Method, the basis of which is to get the students themselves to ask and answer relevant questions. The "teacher" (the two authors disdained the term and thought a new one should be used) would be limited in the number of declarative sentences he could utter per class, as well as questions he personally knew the answer to. The aim of this type of inquiry would be to prepare the students to lead responsible adult lives, primarily by functioning as an antidote to the rampant bureaucracy most adults are faced with after leaving school. Postman went on to write several more books on education, notably "Teaching as a Conserving Activity" and "The End of Education." The latter deals with the importance of goals or "gods" to students, and Postman suggests several "gods" capable of replacing the current ones offered in schools, namely, Economic Utility and Consumerism. [[58]edit] Related topics * [59]Essentialism * [60]Progressivism * [61]Perennialism * [62]Existentialism * [63]Behaviorism * [64]Humanism * [65]Maturationism * [66]Philosophy For Children * [67]Taking Children Seriously * [68]Outcome-based education * [69]Constructivism * [70]Pragmatism [I recommend consulting these entries.] References 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#The_democratic_tradition_of_educational_philosophy 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Plato 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Rousseau 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#B.F._Skinner 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Dewey 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Freire 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Critical_responses_and_counter-philosophies 19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Hannah_Arendt 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#E.D._Hirsch 21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Neil_Postman_and_the_Inquiry_Method 22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#Related_topics 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education#See_also 24. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=1 25. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=2 26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato 27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic 28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson 29. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=3 30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau 31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa 32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_%28book%29 33. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=4 34. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner 35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two 36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner 37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau 38. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism 39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29 40. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=5 41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey 42. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=6 43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire 44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon 45. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banking_concept_of_education&action=edit 46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa 47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey 48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead 49. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=7 50. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=8 51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt 52. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=9 53. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E.D._Hirsch&action=edit 54. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy 55. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=10 56. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman 57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_Method 58. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&action=edit§ion=11 59. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_essentialism 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_progressivism 61. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_perennialism 62. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_existentialism 63. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_behaviorism 64. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_humanism 65. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturationism 66. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_For_Children 67. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Children_Seriously 68. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education 69. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism 70. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:13:34 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:13:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Wiki: Information Literacy Message-ID: This is a very good summary of what information literacy is. I've been trying to persuade the powers that be at the U.S. Department of Education, as they extend the No Child Left Behind Act to high school. to allow the States to go ahead and develop curriculum standards for information literacy that won't get neglected when complying with NCLB assessment tests in reading, mathematics, and science. So far, not much luck, for there's a pervasive us vs. them mentality afloat, whereby critics of NCLB are seen as obstructionists looking for excuses to back off NCLB standards. The reality is quite a bit more nuanced. Perhaps E.D. could be persuaded to launch a new initiative, to promote information literacy. I'd call it "Education for the World of 2025," "Information Literacy for the Future," or some such. Getting political appointees to pay attention is not easy! ----------- Information Literacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Information literacy is the ability "to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information" (1989, p. 1). An information literate person is one who: * recognizes that accurate and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision making * recognizes the need for information * formulates questions based on information needs * identifies potential sources of information * develops successful search strategies * accesses sources of information including computer-based and other technologies * evaluates information * organizes information for practical application * integrates new information into an existing body of knowledge * uses information in critical thinking and problem solving (Doyle, 1992) Since information may be presented in a number of formats, the term information applies to more than just the printed word. Other [7]literacies such as visual, media, computer, network, and basic literacies are implicit in information literacy. Contents [8]1 History of the concept [9]2 Evolution of the economy [10]3 Effect on education [11]4 Education in the USA [12]4.1 Standards [13]4.2 K-12 education restructuring [14]4.3 Efforts in K-12 education [15]4.4 Efforts in higher education [16]4.5 Technology [17]4.6 Distance education [18]5 References [19]6 External links [[20]edit] History of the concept The seminal event in the development of the concept of information literacy was the establishment of the ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy whose final report outlined the importance of the concept. Other important events include: * [21]1983: A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform + shows that we are "raising a new generation of Americans that is scientifically and technologically illiterate." * [22]1986: Educating Students to Think: The Role of the School Library Media Program + outlines the roles of the library and the information resources in K-12 education * [23]1987: Information Skills for an Information Society: A Review of Research + includes library skills and computer skills in the definition of information literacy * [24]1988: Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs * [25]1989: National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL), a coalition of more than 65 national organizations, has its first meeting * [26]1998: Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning + emphasizes that the mission of the school library media program is "to ensure that students and staff are effective users of ideas and information." [[27]edit] Evolution of the economy The change from an economy based on labor and capital to one based on information requires information literate workers who will know how to interpret information. Barner's (1996) study of the new workplace indicates significant changes will take place in the future: * The work force will become more decentralized * The work force will become more diverse * The economy will become more global * The use of temporary workers will increase These changes will require that workers possess information literacy skills. The SCANS (1991) report identifies the skills necessary for the workplace of the future. Rather than report to a hierarchical management structure, workers of the future will be required to actively participate in the management of the company and contribute to its success. To survive in this [28]information society, workers will need to possess skills beyond those of reading, writing and arithmetic. [[29]edit] Effect on education Because information literacy skills are vital to future success: * Information literacy skills must be taught in the context of the overall process. * Instruction in information literacy skills must be integrated into the curriculum and reinforced both within and outside of the educational setting. [[30]edit] Education in the USA [[31]edit] Standards With the passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), subject matter organizations were able to obtain funding to develop standards in their respective subject areas. Information literacy skills are implicit in the National Education Goals and national content standards documents. Three of the eight National Education Goals demonstrate the critical nature of information literacy to an information society: * Goal 1: School Readiness * Goal 3: Student Achievement and Citizenship * Goal 6: Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning An analysis of national content standards documents reveals that they all focus on lifelong learning, the ability to think critically, and on the use of new and existing information for problem solving. Individual states are creating initiatives to ensure that students attain information literacy skills by the time they graduate from high school. Kentucky (1995), Utah (1996), and California (1994) are but three examples of states that have publications depicting these initiatives. National content standards, state standards, and information literacy skills terminology may vary, but all have common components relating to information literacy. [[32]edit] K-12 education restructuring Educational reform and restructuring make information literacy skills a necessity as students seek to construct their own knowledge and create their own understandings. Educators are selecting various forms of resource-based learning (authentic learning, problem-based learning and work-based learning) to help students focus on the process and to help students learn from the content. Information literacy skills are necessary components of each. The process approach to education is requiring new forms of student assessment. Students demonstrate their skills, assess their own learning, and evaluate the processes by which this learning has been achieved by preparing portfolios, learning and research logs, and using rubrics. [[33]edit] Efforts in K-12 education Information literacy efforts are underway on individual, local, and regional bases. Imaginative Web based information literacy tutorials are being created and integrated with curriculum areas, or being used for staff development purposes. Library media programs are fostering information literacy by integrating the presentation of information literacy skills with curriculum at all grade levels. Information literacy efforts are not being limited to the library field, but are also being employed by regional educational consortia. Parents are encouraging their children to develop information literacy skills at home by contacting KidsConnect, the Internet help and referral service for K-12 students. Parents are also helping students work through the information problem solving process as they assist their children with their homework. [[34]edit] Efforts in higher education The inclusion of information competencies as a graduation requirement is the key that will fully integrate information literacy into the curricula of academic institutions. Information literacy instruction in higher education can take a variety of forms: stand-alone courses or classes, online tutorials, workbooks, course-related instruction, or course-integrated instruction. State-wide university systems and individual colleges and universities are undertaking strategic planning to determine information competencies, to incorporate instruction in information competence throughout the curriculum and to add information competence as a graduation requirement for students. Academic library programs are preparing faculty to facilitate their students' mastery of information literacy skills so that the faculty can in turn provide information literacy learning experiences for the students enrolled in their classes. [[35]edit] Technology Information Technology is the great enabler. It provides, for those who have access to it, an extension of their powers of perception, comprehension, analysis, thought, concentration, and articulation through a range of activities that include: writing, visual images, mathematics, music, physical movement, sensing the environment, simulation, and communication (Carpenter, 1989, p. 2). Technology, in all of its various forms, offers users the tools to access, manipulate, transform, evaluate, use, and present information. Technology in schools includes computers, televisions, video cameras, video editing equipment, and TV studios. Two approaches to technology in K-12 schools are technology as the object of instruction approach, and technology as the tool of instruction approach. Schools are starting to incorporate technology skills instruction in the context of information literacy skills. Technology is changing the way higher education institutions are offering instruction. The use of the Internet is being taught the contexts of subject area curricula and the overall information literacy process. There is some empirical indication that students who use technology as a tool may become better at managing information, communicating, and presenting ideas. [[36]edit] Distance education Now that information literacy has become a part of the core curriculum at many post-secondary institutions, it is incumbent upon the library community to be able to provide information literacy instruction in a variety of formats, including online learning and distance education. The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) addresses this need in its Guidelines for Distance Education Services (2000): "Library resources and services in institutions of higher education must meet the needs of all their faculty, students, and academic support staff, wherever these individuals are located, whether on a main campus, off campus, in distance education or extended campus programs -- or in the absence of a campus at all, in courses taken for credit or non-credit; in continuing education programs; in courses attended in person or by means of electronic transmission; or any other means of distance education." Within the e-learning and distance education worlds, providing effective information literacy programs brings together the challenges of both distance librarianship and instruction. With the prevalence of course management systems such as WebCT and Blackboard, library staff are embedding infomration literacy training within academic programs and within individual classes themselves (Presti, 2002). See also article on [37]library instruction. [[38]edit] References American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1988). Information power: Guidelines for school library media programs. Chicago: Author. (ED 315 028) American Library Association and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: Author. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. (1989).Final report. Chicago: Author. (ED 315 028) Barner, R. (1996, March/April). Seven changes that will challenge managers-and workers. The Futurist, 30(2), 14-18. Breivik. P. S. & Senn, J. A. (1998). Information literacy: Educating children for the 21st century. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Carpenter, J. P. (1989). Using the new technologies to create links between schools throughout the world: Colloquy on computerized school links. (Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom, 17-20 Oct. 1988). Doyle, C.S. (1992). Outcome Measures for Information Literacy Within the National Education Goals of 1990. Final Report to National Forum on Information Literacy. Summary of Findings. Hashim, E. (1986). Educating students to think: The role of the school library media program, an introduction. In Information literacy: Learning how to learn. A collection of articles from School Library Media Quarterly, (15)1, 17-18. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1987). Information skills for an information society: A review of research. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ED 297 740) National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ED 226 006) Presti, P. (2002). Incorporating information literacy and distance learning within a course management system: a case study. Ypsilanti, MI: Loex News, (29)2-3, 3-12-13. Retrieved February 3, 2004 from [39]http://www.emich.edu/public/loex/news/ln290202.pdf Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ED 332 054) External links * [41]Information Literacy. ERIC Digests (http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/information.htm) The original version of this Wikipedia article is from this public domain site. * [42]Information Literacy in an Information Society. ERIC Digest. (http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/information.htm) * [43]Information Literacy Instruction in Higher Education: Trends and Issues. ERIC Digest. (http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/information.htm) * [44]Information Literacy and Teacher Education. (http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/information.htm) * [45]LIK Lernsystem Informationskompetenz (in German). (http://www.lik-online.de/) References 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#History_of_the_concept 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Evolution_of_the_economy 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Effect_on_education 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Education_in_the_USA 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Standards 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#K-12_education_restructuring 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Efforts_in_K-12_education 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Efforts_in_higher_education 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Technology 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#Distance_education 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#References 19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy#External_links 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=1 21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983 22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987 24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988 25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989 26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998 27. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=2 28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_society 29. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=3 30. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=4 31. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=5 32. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=6 33. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=7 34. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=8 35. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=9 36. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=10 37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_instruction 38. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=11 39. http://www.emich.edu/public/loex/news/ln290202.pdf 40. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_literacy&action=edit§ion=12 41. http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/information.htm 42. http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/information.htm 43. http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/information.htm 44. http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/information.htm 45. http://www.lik-online.de/ From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:14:09 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:14:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: A Mormon Daughter's Book Stirs a Storm Message-ID: NYT: A Mormon Daughter's Book Stirs a Storm http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/books/24morm.html February 24, 2005 [Dr. Nibley's obituary follows. He died on the 24th.] By EDWARD WYATT The daughter of one of Mormonism's most prominent religious scholars has accused her father of sexually abusing her as a child in a forthcoming memoir that is shining an unwelcome spotlight on the practices and beliefs of the much-scrutinized but protectively private Mormon religious community. "Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith" details how the author, Dr. Martha Beck, a sociologist and therapist, recovered memories in 1990 of her ritual sexual abuse more than 20 years earlier by her father, Dr. Hugh Nibley, professor emeritus of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and arguably the leading living authority on Mormon teaching. The book, being published next month by Crown, an imprint of Random House, has attracted significant criticism both for its depiction of sacred Mormon ceremonies and for the author's effort to tie her sexual abuse to what she says were mental disturbances suffered by her father because of his role as the Mormon Church's "chief apologist." Dr. Nibley, who is 95, is ailing and is physically unable to respond to questions, Alex Nibley, one of eight Nibley children, said in a statement. Dr. Nibley has been aware of Dr. Beck's accusations for several years, Alex Nibley said, and maintains that they are false. As part of a defense of their father, Dr. Beck's seven siblings have condemned her assertions and have hired a psychologist and lawyer who has worked on lawsuits against therapists practicing recovered-memory therapy. The Mormon Church issued a statement condemning the book, calling it "seriously flawed in the way it depicts the church, its members and teachings." Dr. Beck and her publisher have said she has received e-mail messages containing death threats. In addition, Mormons around the country have participated in an e-mail campaign against the book, sending more than 3,500 messages to Oprah Winfrey, who has featured "Leaving the Saints" on her Internet site and in the March issue of O, the Oprah Magazine. The magazine includes a monthly self-help column by Dr. Beck, who has a doctorate from Harvard. Though other recent books have taken aim at parts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at well-known Mormons or at Mormon culture, rarely have they focused on so prominent a figure as Dr. Nibley. In 2003, for example, Jon Krakauer wrote about a group of renegade Mormon fundamentalists in "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith." As with the Beck book, the Mormon Church issued a statement condemning it before it was published. Recovered memory, in which a suppressed traumatic incident is recalled years later, has been one of the most disputed topics among mental-health professionals in the last 15 years. The American Psychological Association states that while "there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them," most leaders in the field also agree "that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later." But "Leaving the Saints," Dr. Beck's fourth book, seems as likely to be discussed for the things it leaves out as for those it includes. Among the omissions is an incident of sexual abuse that Dr. Beck said recently in an interview was never suppressed. When she was about 9, she said, a teenage neighbor barricaded her in his room, stripped most of her clothes off and sexually assaulted her. He did not achieve penetration, Dr. Beck said, and the incident was interrupted by her father, who was in the neighbor's house at the time. Though she called the event "extremely traumatizing," she said the incident was cut in the editing of her manuscript to shorten the book. Dr. Beck also does not mention that one person she consulted about her sexual abuse was Lynne Finney, a Utah psychotherapist who has said that up to one out of three Americans were sexually abused as children. In the early 1990's, Ms. Finney, who is referred to in "Leaving the Saints" by the pseudonym "Mona," was a leading practitioner of recovered-memory therapy, including the use of self-hypnosis, a practice that some studies have shown can result in the creation of false memories. Asked about the omission, Dr. Beck said she consulted Ms. Finney only after having already recovered the memories of abuse. She said that she practiced self-hypnosis once under Ms. Finney but that it did not play a part in her memory recovery. While Dr. Beck is now highly critical of the Mormon Church, in 1990, she and her husband, John C. Beck, had a book published by a company owned by the Mormon Church arguing that homosexuality is a compulsive behavior that can be overcome. After leaving the church, however, the Becks divorced and have lived openly as homosexuals, something each acknowledged in interviews. Dr. Beck said she left those details out of the book to keep it focused on the accusations of sexual abuse; John Beck declined to comment further on the book. Those and other facets of Dr. Beck's story have been discussed online in chat rooms and on bulletin boards, at sites devoted to Mormonism and at those favored by people who have left the church and view its practices unfavorably. The book's own Web site, [1]www.leavingthesaints.com, has had more than 6,500 visitors in February alone, triple the number in January, and has received more than 200 e-mail messages, 80 percent of them expressing outrage at the book, the publisher says. In an interview, Dr. Beck said she did not intend "Leaving the Saints" to be an indictment of Mormonism. Though she said her book did not reveal any church secrets, it discusses Mormon rites like the temple ceremony, a sacred ritual, and subjects like regulation temple garments, which Mormons wear under their clothes - in a sometimes mocking tone that has infuriated many devout Mormons. Her publisher said Dr. Beck had received at least one death threat by e-mail that cited her depictions of Mormon ceremonies. "I didn't write it to convince anyone not to be Mormon or not to join the Mormons," she said. "I just needed to get the story of my childhood out of my system." Her childhood was marked, she said, by unexplained depression, anorexia and despair that at times left her suicidal. Even before she recovered her memories of sexual abuse, she said, she recalled suffering unexplained pain and bleeding between her thighs when she was about 5. She writes that she remembered thinking that "if anyone finds out about it, no one will ever marry me." In her teens and 20's, she writes, several doctors commented on unusual scar tissue in her vaginal area, which she cites as physical evidence of the abuse. Later, she said, doctors confirmed to her that the vaginal scarring was not the result of childbirth. It was not until she was in her late 20's, however, while teaching at Brigham Young, that Dr. Beck experienced a flashback that resulted in the memories of what she describes as ritualistic rape by her father. During the incident, which she believes took place in her home while her older siblings were at school, her father recited incantations about Abraham and Isaac. Dr. Beck's siblings, who have known about her claims for almost a decade and several of whom attended at least one family-group session with one of Dr. Beck's therapists, dispute her account, saying that no evidence exists of abuse and that incidents in the book are either inaccurate or made up. Rebecca Nibley, a sister, said Dr. Beck "encouraged me to get my own recovered memories of being abused." "As hard as I tried, I couldn't remember anything untoward concerning my father's behavior toward me, and I can't validate any of Martha's claims," she added. Dr. Beck twice confronted her father about the claims, once at a family therapy session with her husband and her parents shortly after she recovered the memories. The other time was at a 2001 meeting in a hotel, an event that she uses as a device in "Leaving the Saints" as the story of her life and her understanding of her sexual abuse unfolds. Joining her at that hotel meeting was a member of her extended family who has supported Dr. Beck's assertions from the beginning. The family member, who is identified in the book by a pseudonym, agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity after receiving threats of physical violence because of her support of Dr. Beck. "I believed Martha from the beginning because the memories she had of elements of the abuse - memories that never went away and were always part of her history - also fit with the outward signs of the abuse I saw in her growing up," the family member said. Speaking to Dr. Beck's parents about it since, she said, "has only served to strengthen my belief in the veracity of her reporting of her experience." ------------- The New York Times > Obituaries > Hugh Nibley, Outspoken Mormon Scholar, Dies at 94 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/obituaries/25nibley.html February 25, 2005 By EDWARD WYATT Hugh W. Nibley, a Mormon religious scholar who was one of the most active and outspoken defenders of Mormon writings and teachings, died yesterday at his home in Provo, Utah. He was 94. A spokesman for the family, Chris Thomas, said Dr. Nibley had been in declining health in recent months. Though not a member of the formal hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dr. Nibley, a professor emeritus of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, was regularly called on by senior church officials to research and respond to questions about or criticisms of Mormon teachings. Unlike many previous Mormon defenders, Dr. Nibley used his training as a historian to support Mormon beliefs, making academic examinations of the origins and documentation of events and people in Mormon history. He focused his expertise on the Mormon Church's most sacred texts, particularly the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, a collection of the writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. For much of the last two decades, Dr. Nibley worked on a defense of the portion of the Pearl of Great Price known as the Book of Abraham, which was the translation by Smith of an ancient Egyptian papyrus that he obtained in 1835 but that went missing after his death. In 1967 a researcher discovered the papyrus in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was returned to the church, but new studies of the document, based on modern Egyptian scholarship including an understanding of hieroglyphics not available when Smith was alive, claimed that the document was a common Egyptian funerary document. Dr. Nibley rejected that interpretation. Dr. Nibley has been the subject of heated debates among Mormons and former church members recently as one of his daughters, Martha Beck, of Phoenix, has prepared to publish a memoir in which she accuses her father of sexually abusing her as a child. The book, "Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith," is to be published next month by Crown. Dr. Nibley's seven other children all signed a statement condemning the book, saying they were "saddened by the book's countless errors, falsehoods, contradictions and gross distortions." They said that Dr. Nibley had vigorously denied the accusations, which were based on suppressed memories that Martha Beck said she recovered in 1990. In addition to his children, Dr. Nibley is survived by his wife, Phyllis Draper Nibley; a brother; a sister; 24 grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. Hugh Winder Nibley was born in Portland, Ore. He grew up there and in Los Angeles, where he graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles, with a history degree. He earned a doctorate in classics at Berkeley, training that led him to the military intelligence corps when he joined the Army in 1942. After World War II most of his life was spent in Utah, where he taught at Brigham Young from 1946 through 1994. Although a defender of Mormonism, within the church he was also an outspoken critic. In a 1984 commencement address at Brigham Young, with leaders of the university and high-ranking church officials in attendance, Dr. Nibley made a pointed contrast between leaders and managers, extolling the first while denigrating the second. "That one caused a lot of trouble," Dr. Nibley told the Deseret News, a newspaper affiliated with the Mormon church, in a 2003 interview. He added that even the university's president "hated it." From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:17:51 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:17:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Fish: Clueless in Academe Message-ID: Clueless in Academe The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5.2.23 http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/02/2005022301c.htm By STANLEY FISH All in the Game An inside look at the politics of academic careers Imagine this scene: It is some months ago and there is a meeting in the office of the president of Harvard University. Larry Summers asks, "What kind of progress are we making in recruiting and promoting women in the sciences?" "Not very much," answers one of his lieutenants, "and, in fact, the figures have declined rather precipitously during your stewardship. I don't know what to do about this, but we have to do something." "I have an idea," Summers says excitedly. "Everybody thinks that I'm a klutz and a serial bungler. What if I participate in a conference on this very subject and say something outrageous and dumb. There will be a great outcry and calls for action from all sides, and in the end I'll be forced to take steps for which I probably couldn't get support today. How does that sound?" "Brilliant" is the choral response. Did it happen that way? Was Summers taking a page out of the book of Denny Crane, the lawyer played by William Shatner on Boston Legal, who uses the perception that he is losing his marbles to gain an advantage in the courtroom and in the political maneuverings of his law firm? Well, I don't know. And neither do I know any flies on the wall, but the results have certainly occurred and have been widely reported. Two task forces have been appointed; their reports are to be completed and submitted by May 1 (literally warp speed in the molasses world of academic administration), and the university promises to act on their recommendations by September, thereby breaking all land- and air-speed records known to academic man; oops, I mean academic man and woman. Barbara Grosz, dean of science at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and now the head of one of the task forces, makes my point when she says, "There is now an opportunity that didn't exist before." That is, had Summers not (apparently) put his very big foot into his very big mouth, none of this would have happened, or at least would not have happened in the space of a few months. My fanciful speculation has a real point. It is only if Summers' performance at the January 14th conference (where he wondered if the underrepresentation of women in the sciences and math might have a genetic basis) was intentional -- it is only if he knew what he was doing -- that he can be absolved of the most serious of the charges that might be brought against him. And that is not the charge that his views on the matter were uninformed and underresearched (as they certainly were), nor the charge that he has damaged the cause of women in science (which he surely has), but the charge that he wasn't doing his job and didn't even seem to know what it was. For the record, his job is being president of Harvard University. And you get a sense of the kind of job it is when you recall that one of his august predecessors, having been urged to be a candidate for the presidency of the United States, replied, "Why would I step down in office?" What the anecdote (apocryphal or not) tells us is that the president of Harvard is in the E.F. Hutton position: When he speaks, everyone listens, and everyone listens to him as the president of Harvard, and not as good-old plain-speaking Larry Summers. That basic fact seems to have escaped Richard Freeman, a Harvard professor and one of the organizers of the fatal conference, who said in comments to a newspaper, "We didn't invite Larry as a Harvard president. ... We invited him because he has an extremely powerful and interesting mind." Freeman then added, "If we had invited him as Harvard president, he would have given us the same type of babble that university presidents give, and thank God we have a president who doesn't say that." There are so many things wrong with those statements that it's hard to know where to begin. First, Summers's powerful and interesting mind must have been taking a day off. Second, the faculty members and students at Harvard can at least thank God that Richard Freeman is not their president; for he seems to be even more clueless than the incumbent he defends. Third (and more important), the president of Harvard always carries his office with him. His pronouncements (wise and foolish) are always uttered ex cathedra and can never be detached from the responsibilities of his office. (Exactly the point made by Harvard's Standing Committee on Women in a letter of almost parental rebuke: "The president of a university never speaks entirely as an individual, especially when that institution is Harvard.") Larry Summers is no more free to pop off at the mouth about a vexed academic question than George Bush is free to wander around the country dropping off-the-cuff remarks about Social Security or Islam. Of course both men are free in the First Amendment sense to say anything that comes into their pretty little heads; but the constitutional freedom they enjoy is freedom from legal consequences, not from consequences in general. (Can anyone say, Trent Lott?) The constraints on speaking that come along with occupying a position have nothing to do with the First Amendment (there are no free-speech issues here, as there almost never are on college campuses) and everything to do with the legitimate expectations that are part and parcel of the job you have accepted and for which you are (in this case, handsomely) paid. Those expectations (and the requirements they subtend) are not philosophical, but empirical and pragmatic. They, include, first and foremost, the expectation that you will comport yourself in ways that bring credit, not obloquy, to the institution you lead. That doesn't mean that there are things you can't say or things you must say. Rather, it means that whatever you say, you have to be aware of the possible effects your utterance might produce, especially if those effects touch the health and reputation of the university. Steven Pinker (another Harvard luminary) asks, "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of academic rigor?" The answer is yes (although the "academic rigor" part can certainly be disputed in this case), but the answer and the question are beside the point because academic discourse is not the game Larry Summers can possibly be playing -- remember, he's the president, all the time -- even when he finds himself in a setting where everyone else is playing it. James Traub observed in The New York Times that Pinker's views on innate differences between men and women are close to those voiced (as a speculation) by Summers. But if that is Pinker's reason for defending Summers, it is a bad one. As a faculty member you should not give your president high marks because he expresses views you approve or low marks because he espouses views you reject. Your evaluation of him or her (now there's a solution to Harvard's problem) should be made in the context of the only relevant question -- not "Does what he says meet the highest standards of scholarship?" or "Is what he says politically correct or bravely politically incorrect?" (an alternative form of political correctness) or even "Is what he says true?" but "Is he, in saying it (whatever it is) carrying out the duties of his office in a manner that furthers the interests of the enterprise?" Almost everyone who has commented on this fiasco (including the principal actor) gets it wrong by regarding it as an instance of some high-falutin issue rather than as an example of someone falling down on his job. The offended academic left sees Summers's remarks as an affront to its causes and as the latest chapter in the sad history of gender-discrimination. The right (both inside and outside the academy) regards the entire hullabaloo as an instance of political correctness run (once again) amok. And pundits on both sides think that something deep about the nature of a university is at stake here. (Whenever the phrase "academic freedom" is invoked, you know you're hearing cant.) Brian McGrory, a Boston Globe columnist, achieves a new high in fatuousness, even in this rather dreary context, when he observes portentously, "I've always assumed that the strength of the academy is its ability to encourage difficult questions" (January 21). Well, that may be the strength of the academy, but it is not the strength sought by search committees when they interview candidates for senior administrative positions. No search committee asks, "Can we count on you to rile things up? Can we look forward to days of hostile press coverage? Can you give us a list of the constituencies you intend to offend?" Search committees do ask, "What is your experience with budgets?" and "What are your views on the place of intercollegiate athletics?" and "What will be your strategy for recruiting a world-class faculty?" and "How will you create a climate attractive to donors?" The Larry Summers of this episode might have a little trouble with the last two questions, and he wouldn't help his cause by saying, as he now has in a profusion of apologies, I was just being provocative. Sorry, that's not in the job description; nor is the (supposedly) moral quality claimed for Summers by Freeman when he describes him as "a straight-talking, no-baloney president." (That goes along with Freeman's assumption that a university president can either speak meaningless "babble" or go boldly where no man, at least one with half a brain, has gone before; but surely one can be strong and tactful at the same time.) If straight-talking, with no concern for the fallout that may follow, is what you like to do; if that is your preferred brand of baloney ("I just call them as I see them"), then maybe you've wandered into the wrong profession. Not every virtue (if straight-talking is a virtue, and I have my doubts) is pertinent to every practice, and it is surely part of your responsibility to know what virtues are appropriate to the position you hold. In the end, there is only one question (with many parts): Does Harvard want a president who makes Prince Harry of England -- he at least has the excuse of being 20 and without a real job -- seem sensitive and sophisticated? Does Harvard want a president who makes the proverbial bull in the china shop seem like Nijinsky? Does Harvard want a president who, despite the reputation of being brilliant (where's the beef?) acts as if he were the leader of the Know Nothing Party? Does Harvard want a president who cannot be trusted to go out into the world without a keeper? The answer, I guess, is "yes." Stanley Fish, dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writes a monthly column on campus politics and academic careers. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:18:58 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:18:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYTBR: Winston Churchill, Neocon? Message-ID: The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > Essay: Winston Churchill, Neocon? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/books/review/27HEILBRU.html February 27, 2005 By JACOB HEILBRUNN Douglas J. Feith was becoming excited. After spending an afternoon discussing the war in Iraq with him, I asked what books had most influenced him. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and a prominent neoconservative, raced across his large library and began pulling down gilt-edged volumes on the British Empire. Behind his desk loomed a bust of Winston Churchill. It was a telling moment. In England right-wing historians are portraying the last lion as a drunk, a dilettante, an incorrigible bungler who squandered the opportunity to cut a separate peace with Hitler that would have preserved the British Empire. On the American right, by contrast, Churchill idolatry has reached its finest hour. George W. Bush, who has said ''I loved Churchill's stand on principle,'' installed a bronze bust of him in the Oval Office after becoming president. On Jan. 21, 2005, Bush issued a letter with ''greetings to all those observing the 40th anniversary of the passing of Sir Winston Churchill.'' The Weekly Standard named Churchill ''Man of the Century.'' So did the columnist Charles Krauthammer, who in December 2002 delivered the third annual Churchill Dinner speech sponsored by conservative Hillsdale College; its president, Larry P. Arnn, also happens to belong to the International Churchill Society. William J. Luti, a leading neoconservative in the Pentagon, recently told me, ''Churchill was the first neocon.'' Apart from Michael Lind writing in the British magazine The Spectator, however, the Churchill phenomenon has received scant attention. Yet to a remarkable extent, the neoconservative establishment is claiming Churchill (who has just had a museum dedicated to him in London) as a founding father. Some of this reverence has its origins in the writings of the neoconservative husband-and-wife team Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb. As the co-editor of the British monthly Encounter in the early 1950's, Kristol (who deplored imperialism in his youthful Trotskyist incarnation) began falling under the influence of Tory intellectuals and started his march to the right. Himmelfarb, a historian of England, has always championed a return to Victorian virtues, which Churchill, more than anyone else, embodied in the 20th century. Writing in The New Republic in November 2001, Himmelfarb observed: ''Among other things that we are rediscovering in the past is the idea of greatness -- great individuals, great causes, great civilizations. It is no accident that Churchill has re-emerged now, at a time when the West is again under assault.'' Another strand of Churchill piety can be traced to the political philosopher Leo Strauss, who fled Nazi Germany for England before immigrating to the United States. Strauss shaped successive generations of neoconservatives, starting with Kristol and Himmelfarb. He believed that the Western democracies needed an intellectual elite to check the dangerous passions of the lower orders, and he saw the pre-World War I British aristocracy as the closest thing to Platonic guardians. Upon Churchill's death in 1965, he declared, ''We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty, than to remind ourselves and our students of political greatness, human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence.'' In the 1970's, a new neoconservative generation imbibed this lesson. At Harvard, William Kristol, the son of Kristol and Himmelfarb, celebrated the 100th anniversary of Churchill's birthday in the imperial manner by roasting a pig with his fellow Straussian graduate students. Other neoconservatives used the example of Churchill to warn about the perils of pursuing arms-control agreements with the Soviet Union. In ''Churchill and Us'' in the June 1977 issue of Commentary, the strategist Edward N. Luttwak, who has since decamped from the neoconservative movement, recounted the abuse showered upon Churchill for insisting upon rearmament in the 1930's. After Ronald Reagan became president, Churchill worship became even more fervent. Commentary published several essays during the Reagan years depicting Franklin D. Roosevelt as selling out the West at Yalta even as Churchill was trying to contain Stalin. Reagan hung a Churchill portrait in the White House Situation Room and, in 1988, declared Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 ''National Sir Winston Churchill Recognition Week.'' In his June 8, 1982, address to Parliament forecasting the collapse of the Soviet Union, Reagan made a point of extolling Churchill. Since then, Reagan himself has been elevated to the status of Churchill. Just as Churchill began the fight against Bolshevism, his admirers contend, so Reagan prosecuted the war to its finish with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Like Churchill, Reagan, the argument goes, was dismissed as a crackpot by the regnant liberal establishment, but proved a prophet. Stephen F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute states in the forthcoming ''Age of Reagan'' that both men ''transcended their environments as only great men can do, thereby bending history to their will.'' David Gelernter, a Yale professor and contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, explains that to ''grasp Reagan's achievement, we must understand the striking continuum of pacifism from the 1930's through the 1980's through today -- and remember, simultaneously, that Churchill had help changing Britain's mind (namely Hitler's war); Bush had help changing America's mind and his own -- 9/11.'' But is there a seamless continuum from Churchill to Reagan to Bush? Certainly Bush himself has not exactly shied away from the comparison. On Feb. 4, 2004, at the opening of the Library of Congress's ''Churchill and the Great Republic'' exhibit, Bush stated that ''our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew. . . . One by one, we are finding and dealing with the terrorists, drawing tight what Winston Churchill called a 'closing net of doom.' '' But after celebrating Churchill, many neoconservatives go on to champion empire, and at that point matters become trickier. Krauthammer has applauded the idea of American hegemony, which he calls ''democratic realism,'' in The National Interest. Shortly after 9/11, in an article called ''The Case for American Empire,'' published in The Weekly Standard, Max Boot wrote: ''Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.'' The former Canadian press baron Conrad Black, the chairman of the board of The National Interest, is calling for the creation of a Churchillian Anglosphere, while the historian Niall Ferguson wants the United States to quit being an ''empire in denial'' and adopt liberal imperialism. It's hard to see why it should. What, after all, was Churchill's imperial legacy? While he was laudably eager to establish a Jewish state, his forays into Arab nation-building after World War I, including the creation of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, plague the region down to the present. Far from helping avert the collapse of the empire, Britain's machinations under Churchill accelerated it. At the same time, it's not clear how ''liberal'' Churchill's imperialism actually was. He was a rather equivocal democratizer, declaring in 1942 that he had not become ''the King's first minister in order to liquidate the British Empire.'' He bitterly fought with Roosevelt over recognizing Indian independence, and he despised Gandhi. For many of the neoconservatives, however, the great liberal idol Franklin D. Roosevelt was a disaster. The former Bush speechwriter David Frum has hailed Churchill as the great man of the 20th century, while denouncing Roosevelt for not opposing Nazism and Stalinism vigorously enough. It seems clear that by shunting Roosevelt to the sidelines and elevating Churchill, neoconservatives are doing more than simply recovering a neoconservative hero from the past. They are, in effect, inventing a new interventionist tradition for the Republican Party that goes beyond anything Churchill or other British statesmen ever imagined. Jacob Heilbrunn, an editorial writer for The Los Angeles Times, is completing a book on neoconservatism. From checker at panix.com Wed Mar 30 20:22:13 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:22:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYTBR: (Summers) The Tempest in the Ivory Tower Message-ID: The New York Times > Books > The Tempest in the Ivory Tower http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/books/books-harvard.html March 17, 2005 By RACHEL DONADIO Correction Appended In 1937, H. L. Mencken offered some advice to the son of the publisher Alfred A. Knopf. ''My guess is you'd have more fun at Yale than at Princeton, but my real choice is Harvard,'' he wrote. ''I don't think Harvard is a better university than the other two, but it seems that Americans set a higher value on its A.B. If I had a son I'd take him to Cambridge and chain him to the campus pump to remain there until he had acquired a sound Harvard accent. It's worth money in this great free Republic.'' And so it is. No university occupies a more central place in the American imagination than Harvard. In ''The Sound and the Fury,'' the Compson family sells an inheritance of pastureland to send their son Quentin north to Harvard. His experience there, albeit fictional, does not become the stuff of university promotional materials. Bedeviled by a Southern past at odds with the secure respectability that Harvard promises to confer, Quentin cracks up and drowns himself in the Charles River. ''Harvard my Harvard boy Harvard harvard,'' he daydreams at one point. Repeated over and over, the word is reduced to syllables, those syllables to nothing. Harvard, boy, Harvard. What is Harvard? That question has come to the fore more than ever during the tumultuous presidency of Lawrence H. Summers. A brilliant economist who took office in 2001, Summers has become known for his brutally direct leadership style. As one joke circulating has it, he opens his mouth only to change feet. His latest stumble came in January. In [1]off-the-cuff remarks at a conference on women in the sciences, Summers said he wouldn't rule out the possibility that innate gender differences might help explain why there aren't more women in the hard sciences. Offered tentatively, [2]his comments set off a fierce debate, at Harvard and beyond. [3]Summers apologized to the faculty and vowed to ''temper'' his ''words and actions.'' But that wasn't enough for members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, who [4]passed a no-confidence vote in Summers at a faculty meeting on March 15 - the Ides of March. Taken by secret ballot, the vote was largely symbolic and did not include professional school faculty members. Nevertheless, it was believed to be the first in the university's history, and it sent a strong message of discontent. (The Harvard trustees have showed no sign of lessening their support for Summers, but at press time his fate remained uncertain.) The science comments weren't Summers's first misstep. Early in his tenure, he had a [5]notoriously testy exchange with one of the stars of the university's Afro-American studies department, Cornel West, who quit and went to Princeton after Summers questioned his gravitas. Other incidents followed, which highlighted Summers's seeming disregard for diplomacy and alienated many on Harvard's faculty. To some, however, the outrage was also a sign of trouble in academia - which, as [6]the critic Stephen Metcalf recently observed in Slate, ''has devolved into a series of now highly routinized acts of flattery, so carefully attended to that one out-of-place word is enough to fracture dozens of egos.'' But these altercations, though heated, are skirmishes in a much larger battle developing at Harvard and beyond. In some ways, it recalls the campus turmoil of the 1960's. Only this time around, the protesters aren't the undergraduates; they're the faculty, who to some extent remain immersed in the values and pieties of the 60's and are clashing with a president intent on bringing Harvard in line with today's political and economic realities. What's happening at Harvard goes far beyond Summers's personality; instead, it's about larger social and political transformations to which the academy - essentially a conservative institution made up of thousands of progressive minds - is deeply resistant. Much of this is mapped out in [7]Richard Bradley's ''Harvard Rules'' (HarperCollins, $25.95), a timely new book that sets out to catalog the flaws of Larry Summers. Well-paced and juicy, it nevertheless relies heavily on innuendo and on other people's reporting, since Summers wouldn't grant an interview to Bradley, a former editor at George magazine. Even so, ''Harvard Rules'' manages to shed much light on the current situation. In Bradley's view, Summers's mission has been ''to purge Harvard of the bonds that kept it from realizing its enormous potential and seeing itself in a new way - his new way. And that meant eradicating the influence of the 1960's.'' In some respects, Summers was a canny choice for the presidency. In his teaching days, he was the youngest professor ever given tenure at Harvard, at age 28, and was widely considered Nobel Prize material. He is a liberal, but of a particular kind. A former chief economist of the World Bank, Summers succeeded Robert Rubin as treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and was a leading proponent of globalization when many other liberals were lamenting its discontents. Summers also hews to a kind of bottom-line market-driven thinking, which can seem deeply at odds with the humanistic values of the academy. And he is unapologetic about American power on a campus steeped in post-Vietnam ambivalence about such things. In Cambridge, all this made Summers ''an unabashedly mainstream figure in a highly progressive culture,'' as [8]James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine in 2003. Yet Summers's politics and his brashness made him appealing to the Harvard trustees, who were seeking a president to pursue a mandate all but guaranteed to win enemies. Harvard, whose endowment stands at a staggering $22.6 billion, had launched plans for a massive expansion. Spurred in part by Cambridge's restrictive zoning, in the 1990's Harvard bought some 200 acres in Allston, an area of Boston across the Charles River from Cambridge. Still in the planning phases, the expansion has been a hornet's nest of complication, from negotiating town-gown tensions to determining which departments would be relocated. This has been especially problematic because of the university's decentralized structure, in which each of Harvard's professional schools and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences raise their own money and control their own budgets. Autonomy means power. As Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller report in their excellent ''Making Harvard Modern'' (Oxford, 2001), when Summers's predecessor, Neil Rudenstine, sounded out the law school in 1999 about possibly moving to Allston, they voted not even to consider it. The ''deferential'' Rudenstine, as Bradley depicts him, didn't push the matter. Summers, however, was appointed because of his willingness to ruffle feathers, with the understanding he would centralize power and guide the expansion forward. While Summers would certainly be better served if he secured the faculty's blessing, in practice, he doesn't need it. And so the frustrated faculty now finds itself sidelined in a crucial debate about its own future. Against this background, the resentment over Summers's comments about women becomes clearer. His remarks may have been misguided, but what is the point of a university if not to provide a forum for airing controversial ideas? Summers's comments seemed to mark a return to an earlier era in the gender debate - and so did the intensity of the response. In fact, today, the definition of feminism is open to interpretation. Now, a woman with an advanced degree can leave the workplace to become a stay-at-home mom and still be a feminist; she might even watch ''Desperate Housewives.'' In the broader culture, if not on campuses, the era of political correctness is decidedly over. But if P.C. is over, what comes next? There's no easy tag line for ''the oughts,'' because there's no immediately recognizable constellation of values. At moments like this, fraught with ironies and ambivalences, it's a relief to find villains. Yet the animosity is not just toward Summers himself, but also toward his stated intent to steer Harvard closer to the mainstream. His presidency, which began in October 2001, has overlapped with one of the most unsettling times this nation has faced, and he has viewed that as an opportunity to redress what he has called the ''post-Vietnam cleavage between coastal elites and certain mainstream values.'' He vocally supported bringing R.O.T.C. back to Harvard from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where it had been exiled after Vietnam-era campus protests and where it remained because of later protests over the military's discrimination against homosexuals. And he supported Harvard's honoring the Solomon Amendment, which ties federal funding to universities' allowing military recruitment on campus, something students and faculty had protested. In this way, as Bradley writes, ''Summers explicitly linked the future of the United States in its fight against terrorism with the success of Harvard.'' In another effort to address the global situation, Summers delivered a [9]speech on campus in September 2002 in which he criticized a campaign calling on Harvard and other universities to divest from Israel. ''Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent,'' he said. As his detractors saw it, ''Summers had crafted his talk not to promote debate, but to silence it,'' Bradley writes. In any case, Summers had sent a clear message, one other university presidents have been notably loath to communicate even as ugly anti-Israel sentiment in the guise of leftist open-mindedness has rippled across their campuses. It's not altogether surprising, then, that Bradley's book includes descriptions of Summers that echo familiar characterizations of President Bush. Summers ''is not an intellectual, because intellectuals know the power of doubt,'' a professor and signer of the divestment petition tells Bradley. In Bradley's view, that's only one of his shortcomings. Among many cartoonish characterizations in ''Harvard Rules,'' he dwells on Summers's table manners and often disheveled appearance. Beyond that he emphasizes that Summers happens to be the first Jewish president of Harvard, and notes that that might inform his views on Israel and foreign policy. He also speculates about New Republic editors ''whispering'' in Summers's ear. All this aside, Summers and the faculty have also differed over the nature and importance of a liberal arts education. With the rallying cry that students should know the difference between a gene and a chromosome and focus more on concrete knowledge and less on ''ways of knowing,'' Summers ambitiously decided to reform Harvard's curriculum. But his method worried many in the university. In the most convincing chapter in ''Harvard Rules,'' Bradley recounts how a report on the curriculum was delegated to administrators who commanded little authority and were perceived by some as puppets of Summers. What is more, Summers urged the evaluators to complete their analysis in less than a year, a remarkably short time compared with Harvard's earlier curricular reviews. Harvard's last major curriculum reform, in the 70's, capped years of careful study and produced the Core Curriculum, in which students are required to take courses in set subject areas, including sciences, literature and arts, historical studies, foreign cultures, and quantitative reasoning. In the end, a report published in April 2003 set a series of ambitious yet vague goals, including replacing the Core Curriculum with distribution requirements and putting a greater emphasis on ''interdisciplinary courses.'' One of its most striking recommendations, however, was that Harvard should ''develop distinctive course materials for use in, and potentially beyond, Harvard College,'' Bradley writes. The implication was that ''at some point, Larry Summers wanted to market those courses to students around the world, to use the Harvard brand name to teach 'foundational knowledge' to students whether they went to Harvard College or not,'' Bradley adds. This, he says, is a way ''to further stamp Harvard's imprint on the world's education; to promote an empire of the mind.'' And that inextricably identifies Summers with the broader, more vexed debate about the role America should hold among the nations. Indeed, the animosity toward Summers is also implicitly that of an academic culture, steeped for decades in questioning authority, that has awakened to find itself an imperial power. In all the recent turmoil, one Harvard constituency has been strangely marginalized: its undergraduates. They are the focus of another new book, ''Privilege'' (Hyperion, $24.95), a memoir by Ross Gregory Douthat, a self-important young conservative vexed by the discrepancies between the Harvard of his dreams and the Harvard of reality. Douthat, class of 2002, devotes far too many pages to his undergraduate romantic woes. Nevertheless, he paints a vivid portrait of campus life. Douthat is disappointed by the Core Curriculum and finds its offerings ''maddeningly specific and often defiantly obscure.'' In Douthat's account, few Harvard courses seem particularly worthy of export on the international market. Douthat, now a reporter-researcher at The Atlantic Monthly, was once employed to write SparkNotes, the cheat sheets students use to write term papers without doing the reading. He depicts his fellow Harvard undergraduates as essentially corner-cutting careerists, busy trying to score the right summer internships that will land them choice post-college gigs in Washington or New York. ''The ambitions of the undergraduates are those of a well-trained meritocratic elite, brought up to believe that their worth is contingent on the level of wealth and power and personal achievement they attain,'' he writes. ''The pursuit of these goals, in turn, depends on high grades in a way it did not for an earlier generation.'' Hence, the oft-heard cry, ''Look, I can't afford a B in this class if I want to get into law school.'' And hence Summers's efforts to crack down on grade inflation at Harvard, where in 2001 about 90 percent of students graduated with honors, compared with 50 percent at Yale that year. Patrician Harvard is long gone. The 60's are over, too. As Douthat notes, a Harvard undergraduate weekly founded in the 70's with the title What Is to Be Done?, after Lenin's Bolshevist pamphlet, is now named Fifteen Minutes. ''The change to a Warhol-inspired title says everything about the difference between that generation and mine,'' he observes. The shift may also signal a return to an earlier elite model, only today's elite are the children of the middle class, groomed on SAT prep courses and the right extracurriculars. A Harvard degree today, no less than in Mencken's day, is worth money in this great free Republic. Now, however, the exigencies of the meritocracy require it to come with a high grade point average. Sensitive to economic disparities, Summers has abolished tuition - $27,448 this academic year, not including room and board, which bring the total to $42,450 - for students whose families have annual household incomes below $40,000. Yale and Princeton have made similar moves. Bradley, however, sees this as public relations as much as genuine reform, since such families had paid only $1,000 a year before. Yet what about families who earn more than $40,000 a year but still can't pay for their children's education without significant sacrifice? At Harvard and elsewhere, the cost of college is eroding the idea of a liberal arts education in favor of a pre-professional one. Time will tell whether Summers's presidency will hasten that change. In ''Harvard Rules,'' Bradley describes the case of Joe Green, an undergraduate disillusioned by his experience as a student representative on the committee evaluating the Core Curriculum. ''Green kept thinking about a question one of his professors had put to him: 'If you could either go here and get no diploma, or not go here and get the diploma, what would you do?' '' Bradley writes. ''It bothered Green that he couldn't easily answer the question.'' It should bother the president of Harvard, too. The answer, in the end, is the difference between a great university and a brand name. Rachel Donadio is a writer and editor at the Book Review. Correction: March 27, 2005, Sunday: An essay on Page 12 of the Book Review today about Harvard and its current difficulties refers incorrectly to Princeton's financial aid program for students from less affluent families. Beginning in 2001, that university eliminated loans to students who meet criteria for need, substituting grants that need not be repaid. Unlike Harvard, Princeton has not eliminated tuition fees for such students and has not established a specified level of family income to determine eligibility. References 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/books/17bradley.html 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html 9. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/21/education/21HARV.html From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 31 03:46:08 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:46:08 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: A Mormon Daughter's Book Stirs a Storm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424B7280.9070907@solution-consulting.com> Interesting piece, Frank. I knew Hugh Nibley, lived next door as an undergrad, talked with him many times. I know one of his children, Tom. The other seven children - some of whom are highly estranged from the LDS church and would love to see it fall - are united in refuting her story. Martha's story actually has changed numerous times across the past ten years. She originally practiced self hypnosis to try to self-diagnose her problems, accused various people of molesting her before she settled on her father. As her sister said today on a radio interview, all her life, Martha has been a great story teller but highly unreliable. She changes her stories and expects others to forget the earlier versions. I have been in Nibley's home, and it was exquisitly small and crammed with stuff. No child had a room of his/her own (eight children, in a very small home). The ritual abuse story is too incredible (where/when could it happen in a crowded little house full of children, guests, students, and anyone passing by), even leaving out the fact that Hugh Nibley was a remarkably frank and open man. His lecture on Management Versus Leadership was a classic. He once gave the invocation - opening prayer in Mormon parlance - at the commencement exercises, and asked God to forgive us for coming before Him in the robes of a false priesthood. Another shocking moment. But he always meant what he said. Ten years ago there was a lot of paranoia about satanic ritual abuse, and I interviewed several patients who claimed it. I also interviewed several people who were abducted by flying saucers. The sincerity of their claims does not overcome the unreliability and unbelievability of their stories. One woman - not my own patient - claimed to have had a child who was ritually murdered and eaten by satan worshippers. A man I am acquainted with was the federal prosecutor, so he investigated the case. He had her examined by an OB who reported she was a virgin and had never had a child. This Martha Nibley Beck story seems to fit into the "recovered" (read, "constructed") memory syndrome. Lynn Premise Checker wrote: > NYT: A Mormon Daughter's Book Stirs a Storm > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/books/24morm.html > February 24, 2005 > > [Dr. Nibley's obituary follows. He died on the 24th.] > > By EDWARD WYATT > > The daughter of one of Mormonism's most prominent religious scholars > has accused her father of sexually abusing her as a child in a > forthcoming memoir that is shining an unwelcome spotlight on the > practices and beliefs of the much-scrutinized but protectively private > Mormon religious community. > > "Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith" > details how the author, Dr. Martha Beck, a sociologist and therapist, > recovered memories in 1990 of her ritual sexual abuse more than 20 > years earlier by her father, Dr. Hugh Nibley, professor emeritus of > ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and arguably the leading > living authority on Mormon teaching. > > The book, being published next month by Crown, an imprint of Random > House, has attracted significant criticism both for its depiction of > sacred Mormon ceremonies and for the author's effort to tie her sexual > abuse to what she says were mental disturbances suffered by her father > because of his role as the Mormon Church's "chief apologist." > > Dr. Nibley, who is 95, is ailing and is physically unable to respond > to questions, Alex Nibley, one of eight Nibley children, said in a > statement. Dr. Nibley has been aware of Dr. Beck's accusations for > several years, Alex Nibley said, and maintains that they are false. As > part of a defense of their father, Dr. Beck's seven siblings have > condemned her assertions and have hired a psychologist and lawyer who > has worked on lawsuits against therapists practicing recovered-memory > therapy. > > The Mormon Church issued a statement condemning the book, calling it > "seriously flawed in the way it depicts the church, its members and > teachings." Dr. Beck and her publisher have said she has received > e-mail messages containing death threats. > > In addition, Mormons around the country have participated in an e-mail > campaign against the book, sending more than 3,500 messages to Oprah > Winfrey, who has featured "Leaving the Saints" on her Internet site > and in the March issue of O, the Oprah Magazine. The magazine includes > a monthly self-help column by Dr. Beck, who has a doctorate from > Harvard. > > Though other recent books have taken aim at parts of the Church of > Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at well-known Mormons or at Mormon > culture, rarely have they focused on so prominent a figure as Dr. > Nibley. In 2003, for example, Jon Krakauer wrote about a group of > renegade Mormon fundamentalists in "Under the Banner of Heaven: A > Story of Violent Faith." As with the Beck book, the Mormon Church > issued a statement condemning it before it was published. > > Recovered memory, in which a suppressed traumatic incident is recalled > years later, has been one of the most disputed topics among > mental-health professionals in the last 15 years. The American > Psychological Association states that while "there is a consensus > among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were > sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to > them," most leaders in the field also agree "that although it is a > rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been > forgotten can be remembered later." > > But "Leaving the Saints," Dr. Beck's fourth book, seems as likely to > be discussed for the things it leaves out as for those it includes. > Among the omissions is an incident of sexual abuse that Dr. Beck said > recently in an interview was never suppressed. When she was about 9, > she said, a teenage neighbor barricaded her in his room, stripped most > of her clothes off and sexually assaulted her. He did not achieve > penetration, Dr. Beck said, and the incident was interrupted by her > father, who was in the neighbor's house at the time. Though she called > the event "extremely traumatizing," she said the incident was cut in > the editing of her manuscript to shorten the book. > > Dr. Beck also does not mention that one person she consulted about her > sexual abuse was Lynne Finney, a Utah psychotherapist who has said > that up to one out of three Americans were sexually abused as > children. In the early 1990's, Ms. Finney, who is referred to in > "Leaving the Saints" by the pseudonym "Mona," was a leading > practitioner of recovered-memory therapy, including the use of > self-hypnosis, a practice that some studies have shown can result in > the creation of false memories. Asked about the omission, Dr. Beck > said she consulted Ms. Finney only after having already recovered the > memories of abuse. She said that she practiced self-hypnosis once > under Ms. Finney but that it did not play a part in her memory > recovery. > > While Dr. Beck is now highly critical of the Mormon Church, in 1990, > she and her husband, John C. Beck, had a book published by a company > owned by the Mormon Church arguing that homosexuality is a compulsive > behavior that can be overcome. After leaving the church, however, the > Becks divorced and have lived openly as homosexuals, something each > acknowledged in interviews. Dr. Beck said she left those details out > of the book to keep it focused on the accusations of sexual abuse; > John Beck declined to comment further on the book. > > Those and other facets of Dr. Beck's story have been discussed online > in chat rooms and on bulletin boards, at sites devoted to Mormonism > and at those favored by people who have left the church and view its > practices unfavorably. The book's own Web site, > [1]www.leavingthesaints.com, has had more than 6,500 visitors in > February alone, triple the number in January, and has received more > than 200 e-mail messages, 80 percent of them expressing outrage at the > book, the publisher says. > > In an interview, Dr. Beck said she did not intend "Leaving the Saints" > to be an indictment of Mormonism. Though she said her book did not > reveal any church secrets, it discusses Mormon rites like the temple > ceremony, a sacred ritual, and subjects like regulation temple > garments, which Mormons wear under their clothes - in a sometimes > mocking tone that has infuriated many devout Mormons. Her publisher > said Dr. Beck had received at least one death threat by e-mail that > cited her depictions of Mormon ceremonies. > > "I didn't write it to convince anyone not to be Mormon or not to join > the Mormons," she said. "I just needed to get the story of my > childhood out of my system." > > Her childhood was marked, she said, by unexplained depression, > anorexia and despair that at times left her suicidal. Even before she > recovered her memories of sexual abuse, she said, she recalled > suffering unexplained pain and bleeding between her thighs when she > was about 5. She writes that she remembered thinking that "if anyone > finds out about it, no one will ever marry me." In her teens and 20's, > she writes, several doctors commented on unusual scar tissue in her > vaginal area, which she cites as physical evidence of the abuse. > Later, she said, doctors confirmed to her that the vaginal scarring > was not the result of childbirth. > > It was not until she was in her late 20's, however, while teaching at > Brigham Young, that Dr. Beck experienced a flashback that resulted in > the memories of what she describes as ritualistic rape by her father. > During the incident, which she believes took place in her home while > her older siblings were at school, her father recited incantations > about Abraham and Isaac. > > Dr. Beck's siblings, who have known about her claims for almost a > decade and several of whom attended at least one family-group session > with one of Dr. Beck's therapists, dispute her account, saying that no > evidence exists of abuse and that incidents in the book are either > inaccurate or made up. Rebecca Nibley, a sister, said Dr. Beck > "encouraged me to get my own recovered memories of being abused." > > "As hard as I tried, I couldn't remember anything untoward concerning > my father's behavior toward me, and I can't validate any of Martha's > claims," she added. > > Dr. Beck twice confronted her father about the claims, once at a > family therapy session with her husband and her parents shortly after > she recovered the memories. The other time was at a 2001 meeting in a > hotel, an event that she uses as a device in "Leaving the Saints" as > the story of her life and her understanding of her sexual abuse > unfolds. > > Joining her at that hotel meeting was a member of her extended family > who has supported Dr. Beck's assertions from the beginning. The family > member, who is identified in the book by a pseudonym, agreed to speak > only on the condition of anonymity after receiving threats of physical > violence because of her support of Dr. Beck. > > "I believed Martha from the beginning because the memories she had of > elements of the abuse - memories that never went away and were always > part of her history - also fit with the outward signs of the abuse I > saw in her growing up," the family member said. Speaking to Dr. Beck's > parents about it since, she said, "has only served to strengthen my > belief in the veracity of her reporting of her experience." > ------------- > > The New York Times > Obituaries > Hugh Nibley, Outspoken Mormon > Scholar, Dies at 94 > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/obituaries/25nibley.html > February 25, 2005 > > By EDWARD WYATT > > Hugh W. Nibley, a Mormon religious scholar who was one of the most > active and outspoken defenders of Mormon writings and teachings, died > yesterday at his home in Provo, Utah. He was 94. > > A spokesman for the family, Chris Thomas, said Dr. Nibley had been in > declining health in recent months. > > Though not a member of the formal hierarchy of the Church of Jesus > Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dr. Nibley, a professor emeritus of > ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, was regularly called on > by senior church officials to research and respond to questions about > or criticisms of Mormon teachings. > > Unlike many previous Mormon defenders, Dr. Nibley used his training as > a historian to support Mormon beliefs, making academic examinations of > the origins and documentation of events and people in Mormon history. > He focused his expertise on the Mormon Church's most sacred texts, > particularly the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, a > collection of the writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. > > For much of the last two decades, Dr. Nibley worked on a defense of > the portion of the Pearl of Great Price known as the Book of Abraham, > which was the translation by Smith of an ancient Egyptian papyrus that > he obtained in 1835 but that went missing after his death. > > In 1967 a researcher discovered the papyrus in the collection of the > Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was returned to the church, but new > studies of the document, based on modern Egyptian scholarship > including an understanding of hieroglyphics not available when Smith > was alive, claimed that the document was a common Egyptian funerary > document. Dr. Nibley rejected that interpretation. > > Dr. Nibley has been the subject of heated debates among Mormons and > former church members recently as one of his daughters, Martha Beck, > of Phoenix, has prepared to publish a memoir in which she accuses her > father of sexually abusing her as a child. The book, "Leaving the > Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith," is to be published > next month by Crown. > > Dr. Nibley's seven other children all signed a statement condemning > the book, saying they were "saddened by the book's countless errors, > falsehoods, contradictions and gross distortions." They said that Dr. > Nibley had vigorously denied the accusations, which were based on > suppressed memories that Martha Beck said she recovered in 1990. > > In addition to his children, Dr. Nibley is survived by his wife, > Phyllis Draper Nibley; a brother; a sister; 24 grandchildren; and two > great-grandchildren. > > Hugh Winder Nibley was born in Portland, Ore. He grew up there and in > Los Angeles, where he graduated from the University of California, Los > Angeles, with a history degree. He earned a doctorate in classics at > Berkeley, training that led him to the military intelligence corps > when he joined the Army in 1942. > > After World War II most of his life was spent in Utah, where he taught > at Brigham Young from 1946 through 1994. > > Although a defender of Mormonism, within the church he was also an > outspoken critic. In a 1984 commencement address at Brigham Young, > with leaders of the university and high-ranking church officials in > attendance, Dr. Nibley made a pointed contrast between leaders and > managers, extolling the first while denigrating the second. > > "That one caused a lot of trouble," Dr. Nibley told the Deseret News, > a newspaper affiliated with the Mormon church, in a 2003 interview. He > added that even the university's president "hated it." > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 04:13:43 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:13:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] schiavo In-Reply-To: <200503301900.j2UJ0I212069@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050331041343.40079.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin.<< --I haven't seen such a clear-cut distinction between liberals and conservatives on the case. Many liberals feel starvation is repugnant, many feel it's wrong to take her husband's word for it. Many conservatives, even Evangelicals, feel the government is intruding and that the issue should be addressed by changes to state laws and clarification of how disputes between spouses and family members should be resolved in the absence of a living will. It's a complex issue, and can't be used to slander liberals or conservatives as a mass. My own view is that Michael should have given Terri's parents custody and walked away. If she is non-sentient, she won't mind being kept alive for the sake of her parents' peace of mind. Florida law could be changed to prevent the removal of feeding tubes without a living will, or if the spouse has remarried or is in a new common-law marriage. But under state law, Michael is her next of kin, and he was able to establish in court that Terri did not wish to be kept alive on a feeding tube. If that is a bad outcome, the best way to prevent future cases would be to change the law, not target the judges for character assassination. They're not "anti-life" judges. They just read the law and ruled on it. I just wish we'd have a broader discussion of health care, global starvation and other issues. Terri Schiavo is a tragic case. Will we use her as a symbol, or will we look at the suffering of others with as much focus and attention? >>Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste.<< --Families DO make their own decisions, normally without controversy. People have been taken off feeding tubes before, without the amount of attention Terri Schiavo has gotten. The difference is that Terri's case is a unique custody dispute, where the husband has the right to do what he believes was his wife's will, over the objection of her parents. In the Schiavo case, the courts did exactly what they're supposed to do, they interpreted state law as it was written. They were not "activist judges", rewriting law to suit an agenda. Those who wanted state and Federal judges to override Florida law were asking for "activist judges". It is, apparently, all right to be an activist judge, as long as you're an activist on the right side. Ironically, less attention has been given to the infant in Texas taken off life support over the objections of the mother. The hospital has the right to do so, and money is taken into consideration. The bill allowing hospitals to make that decision over the next of kin's objections was signed by George W. Bush. I do not know if social conservatives will call Bush "anti-life" or if they will focus on future political gains made possible by Terri Schiavo's death. I imagine they will pressure Bush to appoint a Supreme Court member based on the litmus test of abortion, but I do not know if they will remind Bush of the bill he signed in Texas. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 31 14:01:18 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:01:18 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050331041343.40079.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050331041343.40079.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424C02AE.9040202@solution-consulting.com> The division here seems to run along the lines of disabilities / materialists. The disability advocates crowd - including Jesse Jackson and Tom Harkin - think this is an ugly precedent. We shouldn't judge whether other lives are 'worth living' and the fact is the woman was responsive to her parents and relatives and she did NOT leave a living will. So people saying she 'should' die because somehow her life isn't worth living range across the spectrum. It is the pro-death people whose arguments are so morally thin. I once asked a friend his stance on abortion, and he said he was against it. What about, I postulated, a baby who was known to be disabled or something? Dale looked down at his shriveled legs, the result of polio when he was five years old, and said, "I believe each person should have the right to live, and I believe I can speak with some authority about that." It was a sartori moment for me. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>The central weakness of the liberal case is >>> >>> >that it is morally thin.<< > >--I haven't seen such a clear-cut distinction between >liberals and conservatives on the case. Many liberals >feel starvation is repugnant, many feel it's wrong to >take her husband's word for it. Many conservatives, >even Evangelicals, feel the government is intruding >and that the issue should be addressed by changes to >state laws and clarification of how disputes between >spouses and family members should be resolved in the >absence of a living will. It's a complex issue, and >can't be used to slander liberals or conservatives as >a mass. > >My own view is that Michael should have given Terri's >parents custody and walked away. If she is >non-sentient, she won't mind being kept alive for the >sake of her parents' peace of mind. Florida law could >be changed to prevent the removal of feeding tubes >without a living will, or if the spouse has remarried >or is in a new common-law marriage. But under state >law, Michael is her next of kin, and he was able to >establish in court that Terri did not wish to be kept >alive on a feeding tube. If that is a bad outcome, the >best way to prevent future cases would be to change >the law, not target the judges for character >assassination. They're not "anti-life" judges. They >just read the law and ruled on it. I just wish we'd >have a broader discussion of health care, global >starvation and other issues. Terri Schiavo is a tragic >case. Will we use her as a symbol, or will we look at >the suffering of others with as much focus and >attention? > > > >>>Once you say that it is up to individuals or >>> >>> >families to draw their own lines separating life from >existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you >are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of >morality and into the realm of relativism and mere >taste.<< > >--Families DO make their own decisions, normally >without controversy. People have been taken off >feeding tubes before, without the amount of attention >Terri Schiavo has gotten. The difference is that >Terri's case is a unique custody dispute, where the >husband has the right to do what he believes was his >wife's will, over the objection of her parents. In the >Schiavo case, the courts did exactly what they're >supposed to do, they interpreted state law as it was >written. They were not "activist judges", rewriting >law to suit an agenda. Those who wanted state and >Federal judges to override Florida law were asking for >"activist judges". It is, apparently, all right to be >an activist judge, as long as you're an activist on >the right side. > >Ironically, less attention has been given to the >infant in Texas taken off life support over the >objections of the mother. The hospital has the right >to do so, and money is taken into consideration. The >bill allowing hospitals to make that decision over the >next of kin's objections was signed by George W. Bush. >I do not know if social conservatives will call Bush >"anti-life" or if they will focus on future political >gains made possible by Terri Schiavo's death. I >imagine they will pressure Bush to appoint a Supreme >Court member based on the litmus test of abortion, but >I do not know if they will remind Bush of the bill he >signed in Texas. > >Michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 31 14:19:04 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:19:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] schiavo Message-ID: <01C535B9.89E86D60.shovland@mindspring.com> I'm not sure that "disabled" applies to Shiavo. She was born and lived for many years fully enabled. Due to her parent's neglect her bulemia went untreated resulting in a heart attack followed by some incident in a hospital which left her brain dead. There is a huge difference between her and Christopher Reed, whose brain was fully functional. The decision to end life is made many times every day in America. I have had several relatives, possibly including my mother, who have made that decision. Someday I may make that decision. Just last night I saw a history channel program about the origins of Hitler and Stalin. The origins of Hitler's hatred for "useless eaters" was clearly demonstrated. Most of us are not like that, and I doubt that we will be going down the slippery slope. By the way, Tom Delay apparently participated in the decision to stop his father's life support in 1988. Perhaps his comments about "conscience" have to do with his own unresolved feelings about that incident. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:01 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] schiavo The division here seems to run along the lines of disabilities / materialists. The disability advocates crowd - including Jesse Jackson and Tom Harkin - think this is an ugly precedent. We shouldn't judge whether other lives are 'worth living' and the fact is the woman was responsive to her parents and relatives and she did NOT leave a living will. So people saying she 'should' die because somehow her life isn't worth living range across the spectrum. It is the pro-death people whose arguments are so morally thin. I once asked a friend his stance on abortion, and he said he was against it. What about, I postulated, a baby who was known to be disabled or something? Dale looked down at his shriveled legs, the result of polio when he was five years old, and said, "I believe each person should have the right to live, and I believe I can speak with some authority about that." It was a sartori moment for me. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>The central weakness of the liberal case is >>> >>> >that it is morally thin.<< > >--I haven't seen such a clear-cut distinction between >liberals and conservatives on the case. Many liberals >feel starvation is repugnant, many feel it's wrong to >take her husband's word for it. Many conservatives, >even Evangelicals, feel the government is intruding >and that the issue should be addressed by changes to >state laws and clarification of how disputes between >spouses and family members should be resolved in the >absence of a living will. It's a complex issue, and >can't be used to slander liberals or conservatives as >a mass. > >My own view is that Michael should have given Terri's >parents custody and walked away. If she is >non-sentient, she won't mind being kept alive for the >sake of her parents' peace of mind. Florida law could >be changed to prevent the removal of feeding tubes >without a living will, or if the spouse has remarried >or is in a new common-law marriage. But under state >law, Michael is her next of kin, and he was able to >establish in court that Terri did not wish to be kept >alive on a feeding tube. If that is a bad outcome, the >best way to prevent future cases would be to change >the law, not target the judges for character >assassination. They're not "anti-life" judges. They >just read the law and ruled on it. I just wish we'd >have a broader discussion of health care, global >starvation and other issues. Terri Schiavo is a tragic >case. Will we use her as a symbol, or will we look at >the suffering of others with as much focus and >attention? > > > >>>Once you say that it is up to individuals or >>> >>> >families to draw their own lines separating life from >existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you >are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of >morality and into the realm of relativism and mere >taste.<< > >--Families DO make their own decisions, normally >without controversy. People have been taken off >feeding tubes before, without the amount of attention >Terri Schiavo has gotten. The difference is that >Terri's case is a unique custody dispute, where the >husband has the right to do what he believes was his >wife's will, over the objection of her parents. In the >Schiavo case, the courts did exactly what they're >supposed to do, they interpreted state law as it was >written. They were not "activist judges", rewriting >law to suit an agenda. Those who wanted state and >Federal judges to override Florida law were asking for >"activist judges". It is, apparently, all right to be >an activist judge, as long as you're an activist on >the right side. > >Ironically, less attention has been given to the >infant in Texas taken off life support over the >objections of the mother. The hospital has the right >to do so, and money is taken into consideration. The >bill allowing hospitals to make that decision over the >next of kin's objections was signed by George W. Bush. >I do not know if social conservatives will call Bush >"anti-life" or if they will focus on future political >gains made possible by Terri Schiavo's death. I >imagine they will pressure Bush to appoint a Supreme >Court member based on the litmus test of abortion, but >I do not know if they will remind Bush of the bill he >signed in Texas. > >Michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00005.html >> << File: ATT00006.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 31 14:37:57 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:37:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Strains on Nature Are Growing, Report Says Message-ID: <01C535BC.2D468FD0.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx By REUTERS Published: March 31, 2005 OSLO, March 30 - Humans are damaging the planet at a rapid rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said Wednesday. The study, by 1,360 researchers in 95 nations, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems ever, said that in the last 50 years a rising human population had polluted or overexploited two-thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, including clean air and fresh water. "At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." The report said future strains on nature could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa from climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera. The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:37:15 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:37:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte: Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty Message-ID: Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte: Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty Abstract This article first examines the ideological composition of American university faculty and then tests whether ideological homogeneity has become selfreinforcing. A randomly based national survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 fouryear colleges and universities finds that liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by large margins, and the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities. A multivariate analysis finds that, even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats. This suggests that complaints of ideologicallybased discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study. The analysis finds similar effects based on gender and religiosity, i.e., women and practicing Christians teach at lower quality schools than their professional accomplishments would predict. [First: the report from CHE: [Conservative Professors Are Less Likely to Advance in Academe, Study Finds http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2005/03/2005033102n.htm Thursday, March 31, 2005 A report released this week offers evidence that American academe is dominated by political liberals, and that conservatives are less likely to attain jobs at top colleges. The report, based on a study that relied on data from a fairly large sample of institutions, is the first to attempt to answer the question of whether conservatives in academe face discrimination in hiring. Published in The Forum, a journal of applied research in contemporary politics, [60]the report is based on a 1999 survey of 1,643 faculty members at 183 colleges and universities in the United States. The study was conducted by Stanley Rothman, a professor emeritus of government at Smith College; S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a research group affiliated with George Mason University and supported by conservative foundations; and Neil Nevitte, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, an advocacy group that supports tradition-minded education, hailed the report as groundbreaking. "It's the first time that a rigorous social-science study has brought forth strong evidence" for discrimination against conservatives in academic hiring, he said. The report also says that over the past several decades academe has become increasingly liberal, and that liberals outnumber conservatives even in disciplines like economics, which are often perceived as more-conservative fields. The study examined the correlation between the quality of professors' academic affiliations (measured using U.S. News & World Report rankings and Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifications) and three measures of ideological orientation: self-identification on a "right-left" scale, political-party designation, and self-reported attitudes concerning abortion, the environment, and several other political and ideological topics. Ideology Ranks Second According to the study, academic achievement -- measured by such variables as how many articles, chapters, and books a scholar has published and the amount of time spent on research -- mattered most in determining the level of institution at which a professor teaches. But ideology was the second-most-important factor. "The ideological orientations of professors are about one-fifth as important as their professional achievements in determining the quality of the school that hires and retains or promotes them," says the report. After taking professional achievement into account, the study showed that being a Republican or conservative significantly reduces the predicted quality of the college where a scholar teaches. Women and Christians, it also concluded, are similarly disadvantaged. "We did validate the notion that conservatives are discriminated against," Mr. Rothman said in an interview. "No one has ever done that before." But Roger W. Bowen, president of the American Association of University Professors, said the study's methodology is "suspect" because the sample size of the survey was too small. "It's difficult to determine its value," he said. Mr. Bowen also said the study does not take into account other theories about why there may be fewer conservatives in academe: that conservatives may self-select themselves out of academe, or that "the intellectual cream rises to the top." Even if there are many more liberals than conservatives in academe, he added, "So what? What difference does it make to students?" In the report's conclusion, the authors acknowledge that the results are "preliminary," but say that conservatives' complaints of the practical effects of what they see as liberal bias in academe deserve to be taken seriously. _________________________________________________________________ Background articles from The Chronicle: * [61]This Just In: Democrats Outnumber Republicans on American Faculties, Studies Find (11/19/2004) * [62]Conservatives in a Liberal Landscape (9/24/2004) * [63]Patrolling Professors' Politics (2/13/2004) * [64]Survey of Ivy League Professors Finds Few Conservatives (2/1/2002) * [65]Psychologist Says the Field Needs More Conservatives (4/27/2001) [References 60. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2 61. http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/11/2004111905n.htm 62. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i05/05a00801.htm 63. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i23/23a01801.htm 64. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i21/21a01001.htm 65. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i33/33a02601.htm [E-mail me if you have difficulties getting the referenced articles. Now the article: The Forum Volume3, Issue1 2005 Article 2 Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty StanleyRothman* S.RobertLichter? NeilNevitte? *SmithCollege,srothman at smith.edu ?CenterofMediaandPublicA.airs,srlichter at cmpa.com ?UniversityofToronto,nnevitte at chass.utoronto.ca Abstract This article first examines the ideological composition of American university faculty and then tests whether ideological homogeneity has become selfreinforcing. A randomly based national survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 fouryear colleges and universities finds that liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by large margins, and the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities. A multivariate analysis finds that, even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats. This suggests that complaints of ideologicallybased discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study. The analysis finds similar effects based on gender and religiosity, i.e., women and practicing Christians teach at lower quality schools than their professional accomplishments would predict. The politics of professors is a subject of inquiry that has itself become politicized. On one side of the debate, those who argue that college faculty have a predominantly liberal or left-wing cast often link this with charges of a lack of intellectual diversity or the enforcement of "politically correct" ideas and behavior on college campuses (Kimball, 1990; Sykes, 1990; Horowitz, 2002). Conversely, those who reject this position sometimes characterize it as an attempt by conservative groups or institutions to intimidate liberal faculty (Lazere, 2004; Gamson, 1997). For all the fervor that characterizes this debate, much of the evidence cited on both sides is anecdotal. The best-known large-scale surveys of academic attitudes are 20 to 30 years old, and the implications of these data for the contemporary debate are themselves disputed. Further, the argument that conservative faculty are discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions is put forward by individual complainants but has never been tested systematically. This study addresses the empirical issues under contention by means of a national survey of college faculty that is more recent than any other comprehensive survey and more comprehensive than other any recent survey. The data set permits us to chart the political self-description of American college professors and to test the hypothesis that an ideological homogeneity exists in academia that has become self-reinforcing. In short, that professional advancement is influenced by ideological orientation. Previous Research Research on the political orientations of American college professors has long drawn upon a series of national surveys of U.S. college and university faculty, which were conducted by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1969 and 1975 and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984. These surveys were conducted partly in response to the upheavals of the 1960s, which turned many American campuses into centers of social and political protest (Carnegie Council, 1978; Carnegie Foundation, 1989). Studies based on the Carnegie data revealed that American professors were more liberal in their ideological orientations than the general population and professors in the humanities and the social sciences were more liberal than those in the natural sciences, engineering, and business (Lipset and Dobson, 1972; Ladd and Lipset, 1973; Ladd and Lipset, 1975). Liberalism was also positively associated with professional status among the professorate (Hayek, 1949; Lazarsfeld and Thielens, 1958; Ladd and Lipset, 1975). The political orientation of professors became part of the national political debate once again in the 1990s, when conservative critics began to argue that 1960s radicals and activists had joined university faculties in numbers sufficient to tilt the balance of opinion in academia sharply to the left. This was linked to the charge that left-wing professors were promoting intellectual orthodoxies that made academia unwelcome to those who did not share their ideology (Kimball, 1990; Sykes, 1990; D'Souza, 1991). Critics dismissed this argument as the intellectual paranoia of those whose ideas had fallen from favor (Epstein, 1995) or the academic expression of a resurgent national conservative movement determined to stamp out dissent on campuses (Messer, 1995; Gamson, 1997). Another line of criticism held that the entire conservative critique rested on faulty empirical assumptions. Hamilton and Hargens (1993) reanalyzed the Carnegie data and found that the proportion of faculty who identified themselves as liberal or left declined from 45% in 1969 to 39% in 1984. That placed college faculties well to the left of the general population, which was 17% liberal in 1969 and 18% liberal in 1984, but the difference seemed to be diminishing (Harris, 2002). The authors also argued that any liberal tilt was restricted to a limited number of disciplines, noting that liberal-left views were most common among professors in the social sciences (59%) and humanities (54%), and much less so in fields such as the physical sciences (37%), education (38%), engineering (23%), and business (17%). This critique has provided the empirical grounding for others who have argued that, as Hamilton and Hargens put it, "the incidence of leftism has been considerably exaggerated." It has also been argued that leftist sentiments are largely limited to the social sciences and humanities, or to a small number of elite institutions. However, Hamilton and Hargens found only that two-year colleges housed the fewest liberal faculty. Four-year colleges and various categories of universities boasted similar proportions to each other of liberal faculty. More recently this portrait has been challenged by studies of party preferences at elite universities and ideological self-descriptions by members of academic associations. A 2003 survey based on membership lists from the anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology associations found that self-described liberals outnumbered conservatives by a ratio of seven to one (Klein and Western, 2004). Similarly, a 2001 Brookings Institution survey of professional associations found Democrat to Republican ratios of four to one in economics and history, five to one in political science, and 47 to one in sociology (Brookings, 2001). Other research has focused more intensively on particular high-profile institutions. An examination of the political party registrations of faculty in 22 departments revealed that registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by ratios of 8 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to1 at the University of California-Berkeley (Klein and Western, 2005). The latter finding was reinforced by a Center for Responsive Politics report, based on Federal Election Commission filings, that the University of California and Harvard ranked first and second in per capita employee contributions to the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign, with Kerry attracting $19 for every dollar donated to Bush (Tierney, 2004). Thus, a debate that was based largely on anecdotal charges rebutted by decades old data is finally beginning to be addressed with more current and systematic evidence. The recent findings are certainly suggestive of a dramatic change in faculty political affiliations. But the party affiliation evidence is restricted to a small number of very elite institutions, and the professional association data are limited to a few fields and hindered by a low response rate (30% in the Klein and Western study). Further, none of these studies have attempted to address empirically the argument that ideological homogeneity stems at least partly from the exclusion of faculty with competing perspectives. Data and Method The central tenets of the contemporary debate can be formulated as two linked hypotheses: First, do full-time faculty in four year colleges and graduate institutions have differentially liberal or left of center political views and Democratic Party preferences? Second, is there any evidence indicating that these liberal orientations are self-reinforcing? Do faculty who do not share the prevailing mindset find professional advancement more difficult? We tested the first hypothesis through cross-tabulation of political self-descriptions, party affiliations, and social and political attitudes reported by a randomly-based national sample of American college faculty surveyed in 1999. The second hypothesis is explored using multiple regression analysis that examines the independent effect of faculty social and political ideology on professional success, when such other variables as academic achievement are controlled. Professional success was operationalized as the quality of academic institution with which respondents were affiliated, and achievement was operationalized in terms of publications and other professional and research-related activities (see Appendix). The data come from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada. This survey was conducted in 1999 by Angus Reid (now Ipsos-Reid), a survey research firm. The questionnaire included a wide range of items, among them demographic background variables; attitudes toward social, political, and academic issues; and (for faculty) academic background, activities, and accomplishments. The American sample includes 1643 faculty members drawn from 183 universities and colleges. The sample of institutions is stratified by institution type according to the Carnegie classifications of doctoral, comprehensive, and liberal arts schools. The data set contains responses from 81 doctoral, 59 comprehensive and 43 liberal arts institutions. Within each stratum, institutions were randomly selected from the universe of qualified institutions, with probability of selection proportional to size of faculty and student body combined. Full-time faculty members were then randomly chosen from each institution in numbers proportionate to its size. The response rate among the American faculty was 72%. Findings--Political Attitudes The NAASS instrument includes three separate measures of political identification: Ideological self-designation on a left-right scale, political party preference, and a set of items on social and political attitudes. The item on ideological self-identification is very similar to the one used in the Carnegie studies. The Carnegie surveys asked respondents to identify themselves as left, liberal, middle-of-the-road, moderately conservative, or strongly conservative. The NAASS form asked respondents to place themselves on a 10 point scale from "very right" to "very left;" with the responses recoded to match the five Carnegie categories. Table 1. Ideological self-description of college professors and general public The results indicate that a sharp shift to the left has taken place among college faculty in recent years. (See table 1) The 1984 Carnegie study found that only 39% of faculty members identified themselves as liberal, including only 6% that would describe themselves as "left," compared to 34% who identify themselves as conservative, including 4% who see themselves as "strong conservatives." The 1999 study found 72% of faculty to the left of center, including 18% who were strongly left (choosing "one" or "two" on the 10 point scale from "very left" to "very right"). Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were strongly right. It appears that, over the course of 15 years, self-described liberals grew from a slight plurality to a 5 to 1 majority on college faculties. By comparison, among the general population in 1999, 18% viewed themselves as liberal and 37% conservative. In 2004 the figures were almost unchanged --18% liberal and 33% conservative. Thus, according to these self-descriptions, college faculty are about four times as liberal as the general public. In addition, the NAASS respondents were asked to identify their political party affiliation as Democrat, Republican, Independent or "other." Fully half (50%) identified themselves as Democrats, compared to only 11% who identified themselves as Republicans, close to the five to one margin among left versus right of center self-identifiers (see Table 2). An additional 33% called themselves independent, and 5% specified some other party. At that time, 36 percent of the American public identified themselves as Democrats and 29 percent as Republicans. (Harris 1999). The 2004 figures are 33 percent Democrats and 28 percent Republicans (Harris 2004). These data also seem to show that the political differences across fields of study have narrowed considerably. Certainly the humanities and social sciences still lean farthest to the left, containing 81% and 75% liberals respectively. But that still leaves 67% liberals in all other fields of study. For example three out of four biologists and computer scientists now place themselves to the left of center, as do about two thirds of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists. Even among what appears to have once been the traditional enclaves of more conservative faculty, liberals outnumber conservatives, by a significant margin--for example, by 51% to 19% among engineering faculty and 49% to 39% among business faculty. Similarly, although 62% of humanities faculty and 55% of social scientists are Democrats, that leaves nearly a three to one margin (43% to 15%) of Democrats versus Republicans among other faculty. Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 4 to 1 among biologists and nearly 10 to 1 among physicists. Still, Republicans are somewhat less outnumbered than are self-described conservatives in a few fields. Business faculties contain equal proportions (26%) of Democrats and Republicans, and Republicans actually outnumber Democrats by 31% to 24% among agriculture professors, the only field in which the survey identified greater faculty representation on the right than on the left. At the other end of the spectrum, the most heavily liberal and Democratic fields are virtually unanimous in their political orientations. In four different departments--English literature, philosophy, political science, and religious studies--at least 80% of faculty are liberal and no more than 5% are conservative. English literature and three additional departments --history, linguistics, and performing arts--contain at least 60% Democrats and 5% or fewer Republicans. Sociology just misses making this list with 59% Democrats and 0% Republicans. Table 2. Political identification of college professors by field (%) Field of Study Liberal* Conservative* Democrat+ Republican+ N All Faculty 72% 15% 50% 11% (1643) Social Sciences 75 9 55 7 (289) Humanities 81 9 62 6 (449) Other 67 20 43 15 (905) Selected Departments English Literature 88% 3% 69% 2% (87) Performing Arts 84 16 63 2 (31) Psychology 84 8 63 7 (68) Fine Arts 83 8 55 4 (36) Theology/Religion 83 5 49 16 (26) Political Science 81 2 58 8 (67) Philosophy 80 5 62 11 (26) History 77 10 70 4 (62) Sociology 77 9 59 0 (61) Biology 75 17 56 13 (59) Communications 75 14 47 11 (66) Music 74 8 56 6 (53) Computer Science 74 26 43 21 (44) Mathematics 69 17 43 15 (49) Physics 66 11 48 5 (37) Linguistics 65 11 64 2 (53) Chemistry 64 29 41 25 (52) Education 61 29 55 7 (88) Economics 55 39 36 17 (44) Nursing 53 47 32 26 (32) Engineering 51 19 34 13 (90) Business 49 39 26 26 (101) Notes: * excludes middle-of-the-road + excludes third parties and independents Finally, the NAASS instrument fleshed out political self-designations with an index based on attitude items originally drawn from a 1995 survey of the attitudes of seven elite or "social leadership" groups in the United States (see below and Appendix). Exploratory factor analysis reveals that two factors account for the most variance in political attitudes among the elite groups. One factor captures a social liberalism dimensions while the other reflects what might be called political liberalism (Rothman and Black, 1999). A factor analysis of the same items in the NAASS produces similar results. The six items that loaded most heavily on two general factors were combined into an additive index. As Table 3 demonstrates, they fill out the self-designations with a substantive portrait of the attitudes of American college faculty on a range of social and political controversies. The differences in attitudes are located not in the extent of agreement so much as in the strength of agreement with the liberal positions expressed. Thus, the level of agreement ranges from a low of 66% who believe that the government should work to ensure full employment to a high of 88% who favor greater environmental protection, even at the cost of price increases or job losses. In addition, 84% are pro-choice, 67% give a pro-gay rights response, 75% endorse cohabitation without marital intentions, and 72% favor government action to reduce income inequality. (The full item wordings are listed in the Appendix.) Table 3. Responses of college professors to attitude items (%) Strong Somewhat Somewhat Strong Don't Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Homosexual lifestyle as 44% 23 17 14 2 acceptable as heterosexual Women's right to have 67% 17 7 7 1 abortion Accept extramarital 50% 25 12 11 1 cohabitation Government should 25% 41 23 11 0 guarantee employment Government should reduce 38% 34 17 10 0 income gap Protect environment despite 48% 40 9 2 1 higher prices, fewer jobs Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: NAASS 1999 Survey Somewhat greater attitude differences between social and economic liberalism appear if we array these issues in terms of the percentage of faculty who express strong agreement. Two-thirds (67%) strongly endorse a pro-choice position on abortion, half (50%) feel the same about extra marital cohabitation, and nearly as many strongly support more environmental protection despite economic costs (48%) and the parity of homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles (44%). The figures drop to 38% who strongly support governmental reduction of income inequality and 25% who strongly agree that the government should ensure full employment. These findings are consistent with what one would expect given the distributions of faculty self-identifications and party preferences. They suggest an across the board commitment to positions that are typically identified with contemporary liberal ideals. Further, this commitment is strongest in the realm of social or "lifestyle" liberalism than it is in economic liberalism. Because these six items provide considerably more information and specificity than the other single-item measures of political or social orientation, we combined them into an arithmetic ideology index (see Appendix) for the multivariate analysis that follows. Findings--Ideology and Professional Status The survey data confirm the first hypothesis, which posits a predominance of liberal to left faculty on American college campuses. But is there any merit to the claim that homogeneity makes it more difficult for conservatives to enter and advance in the profession? That proposition is more difficult to test systematically. In addition to the finding that conservatives are underrepresented in college faculties, it is necessary to show that conservative academics are hindered in their career advancement, and that this disadvantage is not simply due to a lack of merit on their part. To address these issues we examined the correlation between quality of academic affiliation (the dependent variable) and three measures of ideological orientation--left-right self-identification, political party identification, and the ideology index. The index scores were standardized to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher scores indicate more liberal attitudes and lower scores more conservative attitudes. An academic achievement index (see Appendix) was constructed from items measuring the number of refereed journal articles, chapters in academic books, books authored or co-authored, service on editorial boards of academic journals, attendance at international meetings of one's discipline, and proportion of time spent on research. This more inclusive measure was highly correlated with a simple count of academic publications. (Such counts have been criticized as simplistic or unidimensional measures of achievement, hence our use of an index including other factors.) There are various emblems of individual success among academics, ranging from monetary compensation to awards to chaired professorships. Perhaps the most significant single indicator of the academic status hierarchy is the quality of the college or university with which an individual is affiliated. We can construct an institutional quality index (see Appendix) by combining the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classification with the well-known US News & World Report rankings of universities and colleges. The widely used Carnegie classification divides schools into two levels each of research universities, doctorate granting universities, comprehensive universities and colleges, and liberal arts colleges. Altogether these make up what are described as eight "tiers" of institutions. While controversial among some quarters, the US News rankings are widely used, and they are derived from an intuitively reasonable and measurable set of variables, including peer ratings, test scores of incoming students, resources available to students, etc. One most frequently heard criticism is that the rankings measure institutional reputation rather than quality of students' education; for our purposes this is not necessarily a disadvantage. US News places the best colleges and universities in its "national" rankings. Institutions that do not make it into the national ranking are ranked regionally. We modified US News' ratings by placing the "national" institutions in the top four Carnegie tiers and the "regional" institutions in the bottom four tiers, with the particular tier determined by the school's ranking. The institutional status index was standardized to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. To try to detect whether professional advancement is influenced by ideological orientation over and above the effects of scholastic achievement, we turned to a multivariate model in which the achievement and politics of faculty are the key independent variables, and the dependent variable is professional advancement. The multivariate approach not only makes it possible to evaluate the independent effects of many factors simultaneously, by measuring the effect of each while all others are held constant, but it also allows us to compare effects of different determinants on the quality of institutional affiliation. We entered each of the three measures of ideological orientation separately into three equations. This was done to provide a comparison of the statistical power of the various measures while avoiding problems of multicollinearity. In addition to the political variables, we included several other factors that have been cited as sources of discrimination in other social contexts, among them race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and marital status. Preliminary bivariate analysis showed an interactive relationship between religion and institutional affiliation--institutional affiliation was related to religion only among active practitioners (defined as those attending services "at least once or twice a month"). Therefore we included "practicing Christians" and "practicing Jews" as dummy variables in the equation. (Other religions contained too few practitioners for statistically valid comparisons.) Table 4 reports the unstandardized and standardized (beta) regression coefficients and amount of variation explained when political ideology and partisan orientation, respectively, were incorporated into models used to predict the quality of institutional affiliation. Both the ideology index and party affiliation, when entered into multiple regression analyses, independently predict the quality of a subject's institutional affiliation. As we would expect, academic achievement matters the most in determining the quality of schools in which faculty teach. But ideology is the second most powerful predictor in Model I (beta=.09, p=.001), accounting for more than one-fifth as much variation in quality of institutional affiliation as does achievement (beta=.39, p=.001). That is, more liberal responses to the attitude questions predict a significantly higher quality of institutional affiliation, after controlling for scholarly achievement. Second, religiosity is negatively related to quality of institutional affiliation among practicing Christians (beta=-.06, p=.05), but not among Jews. The other variable that is a statistically significant contributor to the equation is gender: Being female is a negative predictor of institutional quality (beta=-.07, p=.01). None of the other potential sources of discrimination for which we have measures is significantly related to the dependent variable. Overall, this regression model explains just under 20% of the variation in the quality of schools in which faculty teach. This analysis confirms the expected impact of achievement on professional status, but it also suggests that ideology plays an independent role. In effect, the ideological orientations of professors are about one-fifth as important as their professional achievements in determining the quality of the school that hires and retains or promotes them. In addition to conservatives, our analysis finds that women and religiously observant Christians are disadvantaged in their placement in the institutional hierarchy, after taking their professional achievements into account. Model II shows that similar results are obtained when political party identification is substituted for ideology in the equation. The same four variables predict quality of institutional affiliation, although the role of Christian religiosity, which was significant only at the .05 level in Model I, is more clearly evident (beta=-.08, p=.001). Once again, achievement accounts for the lion's share of variation, but Republicans, women, and practicing Christians fare significantly worse than their colleagues at similar levels of achievement. Table 4. Variables associated with quality of school in which faculty teach**** Model I Model II Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients coefficients coefficients Ideology index .084*** .086 Republican -2.547** -.073 Independent -.982 -.042 Female -1.743** -.069 -1.692** -.067 Black**** 1.706 .026 1.405 .021 Asian 1.333 .025 1.246 .024 Gay or lesbian 1.296 .025 1.375 .026 Married .710 .028 .601 .023 Practicing Jewish 1.041 .019 1.058 .020 Practicing Christian -1.402* -.063 -1.788*** -.081 Faculty achievement index .433*** .388 .436*** .391 Constant 46.959*** 55.913*** Adjusted R squared .197 .196 N 1562 1562 * Significant at the .05 level; ** significant at the .01 level, *** significant at the .001 level. ****Historically Black colleges are excluded from this analysis. Finally, although the left-right self-designation was significantly related to institutional affiliation on a bivariate level, the relationship disappears in a multivariate context. The results for the other variables are nearly identical to those obtained in the other models, as is the overall level of explained variation. Therefore, this relatively poor showing may reflect the imprecision of the left-right self-designation in capturing ideological orientation, relative to an index derived from responses to specific issues. To summarize, the second hypothesis is confirmed when socio-political orientation is operationalized in terms of ideological attitudes or party identification, although not as left-right self-designation. These results show that individual scholarly achievement is by far the most important factor in predicting the quality of a professor's institutional affiliation. But being a Republican or conservative significantly reduces the predicted quality of the college or university where he or she teaches, after taking scholarly achievement into account. In addition, the regressions uncovered some relationships that clearly warrant further research, principally the role of gender and religiosity in academic advancement. The contemporary debate over discrimination against female faculty in hiring and promotion is beyond the scope of this paper, although our data seem to provide prima facie support for this allegation. We are not aware of similar allegations of discrimination on the basis of religion, but this is clearly a topic that demands greater scrutiny on the basis of our findings. We plan to pursue some of these questions in forthcoming papers. The analysis also suggests that being male confers a significant advantage. However, no competitive advantage is conferred by being black or white, gay or straight, married or single. Thus, when the logic of testing for differential outcomes according to race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation is applied to ideology and religion, being a conservative, a Republican or a practicing Christian confers a disadvantage in professional advancement greater than any of these other factors. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to inquire as to whether data from a large scale summary of American Academic institutions sheds any light on the contentious debate over the political culture of academia. Is it true that most professors in American colleges and universities are left of center politically? And is there any evidence to indicate that this ideological homogeneity hinders the professional advancement of political conservatives? To test these hypotheses we made use of the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey, the most systematic and comprehensive data set on the characteristics of American college faculty since the Carnegie surveys that were conducted between 1969 and 1984. First, we examined the political party preferences of faculty members, their ideological self-descriptions on a left-right scale, and their views on controversial social issues, ranging from government intervention in the economy to environmental protection to abortion rights. The results show that the political orientation of the professoriate is tilted toward liberal attitudes and the Democratic Party. Further, the predominance of liberal and Democratic perspectives is not limited to particular types of institutions or to those occupying particular fields of study. A comparison of the 1999 survey with previous surveys of American faculty indicates a substantial shift to the left in party identification and ideology since the mid-1980s, at a time when ideological and party identification among the general public has been relatively stable. Second, multivariate analysis of the available data show that even after taking into account the effects of academic achievement, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans taught at lower quality schools than did liberals and Democrats. The results do not definitively prove that ideology accounts for differences in professional standing. It is entirely possible that other unmeasured factors may account for those variations. That said, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism confers a disadvantage in the competition for professional advancement. These results suggest that conservative complaints of the presence and effects of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously, despite their self-interested quality and the anecdotal nature of the evidence previously presented. In conjunction with other recent studies, our findings suggest strongly that a leftward shift has occurred on college campuses in recent years, to the extent that political conservatives have become an endangered species in some departments. Our findings on the more controversial issue of discrimination against conservative faculty should be regarded as more preliminary. Indeed, if the findings are interpreted in this way, then they raise questions about the professional status of women and observant Christians in academia as well. To our knowledge this is the first time this sort of empirical analysis has been applied to this question, and there may be much more to learn from additional data analysis or examination of other data sets. Our goal is to draw attention to the application of rigorous methods to evaluate this controversy systematically, rather than letting the debate deteriorate into anecdotal charges and counter-charges. Our statistical analysis suggests that conservatives may have a legitimate complaint. The important thing is that their complaint be evaluated by methods that minimize the impact of the strong feelings that such disputes bring out on both sides. Appendix Composition of indices: The Ideology Index includes six questions that measure respondents' views on political and social issues: "The government should work to ensure that everyone has a job" (codes reversed); "Government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor" (responses reversed); "More environmental protection is needed, even if it raises prices or costs jobs;" "Homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality" (responses reversed); "It is a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion" (responses reversed); and "It is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married" (responses reversed). A Cronbach's alpha of .79 was computed for the index, indicating high inter-item correlation. The Institutional Quality Index is based on the Carnegie Foundation and US News & World Report rankings of universities and colleges. The best colleges and universities in the US are listed in the US News national rankings. Institutions that do not make it into the national ranking are ranked within each region of the US, e.g. North East. We have modified US News' tiers by placing the "National" institutions in Tiers 1 through 4 and the "Regional" institutions in Tiers 5-8. Tier 1 is the most prestigious and Tier 8 the least prestigious. The index is recoded so that higher score means higher quality. The institutional quality index is standardized to the mean of 100 and the standard deviation of 10. The Academic Achievement Index includes the following questions from the 1999 Academic Study Survey: "Within the past five years, and counting anything now in press, how many articles, if any, have you published in refereed journals, or as chapters in academic books?;" "Again, within the past five years, and counting anything now in press, how many books, if any, have you authored or co-authored?;" "Have you served on the editorial board of an academic journal?;" "How often, if at all, do you attend the international meetings of your discipline?; and "All things considered, what percentage of your working time would you say you spend on research?" A Cronbach's alpha of .70 was computed for the index, indicating high inter-item correlation. Bibliography Brookings Institution. 2001. National Survey on Government Endeavors. Prepared by Princeton Survey Research Associates, November 9. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. 1978. "Carnegie Council National Surveys, 1975-1976: Faculty Marginals." (Volume 2), September. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1989. The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989. D'Souza, Dinesh. 1991. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Free Press. Epstein, Barbara. 1995. "Political Correctness and Collective Powerlessness," in Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, (Eds.), Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, pp. 3-19. Gamson, Zelda. 1997. "The Stratification of the Academy." Social Text (51) (Summer): 67-73. Hamilton, Richard F., and Lowell L. Hargens. 1993. "The Politics of the Professors: Self-Identifications, 1969-1984." Social Forces 71(3): 603-627. Harris Poll, The 2004, 2002, 1999. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll Hayek, Friedrich. A. 1949. "The Intellectuals and Socialism." University of Chicago Law Review 16 (3): 417-433. Horowitz, David. 2002. "Harvard U: No Republicans or Conservatives and (Few) White Christians Need Apply." FrontpagemMagazine.com. Sept 5. Kimball, Roger. 1990. Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education. New York, NY: Harper Row. Klein, Daniel B. and Andrew Western. '2005. "How Many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford? Voter Registration Data Across 23 Academic Departments," Academic Questions (forthcoming). Lazarsfeld Paul, and Wagner Thielens. 1958. The Academic Mind. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Lazere, Donald. 2004. "The Contradictions of Cultural Conservatism in the Assault on American Colleges." Chronicle of Higher Education. July 2: B15B16. Ladd, Everett Carl, and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1973. Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Ladd, Everett Carl, and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1975. The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Richard Dobson. 1972. "The Intellectual as Rebel: With Special Reference to the United States and the Soviet Union. "Daedalus 101(Summer): 137-97. Messer, Ellen. 1995. "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education." In: Callari, Antonio, Stephen Cullenberg, and Carole Biewener, (Eds.), Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the New World Order. New York, NY: Guildford Press, pp. 526-536. Rothman, Stanley, and Amy Black. 1999. "Elites Revisited: American Social and Political Leadership in the 1990s." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 11 (2): 169-195. Sykes, Charles J. 1990. The Hollow Men: Politics and Corruption in Higher Education. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. Tierney, John. 2004. "Republicans Outnumbered In Academia, Studies Find." New York Times, November 18, p. 23. *StanleyRothman,coauthorofAmericanElites(1996)amongnumerousbooks,isdirec toroftheCenterfortheStudyofSocialandPoliticalChangeandisMaryHugginsGambl eProfessorofGovernmentEmeritusatSmithCollege. S.RobertLichterisProfessorofCommunicationatGeorgeMasonUniversity,wherehe directstheCenterofMediaandPublicA.airs.HislatestbooksareTheMediatedPresi dency(2005)andTheNightlyNewsNightmare(2003),bothcoauthoredwithStephenFar nsworth. NeilNevitteiscoinvestigatorofthe1997and2000CanadianElectionStudiesandpri ncipalinvestigatoroftheWorldValuesSurvey(Canada).Hisrecentpublicationsin cludeTheDemocraticAuditofCanada:Citizens(2004;coauthoredwithAndreBlais,E lisabethGidengilandRichardNadeau),ValueChangeandGovernance(2002;editor), AnatomyofaLiberalVictory(2002;coauthoredwithAndr?eBlais,ElisabethGidengi landRichardNadeau),andUnsteadyState:The1997CanadianElection(2000). TheauthorswishtothankDr.IvanKatchanovski,astatisticalconsultanttotheNAAS Sproject,forhisassistanceinprovidingthestatisticalanalysisforthispaper. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:37:56 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:37:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NULR: The Rehnquist Court: The Revolution That Wasn't Message-ID: SYMPOSIUM: THE REHNQUIST COURT: THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN'T Northwestern University Law Review Fall, 2004 [Calabresi's reply follows.] NAME: M. Elizabeth Magill* BIO: * Professor of Law, John V. Ray Research Professor, University of Virginia School of Law. Thanks to Lillian BeVier, Eric Claeys, John Harrison, John Jeffries, Mike Klarman, Daryl Levinson, Dick Merrill, Jennifer Mnookin, Jim Ryan, John Setear, Larry Walker, and participants in the summer faculty workshop series at University of Virginia School of Law School for helpful comments and conversation. Emil Barth, Jeremy Byrum and Anne Ralph provided excellent research assistance. The title of this article echoes the book on the Burger Court edited by Vince Blasi, The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution that Wasn 't (1983). This paper was prepared for an April 2004 conference on the Rehnquist Court held at Northwestern University School of Law. I thank the participants in that conference for their comments, and I am especially grateful to Professor Steve Calabresi for his thoughtful and useful commentary on my paper. SUMMARY: ... A principal legacy of the Rehnquist Court is its revitalization of doctrines associated with federalism. ... In contrast to the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions, these cases had no notable impact on separation of powers law. ... The Court has evaluated statutes that prevent the President from firing an officer based on policy difference (Humphrey's Executor, Morrison), that condition the President's removal on the Senate's consent (Myers), that involve Congress or the judiciary in the appointment or removal of the officer (Morrison, Mistretta, Buckley v. Valeo, Bowsher v. Synar ), and that appoint a judge or a Member of Congress to exercise governmental authority (Mistretta, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. ... Mistretta involved a creative appointment arrangement of another sort. ... Put the two together - protection of the judicial power and the integrity of the judiciary, and evaluation of appointment or removal arrangements that involve the Appointments Clause - and there is a large body of separation of powers law. ... If the Court rejects one claim (advice and consent to removal is not implied by advice and consent to appointment) it may at the same time be embracing another (advice and consent to removal interferes with the exercise of executive power). ... TEXT: [*47] ???I. Introduction A principal legacy of the Rehnquist Court is its revitalization of doctrines associated with federalism. That jurisprudence has many critics and many defenders. They disagree about how to describe what has happened, the importance of what has happened, and the wisdom of what has happened. But they all agree that something has happened. There has been genuine innovation in this area of constitutional law. ???Not so with separation of powers doctrine. Commentators do not perceive important shifts in the doctrine. Nor should they - the reasoning and results in the Rehnquist Court cases are of a piece with what came before. Lack of "revolution" (using the term loosely) was not for lack of opportunity. The Supreme Court had many opportunities to revise its doctrines. And, from the perspective that the Court has invoked in explaining many of its federalism cases, there is much - very much, in fact - that is not right about the structure of the federal government and the constitutional rules that permit that structure. ???This paper asks why there has been no "revolution" in separation of powers jurisprudence during the Rehnquist Court. Many would expect doctrinal developments in federalism and separation of powers to track one another. Investigating why they have not done so reveals, in fact, that the internal and external factors that influence the developments in the two areas are quite different. ??? [*48] ???II. Reading the Rehnquist Court ???A. A Federalism Revolution The Rehnquist Court has worked important changes in the doctrines relating to federalism. For the first time since the post-New Deal period, the Court has invalidated some acts of Congress as beyond the scope of the commerce power, making clear in the process that there are some judicially enforceable outer limits on the scope of that power. n1 It has also invalidated some acts of Congress on Tenth n2 and Eleventh Amendment n3 grounds. And it has held invalid some exercises of Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. n4 While their long-range effects are not entirely clear, taken together the Court's rulings plainly restrict the scope of federal power. ???B. Separation of Powers The Rehnquist Court had a steady stream of separation of powers cases, n5 and it becomes a flood if one includes Article III standing cases. n6 Several of the cases were high-profile and politically salient. The Court validated the Independent Counsel Act n7 and the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission; n8 it invalidated the line-item veto n9 and rebuffed President Clinton's executive-power based claim that he was entitled to a stay in [*49] a civil suit arising out of actions he took before he was President. n10 There were low-profile cases as well, some of them consequential. The Court invalidated a statute extending the statute of limitations for securities fraud cases; n11 it rejected a challenge to a statute on Origination Clause grounds; n12 it sustained delegations of authority from Congress to the executive n13 and the judiciary; n14 and it evaluated several Appointments Clause cases. n15 ???In contrast to the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions, these cases had no notable impact on separation of powers law. This claim is difficult to prove. For instance, perhaps some years hence the line-item veto case will be the centerpiece of an invigorated separation of powers jurisprudence. Oddly enough, that invigorated doctrine could go in two different directions. If the dissenters' views of what was at stake in the case-namely, that the case was about the permissible scope of delegations to the executive n16 - the invalidation of the veto could conceivably later be read to restrict the sort of authority Congress can delegate to the executive. Or the case might be read as a pro-legislative power opinion in the sense that the functional complaint about the veto was that it diminished legislative power relative to the President. The President's power was enhanced, so went the argument, because the line-item veto undermined Congress's ability to get what it wanted by bundling proposals together and forcing the President to an all-or-nothing choice on a Congressionally-designed package. n17 On that reading, the invalidation of the line-item veto could portend other Congress-friendly decisions. ???These speculative predictions notwithstanding, most commentators do not perceive dramatic changes in separation-of-powers jurisprudence. As for the black-letter doctrine itself, only one case (Morrison v. Olson, discussed [*50] shortly) self-consciously adjusted the existing doctrine in the way that is evident in some federalism cases. There are not signals of a quiet revolution. The court decided several delegation cases, applying the "intelligible principle " test and upholding all of the delegations. n18 It evaluated several appointments arrangements, largely applying the pre-existing framework. n19 Mistretta, n20 the Line-Item Veto Case, n21 and Clinton v. Jones n22 all applied already established frameworks. The court can subtly change the framework by applying it in a new way, but the outcomes in those three cases are unremarkable. In Mistretta, the Court clearly perceived the question as difficult. But, in light of the legitimacy of independent agencies (both the work they do under the understanding of the non-delegation doctrine and that their "independence" is constitutional), that result is far from shocking. The Court invalidated the narrowly drawn line-item veto but, in [*51] doing so, the Court applied the standard tools of analysis. Justice Stevens' opinion for the Court, in fact, reads much like Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Chadha. According to these two majorities, the legislative and the line-item veto ran afoul of the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution. n23 Whether either "veto" violated the relevant Constitutional rules was open to question, n24 but the similar decision-making method in the two cases is the point here. Finally, Clinton v. Jones, for all its political salience, was a routine application of principles developed in earlier cases. n25 ???Morrison is the only case that could not be described as ho-hum. That case explicitly adjusted the rules about permissible removal arrangements that were set forth in Myers v. United States n26 and Humphrey's Executor v. United States. n27 Myers held that Congress could not require that a postmaster's removal by the President be contingent on the advice and consent of the Senate. n28 Although a dispute about a postmaster's removal might seem obscure, the holding was consequential because it meant the judicially imposed demise of the Tenure in Office Act. The Tenure in Office Act, of course, was an 1867 statute dictating that an officer appointed with Senate consent held office until the Senate approved the officer's successor. n29 President Johnson was impeached in 1868, but not convicted, for discharging the Secretary of War in violation of the statute. n30 It was not until Myers in 1926 that the Court decided the constitutionality of such an act. The Myers Court's vindication of Presidential removal authority, however, was short lived. The holding was importantly limited just nine years later, in 1935's Humphrey's Executor. There, the Court held that Congress could, by providing commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission a form of tenure, limit the President's ability to fire such a Commissioner based on policy differences. n31 The Court in Humphrey's Executor distinguished [*52] Myers as involving a "purely executive" officer. Until Morrison, then, the constitutional line between Myers and Humphrey's was the difference between "purely executive" officers (that the President had the power to remove without any interference from Congress) and quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial officers (where Congress could limit the President's removal authority by providing tenure protection). n32 ???After Morrison, Congress's ability to limit the President's power of removal no longer turns on whether the officer is exercising "purely executive" authority. n33 After Morrison, the question is whether the tenure protection interferes with the President's ability to perform his executive functions, including his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." n34 This is an important change in the doctrine, and the result in the case - the idea that there can be an "independent" prosecutor in the executive branch - makes one sit up and take notice. ???But Morrison does not a revolution in separation-of-powers doctrine make. The doctrinal adjustment was already implicit in the arrangements sanctioned by Humphrey's Executor. Independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, in addition to their "quasi" legislative and judicial functions, also perform some "purely executive" functions. To the extent that for-cause limitations could be imposed on officials that performed any executive functions, even if they did not perform solely executive functions, the Myers line was not fully respected. Morrison admitted what had been true in practice. ???Morrison also respected another part of the pre-existing Myers/Humphrey's Executor framework. In addition to distinguishing between purely executive and non-purely executive officers, that framework distinguished between direct (Myers tenure-in-office act type arrangements where the Senate had to consent to the removal) and indirect (Humphrey's Executor for-cause tenure protection) congressional involvement with removal. The independent counsel's tenure was protected by the indirect method and in that sense it is not surprising that the Court viewed it as permissible. Finally, to focus directly on the comparison between two areas of law that is the question of this paper, to the extent that Morrison does represent important evolution in the doctrine, it is away from, not toward, the evolution evident in the federalism cases. The federalism cases are often defended as movement in the direction of a historically sanctioned allocation of authority between the federal and state governments. But Morrison moves away from, rather than toward, such historical arrangements. ???Perhaps this relative stasis in separation of powers law can be easily explained. One might argue that federalism doctrines, until the Court adjusted them, were inconsistent with a proper understanding of the constitution [*53] (however one defines "proper") while separation of powers jurisprudence closely tracked such understandings. But this is not satisfying. The federalism cases are often defended as bringing the law into line with historically-sanctioned understandings of the appropriate constitutional balance between the state and federal governments. A similar case for reform of the law can be made in the separation of powers area. Consider administrative and independent agencies, perhaps the most obvious arrangements that are in tension with both textual and historical constitutional commitments. Delegations of authority to these entities outstrip any that early Congresses, much less Framers of the Constitution, could possibly have imagined. Those agencies not only issue general rules resolving questions that one might think should be addressed by statutes (trade-offs between health benefit and cost, for instance), but they are permitted to adjudicate individual controversies. The actions these agencies perform are constitutionally permissible under the nondelegation doctrine and the doctrines that permit Article I courts. Officers that direct independent agencies can also be insulated from the President in various ways. These present-day institutional arrangements are, at a minimum, in tension with the text and the historical understanding of the provisions of the constitution that touch on separation of powers. There are other examples as well. Congress's now routine approval of omnibus bills diminishes the power of the President's veto. n35 The scope and breadth of Presidential lawmaking, through Executive Orders primarily, has grown dramatically over time. n36 There is thus no [*54] shortage of examples of institutional arrangements and practices that are hard to square with the text and the historical understanding of the constitution. The Court's failure to revise separation of powers law, in other words, cannot be explained as a product of correspondence between a proper understanding of the constitution (as that is understood in the federalism cases) and the Court's separation of powers jurisprudence. n37 ???In fact, in reviewing the Rehnquist Court's separation of powers cases, one is struck by just how tame they are. In a period where the Court seems willing to upset some old assumptions about the allocation of authority between the federal and state governments, the Court shrinks from any interpretation that would work a serious change in either the doctrine or in the structure of the federal government. The only two outliers are Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas, writing for himself, has asked whether the test that has long served as the touchstone of the non-delegation doctrine - which asks whether Congress has provided an "intelligible principle" to guide the exercise of discretion - serves to prevent "cessions of legislative power." n38 "I believe," he wrote, "that there are cases in which the principle is intelligible and yet the significance of the delegated decision is simply too great for the decision to be called anything other than "legislative.'" n39 Justice Thomas's doubts are a notable development, but it is equally notable that he is alone. Justice Scalia has also played the lone wolf. He dissented by himself in the cases validating the Independent Counsel Act n40 and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. n41 He has also expressed qualified support for notions of a unitary executive, arguments that have attracted few adherents. n42 ??? [*55] Lack of innovation in separation of powers law was also not for lack of opportunity. The Court had cases that it could have used as opportunities to revise the law along any of the possible dimensions - the relationship between the legislature and the executive, between the legislature and the courts, and between the executive and the courts. There were a number of non-delegation doctrine cases that presented opportunities to re-think that doctrine n43 and several cases evaluating appointment and removal arrangements for officers that could have permitted the Court to re-think its stance there as well. n44 ???III. Why No Revolution? One might have thought that developments in separation of powers doctrine would mimic developments in federalism law. If the evolution evident in federalism doctrines is a result of evolving methods of interpretation - the rise of more historically n45 or textually n46 minded constitutional interpretation, for instance - wouldn't that also suggest changes in separation of powers law? Some have explained federalism developments as part of the Court's new-found confidence, even arrogance, in its exercise of judicial review, a confidence that makes it more willing to invalidate the acts of the legislature without angst about the counter-majoritarian nature of its decisions. n47 But, if jurisprudential trends are changing or if the Court is newly bold, such developments should affect other areas of law. In particular, they should have implications for separation of powers doctrine. Federalism and separation of powers provisions of the constitution are both "structural," that is, they channel authority to government decisionmakers rather [*56] than place substantive limits on the actions of any and all government decisionmaking. Just as some have argued that the balance between federal and state power should be resolved by politics, n48 so too have some argued that the division of authority among the three branches of the national government should be left to politics. n49 At least as a starting point, then, federalism and separation of powers doctrines can both be considered apples. Why don't they ripen and fall off the tree together? ???This Part stakes out answers to that question. It identifies both internal and external influences on separation of powers doctrine, suggesting that, while there may be important analogies between the two areas of law, it is the dis-anologies that help explain the distinctive patterns in the Rehnquist Court. ???* * * The first two arguments suggest that the Court is unlikely to forsake judicial enforcement of many of the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. These arguments identify judicial incentives to protect the exercise of judicial power that are in play in some separation of powers controversies and factors that make certain separation of powers questions eminently justiciable. These factors help explain why the Court is likely to be continuously in the separation of powers business, and by that I mean relying on doctrines that will sometimes result in the invalidation of the actions of other governmental actors. As a result, the Court is unlikely to announce, as in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, n50 the explicit nonjusticiability of certain separation of powers questions or, as in the combined effect of Wickard v. Filburn n51 and United States v. Darby, n52 to implicitly state that anything goes. Given the factors identified below, in other words, parts of separation of powers law will be more static across time than federalism doctrines. ???A. Judicial Incentives and the Protection of the Independent Judiciary The most straightforward reason we are unlikely to see a full retreat from the enforcement of separation of powers provisions of the Constitution is the unique interest that the Court has in this field. To put the point simply: When the Court perceives a threat to the exercise of federal judicial power, it will act to protect the exercise of that authority. Fulfillment of [*57] that function alone would count as a separation of powers jurisprudence. More speculatively, I suggest that the Court's instinct to protect its own interests may make it more willing to seriously entertain other separation of powers claims. ???If the Court perceives the exercise of judicial power to be threatened or the judiciary compromised, the Court will act to protect itself. There are many cases historically that provide evidence for that proposition, and there are a striking number of cases in the Rehnquist Court that provide evidence for it as well. The most straightforward is Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., n53 where the Court held that Congress's extension of the statute-of-limitations for a class of securities fraud claims constituted an invasion of the judicial power because it required the re-opening of final judgments. n54 Sometimes threats to the judiciary do not come from statutes. In Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., n55 the Court held that a federal court can appoint, subject to some limitations, a private prosecutor in order to prosecute a criminal contempt. Such authority, the Court reasoned, prevented court dependency on the cooperation of the executive for the investigation and prosecution of criminal contempts. n56 ???Protection of the interests of the judiciary also pops up in all sorts of not-so-on-point situations. The Court's reading of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment in City of Boerne v. Flores bristles with indignation over Congress's perceived attempt to challenge what the Court views to be its superiority in the interpretation of the Constitution. n57 As a matter of [*58] statutory interpretation, the Court held that the Federal Election Commission cannot seek certiorari in the Supreme Court without the Solicitor General's advance permission. n58 The Court held the same with respect to the private prosecutor that it authorized District Courts to appoint in Young; in that case, the holding went against the views of the Solicitor General himself. n59 These rulings are easily explicable; they serve the interest of the Court by making sure it hears a single, familiar, and credible voice. Finally, one last example comes from the Court's invalidation of statutory restrictions on the types of claims that Legal Services Corporation-funded lawyers can bring. There, the Court reasoned that the restrictions were invalid in part because they might limit the arguments that lawyers could make to a court. n60 If one is looking for judicial attention to the interests of the courts, one finds it in all sorts of places. ???To understand some Rehnquist Court cases from this "court protection" perspective is a little more complicated. The Court's Article III standing cases, Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, n61 for instance - can be understood to be about the protection of the judiciary's interests. In Lujan, the Court is declining to hear a category of cases, which might be considered contrary to its interest in maximizing its power. But that is a naive interpretation. n62 One must notice that the Court is deciding not to hear cases that Congress, through broad citizen suit provisions, would like federal courts to hear. One explanation for the standing cases is that the Court will not hear cases that undermine what the Court views to be its appropriate role. That is about protecting the judiciary even if, narrowly understood, it is about not hearing a particular case. ???Sustaining the U.S. Sentencing Commission is likewise hard to understand from a "protection of the judiciary" perspective. The claims against that Commission were that Congress delegated legislative power inappropriately (a claim the Court easily dismissed) and, more particularly, that Congress could not assign this particular task to an entity in the judicial branch because it was not the exercise of a judicial power and the assignment threatened the independence of the judiciary. How could sustaining such an arrangement protect both general judicial interests and the specific exercise of the judicial power? ???One can plausibly understand Mistretta as protecting judicial interests by focusing on the internal hierarchy of the courts. A more objective sentencing [*59] system is something that district court judges might resist, but not necessarily something that appellate courts would resist. Objectivity in sentencing makes review of sentencing decisions easier. If one thinks of appellate courts as managers, the Sentencing Commission is a manager's dream. All the better that it is housed in the judiciary and run in part by judges. As for the Supreme Court's evaluation of the structure and location of the Commission, the Court was concerned about the potential for the Commission to threaten the independence or the integrity of the judicial branch. It was simply not persuaded that the Commission presented such a threat. ???Whether an outside observer can understand the standing cases, Mistretta or Morrison, as consistent with the protection of judicial power or of the judiciary as an institution is distinct from whether the judiciary perceives itself to be protecting itself. It is not easy to construct a positive theory of what counts as a threat to the judiciary and what does not. To take some of the puzzling cases of the Rehnquist Court, the Court viewed the statute at issue in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. n63 to invade the judicial power while the statute at issue in Miller v. French n64 did not. Nor did the Court view the courts' role in the appointment of the Independent Counsel, or the structure and location of the Sentencing Commission, to be a threat. These conclusions are puzzling to many. But it matters little whether we would endorse the Court's implicit vision of what qualifies as an invasion of the judicial power or a threat to the independence of the judiciary. That question is distinct from the more basic point here: When the Court perceives such a threat, it will rebuff it. ???It matters for separation of powers law that the Court will reliably protect what it perceives to be its interests. In the first place, as long as the Court is willing to police the boundary between judicial power and legislative or executive power and ask whether some assignment threatens the independence or integrity of the judicial branch of government, then, voila, that is a separation of powers jurisprudence. If the Court will always reliably protect itself, in other words, there will never be a Garcia in certain parts of separation of powers law. ???Such court protection may have broader implications as well. When the Court is policing the boundaries of judicial power and protecting the integrity of the judicial branch, it is also more likely to be in the separation of powers business generally speaking. That is, it will be more willing to consider, and even protect, what it considers to be the interests of the other institutions of the federal government. This claim seems plausible, though it cannot be proven. If the Court is protecting its own authority (Plaut is an example) and carefully inspecting arrangements to make sure its integrity and independence are not undermined (Morrison, Mistretta), then it would be a little odd for the Court to explicitly state or implicitly suggest that the [*60] boundaries of the powers of other branches and the integrity of those branches are beyond judicial ken. If this is right, the Court will hear the claim that the line-item veto diminishes the authority of Congress; it will hear and take seriously the claim that the Independent Counsel threatens to undermine the executive by weakening the President's control over the exercise of executive power. ???By comparison, there is no equivalent judicial interest in federalism doctrines. At one time, perhaps there was. If the authority of the federal courts were linked to the authority of the federal government more generally, then federal courts interested in protecting their own stature and authority would have an interest in expansive interpretations of federal legislative or executive power. n65 But that connection seems to have been attenuated today. The Court's conclusion in United States v. Lopez, for instance, that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress's commerce power n66 does mean that there will not be federal question cases arising under that statute in federal courts. But this enforcement of the commerce power does not seem to imply any limitation on the important prerogatives of federal courts, such as the scope of judicial review, or the deference the Court owes to state and federal actors. ???B. The Eminent Justiciability of Certain Separation of Powers Questions 1. Appointment and Removal Arrangements. - Separation of powers doctrine has long been populated with a large share of cases that evaluate how officials exercising governmental power are appointed or removed. The Court has evaluated statutes that prevent the President from firing an officer based on policy difference (Humphrey's Executor, Morrison), that condition the President's removal on the Senate's consent (Myers), that involve Congress or the judiciary in the appointment or removal of the officer (Morrison, Mistretta, Buckley v. Valeo, n67 Bowsher v. Synar n68), and that appoint a judge or a Member of Congress to exercise governmental authority (Mistretta, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. n69). Over the years, there have been many [*61] such arrangements and the Supreme Court has been willing to evaluate their constitutionality. ???Is this obsession with appointment and removal evidence of lawyers' capacity for paying attention to the trees and not the forest? As a result of the toothless nondelegation doctrine, the Court does not police what many government officials are authorized to do, but is for some reason intensely interested in the mechanics of their appointment and removal. As I argue below, this criticism is off the mark; these cases should instead be understood as evaluating part of the forest. But the point for present purposes is that the existence of such arrangements and the Court's willingness to develop a body of doctrine that evaluates them helps explain why important parts of separation of powers doctrine have not gone through periods, as federalism doctrines have, of explicit or implicit nonjusticiability. ???A striking number of the Supreme Court's separation of powers cases have always been about the appointment or removal of various officers. It surprises many to find out that Humphrey's Executor, a pillar of the law making independent agencies constitutional, turns on whether the appointment arrangements-and, specifically, the restrictions on the President's authority to remove such officers - for such officers are constitutional. Under Humphrey's Executor, Congress can insulate officers who perform quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions from the President by providing them a form of tenure. n70 While less clear, Congress can also apparently limit the President's appointment power by specifying bipartisanship (half from each party) on multi-member commissions n71 or requiring the President to choose from a limited list of appointees (Mistretta). But more direct Congressional control over the officer, through actual appointment (Buckley), removal (Bowsher), or consent to the removal by the President (Myers), it is clear, does not comport with the Constitution. n72 ???This pattern of appointment and removal cases continued in the Rehnquist Court. The crucial first holding in Morrison is that the independent counsel is an "inferior" officer for purposes of the Appointments Clause, meaning that his appointment does not require the advice and consent of the Senate. n73 Several other Rehnquist Court cases, including Freytag [*62] v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, n74 Weiss v. United States, n75 and Edmond v. United States, n76 raised questions about the line between a principal and inferior officer. Mistretta involved a creative appointment arrangement of another sort. The statute called for the appointment of three federal judges as Commissioners of the Sentencing Commission. n77 Likewise too with Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., where Congress created a Board of Review that included Congressmen and had veto power over the operations of Reagan National and Dulles Airports. n78 ???Leave aside for now why the rules about appointment and removal are what they are. What is most significant is that the Court has been willing (at least in the twentieth century) to evaluate appointment and removal arrangements, identifying constitutionally proper and improper ones. Compare this steady judicial activity with Garcia and Wickard/Darby's announcements that the Court will not be in the business of identifying and enforcing limitations in those areas. What explains the steady judicial activity? ???The character of the Appointments Clause as a legal rule must help explain the Court's involvement. n79 In contrast to many sources of law in federalism doctrine (and some in separation of powers doctrine), the Appointments Clause sets forth a rule that invites judicial enforcement. [*63] The clause sets forth multiple classifications: principal officers who must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate; inferior officers who may be appointed by the President alone, by a court of law, or by a head of department (depending on the dictates of Congress); and perhaps there is an implicit distinction between officers (either principal or inferior) and employees. In terms of clarity, the clause is not akin to the requirement that the President be thirty-five years old and a resident of the United States for fourteen years. n80 Nor is it as clear as its cousin, the Incompatibility Clause. n81 Even so, the Appointments Clause is a different kind of legal rule than the Tenth Amendment or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It seems designed for courts to answer questions about it. The provision is ambiguous enough to generate cases - the difference between a superior officer and an inferior officer, the difference between an officer and an employee, what counts as a head of department or court of law - but not so open-ended as to permit any interpretation at all. ???As any survey of the Court's nonjusticiability cases makes clear, it takes more than the existence of a constitutional rule of some specificity to explain justiciability. n82 There are provisions of the Constitution that supply rules arguably similar in character to the Appointments Clause but are nonetheless nonjusticiable. n83 For instance, a plurality of the Supreme Court held nonjusticiable a challenge to President Carter's notice that he would rescind a treaty that had been approved by two-thirds of the Senate. n84 Some of the arguments over the President's action were strikingly similar to the dispute over the Tenure in Office Act. n85 The challengers claimed that the Senate's advice and consent to the treaty implied the power to advise and [*64] consent when the President rescinded the treaty. n86 But the Court determined that the dispute was a political question and therefore nonjusticiable. I know of no general theory of nonjusticiability and developing one is far beyond the scope of this paper. What can be said is that the warning signs of nonjusticiability - evaluation of the President's actions in the foreign affairs area or scrutinizing Congress's internal processes - are absent in disputes over the appointment and removal of officials. The more complete explanation for the continued adjudication of appointment and removal cases, then, is the existence of a certain kind of legal rule (like the Appointments Clause) and the absence the usual warning signs of a credible nonjusticiability argument. ???One needs more than a rule that judges will enforce, however, to generate cases. One needs appointments arrangements that push at the boundaries of the rule. Congress has more than satisfied this requirement historically and continues to do so. To be sure, the legality of Congress's arrangements does not always turn solely on the Appointments Clause. Congress has also rested such arrangements on the necessary and proper power. And resistance to such arrangements has been rooted in claims about infringement of executive power or more general concerns about separation of powers. That said, many challenged arrangements over the years, and in the Rehnquist Court as well, have required evaluation of the Appointments Clause. ???The Tenure in Office Act - which, in effect, required the Senate's consent before an officer could be removed from office - is the granddaddy of these "creative" arrangements. It was approved, in part, on a theory rooted in the Appointments Clause. That argument was that the method of removal followed the method of appointment and thus if the Senate provided advice and consent for appointment it was also permitted to condition removal on its advice and consent. Many other arrangements straightforwardly test the internal workings of the Appointments Clause or its applicability. The Independent Counsel Act is only constitutional if the counsel is an inferior officer for purposes of the Appointments Clause. In Freytag, a special trial judge appointed by the Chief Judge of the tax court must be an inferior officer and the Chief Judge must be either a Court of Law or a head of department for the arrangement to comport with the Appointments Clause. n87 In Buckley, Congress had attempted to appoint government [*65] officials in ways that were inconsistent with the Appointments Clause on many grounds; n88 the Court determined that, given the functions the Federal Election Commissioners exercised, they were officers of the United States and therefore had to be appointed consistently with the clause. n89 ???Why does Congress establish these arrangements? Because rules that structure the appointment and removal of an officer help shape the incentives of that officer. There is probably not a one-to-one relationship here; government officials have many other pressures and demands on them that might on any given occasion swamp the incentive created through appointment and removal rules. But creative appointment and removal arrangements must have some effect otherwise Congress would not keep adopting them. Congress's interest is to arrange it so that the official will care about Congress's views (for example, the Tenure in Office Act, Bowsher, or Buckley) or has insulation from the President (for example, the independent counsel, independent agencies generally, or the U.S. Sentencing Commission). Congress, in other words, adopts these arrangements for reasons that do implicate separation of powers concerns. These are efforts to assert Congressional influence over the officer or to insulate the officer from an institutional competitor, the President. ???In its narrowest form, the argument here is that the Court has been ready to evaluate arrangements that explicitly test the reach of the Appointments Clause and that such cases matter because they implicate separation of powers concerns. I have also offered an explanation for why that is so, one rooted in the character of the legal rule embodied in the Appointments Clause. But, even if my explanation for the pattern of cases is not persuasive, it is the existence of the pattern that is important. ??? [*66] As with the earlier argument about the protection of judicial prerogatives, if the Court did nothing but evaluate claims under the Appointments Clause, that would constitute a separation of powers doctrine. Put the two together - protection of the judicial power and the integrity of the judiciary, and evaluation of appointment or removal arrangements that involve the Appointments Clause - and there is a large body of separation of powers law. ???But the argument has a broader form as well. Given the Appointments Clause cases that the Court will evaluate, the Court will also be inclined to evaluate a broader set of appointment and removal arrangements, including those that do not directly involve the clause. Assume that courts will generally consider claims brought to them that directly involve the Appointments Clause. First, such claims will often be bound up with other claims. The defense of the Senate consent to removal in Myers was rooted in part in the Appointments Clause and in part in the necessary and proper power. The claims against the Act were that removal is an executive power and that Senate consent to removal interferes with the exercise of executive power. If the Court rejects one claim (advice and consent to removal is not implied by advice and consent to appointment) it may at the same time be embracing another (advice and consent to removal interferes with the exercise of executive power). ???More than that, the holding in one Appointments Clause case takes on a life of its own, doing work in other cases where the Appointments Clause is not involved. Myers and Humphrey's Executor illustrate the point. In Myers the Appointments Clause was at issue, but the Court rejected the argument in favor of the executive power argument. Within a decade, the Court in Humphrey's Executor evaluated Congress's limitation on the President's power to remove at-will an officer of the Federal Trade Commission. Humphrey's did not involve the Appointments Clause. Congress's limitation was defended as an exercise of necessary and proper power. The statute was attacked on the ground that it interfered with the executive power, an argument that was based heavily on Myers 's holding that the removal restriction at issue there interfered with executive power. In that context, it seems almost inconceivable that the Court would hold the dispute nonjusticiable. One can make a similar point about Morrison. Evaluation of the independent counsel required the Court to interpret the Appointments Clause, but there were other questions in the case - the validity of an interbranch appointment, the President's removal ability - that did not involve the Clause but that would have been awkward for the Court to avoid. ???If the existence of a specific rule such as the Appointments Clause (as well as the absence of the usual signals for nonjusticiability) helps explain the regular appearance of cases that adjudicate appointment and removal arrangements, then the provisions of the constitution that touch on federalism (for the most part) provide a contrast. The Tenth Amendment and Section 5 [*67] of the Fourteenth Amendment provide the sharpest contrast. The meaning of those provisions is created only after judges take it upon themselves to interpret them by whatever method. The Commerce Clause is closer to a rule, but it is still a far cry from the Appointments Clause. Indeed, of the provisions associated with federalism, the Commerce Clause seems closest on the generality/specificity dimension to the allocation of legislative power to the Congress. The fact that the nondelegation principle is essentially nonjusticiable and that the interpretation of the commerce power meant, for at least some decades, that Congress could reach nearly any activity, is supportive of, not resistant to, the claims made here. Both the nondelegation doctrine and the commerce power rest on constitutional provisions that are open-ended enough (when compared to other legal rules of interest here) to vest a great deal of discretion in the interpreter, which leaves space for varying interpretations, including effective nonjusticiability. In contrast to the Vesting Clauses or the commerce power, a rule like the Appointments Clause is much less likely to generate a Garcia or a Wickard/Darby - a rule of explicit or implicit nonjusticiability. ???2. The Existence of Comparatively Many Rules. - This point about the rule-like nature of the Appointments Clause can be made more globally. When compared to the provisions of the constitution that touch on federalism doctrine, the separation of powers provisions of the constitution are comprised of a large number of rules. Separation of powers commentators tend to focus on the Vesting Clauses, which are, at their outer edges anyway, allocations of authority that can be difficult to distinguish from one another and hence difficult for judges to enforce in a straightforward way. n90 Even so, the Vesting Clauses tell us more about what the rules are than the Tenth Amendment or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. ???But looking beyond the Vesting Clauses, the first three articles of the constitution are literally riddled with "appointments clause-like" rules about how the institutions of the national government will be designed and staffed. Because governmental actors do not often take actions that violate the literal terms of the Constitution, these provisions do not generate a lot of cases. But their mere existence means, I think, that the Court is unlikely to announce that the allocation of authority between the institutions of the national government will be left to politics. ???Of the rule-like provisions of the Constitution, the ones that have generated some cases are the rules about bicameralism and presentment. Both the legislative veto and the line-item veto were invalidated in opinions animated by the conviction that the political branches had attempted to make an end run around the constitutionally-mandated procedures by which legislation is to be made. To the Court, the legislative veto permitted the enactment of legislation by a subset of Congress without bicameralism and [*68] presentment. n91 To the majority in the line-item veto case, there was a similar problem. n92 If Congress could not constitutionally give the President an actual line-item veto-defined as the ability to single out certain provisions of a legislative package and refuse to affix his signature to those individual provisions, while making the rest law-then Congress could not in effect do that same thing by providing for a time lapse and calling the veto cancellation. Neither judicial opinion is entirely satisfactory. It is contestable to say that the rejection of Chadha's deportation was itself a legislative act; and it is contestable to say that the President's cancellation authority was the equivalent of a repeal. But that misses an important feature of the two decisions: The existence, and arguable applicability, of the specific requirements that could be mechanically enforced was important to the disposition of those cases. ???To emphasize once again, the point here is quite narrow: Given the presence of a fair number of constitutional rules about how institutions of the national government are to work, rules that are specific enough that their application can be relatively straightforward, it is unlikely that we would see a Court opinion that explicitly or in effect treated questions about the allocation of authority among the branches of government as questions to be decided by politics. ???* * * The two explanations offered so far are in the service of the rather modest claim that, in some areas of separation of powers law, the Supreme Court will consistently adjudicate controversies - protecting the exercise of judicial power and evaluating alleged violations of certain types of constitutional rules. In these areas, the Court is unlikely to ever retreat in the way that it has with respect to important aspects of federalism doctrine. Though modest, this claim may be important in explaining the disjunction between the Rehnquist Court's movement in federalism doctrine and the lack of movement in parts of separation of powers doctrine. ???But the explanations offered so far do not explain the content of that doctrine. Yes, the Court will be involved in adjudicating Appointments Clause cases, but why has it settled on particular rules? The next set of arguments focus on that question. ???To do so, one must first draw conclusions about the substantive content of separation of powers doctrine. I will focus my attention on the Court's acceptance as a constitutional matter of the administrative state. This substantive conclusion is reflected in many different doctrinal areas. In important respects, the Court has resisted claims that the Constitution establishes a unitary executive. While Congress is not permitted direct involvement in the appointment or removal of executive officials, it is apparently permitted to limit the President's appointment powers in general ways and is definitely [*69] permitted to insulate certain officers from removal at will by the President. Of more significance is that Congress can delegate significant policymaking authority to expert bodies, mostly in the executive but also in the judiciary, and the Court will not police those delegations to determine whether they are so loosey-goosey as to constitute a give-away of legislative authority. Despite many arguments in favor of revitalization of the nondelegation doctrine, and many opportunities, the Court will not - emphatically will not - revitalize that doctrine. This Part asks why the substantive content of these parts of separation of powers law have not changed in a period where the Court is willing to revisit some old commitments. ???C. External Influences on Federalism and Separation of Powers Doctrine Many have written on the external changes - economic, political, demographic, sociological, intellectual - that have made the late twentieth century a period where devolution to the states as a matter of policy and of law is possible. Keith Whittington has provided one of the most comprehensive accounts. n93 He first traces the forces that pushed toward a centralized, federal state in the earlier part of the twentieth century - the rise of an expertise model of governing, of the positive state committed to economic regulation and redistribution, and of commitment to regulating public morality. n94 These centralizing forces reached their height in the 1960s, but were then overtaken by factors that both raised doubt about the efficacy and wisdom of centralized action and rehabilitated the states. In tracing that changing environment on federalism questions, Whittington first argues that many factors combined to make liberalism recede as the dominant vision, and with liberalism went the governing ideology that "underwrote the modern state." n95 So too did economic forces - the rise of globalism, the structure of post-industrial economic entities - combine to diminish the efficacy of any government's control over the economy. n96 As the federal government's stature as a moral force diminished and the states "gradually recovered [*70] public confidence," n97 the federal government no longer acted as keeper of the public morality. Whittington does not argue that the factors he identifies made a devolutionary trend in policy or law inevitable. But they do make it possible in a way that he argues would not have been possible, say, in the 1940s, 1950s, or even the 1960s. ???Most would agree that separation of powers doctrines can be influenced by trends such as the ones Whittington recounts as facilitating centralization and then making decentralization possible. It is now a fairly conventional claim that views, including judicial views, of Presidential power tend to expand during wartime. n98 Events of the type Whittington and others identify must have played a role in creating the view that administrative agencies operating under broad delegations from the Congress were constitutionally acceptable. n99 Many of the forces Whittington identifies as pushing in the direction of a centralized state suggested that the state should wield power through a particular form, that is, the expert bureaucracy. n100 If such forces could play a role in constitutionally blessing the administrative agency - a position operationalized in law through a toothless nondelegation doctrine - could not external events create conditions that would make that governmental structure less appealing and hence less constitutionally acceptable? ???Yes, of course they could, at least theoretically. But to understand why that has not occurred, it is important first to clarify what such a factor would have to suggest in order to influence the constitutional rules. Trends capable of influencing views on delegation would have to do more than cast [*71] doubt on regulation in general. That is because the alternative to administrative agency regulation under vague mandates is surely not no regulation. If a court invalidated a regulatory scheme on nondelegation doctrine grounds, the likely result would be that Congress would re-adopt the legislation and provide for private enforcement or it would cure the lack of intelligible principle, re-enact the legislation, and re-delegate to the same administrative agency. So factors that might have the capacity to influence non-delegation rules would have to cast doubt, not on regualtion generally, but on actions taken by administrative agencies. ???The constitutional doctrine facilitating delegations to such entities has stubbornly refused to move. Does this mean that the courts are enchanted by administrative agencies? n101 To the contrary. If the New Deal period started with enormous enthusiasm about the capacity for expert administration, that attitude was quickly replaced by skepticism about the possibility of the talented and public-spirited regulator. The agency official rather quickly came to be viewed as incompetent or, worse, in the business of delivering rents to the parties he was supposed to regulate. Judicial doctrines, mostly in the field of administrative law, evolved rather dramatically to take account of this new vision. n102 ???Why didn't such skepticism lead to a revision in the nondelegation doctrine? Let me offer three admittedly speculative suggestions. First, the rise in disenchantment with administration came at the wrong time given the overall jurisprudential commitments of the Supreme Court. The concern [*72] that agencies might be captured manifested itself in judicial doctrine by the mid to late 1960s. But that was a period where the post New Deal settlement - about the scope of federal power, about deference to social and economic legislation - was not open for re-negotiation. A revitalized nondelegation doctrine, remember, would mean sweeping invalidation of significant parts of the apparatus of the federal government. For example, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the FTC, the OSHA, and the SEC all administer some vague mandates; it is conceivable that adherence to nondelegation doctrine would necessitate invalidation of portions of each of those agencies' missions. But at the point when skepticism of agency behavior seeped into the courts, such sweeping judicial invalidation of parts of the federal government was not in the realm of the possible. More than this, as just noted, it was not (and still is not) clear what would be achieved by revitalizing the nondelegation doctrine and invalidating major parts of the administrative state. Judicial invalidation of parts of these agencies' missions may not have seemed much better. That alternative was not, as discussed earlier, the end of regulation of those fields. In the face of an invalidation, Congress would probably re-enact statutes and have them privately enforced or re-delegate to the administrative agency with more specific instructions. ???Finally, the nondelegation doctrine was not the only space in which courts could express their concerns about agency power. There were many outlets for judicial skepticism because courts had sub-constitutional tools available to tame that incompetent or captured agency. These were tools that courts used with vigor. Through the everyday mechanisms of administrative law, courts transformed what agencies were required to do in order to survive judicial review of their actions. n103 Agency actions had to be transparent, participatory, and reasonably justified for the court. n104 Once tamed, the administrative agency does not seem a candidate for reform even when it does become possible to reconsider old commitments. ???D. The Normative/Political Valence of Federalism and Separation of Powers Aside from those who describe the changing conditions that make movement toward devolution possible, many commentators stake out more normative positions on the Court's federalism decisions. They argue that the Court's federalism revival is explained by some factor and then they either [*73] decry or celebrate that development. Several commentators, for instance, have characterized the Rehnquist Court federalism revival as politically conservative. n105 Political conservatives are fans of federalism, so goes the argument, because state governments are less likely to enact certain types of regulation and wealth redistribution regimes. Given interjurisdictional competition, for example, redistribution of wealth is systematically less likely to occur at the state level. Others explain that the court has rightly become more persuaded of the traditional virtues of a federalist system-experimentation and inter-state competition yielding superior approaches (races to the top), diversity (carrying the possibility of satisfying more preferences), or the intrinsic value of decentralized government decisionmaking. n106 ???These arguments paint too broadly. It is hard to take much away from the checkerboard of the Court's federalism "revolution." Piece together the Court's decisions on the Commerce Clause, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the anti-commandeering rule rooted in the Tenth Amendment, and state immunity from damage actions rooted in the Eleventh Amendment. These movements in the direction of the states are a strange mishmash that hardly add up to a full-scale shift of government authority to the states. n107 Compared to the results one might hope to achieve, or fear would result, from a comprehensive devolution of federal authority to state governments, the Court's decisions seem a thin reed indeed. Nonetheless, I shall take as a given that - at the margins, as the economists like to say - federalism decisions can be understood, as well as defended or critiqued, along such dimensions as consistency with a politically conservative preference [*74] for state instead of federal action, or for the traditional values of federalism - experimentation, diversity, and localized decisionmaking. ???What is striking about all these perspectives on federalism is that, despite their differences, they are committed to the notion that limitations on federal power, and comparative enhancement of state power, have predictable consequences. They then bemoan or celebrate those consequences. But the shared assumption is that it really matters whether states decide something or the federal government decides something. The specific views underlying the assumption are that states will be more politically conservative; they will experiment by pursuing diverse responses to social problems, which can tell us something about the best response or at least permit people to match with the state regime that most suits their preferences; or states satisfy a deep need for decisionmaking that is close to the people. ???The shared assumption seems quite plausible. Shifting authority away from federal actors and to state actors is to send authority to a systematically different set of decisionmakers. State political systems are genuinely different political systems than the national political system. Consider first the formal differences one notices in a survey of state governmental structures. Many governors have line-item veto authority; n108 many state judiciaries are elected; n109 many states have traditions of referenda. n110 And the less formal differences are no less real. There are systematic ideological and cultural differences that map on to states and regions of the country. Levels of state regulation and state redistribution vary even in the current regime, where there is strong pressure toward national uniformity. ???Those who write about separation of powers believe that it really matters whether, for instance, Congress or the executive branch decides some question. And on many important levels, it does. The executive and the legislature are structured and staffed differently. Not only are these institutions structured differently, they have different jobs to do, different ways of doing those jobs, and different internal norms. And from a democratic theory perspective, the choice between Congress and an administrative agency is the choice between decisionmakers with electoral connections and those without direct electoral legitimacy. ???But those who think about separation of powers can exaggerate these differences and the comparison to federalism well makes the point. To take up the primary delegation question, if one compares the choice between [*75] Congress and the executive on the one hand to the choice between the federal government and state governments on the other, the consequences of the intra-federal choice seem puny because the differences by comparison look lilliputian. Compare two hypothetical cases: In one, the Supreme Court holds that the Occupational Safety and Health Act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because it lacks an intelligible principle by which the agency can implement the Act. Congress will have to re-write the Act with more specific standards if the regime is to stand. In the other case, the Court holds that there is no enumerated power that permits the federal government to have a federal regime of occupational safety and health. No Congressional re-drafting will solve the problem; occupational safety and health regimes, if they are to exist at all, will exist at the state level only. Is there any doubt that the latter would be revolutionary while the former would not? The federal political system is first and foremost a federal system. When compared to the federal/state choice, the incentives of decisionmakers in the federal system-and especially the two democratic institutions-are more similar than different; the constituencies that care about what government does are active in, have access to, and influence in the whole range of federal institutions. ???This matters because it means it is difficult to predict the outcome of a shift of authority from one institution to the other. n111 If the President had a line-item veto, would the world look a lot different? If Congress specified regulatory trade-offs instead of administrative agencies specifying regulatory trade-offs, would the world look a lot different? The answers to these questions are far from clear. Those choices would channel decisionmaking to different decisionmakers (to the President from Congress; to the Congress from the agency) with different ways of doing business. But no matter where the decision is lodged, the decisionmaker without the authority will continue to exist, will express its views, and will remain a repeat player in a federal system where there are thousands of occasions for inter-branch negotiation and compromise. More than that, the constituencies that care about the choice that is being made will energetically press their views to the decisionmaker, no matter where he sits. It is for these reasons that the allocation of authority between Congress and the executive, for instance, does not have the sort of systematic valence as does the choice between the federal government and state governments. And, without such predictable consequences to either celebrate or worry about, it will be much harder for external forces to influence in major ways doctrines like the nondelegation doctrine. ??? [*76] ???IV. Lessons of the Comparison This comparison between federalism and separation of powers has some broader lessons. One lesson is that we should be cautious of some of the global explanations that have been offered for the Rehnquist Court's decisions. A turn toward historically informed constitutional interpretation cannot explain what has happened in separation of powers law. Nor can an explanation that emphasizes the Court's confidence about its exercise of judicial review explain the Court's resistance to revising some parts of separation of powers doctrine. ???The most important lesson, though, is that federalism and separation of powers are not siblings. They might not even be cousins. True, they are both about channeling decisionmaking authority to particular institutions and they are not about placing substantive limits on government decisionmaking generally. But they are fundamentally different as a matter of positive law and political economy. For those reasons, the internal and external factors that generate the doctrine should be expected to produce different patterns. In other words, the main lesson here is that the federalism and separation of powers are apples and oranges. They will not ripen and fall off the tree together and we should not expect them to. ???FOOTNOTES: ???n1. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). ???n2. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). But see Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (rejecting Tenth Amendment challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994). ???n3. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000); Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). ???n4. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); Morrison, 529 U.S. at 598. ???n5. From the beginning of the Rehnquist Court to today, other than Article III standing cases, my count includes the following: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212 (1989), Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991), Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252 (1991), Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994), Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996), Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997), Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), and Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). ???n6. The most important include: Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990), Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), and Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000). ???n7. Olson, 487 U.S. 654. ???n8. Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361. ???n9. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417. ???n10. Jones, 520 U.S. 681. ???n11. Plaut, 514 U.S. 211; see also Miller, 530 U.S. 327. ???n12. United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990). ???n13. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996); Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991); Skinner v. Mid-Am. Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212 (1989). ???n14. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). ???n15. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252 (1991); Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991); Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994); Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), also involved the Appointments Clause, and Morrison and Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361, both involved inter-branch appointments. ???n16. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 465 (1998) ("It is [the nondelegation] doctrine, and not the Presentment Clause, that was discussed in the Field opinion, and it is this doctrine, and not the Presentment Clause, that is the issue presented by the statute before us here.") (Scalia, J., dissenting). ???n17. The majority in the line-item veto case may have gestured toward this argument when it noted, "our first President understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either "approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.'" Id. at 440. Whether the Court is invoking this argument, it is a conventional one against a legislative veto. See M. Elizabeth Magill, Beyond Powers and Branches in Separation of Powers Law, 150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 603, 627 & n.69 (2001). ???n18. Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361; Touby, 500 U.S. 160; Loving, 517 U.S. 748; Whitman, 531 U.S. 457. ???n19. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, which did revise the doctrine, is discussed in the text, infra text accompanying notes 26-44. The other cases evaluating appointments arrangements include: Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361, Metropolitan Washington Airports, 501 U.S. 252, Freytag, 501 U.S. 868, Weiss, 510 U.S. 163, and Edmond, 520 U.S. 651. ???n20. 488 U.S. at 374 ("In light of our approval of these broad delegations, we harbor no doubt that Congress' delegation of authority to the Sentencing Commission is sufficiently specific and detailed to meet constitutional requirements."); id. at 380 (outlining standard separation of powers test for evaluation of an institutional arrangement); id. at 390 ("In light of this precedent and practice, we can discern no separation-of-powers impediment to the placement of the Sentencing Commission within the Judicial Branch."); id. at 397 ("We find Congress' requirement of judicial service somewhat troublesome, but we do not believe that the Act impermissibly interferes with the functioning of the Judiciary."); id. at 404 ("In light of the foregoing history and precedent, we conclude that the principle of separation of powers does not absolutely prohibit Article III judges from serving on commissions such as that created by the Act. "); id. at 409 ("We have never considered it incompatible with the functioning of the Judicial Branch that the President has the power to elevate federal judges from one level to another or to tempt judges away from the bench with Executive Branch positions."); id. at 411 ("We see no risk that the President's limited removal power will compromise the impartiality of Article III judges serving on the Commission and, consequently, no risk that the Act's removal provision will prevent the Judicial Branch from performing its constitutionally assigned function of fairly adjudicating cases and controversies."); id. at 412 ("We conclude that in creating the Sentencing Commission - an unusual hybrid in structure and authority - Congress neither delegated excessive legislative power nor upset the constitutionally mandated balance of powers among the coordinate Branches. The Constitution's structural protections do not prohibit Congress from delegating to an expert body located within the Judicial Branch the intricate task of formulating sentencing guidelines consistent with such significant statutory direction as is present here."). ???n21. City of New York, 524 U.S. at 438-40 (holding that the line-item veto violates bicameralism and presentment requirements of Articles I and II). ???n22. 520 U.S. 681, 692 (1997) ("Petitioner's principal submission - that in "all but the most exceptional cases,' the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he took office - cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent." (citation omitted)); id. at 705 ("In sum, "it is settled law that the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.' If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and if it may direct appropriate process to the President himself, it must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct." (citation omitted)). ???n23. City of New York, 524 U.S. at 438 ("In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each... . There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 956-57 (1983) ("Since it is clear that the action by the House under 244(c)(2) was not within any of the express constitutional exceptions authorizing one House to act alone, and equally clear that it was an exercise of legislative power, that action was subject to the standards prescribed in Art. I."). ???n24. City of New York, 524 U.S. at 464-65 (line-item veto fully satisfies bicameralism and presentment requirements) (Scalia, J., dissenting); E. Donald Elliott, INS v. Chadha: The Administrative Constitution, the Constitution, and the Legislative Veto, 1983 Sup. Ct. Rev. 125, 134 ("The legislative veto "alters legal rights,' however, only because the Court chooses to characterize its effect that way."). ???n25. See supra note 22. ???n26. 272 U.S. 52 (1926). ???n27. 295 U.S. 602 (1935). ???n28. Myers, 272 U.S. at 176. ???n29. Tenure in Office Act, ch. 154, 14 Stat. 430 (1867). ???n30. See generally Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (Harold M. Hyman ed., 1973). ???n31. 295 U.S. 602. ???n32. 487 U.S. at 688-89. ???n33. Id. at 689. ???n34. Id. at 689-90 (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, 3) (alterations in original). ???n35. Judith A. Best, Budgetary Breakdown and the Vitiation of the Veto, in The Fettered Presidency: Legal Constraints on the Executive Branch 119, 121-23 (L. Gordon Crovitz & Jeremy A. Rabkin eds., 1989) (observing that "the last minute omnibus appropriations bill is virtually veto proof" because the President, not Congress, will take the blame for a government shutdown); Steven G. Calabresi, Some Normative Arguments for the Unitary Executive, 48 Ark. L. Rev. 23, 79 (1995) (arguing that the President's power to exercise his "national, anti-factional voice" in the appropriations process is reduced when unrelated riders are added to an omnibus appropriations bill because of the political consequences of a government shutdown resulting from a veto of the bill over the riders); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Bottom Line on the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, 6 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 233, 235 (1997) (discussing the diminishment of the President's veto power due to omnibus legislation as one of the reasons for support of line-item veto power in general and the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996); Glen Robinson, Public Choice Speculations on the Item Veto, 74 Va. L. Rev. 403, 407-09 (1988) (explaining that bills that bundle public and private goods together, including omnibus bills, are rarely vetoed because the President is unwilling to incur the political costs resulting from failing to approve the public goods provisions or has judged that the benefits of the bill overall outweigh the costs of the offending private goods provisions); J. Gregory Sidak & Thomas A. Smith, Four Faces of the Item Veto: A Reply to Tribe and Kurland, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 437, 467-74 (1990) (asserting that omnibus bills and other bundled bills diminish the President's veto power). But see Neal E. Devins, In Search of the Lost Chord: Reflections on the 1996 Item Veto Act, 47 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1605, 1619-23 (1997) (arguing that omnibus bills do not weaken the President's veto power because, "an energetic President, through the threatened use of his veto power, may take advantage of high stakes omnibus legislation to enhance his bargaining position"). ???n36. Kenneth R. Mayer, With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power 79-87 (2001) (concluding that executive orders have become more substantive in nature over time, that the number of significant executive orders issued each year has increased since the 1950s, and that "the percentage of executive orders that deal with foreign affairs, executive branch administration, and domestic policy has grown significantly since the 1930s"); Calabresi, supra note 35, at 30 (noting the "anti-Presidentialist" argument that the President has "too much power over lawmaking," in part because of a "much more aggressive presidential use of executive orders and signing statements"); Tara L. Branum, President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern-Day America, 28 J. Legis. 1 (2002) (observing that the scope of executive orders has expanded historically, especially in times of crisis). ???n37. I should note here that my focus is primarily in the domestic arena. I am not taking on and evaluating separation of powers questions that arise in the foreign affairs context. There is a large body of literature examining those contexts. See, e.g., John K. Setear, The President's Rational Choice of a Treaty 's Preratification Pathway: Article II, Congressional-Executive Agreement, or Executive Agreement?, 31 J. Legal Stud. S5-39 (2002). ???n38. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 487 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring). ???n39. Id. ???n40. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697-734 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). ???n41. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 413-27 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting). ???n42. The most obvious case here is Justice Scalia's solo dissent in Morrison. But there are others. See, e.g., Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 815 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring) (explaining that prosecution is an executive function and that is the reason that a federal court cannot appoint private citizen to investigate and prosecute criminal contempt); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 922-23 (1997) (stating that the Brady Act is constitutionally problematic, inter alia, because the President cannot control state officers who administer the law); id. at 959-60 (calling Justice Scalia's Article II argument "colorful hyperbole") (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 778 & n.8 (2000) (holding that qui tam relators can have Art III standing, but reserving the question of whether qui tam relators violate the Appointments Clause or the take care clause of Article II). ???n43. Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996); Am. Trucking, 531 U.S. 457. ???n44. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, is the most important case. There, the Court went beyond the existing precedent rather than revised it. In FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994), the Court held that the FEC did not have the authority to litigate on its own behalf in the Supreme Court. It was a statutory, not constitutional, holding. Id. at 99. The challenges to the FEC presented in the lower court were based on unitary executive theories. See FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 6 F.3d 821, 823-34 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (addressing challenges to the statute's requirement of bi-partisan appointment, to the FEC's independence of the President in its law enforcement activities, and to the appointment by Congress of ex officio members of the Commission). ???n45. See generally G. Edward White, The Arrival of History in Constitutional Scholarship, 88 Va. L. Rev. 485 (2002) (documenting the growth and influence of the role of history in legal scholarship generally and constitutional scholarship specifically). ???n46. See generally Mark V. Tushnet, A Note on the Revival of Textualism in Constitutional Theory, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 683 (1985). ???n47. Larry D. Kramer, Forward, We the Court, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 14 (2001) ( "The Rehnquist Court no longer views itself as first among equals, but has instead staked its claim to being the only institution empowered to speak with authority when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution."). ???n48. Herbert Wechsler was the most famous exponent of this argument in the modern era. See Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism, in Principles, Politics, and Fundamental Law: Selected Essays 49 (1961). Larry Kramer updated the argument. See Larry Kramer, Putting the Politics Back into the Political Safeguards of Federalism, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 215 (2000). ???n49. Jesse H. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court (1980). ???n50. 469 U.S. 528 (1985). ???n51. 317 U.S. 111 (1942). ???n52. 312 U.S. 100 (1941). ???n53. 514 U.S. 211 (1995). ???n54. Id. The statute at issue in Plaut was enacted in response to Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (1991), in which the Supreme Court established a statute of limitations for certain securities fraud suits; the suits had to be filed within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the basis for the claim and within three years after the violation. Id. at 364. As a result of Lampf, some suits that had been timely filed under the pre-Lampf regime had to be dismissed on the authority of Lampf. Congress reversed the Lampf holding for cases that had been filed prior to Lampf and were, under pre-Lampf rules, timely. Plaut, 514 U.S. at 213-15. Under the statute, such suits could be reinstated upon the filing of a motion. 15 U.S.C. 78aa-1 (2000). ???n55. 481 U.S. 787 (1987). ???n56. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987). United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693 (1988) is the follow-on case. Interestingly, in that case the Solicitor General argued that the private prosecutor did not need his approval to seek certiorari. Id. at 698-99. ???n57. 521 U.S. 507, 535-36 (1997). ???Our national experience teaches that the Constitution is preserved best when each part of the Government respects both the Constitution and the proper actions and determinations of other branches. When the Court has interpreted the Constitution, it has acted within the province of the Judicial Branch, which embraces the duty to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1 Cranch) 136, 177 (1803). When the political branches of Government act against the background of a judicial interpretation of the Constitution already issued, it must be understood that in the later cases and controversies the Court will treat its precedents with the respect due them under settled principles, including stare decisis, and contrary expectations must be disappointed. Id. ???See Max Kidalov & Richard H. Seamon, The Missing Pieces of the Debate over Federal Property Rights Legislation, 27 Hast. Const. L.Q. 1, 76 (1999) ("No one can read Boerne without sensing the Court's indignation at Congress' attempt in the RFRA to overrule Smith."). ???n58. FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994). ???n59. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693 at 698-99. ???n60. Legal Serv. Co. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545-46 (2001). ???n61. 497 U.S. 871 (1990). ???n62. Daryl J. Levinson, Empire-Building Government in Constitutional Law, 118 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2004). ???n63. 514 U.S. 211 (1995). ???n64. 530 U.S. 327 (2000). ???n65. See Michael J. Klarman, What's So Great About Constitutionalism?, 93 Nw. U. L. Rev. 145, 149-50 (1998) (noting that federal courts may have "an abstract bias in favor of expanding the power of the government with which they are affiliated" as well as "a concrete incentive to expand national government power and thereby augment their own jurisdiction vis-a-vis state courts" because an expansion of federal legislative power might result in the expansion of federal judicial power); G. Edward White, Recovering Coterminous Power Theory, 14 Nova L. Rev. 155, 168-69 (1989) (discussing the argument made by the anti-Federalist commentator "Brutus" that the federal judiciary will expand the power of the national government and its own jurisdiction by broadly interpreting the powers set forth in Articles I and III). ???n66. 514 U.S. 549, 561-68 (1995). ???n67. 424 U.S. 1 (1976). ???n68. 478 U.S. 714 (1986). ???n69. 501 U.S. 252 (1991). ???n70. Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). ???n71. FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994) (dismissing a challenge to bi-partisanship requirements for want of jurisdiction). ???n72. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 143 (holding that appointment by House and Senate to FEC not constitutional nor is requirement that both houses approve all appointments); Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 736 (finding it unconstitutional for Congress to retain power to remove Comptroller General, who performs executive function under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (holding that requiring the Senate to approve removal of postmaster first class is unconstitutional). ???n73. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670-73 (1988). ???n74. 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (holding that a special trial judge appointed by the chief judge of the Tax Court is an "inferior officer" and that the Tax Court is a "Court of Law" for purposes of the Appointments Clause). ???n75. 510 U.S. 163 (1994). ???n76. 520 U.S. 651 (1997) (stating that judge of Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is an inferior officer for Appointments Clause purposes). ???n77. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 397-408 (1989). ???n78. 501 U.S. 252 (1991). ???n79. A generalized version of this claim would be that the character of constitutional doctrine is explained by the character of the constitutional text that is being interpreted. More particularly, the argument would be that the more specific the constitutional rule, the less likely there is to be judicial creativity and, with that, evolving constitutional doctrines. While most would take the example in the text - President be thirty-five years of age - as a noncontroversial example that generally supports the broader claim, the broad claim cannot be correct. There are some obvious counter-examples that disprove it. The Eleventh Amendment, which sets forth a classic rule but has been interpreted as if it sets forth a standard about protection of state sovereignty, is one counter example. Many constitutional theorists have written on this question. For a characteristically thoughtful discussion of the claim about the relationship between constitutional text and constitutional interpretation by judges, see Frederick Schauer, Constitutional Invocations, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 1295 (1997). ???The claim I am making is much narrower. My claim is that the existence of a rule like the Appointments Clause helps explain the effective justiciability of the appointments questions. It is not that the appointments rule is likely to be enforced in some particular way - say, consistently with its "literal" terms. If its literal terms are violated, I suspect it would be literally enforced. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a good example.) But the bottom line claim here is not about the result that will be reached in appointments cases; it is that the likely judicial response to the Appointments Clause will be to enforce it in some way. ???n80. U.S. Const. art. II, 1, cl. 5. ???n81. Id. art. I, 6, cl. 2. ???n82. The literature on this topic is so large that even the standard survey footnote cannot do it justice. For a recent discussion and evaluation of the political question doctrine, see Rachel E. Barkow, More Supreme than Court: The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 237 (2002). ???n83. For example, the Court held nonjusticiable Judge Walter Nixon's challenge to the procedures used by the Senate in his impeachment trial. The Senate relied on a committee, which Judge Nixon argued violated the requirement of Article I, section 3 that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). There are also the several lower court cases that have held nonjusticiable challenges to military actions taken without a congressional declaration of war. See, e.g., Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936 (1973). ???n84. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). The Court did not have merits briefing and argument. Instead, it granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Then-Justice Rehnquist wrote for a plurality to explain that the question was a political one and therefore nonjusticiable. Id. at 1002. ???n85. And some of them were not. The fact that the treaty contained an explicit provision for termination by either party on one year's notice was crucial to the lower court's disposition in the case on the merits. See Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697, 699 (D.C. Cir.), judgment vacated, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). ???n86. The argument is outlined in the D.C. Circuit's opinion. See Goldwater, 617 F.2d at 703 ("[The argument] is that, since the President clearly cannot enter into a treaty without the consent of the Senate, the inference is inescapable that he must in all circumstances seek the same senatorial consent to terminate that treaty."). Interestingly, the court goes on to note that this argument would mean that the Senate must approve the removal of an officer that was appointed with advice and consent of the Senate, a position, the court points out, that was rejected in Humphrey's Executor. Id. ???n87. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991); see also Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994) (classifying military officers serving as military judges as inferior officers who are properly appointed based on their commission from the President); Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997) (determining that judge of Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is an inferior officer and thus appointment by Secretary of Transportation is permissible). ???n88. 424 U.S. at 113; see also id. at 118-41. There were six voting members. Two were appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate; two were appointed by the Speaker of the House; and two were appointed by the President. All six of the voting members had to be confirmed by both houses of Congress. ???n89. Id. Some cases about the structure of an office do not involve the Appointments Clause. The Court could evaluate the structure and appointment of the Sentencing Commission without much consideration of the Appointments Clause. And, while the clause speaks to the appointment of an officer, it does not explicitly speak to the officer's removal. Although tenure-in-office restrictions on removal were, as noted in the text, rooted in a negative implication of the Appointments Clause, other cases were not defended on that theory. Where Congress kept removal power, as in Bowsher v. Synar, the Court's evaluation did have to involve the Appointments Clause. 478 U.S. 714, 765-766 (1986) (White, J., dissenting). And the several cases involving what I have termed "indirect" restrictions on removal - illustrated by Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629 (1935) and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 692-93 (1988) - were justified under the necessary and proper power. One could conceivably understand them as a "lesser included power" to a tenure-in-office power which was itself rooted in part on the Senate's role in advice and consent. But they have not generally been defended on that ground. ???n90. Magill, supra note 17, at 608-26. ???n91. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). ???n92. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). ???n93. Keith E. Whittington, Dismantling the Modern State? The Changing Structural Foundations of Federalism, 25 Hastings Const. L.Q. 483 (1998) [hereinafter Whittington, Dismantling]; Keith E. Whittington, Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive, 51 Duke L.J. 477, 496-506 (2001) (explaining the shift in the Rehnquist's Court's attitude toward federalism as a response to changing "economic and social conditions," increasing Presidential and intellectual support for federalism, and decreasing public trust in the federal government) [hereinafter Whittington, Federalism Offensive]; see also Howard Gillman, Reconnecting the Modern Supreme Court to the Historical Evolution of American Capitalism, in The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Interpretations 235, 241-46 (Howard Gillman & Cornell Clayton eds., 1999) (explaining the New Deal shift in the Court's federalism preferences as a result of changes in the national economy due to industrialization and suggesting that the reemergence of federalism associated with the Rehnquist Court may also be due to major economic changes, such as globalization and decentralization). ???n94. Whittington, Dismantling, supra note 93, at 490-503. ???n95. Id. at 510. ???n96. Id. at 511-16. ???n97. Id. at 516. Christopher Schroeder supplements the account by pointing to the ways in which distrust of the federal government has grown dramatically in recent years. Christopher H. Schroeder, Causes of the Recent Turn in Constitutional Interpretation, 51 Duke L.J. 307, 334-51 (2001). ???n98. Joel R. Paul, The Geopolitical Constitution: Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 671, 681-83, 708-22, 748-66 (1998) (arguing that the judiciary's acceptance of the argument of executive necessity in foreign affairs and national security cases during the Cold War, and the resulting entrenchment of deference to the executive in these areas, has led to a "permanent expansion of executive power"); Jill Elaine Hasday, Civil War as Paradigm: Reestablishing the Rule of Law at the End of the Cold War, 5 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 129, 130-32, 137-40 (1996) (comparing the expansive understandings of executive power during the Civil War and the Cold War); Jules Lobel, Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism, 98 Yale L.J. 1385, 1398-1412, 1418-21 (1989) (discussing the growth of executive power during the twentieth century as a result of the Cold War and U.S. involvement in international affairs (such as the drug war, Central America's instability in the 1980s, and the Iran-Contra affair)); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946, 37 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1, 4-21 (1987) (discussing Supreme Court cases dealing with executive and legislative powers during World War II). ???n99. Cynthia R. Farina, Statutory Interpretation and the Balance of Power in the Administrative State, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 452, 479-87 (1989) (tracing the development of the nondelegation doctrine in the twentieth century and its application to administrative agencies); Thomas W. Merrill, Capture Theory and the Courts: 1967-1983, 72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1039, 1056-59, 1104-06 (1997) (discussing the public interest understanding of administrative agencies and its influence on the nondelegation doctrine). ???n100. Whittington, Dismantling, supra note 93, at 490-93; G. Edward White, The Constitution and the New Deal 94-129 (2000). ???n101. Eric Claeys has thoughtfully argued that the Supreme Court's case law can be explained by commitment to a progressive theory of apolitical administration. When apolitical administration is advanced, the Court upholds the arrangement; when apolitical administration is undermined, the Court invalidates the arrangement. See Eric R. Claeys, Progressive Political Theory and Separation of Powers on the Burger and Rehnquist Courts (forthcoming 2005), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=480691 (last visited Sept. 16, 2004). As I suggest in the text, I think the argument misses the serious skepticism of agency decisionmaking that is now reflected in administrative law doctrines. ???n102. Merrill, supra note 99, at 1059-68, 1075-1112 (discussing the shift in the dominant understanding of administrative agencies from public trust to capture theory and the resulting consequences for legal doctrines concerning agencies); Reuel E. Schiller, Rulemaking's Promise: Administrative Law and Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s, 53 Admin. L. Rev. 1139, 1142, 1149-55 (2001) (explaining federal court decisions of the 1960s and '70s that heightened review of agency actions and required agencies to engage in rulemaking, in part, as a response to criticism that agencies had become "arbitrary, inefficient, and inevitability captured by the interests they were supposed to regulate") [hereinafter Schiller, Rulemaking's Promise]; Reuel E. Schiller, Enlarging the Administrative Polity: Administrative Law and the Changing Definition of Pluralism, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1389, 1417-42 (2000) (describing the decline of "interest group pluralism" and subsequent efforts by courts to make the administrative process more participatory through the doctrines of judicial review, administrative process, and standing) [hereinafter Schiller, Enlarging the Administrative Polity]; Richard B. Stewart, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1669, 1670, 1712-60 (1975) (identifying the change in attitude towards the traditional administrative state and describing the resulting development of legal doctrines by federal judges to insure fair representation of parties affected by the actions of administrative agencies). ???n103. See M. Elizabeth Magill, Agency Choice of Policymaking Form, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2004). ???n104. See Stewart, supra note 102, at 1717-22 (discussing the requirements of administrative process and adequate consideration of interests, the rights of participation by individuals in agency proceedings, and the expansion of standing); Merrill, supra note 99, at 1074-1103 (discussing the expansion of the "availability" and "scope" of judicial review of administrative actions); Schiller, Enlarging the Administrative Polity, supra note 102, at 1417-42. Such sub-constitutional activity continues apace. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). ???n105. See, e.g., Herman Schwartz, The States' Rights Assault on Federal Authority, in The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right 155-67 (Herman Schwarz ed., 2002) (asserting that the Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence is a "states' rights resurgence" and should be understood as a masked "assault on those shortchanged by birth and by fortune"). ???n106. Steven G. Calabresi, Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A Normative Defense, 574 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 24, 27-28 (2001) (recounting the traditional arguments in favor of federalism (satisfaction of preferences, healthy competition between jurisdictions, increased policy experimentation, and greater accountability)). In Calabresi's view, federalism "merely perfects the Madisonian constitutional system, which pits differently assembled majorities in different constituencies against each other in the hope that the true popular will thus emerge and prevail." Id. at 35; see also John O. McGinnis, Reviving Tocqueville's America: The Rehnquist Court's Jurisprudence of Social Discovery, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 485, 489, 511 (2002) (arguing that the Rehnquist Court is engaged in a revival of federalism that can be described as part of its jurisprudence of "decentralization and private ordering of social norms"). ???n107. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The "Conservative" Paths of the Rehnquist Court 's Federalism Decisions, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 429, 468 (2002) (describing the Rehnquist Court's federalism cases as a "mixed picture"). "If the Supreme Court is implementing a federalism revolution, it is thus distinctively a lawyers' revolution. Though the rhetoric is sometimes audacious, few landmarks have toppled. Much of the significance, if not the devil himself, inhabits the details." Id. at 494; see also John C. Jeffries, Jr., In Praise of the Eleventh Amendment and Section 1983, 84 Va. L. Rev. 47, 47-54 (1998) (explaining the impotence of the Eleventh Amendment as "a structural constraint on the powers of the federal government"). ???n108. Louis Fisher & Neal Devins, How Successfully Can the States' Item Veto Be Transferred to the President?, 75 Geo. L.J. 159, 166-67 (1986) (describing the different types of veto power that states have authorized their governors to exercise). ???n109. Steven P. Croley, The Majoritarian Difficulty: Elected Judiciaries and the Rule of Law, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 689, 725 (1995). ???n110. Nathaniel A. Persily, The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative, Referendum and Recall Developed in the American West, 2 Mich. L. & Pol'y Rev. 11 (1997); Harry N. Scheiber, Forward, The Direct Ballot and State Constitutionalism, 28 Rutgers L.J. 787 (1997). ???n111. The argument here is more comprehensively developed elsewhere. See Magill, supra note 17, at 632-49. --------------- SYMPOSIUM: THE REHNQUIST COURT: SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE REHNQUIST COURT: THE CENTRALITY OF CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK Northwestern University Law Review Fall, 2004 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 77 NAME: Steven G. Calabresi* BIO: * George C. Dix Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. SUMMARY: ... First, she argues that judicial policing of constitutional federalism boundaries occurs with no relation to judicial policing of constitutional separation of powers boundaries. ... The Court showed some solicitude during these years for constitutional federalism in its post-Younger v. Harris cases, but mainly federalism seemed to be either dead or one vote shy of a majority during the high Burger Court years. ... If Professor Magill were right that the Supreme Court is always likely to police separation of powers boundaries to protect judicial power, surely it would do so in this area. ... Schechter Poultry and Carter Coal were thus not only nondelegation doctrine cases, they were also, in the words of Clinton v. City of New York, bicameralism and presentment cases. ... Why did everyone miss the fact that Clinton v. City of New York was the blockbuster separation of powers case of the Rehnquist years? Why was it not immediately recognized as this Court's separation of powers Lopez? The answer is that people missed the significance of the case partly because Scalia's dissent confused them as to what the conservative position in the case was and partly because the Court modestly styled its decision as a bicameralism and presentment case denying that it was the nondelegation doctrine decision it truly was. ... ???In The Revolution that Wasn't, Professor Elizabeth Magill advances three themes that I wish to express only partial agreement with. n1 First, she argues that judicial policing of constitutional federalism boundaries occurs with no relation to judicial policing of constitutional separation of powers boundaries. n2 Second, she argues that the Court will always protect the judiciary from separation of powers invasions by the political branches. n3 And third, she argues that nothing much has happened during the Rehnquist Court years on the separation of powers front. n4 I will attempt to show in this Comment that each of these assertions is only partly true. While there is an important kernel of truth in Professor Magill's claims, there are significant things we can appreciate about the relation of the Court's federalism and separation of powers case law by understanding the ways in which Magill's claims prove to be overstated. I will address each of her three claims in separate parts below. ???I. First, Professor Magill advances the striking thesis that during the Rehnquist Court years there has been a revolution in the Court's handling of federalism cases but that there has been no comparable revolution in its handling of separation of powers cases. Magill points to leading federalism decisions such as United States v. Lopez, n5 United States v. Morrison, n6 City of Boerne v. Flores, n7 New York v. United States, n8 Printz v. United States, n9 and Seminole Tribe v. Florida, n10 as evidence of the Court's revolution in [*78] federalism cases. She contends that because there are no blockbuster separation of powers cases that are the equivalents of these federalism blockbusters, the Court's rising interest in federalism has not been matched by a rising interest in separation of powers. n11 This suggests, she implies, that the rising interest in federalism on the Court is due less to the Rehnquist Court being more originalist, since that would have presumably led to a reinvigoration of separation of powers as well. n12 Rather, she implies the Court's added interest in federalism must be due to reduced public confidence in centralized governmental power as a way of dealing with social problems. n13 ???One way of testing Professor Magill's thesis that federalism and separation of powers do not rise and fall together is by looking at time periods prior to the Rehnquist Court and asking whether the two areas of case law rose or fell together during those prior periods. Looking at the period between 1937 and the beginning of the Rehnquist Court in 1986, one finds that Professor Magill's contention that there is no relation between judicial policing of federalism and of separation of powers is at most only half true. Between 1937 and 1976, there are at least three major separation of powers and only one major federalism case - a case that was in fact overturned by the passage of a constitutional amendment. The separation of powers cases are: Youngstown v. Sawyer (the Steel Seizure decision), n14 Powell v. McCormick, n15 and the Richard Nixon Watergate Tapes Case, n16 while the federalism case is Oregon v. Mitchell, n17 the case striking down a federal statute giving eighteeen year-olds the right to vote in state elections. ???During the thirty-nine year period between 1937 and 1976, it is probably fair to say that while structural constitutional law in general came close to dying out, there was always more vigor left in the Court's separation of powers case law than there was left in the Court's federalism case law. Of these four cases, the Steel Seizure Case was probably always viewed as the most important and canonical. It was always taught in constitutional law courses as a leading case during this period and it stood for the assumption that there was a judicially policeable line over how much power presidents could assert without being backed up by congressional legislation. The other two separation of powers cases were also extremely important. Thus, Powell v. McCormick resulted in the seating of Adam Clayton Powell, a leading African-American politician, as a member of the House of Representatives, while United States v. Nixon rather single-handedly brought Richard M. Nixon's ill-starred tenure as president to an end. Oregon v. [*79] Mitchell, striking down the eighteen-year-old vote in state elections was comparatively of less real-world significance since it was overturned by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that of the four key structural Supreme Court opinions between 1937 and 1976, Oregon v. Mitchell was the only one where the Court invalidated an Act of Congress! In none of the three separation of powers decisions between 1937 and 1976, the Steel Seizure Cases, Powell v. McCormick, and United States v. Nixon, did the Court invalidate an act of Congress. ???In sum, assessing overall the fate of separation of powers cases and federalism cases between 1937 and 1976, one would probably conclude that both died out to some extent together, although separation of powers always remained more lively than federalism. Thus, this period in our history provides only partial support for Magill's thesis. ???The next period to consider are the ten years from 1976 to 1986: the high Burger Court years. During this period there is a striking revitalization of separation of powers case law, and a much more tentative revitalization of constitutional federalism. The key starting point of this period is the bicentennial year of 1976 when the Court greatly revitalized both separation of powers with its Appointments Clause ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, n18 and constitutional federalism with its landmark ruling in National League of Cities v. Usery. n19 Both Buckley and National League of Cities were decisions of great importance. In 1976, at least, separation of powers and federalism both rose together from the ashes of the New Deal. ???Over the next ten years, however, separation of powers flourished on the Burger Court while federalism languished. In the separation of powers area, there were major pro-separation of powers decisions: INS v. Chadha, n20 striking down the legislative veto provisions of some 200 federal statutes; Marathon Pipeline, n21 invalidating Congress's creation of scores of federal bankruptcy judges; Dames & Moore v. Regan, n22 which many think implicitly departs from the Steel Seizure decision; and Bowsher v. Synar, n23 striking down the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit Control Act, a major act of Congress. In contrast, the federalism area during the years between 1976 and 1986 saw backward slippage as the Court narrowly overruled National League of Cities v. Usery in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. n24 The Court showed some solicitude during these years for constitutional federalism in its post-Younger v. Harris n25 cases, but [*80] mainly federalism seemed to be either dead or one vote shy of a majority during the high Burger Court years. ???This ten year period when separation of powers flourished and federalism languished provides the most support for Magill's thesis that the two lines of case law do not always rise and fall together. It also helps set up the expectations which lead Magill to conclude that there has not been a separation of powers revolution during the Rehnquist Court years. n26 Compared to the Burger Court's separation of powers case law, the Rehnquist Court looks like a bust. That being said, I will try to show below that separation of powers has been far more lively on the Rehnquist Court than federalism was during the Garcia Burger Court years. ???What do the totality of the opinions between 1937 and 1986 tell us about whether federalism and separation of powers rise and fall together? Basically, there are only two major federalism rulings during these years: Oregon v. Mitchell, overturned by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment; and National League of Cities v. Usery, overturned by Garcia. In contrast, there are at least eight major separation of powers rulings during this period, none of which were overturned by amendment or by a later case. These decisions again were: Youngstown, Powell v. McCormick, the Nixon Tapes Case, Buckley v. Valeo, Marathon Pipeline, INS v. Chadha, Dames & Moore v. Regan, and Bowsher v. Synar. In all eight of these cases, the Court did something major in the separation of powers area and it stuck, while relatively speaking, little or nothing was happening in the federalism area. This is striking because the political movement away from Big Government, certainly during the years between 1968 and 1986, which Magill credits for the Rehnquist Court's federalism case law, was salient and evident. Why then was separation of powers so vigorous and federalism so dead between 1937 and 1986, even in the face of a political movement away from forces favoring centralized Big Government decision-making? ???The answer to that question lies in the passage early in this century of the Seventeenth Amendment, n27 which eliminated the role of the State Legislatures in electing United States Senators in favor of popular election of Senators. I submit that this fundamental constitutional change eliminated the key institutional safeguard that gave the States some leverage over the selection process for United States Supreme Court Justices. After the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, United States Supreme Court Justices were biased referees in federalism cases because they were picked by a national official, the President, with no check from state governments through the Senate. I would suggest that constitutional federalism died out post-1937 as the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment cemented themselves in place. Post-Seventeenth Amendment, the Supreme Court inevitably became [*81] a more pro-federal power institution than it had been at the height of the Hammer v. Dagenhart n28 era. ???In contrast, the Seventeenth Amendment did not tip the Court toward being a more pro-president or pro-Congress institution. The current Justices are split in their sentiments, with some being very pro-President, like Justice Scalia, and others being very pro-Congress, like Chief Justice Rehnquist. For this reason, separation of powers case law never died out between 1937 and 1986 in the way that federalism case law died out. Some of the nationalists on the Court were always pro-Presidency Justices - Fred Vinson, for example, or Antonin Scalia - while others like Robert Jackson and William Rehnquist were pro-Congress. This is why I submit that the High Court's separation of powers case law was more vigorous than the Court's federalism case law from 1937 to 1986 and is likely to continue to be so. ???II. Professor Magill further claims that the Court is always likely to vigorously police the separation of powers because it will want to protect the Article III judiciary from incursions by the two political branches. n29 This claim makes a lot of intuitive sense, but unfortunately it turns out just not to be true. ???Consider first the High Court's decisions on congressional power to set up legislative, non-Article III tribunals to hear federal cases. If ever there were an issue on which Justices ought to circle the wagons in defense of Judicial power, surely this is that issue. By claiming power to set up non-life tenured, non-Article III tribunals to hear core federal cases, Congress directly diminishes the power of the Article III courts to perform their core function. If Professor Magill were right that the Supreme Court is always likely to police separation of powers boundaries to protect judicial power, surely it would do so in this area. ???Surprisingly, the high Burger Court, which was in general very protective of separation of powers, turned out in the end to be very unprotective of judicial power when it came to congressional creation of non-Article III legislative tribunals. The Burger Court started out somewhat promisingly in this field with the Marathon Pipeline decision, where four Justices, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, suggested that legislative courts were generally constitutionally problematic and should be limited to the three areas where they had historically been allowed. Though Justice Brennan's opinion in Marathon was a separation of powers afficionado's dream, it unfortunately garnered only four votes. Two additional Justices, Rehnquist and O'Connor, helped to make up the Marathon Pipeline majority, but they did [*82] so only on narrow federalism grounds and in subsequent cases, it became clear that Brennan's views on legislative courts were far from having five votes. In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, n30 where the non-Article III Commodities Future Trading Commission was given the power to hear state law counterclaims, Justice O'Connor wrote an opinion for the Court joined by Rehnquist, in which she upheld congressional creation of legislative courts so long as they did not interfere "too much" with core judicial powers. Schor was a major decision in the legislative courts area, and it remains controlling case law to the present day. Thus, even at a time when the Burger Court was active in the separation of powers field, the Court bungled its key opportunity to protect the judiciary from incursions by Congress through separation of powers doctrine. ???Second, if Professor Magill were correct that the judiciary is particularly likely to police the separation of powers to promote its own interests, one would expect the standing decisions over the last several decades to expand notions of standing in order to expand the number of questions on which the federal courts can rule. Broad standing notions as in Flast v. Cohen n31 clearly expanded judicial power, so presumably in the thirty-six years since 1968 we should have seen a broadening of standing doctrine as the imperial judiciary became more assertive. Instead, we have seen exactly the opposite trend in standing doctrine. While there have been many ups and downs in standing doctrine over the last thirty-six years, the broad trend has been toward a narrower, judicial-power reducing, standing doctrine. In retrospect, Flast v. Cohen marks an apex in judicial power from which the Court has worked steadily to move away. ???Finally, the Court has been unprotective of the right of jury trial in administrative law proceedings, notwithstanding the explicit mandate of the Seventh Amendment. The Seventh Amendment could be read as a major barrier to trying factual disputes in administrative agencies before administrative law judges ("ALJs") instead of before Article III district judges sitting together with a jury. The Court, however, has declined to read the Seventh Amendment broadly as protecting judicial power in leading cases such as Atlas Roofing. n32 As a result, ALJs are able to decide all sorts of important factual questions that arguably should be heard by federal district judges sitting with juries. Once again, contrary to Professor Magill's thesis, the Supreme Court has done a poor job of protecting judicial prerogatives in cases involving the right to jury trial. One can always explain this away by pointing to the natural tension between judges and juries and hypothesizing that Article III Supreme Court Justices have no reason to care about the right to jury trial. However, moving large categories of fact-finding decisions [*83] from Article III district courts sitting with juries to ALJs clearly diminishes the overall power of the Article III courts taken as a whole. ???III. This brings me to my third point of partial disagreement with Professor Magill: Her claim that little has happened on the Rehnquist Court in separation of powers compared with federalism. n33 Once again, I think the claim is partially true but is overstated. Compared with the high Burger Court, it is true that the Rehnquist Court has been relatively quiet in the separation of powers area and relatively active in the federalism area. Of course, using the high Burger Court as one's point of comparison is inherently misleading because that Court was especially pro-separation of powers and especially weak on federalism in the Garcia context. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that, whereas between 1937 and 1976 and between 1976 and 1986 separation of powers cases outnumbered federalism cases by more than three to one, during the Rehnquist years the ratio has at times almost seemed to be reversed. Something has happened to reduce the salience of separation of powers case law. ???That something is as follows: It is noteworthy that almost all the Rehnquist Court's major federalism decisions have been decided on five-to-four votes with the barest possible majority on the nine member Court. It is also clear that of the five conservative Justices, the two leaders seem to be Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist is clearly the political leader of the Court and the chief afficionado of constitutional federalism. Scalia is the best writer and most brilliant jurist and theorist on the Court. He is the chief separation of powers afficionado and is something of a rival to the Chief for the hearts and minds of young conservatives. ???I submit that the reason the Rehnquist Court has been quieter on separation of powers than federalism is because these two chief figures on the Court have opposite leanings in separation of powers cases. Scalia's leanings are almost always pro-executive power. The formative moments in his legal development were running the pro-executive power Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") in the Justice Department and reviewing administrative agency decisions as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. All of these experiences left Scalia with a decided pro-executive power bias that always asserts itself in separation of powers cases. ???Chief Justice Rehnquist's formative separation of powers experience, however, was serving as a law clerk to Justice Jackson in the Steel Seizure Case, perhaps the most noteworthy pro-Congress separation of powers opinion of all time! Rehnquist has written enthusiastically about this formative experience and it seems to have cemented in him a pro-Congress [*84] bias in separation of powers cases that may explain his votes in Morrison v. Olson n34 and in Mistretta. n35 While Rehnquist shares with Scalia the experience of having headed up OLC, it is possible that holding this post under the notoriously lawless Richard M. Nixon left Rehnquist even more skeptical of claims of executive power. Indeed, Rehnquist's tenure at OLC is mainly memorable today for the principled stand against impoundment which he took - a stand that opposed a Nixonian claim of executive power. ???Finally, Rehnquist's pro-Congress bias in separation of powers cases may be in part a result of his strong pro-State bias in federalism cases. As between the presidency and the Congress, there is no doubt that the presidency is the more nationalist branch of government and the Congress is the more pro-State power branch. Presidents are elected nationwide and serve a national constituency, while congressmen and senators serve state and local constituencies. Thus, Rehnquist's strong pro-state bias may further incline him toward pro-Congress decisions on the High Court. ???It is my opinion from serving as a Supreme Court law clerk that Rehnquist is aware of the fact that he is less pro-separation of powers than either his predecessor Chief Justice Warren Burger or Justice Scalia. I was present at Rehnquist's dedication of the bust of his predecessor Warren Burger at a large ceremony held in the great hall of the Court. In his remarks at that ceremony, Rehnquist said that his predecessor would be remembered as a great exponent of the separation of powers, and he said this in a way that made me think as a law clerk that he did not consider himself to be an exponent of the separation of powers to the same degree. That, I think, has turned out to be true. The reason why there has been less of a separation of powers revolution on the Rehnquist Court is that the two leading figures on that Court, Rehnquist and Scalia, are divided as to their allegiances in separation of powers cases. Rehnquist is destined to be forever pro-Congress while Scalia is pro-president. ???This then brings me to my final point of disagreement with Professor Magill's paper and that is with her assertion that nothing has happened in the separation of powers area on the Rehnquist Court. I disagree with this assertion and would point to two revolutionary developments in separation of powers case law during the Rehnquist years. While I agree with Professor Magill that these two developments are not as big a revolution as has occurred in the federalism area, I still think they are revolutionary developments that portend the ending of the post-1937 New Deal settlement. ???The first development of revolutionary significance on the Rehnquist Court is the development of Chevron deference in administrative law cases. n36 While this development may have as much to do with the way the D.C. Circuit has read Chevron as with what the Court said in that case, it is [*85] nonetheless true that the Rehnquist years have seen a consolidation in Chevron deference to agencies on how to interpret the statutes they are enforcing. This deference has moved power from courts to agencies and so it is another core separation of powers development in which the judiciary has not aggrandized itself. It is fair to say that Justice Scalia has been a proponent of Chevron deference and, by and large, he has gotten his way on this issue when the High Court has addressed it. ???The second and even more revolutionary separation of powers decision of the Rehnquist Court is Clinton v. City of New York, n37 a case which Magill discusses but the importance of which she somewhat understates. n38 In this case, a six-to-three majority of the Court struck down the line item veto statute, which purported to delegate to the president power to cancel lines of spending on the ground that those presidential acts of cancellation were really repeals which had to be accomplished through bicameralism and presentment. My view of Clinton v. City of New York is that it is in reality a non-delegation doctrine case masquerading as a bicameralism and presentment case. I think it is the hidden separation of powers blockbuster of the Rehnquist years, as important to separation of powers case law as Lopez is to the Court's federalism case law. In saying this, I must immediately acknowledge that the Court denied in Clinton v. City of New York that it was deciding that case on a non-delegation rationale. The Court's mere denial however cannot avoid the fact that Clinton really was a non-delegation decision. Saying that it wasn't is not enough to make that so. ???Justices Scalia, Breyer, and O'Connor seem to recognize the revolutionary significance of Clinton v. City of New York in their dissents to that case. Scalia clearly views the decision as an unprecedented application of the nondelegation doctrine, a doctrine he vigorously opposes on the separation of powers ground that there is no bright line the Court can draw as to how much of a delegation is too much. Scalia not only dissents in Clinton v. City of New York, he actually dissents from the bench, thus repeating in oral remarks his reasons for dissenting. Scalia reserves for unusual occasions the decision to dissent from the bench so the fact he employs that technique in this case suggests the importance he attaches to it. ???First, one might ask why is Clinton v. City of New York a nondelegation case? The answer is that the Court describes the case as involving the granting of an impermissible amount of power to the president - power which the Court says can only be exercised with bicameralism and presentment. This is the exact language of the nondelegation doctrine. When the old pre-Roosevelt Court struck down two delegations of power by Congress to the executive, what the Court was saying was that the actions those statutes delegated gave power to the executive so important that such action [*86] had to be done with bicameralism and presentment. Schechter Poultry n39 and Carter Coal n40 were thus not only nondelegation doctrine cases, they were also, in the words of Clinton v. City of New York, bicameralism and presentment cases. The fact of the matter is that the antecedents to Clinton v. City of New York are Schechter Poultry and Carter Coal. This case was as big a deal as its pre-New Deal predecessors. ???Second, Clinton v. City of New York involved a statute as important as the National Industrial Recovery Act, which the Court struck down in Schechter Poultry. Just as that statute was the key legislative enactment of the New Deal political movement, the Line Item Veto Act was the key legislative enactment of the Newt Gingrich Republican Congress. Both statutes involved a major cession of power by Congress to the executive branch and both statutes were struck down in what are in essence nondelegation doctrine decisions by the Supreme Court. ???Why did everyone miss the fact that Clinton v. City of New York was the blockbuster separation of powers case of the Rehnquist years? Why was it not immediately recognized as this Court's separation of powers Lopez? The answer is that people missed the significance of the case partly because Scalia's dissent confused them as to what the conservative position in the case was and partly because the Court modestly styled its decision as a bicameralism and presentment case denying that it was the nondelegation doctrine decision it truly was. ???Does this more modest styling of the decision limit the case's substantive impact? Probably a little bit. It is fair to conclude that the Court called its decision a bicameralism and presentment case rather than a nondelegation doctrine case because the Court did not intend to hand down decisions of this kind every year. The Court probably wanted to strike down the Line Item Veto Act as an unusually broad delegation without calling into question the organic statutes of all the alphabet soup post-New Deal administrative agencies. ???But before we dismiss the revolutionary potential of Clinton v. City of New York, one must remember that even the fearsome old Supreme Court struck down only two statutes on nondelegation doctrine grounds. This has always been a doctrine that the Court was willing to apply once in a generation but not on an ongoing basis for year-in-and-year-out review of congressional legislative court decisions. Clinton v. City of New York is this Court's Schechter Poultry and unlike Lopez, the Chief actually got six votes for his position in the separation of powers area compared to a usual five votes in the federalism area. Best of all, from his perspective, the revolutionary nature of his victory was totally missed because everyone was confused into missing it by Justice Scalia's angry dissent from the bench. ??? [*87] ???IV. Conclusion What does the future hold with respect to separation of powers case law versus federalism case law? I submit the two will rise and fall to some degree together, but I think separation of powers case law is likely to do better over the long run than federalism case law for the same reason it generally did better during the years between 1937 and 1986. The Court is basically pro-national power but it is divided between Justices who are pro-Congress and those who are pro-President. Probably the biggest change in the Court's separation of powers case law is likely to come from the fact that, more and more, the Court is reflecting the politics of the distant past. Historically, vacancies on the High Court used to arise once every two years which meant that at any given point in time a president usually had some sympathetic Justices who he had appointed on the Court to hear a case in which his Administration was involved. Today, we live in a world where ten years have gone by since the last vacancy on the Supreme Court and we have a president, George W. Bush, who has not appointed a single Justice. I submit that in this new era where the Justices are staying longer and where more years are passing between vacancies, the Court is more likely to be pro-Congress and anti-the incumbent President. In that respect, too, then big pro-Congress separation of powers rulings like Youngstown and Clinton v. City of New York are what we should expect. It is thus probably no surprise that the Bush Administration did not fare especially well in the three 2004 decisions in the War Against Terrorism Cases. ???FOOTNOTES: ???n1. M. Elizabeth Magill, The Revolution that Wasn't, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 47 (2004). ???n2. Id. at 55-56. ???n3. Id. at 56-60. ???n4. Id. at 49-55. ???n5. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). ???n6. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). ???n7. 521 U.S. 507 (1997). ???n8. 505 U.S. 144 (1992). ???n9. 521 U.S. 898 (1997). ???n10. 517 U.S. 44 (1996). ???n11. Magill, supra note 1, at 54-55. ???n12. Id. at 55. ???n13. Id. at 55-56. ???n14. 343 U.S. 579 (1952). ???n15. 395 U.S. 486 (1969). ???n16. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). ???n17. 400 U.S. 112 (1970). ???n18. 424 U.S. 1 (1976). ???n19. 426 U.S. 833 (1976). ???n20. 462 U.S. 919 (1983). ???n21. 458 U.S. 50 (1982). ???n22. 453 U.S. 654 (1981). ???n23. 478 U.S. 714 (1986). ???n24. 469 U.S. 528 (1985). ???n25. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ???n26. Magill, supra note 1, at 55. ???n27. U.S. Const. amend. XVII. ???n28. 247 U.S. 251 (1918). ???n29. Magill, supra note 1, at 56-60. ???n30. 478 U.S. 833 (1986). ???n31. 392 U.S. 83 (1968). ???n32. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442 (1977). ???n33. Magill, supra note 1, at 48-49. ???n34. 487 U.S. 654 (1988). ???n35. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). ???n36. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). ???n37. 524 U.S. 417 (1998). ???n38. Magill, supra note 1, at 49. ???n39. 295 U.S. 495 (1935). ???n40. 298 U.S. 238 (1936). From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:39:16 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:39:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Q & A: Monitor Web Sites Without Visiting Message-ID: The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Q & A: Monitor Web Sites Without Visiting http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/technology/circuits/31askk.html March 31, 2005 Q & A Monitor Web Sites Without Visiting By J.D. BIERSDORFER Monitor Web Sites Without Visiting Q. What does it mean when a Web site says it has an R.S.S. feed available? A. Really Simple Syndication (R.S.S. for short, and sometimes called Rich Site Summary) is a tool used by a Web site for condensing new headlines and information from the site into a bite-size summary, also known as a feed. You can use a program called a news aggregator or news reader to display these R.S.S. summaries (which usually include a headline, a short description of the article and a link to the full article) on your screen for a quick bite of news. Some sites also indicate their R.S.S. feeds with a small orange XML button on the home page. XML stands for Extensible Markup Language; it is the code typically used for R.S.S. feeds. Inexpensive news reader programs for Windows include FeedDemon ([1]feeddemon.com/feeddemon) and NewsApp ([2]server.com/WebApps/NewsApp). Pluck, the free Web organizer software at [3]pluck.com, can also handle R.S.S. feeds. There are several news readers for Mac OS X as well, including Net News Wire ([4]ranchero.com/netnewswire) and NewsMac (thinkmac.co.uk/newsmac). Some news readers work as stand-alone programs, some work within a Web browser and some services like My [5]Yahoo can display R.S.S. feeds right on a customized page. The Lockergnome site has a tutorial on using R.S.S. programs at [6]channels.lockergnome.com/rss/resources, where there are links to dozens of news reader programs. Replacing Batteries In the Pocket PC Q. Is it possible to replace the rechargeable battery in a Pocket PC? A. If your Pocket PC hand-held is not under warranty and you're stuck with a failing battery, you can find replacement parts from a number of companies on the Web. For example, you can buy batteries for many Pocket PC devices at [7]www.pdainternalbattery.com as well as at [8]pdasmart.com, which offers a mail-in repair service for some models if you're squeamish about replacing the battery yourself. Security Software For Frugal Users Q. What security software does the average Windows user need to stay safe on the Internet these days, without spending a lot of money? A. Security threats run far and wide, so an antivirus program, a firewall program and a good antispyware program have become essential for protecting your PC. Because junk e-mail can also bring identity-fraud scams and malicious attachments, a spam filter for your e-mail program is also helpful. You can buy individual programs to protect your computer from the various Internet ills, but there are less expensive options. You can buy a commercial software package with a variety of security programs under one roof (and price tag), or use helpful shareware programs. [9]Microsoft has free tools as well. Companies that offer an Internet security suite of antivirus, firewall, antispam programs and other defenses include [10]Trend Micro ([11]www.trendmicro.com), Symantec ([12]symantec.com), Panda Software ([13]www.pandasoftware.com) and [14]McAfee Security ([15]mcafee.com). These packages may cost $50 or more, but they are updated frequently and provide technical support. There are several free programs designed for protecting a PC, but these may not be as full-featured as a commercial product. Among the free antivirus programs are AntiVir Personal Edition ([16]www.free-av.com), AVG Free Edition ([17]free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2) and eTrust EZ Armor ([18]www.my-etrust.com/microsoft; free for one year). Zone Alarm makes a free firewall at [19]zonelabs.com, and Windows XP comes with its own basic firewall. As for spyware stoppers, Ad-Aware Personal Edition ([20]www.lavasoft.de) and Spybot Search & Destroy ([21]safer-networking.org/en/download) are among the freeware programs available. Commercial products like Webroot Spy Sweeper ([22]www.webroot.com) are available as well. Microsoft is working on its own antispyware software; you can download a free test copy at [23]www.microsoft.com/security. Questions about computer-based technology may be sent to QandA at nytimes.com. This weekly column will address questions of general interest, but e-mail and letters cannot be answered individually. References 1. http://feeddemon.com/feeddemon 2. http://server.com/WebApps/NewsApp 3. http://pluck.com/ 4. http://ranchero.com/netnewswire 5. http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=YHOO 6. http://channels.lockergnome.com/rss/resources 7. http://www.pdainternalbattery.com/ 8. http://pdasmart.com/ 9. http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MSFT 10. http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=TMIC 11. http://www.trendmicro.com/ 12. http://symantec.com/ 13. http://www.pandasoftware.com/ 14. http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MFE 15. http://mcafee.com/ 16. http://www.free-av.com/ 17. http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2 18. http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft 19. http://zonelabs.com/ 20. http://www.lavasoft.de/ 21. http://safer-networking.org/en/download 22. http://www.webroot.com/ 23. http://www.microsoft.com/security From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:40:13 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:40:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Clerics Fighting a Gay Festival for Jerusalem Message-ID: The New York Times > International > International Special > Clerics Fighting a Gay Festival for Jerusalem http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/worldspecial/31gay.html March 31, 2005 By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and [1]GREG MYRE International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions. Now major leaders of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - are making a rare show of unity to try to stop the festival. They say the event would desecrate the city and convey the erroneous impression that homosexuality is acceptable. "They are creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable," Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardic chief rabbi, said yesterday at a news conference in Jerusalem attended by Israel's two chief rabbis, the patriarchs of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian churches, and three senior Muslim prayer leaders. "It hurts all of the religions. We are all against it." Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik, added: "We can't permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty. This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem." Israeli authorities have not indicated what action, if any, they might take to limit the events. Banning the festival would seem unlikely, though the government could withhold the required permits for specific events, like a parade. Interfaith agreement is unusual in Israel. The leaders' joint opposition was initially generated by the Rev. Leo Giovinetti, an evangelical pastor from San Diego who is both a veteran of the American culture war over homosexuality and a frequent visitor to Israel, where he has formed relationships with rabbis and politicians. Organizers of the gay pride event, Jerusalem WorldPride 2005, said that 75 non-Orthodox rabbis had signed a statement of support for the event, and that Christian and Muslim leaders as well as Israeli politicians were expected to announce their support soon. They said they were dismayed to see that what united their opponents was their objection to homosexuality. "That is something new I've never witnessed before, such an attempt to globalize bigotry," said Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of Jerusalem Open House, a gay and lesbian group that is the host for the festival. "It's quite sad and ironic that these religious figures are coming together around such a negative message." Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, co-chairwoman of the festival and the rabbi of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a gay synagogue in New York City, said the controversy was another sign that each religion had become polarized between its liberal and conservative wings. The global Anglican Communion split deeply over homosexuality in the last two years after its American affiliate ordained an openly gay bishop and the Canada affiliate decided to allow blessings of same-sex unions. "I reject that they have the right to define religion in such a narrow way," Rabbi Kleinbaum said of religious leaders who denounce homosexuality. "Gay and lesbian people are saying we are equal partners in religious communities, and we believe in a religious world in which all are created in God's image." The festival is planned for Aug. 18-28 and is expected to draw thousands of visitors from dozens of countries. The theme is "Love Without Borders," and a centerpiece will be a parade on Aug. 25 through Jerusalem, a city that remains deeply conservative, though other parts of Israel have become increasingly accepting of gays in recent years. Other events include a film festival, art exhibits and a conference for clerics. When the first WorldPride festival was held five years ago in Rome, religious opposition came from the Vatican, while secular opposition came from a neo-Fascist group that vowed to hold a counterdemonstration. But the neo-Fascists canceled their demonstration, the march came off peacefully, and even a few center-right politicians joined many thousands of marchers. One day later, however, Pope John Paul II appeared on a balcony over St. Peter's Square and delivered a message expressing his "bitterness" that the gay festival had gone forward, calling it an "offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world." Both WorldPride festivals were initiated by an umbrella group, InterPride, that says its mission is to promote gay rights internationally. The outcry over the 2005 festival will not be confined to Israel. The American evangelical leader who helped to galvanize the opposition, Mr. Giovinetti, is the senior pastor of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship, an independent church that meets in a hotel in Southern California. A former band leader in Las Vegas, he is also host of a radio program heard on stations around the United States. Neither he nor other evangelical American leaders were at the news conference in Jerusalem, which was called by the chief rabbinate of Israel. But by all accounts Mr. Giovinetti played a crucial role in spreading the first alarms among religious leaders about the gay festival. He said he had first heard about WorldPride from a congregation member who had told Mr. Giovinetti that he was gay for many years and still monitored gay Web sites. Mr. Giovinetti said he alerted Israeli politicians and religious leaders. Mr. Giovinetti circulated a petition against the festival, titled "Homosexuals to Desecrate Jerusalem," which he said had been signed by every member of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party in the Israeli Parliament. Another American who helped bring together the opposition was Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which says it represents more than 1,000 American Orthodox rabbis. At the news conference in Jerusalem, he called the festival "the spiritual rape of the Holy City." He said, "This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land." Annual marches by homosexuals have become routine in Tel Aviv, a secular coastal city. For the past three years, gay parades have also been staged in Jerusalem. Religious groups have complained, but the police have issued permits for the events, which have been held without any serious incidents. Laurie Goodstein reported from New York for this article and Greg Myre from Jerusalem. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:43:37 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:43:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: The Crow of the Early Bird Message-ID: The New York Times > Fashion & Style > The Crow of the Early Bird http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/fashion/27SLEEP.html March 27, 2005 By WARREN ST. JOHN and [1]ALEX WILLIAMS Mr. Iger, who is married to the television journalist Willow Bay, with whom he has four children, is up at 4:30 in the morning, works out and arrives in the office by 6:30. The New York Times, March 14, profile of Robert A. Iger, the new president of the Walt Disney Company Most days before work, Ward, 53, wakes up at 4:30 a.m. at her South Anchorage condo, grabs her mandatory morning coffee and heads to the gym. Part of her success rides on the fact that she exudes energy and sleeps only six hours a night. The Anchorage Daily News, Jan. 3, profile of Robin Ward, a real estate deal maker After Singer's call, Wirtschafter couldn't get back to sleep. He usually drops off for only about three hours a night, anyway, rising at around 1 a.m. to read scripts and scribble diagrams in a blue notebook, plotting the decision tree of the following day's phone calls. The New Yorker, March 21, profile of Dave Wirtschafter, the president of the William Morris Agency THERE was a time when to project an image of industriousness and responsibility, all a person had to do was wake at the crack of dawn. But in a culture obsessed with statusin which every conceivable personal detail stands as a marker of one's ambition or lack thereofwaking at dawn means simply running with the pack. To really get ahead in the world, to obtain the sacred stuff of C.E.O.'s and overachievers, one must get up before the other guy, when the roosters themselves are still deep in REM sleep. And of course since so few people are awake at such an ungodly hour, the early risers of the world take special pains to let everyone else know of their impressive circadian discipline. "I'm an early riser, I'm achievement driven, and oh, my, has it served me well in the business world," said Otto Kroeger, a motivational speaker and business consultant in Fairfax, Va. Mr. Kroeger, who says he routinely rises at 4 a.m., preaches about the advantage of getting up before dawn to audiences and clients. "For 13 years," Mr. Kroeger said, "I never allowed myself more than 4 hours in any 24-hour period. It was all ego driven. My psyche was saying, 'I can do it, I can outlast.' It's a version of the old Broadway song from 'Annie Get Your Gun': 'Anything you can do, I can do better.' " For late risers, the crack of dawn was a formidable enough benchmark. In today's age of competitive waking, they're made to feel even worse. The writer Cynthia Ozick, who goes to bed after 3 a.m. and wakes up sometime after noon, said she lives with constant disapproval. "I'm a creature of bad habits in the eyes of the world," she said. When Ms. Ozick answers the telephone in the early afternoon, she said, "you're approached in the most accusing voice'Did I wake you?' " At least since Benjamin Franklin included the proverb "Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise" in his Poor Richard's Almanac, Americans have looked at sleeping habits as a measure of a person's character. Perhaps because in the agrarian past people had to wake at dawn to get in a full day's work outside, late sleepers have been viewed as a drag on the collective good. Even today, said Edward J. Stepanski, the director of the Sleep Disorders Service and Research Center at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, "it's a uniformly negative characteristic to be asleep while everyone else is going about their business." But before slinking back under the covers in shame, slugabeds of the world should consider: Sleep researchers are casting doubt on the presumed virtue and benefits of waking early, with research showing that the time one wakes up has little bearing on income or success, and that people's sleep cycles are not entirely under their control. Buoyed by the reassessment of their bedtime habits, a few outspoken and well-rested night owls are speaking out against the creep of sleepism. "There are night owls who have just had their fill of people making them feel guilty and of other people who rag on them," said Carolyn Schur, a late sleeper from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who advocates for night owls in speeches and in her book "Birds of a Different Feather." "A lot of people are just saying, 'I can't take it anymore.' " Whatever the negative associations with sleeping late, scientists say there's good reason to doubt the boasts of the early risers. Dr. Daniel F. Kripke, a sleep researcher at the University of California, San Diego, said that in one study he attached motion sensors to subjects' wrists to determine when they were up and about. While 5 percent of the subjects claimed they were awake before 4 a.m., Dr. Kripke said, the motion sensors suggested none of them were. And while 10 percent reported they were up and at 'em by 5 a.m., only 5 percent were out of bed. Dr. Stepanski said the same is true of people who boast they need little sleep. In a study in which subjects claimed they could get by on just five hours' sleep, he said, researchers found the subjects were sneaking in long naps and sleeping in on weekends to make up for lost z's. "There's a tendency to generalize and to do it in a self-serving way," Dr. Stepanski said. "If your view is that you can get by on less sleep than the average person, then you're going to play that up." Scientists call early risers larks, and late sleepers owls, and speak of morningness and eveningness to describe their differing circadian rhythms. Researchers believe that about 10 percent of the population are extreme larks, 10 percent are extreme owls and the remaining 80 percent are somewhere in between. And they say the most important factor in determining to which group a person belongs is not ambition, but DNA. "Timing of sleep is genetically determined, whether you're an owl or lark," said Dr. Mark Mahowald, the medical director of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center. While most people are a little bit owl or a little bit lark, for others, Dr. Mahowald said, altering sleep habits is "like changing your height or eye color." Dr. Christopher R. Jones, the medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, said that just as there are morning people, scientists have found morning flies and morning mice. Variations in sleep patterns among the population, he added, may have benefited the species. "The whole tribe is better off if someone is up all the night, listening for a lion walking through the grass," he said. The rhythms of modern times are determined not by fanged predators, of course, but by the 9-to-5 schedule of the workaday world. While those hours would seem to benefit larks, there is little evidence that night owls are any less successful than early risers. Dr. Kripke said that a 2001 study of adults in San Diego showed no correlation between waking time and income. There's even anecdotal evidence of parity on the world stage; President Bush is said to wake each day at 5 a.m., to be at his desk by 7 and to go to sleep at 10 p.m., while no less an achiever than Russian President Vladimir V. Putin reportedly wakes at 11 a.m. and works until 2 a.m. Night owls thrive, it seems, by strategizing around the expectations of the early crowd. Bella M. DePaulo, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who goes to sleep around 3 a.m. and wakes about 11 a.m., said that before she answers the phone in the late morning, she practices saying "Hello" out loud until she sounds awake. Ms. DePaulo said she has been a night person since childhood, and that she gravitated toward academia in part of because of her sleep habits. "Academia is a good place to be if you're out of the mainstream," she said. "If you're doing 80 hours of work a week, what does it matter what 80 hours you work?" Dr. Meir H. Kryger, a professor of medicine and a sleep researcher at the University of Manitoba, said that many people choose professions in line with their circadian rhythms. "There are whole professions that tend to be larks," he said, like bankers and surgeons. "Very often people self-select themselves into that kind of career." Owls, he said, tend toward the entertainment or hospitality industries and the arts. But not everyone manages to find a perfect fit. Drue Miller, a design and marketing consultant in San Francisco and the creator of a satirical late sleepers' bill of rights online bulletin board, said that when she worked as a Web designer, she was able to indulge her night owl tendencies by coming in late in the morning and working into the evening. That changed when she became the boss and found herself adjusting her schedule to fit the perception that people who run things are at their desks early. "I felt like I was being a 'bad boss' by showing up so much later," she said. Perhaps the biggest boon to night owls in keeping up with the larks has been the Internet. Ms. Schur, the night owl advocate, said she spends the wee hours shopping, paying her bills and doing her banking online. "It's a vehicle for maintaining a night owl lifestyle," she said of the Web. Ms. Schur added that if she is expected to get some bit of work to clients or colleagues by the early morning, she typically does it late at night. "People will call me and say, 'Hey, your e-mail said 2 or 3 in the morningdid you really send it at that time?'" Ms. Schur said. "I say, 'Yes.' " For people desperate to change their circadian rhythms, doctors say, there are some options. Dr. Kripke said that light therapy, melatonin and large doses of vitamin B12 can be used to adjust the body's natural clock. (Dr. Kripke outlines these treatments in a free e-book on his Web site [2]www.BrightenYourLife.info.) But because sleep rhythms are so ingrained, the treatments must be practiced continually and so for many are impractical. "People come to my clinic and want to change," said Dr. Jones of the University of Utah, "and I tell them I can't, I don't have a genetic screwdriver to get in there and tweak the gene." Of course for hardened members of the early-to-rise crowd, any talk of being a slave to a notion as wispy as circadian rhythms is a sure sign of weakness. Their message to the drowsy is more or less: Get an alarm clock. "If you work two extra hours a day," said Brian Tracy, the motivational guru, "you will outstrip everyone else in your field. The question is, where do you get those two hours? Early morning time is the most productive. It does no good to do work later in the day, because by then your batteries are burned out. Most successful people try to get up by 5 or 5:30 in the morning." He added: "Getting up late, having fun at work, these are all for losers." References 1. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ALEX%20WILLIAMS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ALEX%20WILLIAMS&inline=nyt-per 2. http://www.BrightenYourLife.info/ From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:44:43 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:44:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: America Is Still Working on Its Abs Message-ID: Fashion & Style > America Is Still Working on Its Abs http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/fashion/27abs.html March 27, 2005 By [1]ALEX WILLIAMS BY some measures the heyday of abdominal fitness was a decade ago. Men's Health magazine rode to publishing glory in the 1990's with a monthly cover model showing off his washboard stomach. The term six-pack entered the language of vanity. Driven by late-night television advertising, some 368,000 AbRollers, ABSculptors and other stomach-muscle strengtheners were sold in 1996, according to the National Sporting Goods Association. Yes, it all seems so very mid-90's. And since then the fitness industry, which depends on new fads to keep slothful Americans renewing health club memberships and buying workout videos, has introduced many novelties. There have been trampolines and spinning bikes, Soloflexes, Bowflexes and gravity boots. But as workouts go the obsession of Americans with their abdominal muscles is seemingly forever. For the latest trend at the gym, look to the past. Consider that the six fitness guides on the market four years ago with the word "abs" in their names have expanded to 28 today, according to the Books in Print database. "Abs rule," said Kurt Brungardt, who wrote the best-selling "Complete Book of Abs" (1993) and just finished the manuscript for "The Complete Book of Core Training," whose title includes one of the latest fitness buzzwordsdescribing a routine that is focused on the stomach. Mr. Brungardt has tried for success with "The Complete Book of Shoulders and Arms" and "The Complete Book of Butt and Legs." But nothing could match selling Americans ways to a well-defined set of rectus abdominus muscles. "Hey, if we lived in a culture where people said, 'What a sexy lower back you have,' it might be different," Mr. Brungardt said. Besides core conditioning another new fitness craze focuses on the abdominal region: Pilates, whose practitioners have increased more than fivefold over the last five years, according to SGMA International, a sporting-goods trade group. These days "all roads lead to abs," confirmed Dawn-Marie Ickes, an owner of a Pilates studio in Studio City, Calif. A skeptic might wonder, why abs? Why not pectoral or gluteus muscles? David Zinczenko, the editor in chief of Men's Health, whose current best seller, "The Abs Diet: The Six-Week Plan to Flatten Your Stomach and Keep You Lean for Life" (Rodale, 2004), is in its 18th printing, explained: "Up until the 1960's or so, broad shoulders or biceps were features that made women swoon. Shoulders and biceps say, 'I can lift heavy things.' But society has changed. Men don't labor in the fields anymore, so those features are not as essential. "Abs are the new biceps. Abs say: 'I'm in control of life, I've got it all together. I can work, play, and still build these.' " Vicki Beck, an accountant who works in television in Los Angeles, is something of an abs measuring stick. Over the last decade, she has been through all the phases: clipping how-to diagrams for the latest crunches from Self magazine, buying an abs machine from a late-night infomercial. "It probably ended up in a garage sale, like everybody else's," she surmised. Now she has turned to the more holistic approach of Pilates. "Abs, especially the deep, core abs," explained Ms. Ickes, her instructor, "are the cornerstone, the building block of every Pilates exercise you do." Pilates, a workout regimen developed in the early 20th century by a German boxer and acrobat named Joseph H. Pilates, was adopted in the United States by dancers for George Balanchine and Martha Graham. The number of American practitioners jumped to 9.5 million from 1.7 million between 2000 and 2003, according to SGMA International. The workout emphasizes flexibility, strength and balance exercises, even breathing, all in the ultimate service of building strength through the abdomen and spine. Pilates is not cheap. Ms. Beck pays up to $60 a session for the privilege of climbing at least twice a week onto the Wunda chair (basically, a spring-loaded stepladder) at Ms. Ickes's studio, which is also a physical therapy clinic called Core Conditioning. For Ms. Beck's birthday this year her boyfriend bought her a Reformer, a Pilates machine with springs, pulleys and sliding cushions. It looks like a cross between a beach chair and a crossbow. Reformers sell for as much as $500. Ms. Beck keeps hers in a spare bedroom at home, next to her big white rubber stability ball - balls being the last big thing in the abs world - her foam tube roller and her Pilates Magic Circle. (That would be her big rubber ring.) "The stomach is most important," she said. "We live in Southern California, we go to the beach. More skin does show." A broader focus than Pilates, core conditioning targets the abs you see, the deeper abs, as well as the lower back and even the pelvic muscles, the so-called girdle of strength. (Pilates techniques are often a component of core programs.) A term that emerged from physical therapists in the 90's, core has become perhaps the most marketable word in the fitness business, several trainers said. Reebok sells a core board for $149.99. It is a plastic disc, which teeters on an axis at its center. Standing on it roughly approximates the experience of trying to balance on a lurching subway train. "Core is where the value icon is now," Mr. Brungardt said coolly. "It breathes new life into the ab craze. It's the next generation." Then again, maybe the craze is already shifting. Karon Karter, a Dallas fitness instructor and the author of multiple abs books, said core has already given way to a new era of core fusion. That is seemingly core fused with anything, like yoga, belly dancing and martial arts. Ms. Karter would seem to deserve a lifetime achievement award in fitness marketing for managing to cram every last fitness buzzword into the title of her latest book, "The Core Strength Workout: Get Flat Abs and a Healthy Back; Pilates, Yoga, Exercise Ball" (Fair Winds Press, 2004). Perhaps it should not be surprising that the same old absa word scarcely known outside bodybuilding circles through the 70'skeep coming back in new forms. Exercise is about reinvention, so it is hardly surprising that the fitness business is trying to reimagine one of its marketing bonanzas. Remember how the hitchhiker in "There's Something About Mary" was talking about making a fortune by going eight-minute abs one better with seven-minute abs? Thanks to an arms-race mentality within the abs industrial complex, we have cycled past six-minute abs and three-minute abs to, yes, six-second abs, which is an "as seen on TV" contraption, which looks like a small vacuum cleaner that has sprouted antennae. The new approach seems more grown up. Fantasies of a Brad Pitt washboard (Kate Bosworth's in "Blue Crush" might be the female ideal) still inspire some younger absaholics, but particularly among baby boomers lurching through their 50's abs mania can mean another way of forestalling the creaks of an aging body. "It used to be this huge aesthetic push, how ripped can you be?" said Chris Imbo, a personal trainer in New York. "It was the classic six-pack everyone was chasing after. That was something that was a hard reach for most people." You don't have to travel far in fitness circles to hear the conclusion that the "hard body" days are over. One need only track the success of the Curves International chain of gyms, intended for full-size women, or the Bally Total Fitness chain ads that featured regular people, including some with a few extra pounds and a few extra years on them. Perhaps no one represents the shift to total-body health more than Mr. Zinczenko, the editor of Men's Health. His book, with its 120-decibel blaze-orange cover, has sold 350,000 copies, and that is before you get to "The Abs Diet Workout" DVD or the spinoff recipe guide, "The Abs Diet Eat Right Every Time Guide." Men's Health, which comes out 10 times a year, has published about 60 articles on abs in the last two and a half years. Anyone would think the country was ripe for an abs overdose. But in one poll of more than 3,000 men conducted by Mr. Zinczenko's magazine, to be published in the June issue, respondents were asked which muscle group was their No. 1 priority for the beach season. Abdominals trounced the nearest challenger, pectorals, by 70 percent to 15 percent. "You look at magazines like US Weekly, how many weeks in a row did they have the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston breakup on the cover?" Mr. Zinczenko asked. "Abs are our Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston." It need hardly be said that both those stars have absolutely killer abs. References 1. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ALEX%20WILLIAMS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ALEX%20WILLIAMS&inline=nyt-per From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 15:46:01 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:46:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Report Card: China Gives America a D Message-ID: Week in Review > Word for Word | Report Card: China Gives America a D http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/weekinreview/27word.html March 27, 2005 By PETER EDIDIN SINCE 1977, the United States State Department has issued an annual global report card called the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The document has long been a thorn in the side of authoritarian governments, including China's, which responds with a nettled review of its own, called "The Human Rights Record of the United States," the 2004 version of which was recently released. (It is available in English at: [1]http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html.) China's assessment, unlike the sober State Department tome, is a frank indictment and draws a picture of America that approaches caricature. But that doesn't mean it won't buttress the negative image of the United States held by its critics around the world. Excerpts follow, with the document's grammatical and other errors intact. Life, Liberty and Security of Person American society is characterized with rampant violent crimes, severe infringement of people's rights by law enforcement departments and lack of guarantee for people's rights to life, liberty and security of person. The United States has the biggest number of gun owners, and gun violence has affected lots of innocent lives. About 31,000 Americans are killed and 75,000 wounded by firearms each year, which means more than 80 people are shot dead each day. The United States characterizes itself as "a paradise for free people," but the ratio of its citizens deprived of freedom has remained among the highest. According to statistics from the Department of Justice, the number of inmates in the United States jumped from 320,000 in 1980 to two million in 2000, a hike by six times. The number of convicted offenders may total more than six million if parolees and probationers are also counted. Political Rights and Freedom The United States claims to be "a paragon of democracy," but American democracy is manipulated by the rich and malpractices are common. Elections in the United States are in fact a contest of money. The presidential and Congressional elections last year cost nearly $4 billion. Campaign advertisement and political debates were full of distorted facts, false information and lies. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Poverty, hunger and homelessness have haunted the world richest country. Upper middle- and upper-class families that constitute the top 10 percent of the income distribution are prospering while many among the remaining 90 percent struggle to maintain their standard of living. According to the statistics released by the United States Census Bureau in 2004, the number of Americans in poverty has been climbing for three years. It rose by 1.3 million year on year in 2003 to 35.9 million. Racial Discrimination Racial discrimination has been deeply rooted in the United States, permeating into every aspects of society. The colored people are generally poor, with living condition much worse than the white. The death rate of illness, accident and murder among the black people is twice that of the white. The rate of being victim of murders for the black people is five times that of the white. The rate of being affected by AIDS for the black people is ten times that of the whites while the rate of being diagnosed by diabetes for the black people is twice that of the whites. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States received 29,000 complaints in 2003 of racial bias in the workplace The Declaration of Independence said all men are created equal, so the gap between black and white people is simply an insult to the founding essence of the United States. After the Sept. 11 incident, the United States openly restricts the rights of citizens under the cloak of homeland security, and uses diverse means including wire tapping of phone conversations and secret investigations, checks on all secret files, and monitoring transfers of fund and cash flows to supervise activities of its citizens, in which, people of ethnic minority groups, foreigners and immigrants become main victims. The Rights of Women and Children The situation of American women and children was disturbing. The rates of women and children physically or sexually victimized were high. According to F.B.I. Crime Statistics, in 2003 the United States witnessed 93,233 cases of raping. The statistics also showed that every two minutes one woman was sexually assaulted and every six minutes one woman was raped. Children were victims of sex crimes. Every year about 400,000 children in the U.S. were forced to engage in prostitution or other sexual dealings on the streets. In recent years scandals about clergymen molesting children kept breaking out. It is believed that from 1950 to 2002 more than 10,600 boys and girls were sexually abused by nearly 4,400 clergymen. The Human Rights of Foreign Nationals In 2004, United States Army service people were reported to have abused and insulted Iraqi prisoners of war, which stunned the whole world. The United States forces were blamed for their fierce and dirty treatments for these Iraqi P.O.W.'s. They made the P.O.W.'s naked by force, masking their heads with underwear (even women's underwear), locking up their necks with a belt, towing them over the ground, letting military dogs bite them, beating them with a whip, shocking them with electric batons, needling them sometimes and putting chemical fluids containing phosphorus on their wounds. The United States frequently commits wanton slaughters during external invasions and military attacks. Spain's Uprising newspaper on May 12, 2004, published a list of human rights infringement incidents committed by the United States troops, quoting two bloodthirsty sayings of two American generals, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" by Gen. Philip Sheridan, and "we should bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age" by Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay. A survey on Iraqi civilian deaths, based on the natural death rate before the war, estimates that the United States-led invasion might have led to 100,000 more deaths in the country, with most victims being women and children. In addition, the United States troops often plunder Iraqi households when tracking down anti-United States militants since the invasion. The American forces has so far committed at least thousands of robberies and 90 percent of the Iraqis that have been rummaged are innocent. Despite tons of problems in its own human rights, the United States continues to stick to its belligerent stance, wantonly trample on the sovereignty of other countries and constantly stage tragedies of human rights infringement in the world. Instead of indulging itself in publishing the "human rights country report" to censure other countries unreasonably, the United States should reflect on its erroneous behavior on human rights and take its own human rights problems seriously. References 1. http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 19:11:16 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] can't read all the articles In-Reply-To: <200503311539.j2VFdV216636@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050331191116.65721.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just wanted everyone to know that if a lot of people are posting very long articles, it takes way too long to read and I just skim the digest. If you want me to see what you post and respond to it, post a paragraph and a link to an article rather than the entire thing. Also, it would be kind of cool if people would post articles by balanced sources, rather than Ann Coulter or some other biased pundit. Slandering the Left or the Right as a mass is not nearly as interesting to me as asking why humans fall engage in primate social politics, what evolutionary psychology might say about Left/Right divisions, and what might be done to promote civility in politics. I don't think either side in the Schiavo case are "Nazis", and I don't think it's moral to promote a political climate where some group is seen as "evil", because there are people in our society who will take matters into their own hands and physically attack those who have been labelled by the mass as evil. We should never mark someone for assassination with our words by comparing them to a Nazi or labeling them as evil rather than misled or sincere but wrong. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 19:46:14 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:46:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Nietzsche: The Antichrist (trans. by Mr. Mencken) Message-ID: Nietzsche: The Antichrist (trans. by Mr. Mencken) http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_the_antichrist/the_antichrist.htm The Antichrist PREFACE This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my "Zarathustra": how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?--First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously. The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me--I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him... He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner--to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm...Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self..... Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?--The rest are merely humanity.--One must make one's self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,--in contempt. FRIEDRICH W. NIETZSCHE. 1. --Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans--we know well enough how remote our place is. "Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans": even Pindar^1,in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death--our life, our happiness...We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?--The man of today?--"I don't know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn't know either the way out or the way in"--so sighs the man of today...This is the sort of modernity that made us ill,--we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that "forgives" everything because it "understands" everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds! . . . We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate--it was the fulness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from "resignation" . . . There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast--for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal... 2. What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak--Christianity... 3. The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the order of living creatures (--man is an end--): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future. This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately willed. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it has been almost the terror of terrors ;--and out of that terror the contrary type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man--the Christian. . . 4. Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This "progress" is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance; the process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement, strengthening. True enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself; something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents. 5. We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts--the strong man as the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!-- 6. It is a painful and tragic spectacle that rises before me: I have drawn back the curtain from the rottenness of man. This word, in my mouth, is at least free from one suspicion: that it involves a moral accusation against humanity. It is used--and I wish to emphasize the fact again--without any moral significance: and this is so far true that the rottenness I speak of is most apparent to me precisely in those quarters where there has been most aspiration, hitherto, toward "virtue" and "godliness." As you probably surmise, I understand rottenness in the sense of decadence: my argument is that all the values on which mankind now fixes its highest aspirations are decadence-values. I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the "higher feelings," the "ideals of humanity"--and it is possible that I'll have to write it--would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will--that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names. 7. Christianity is called the religion of pity.-- Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause (--the case of the death of the Nazarene). This is the first view of it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures the effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its character as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light. Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect. Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue (--in every superior moral system it appears as a weakness--); going still further, it has been called the virtue, the source and foundation of all other virtues--but let us always bear in mind that this was from the standpoint of a philosophy that was nihilistic, and upon whose shield the denial of life was inscribed. Schopenhauer was right in this: that by means of pity life is denied, and made worthy of denial--pity is the technic of nihilism. Let me repeat: this depressing and contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the role of protector of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of decadence--pity persuades to extinction....Of course, one doesn't say "extinction": one says "the other world," or "God," or "the true life," or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness.... This innocent rhetoric, from the realm of religious-ethical balderdash, appears a good deal less innocent when one reflects upon the tendency that it conceals beneath sublime words: the tendency to destroy life. Schopenhauer was hostile to life: that is why pity appeared to him as a virtue. . . . Aristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous state of mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regarded tragedy as that purgative. The instinct of life should prompt us to seek some means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerous accumulation of pity as that appearing in Schopenhauer's case (and also, alack, in that of our whole literary decadence, from St. Petersburg to Paris, from Tolstoi to Wagner), that it may burst and be discharged. . . Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than Christian pity. To be the doctors here, to be unmerciful here, to wield the knife here--all this is our business, all this is our sort of humanity, by this sign we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans !-- 8. It is necessary to say just whom we regard as our antagonists: theologians and all who have any theological blood in their veins--this is our whole philosophy. . . . One must have faced that menace at close hand, better still, one must have had experience of it directly and almost succumbed to it, to realize that it is not to be taken lightly (--the alleged free-thinking of our naturalists and physiologists seems to me to be a joke--they have no passion about such things; they have not suffered--). This poisoning goes a great deal further than most people think: I find the arrogant habit of the theologian among all who regard themselves as "idealists"--among all who, by virtue of a higher point of departure, claim a right to rise above reality, and to look upon it with suspicion. . . The idealist, like the ecclesiastic, carries all sorts of lofty concepts in his hand (--and not only in his hand!); he launches them with benevolent contempt against "understanding," "the senses," "honor," "good living," "science"; he sees such things as beneath him, as pernicious and seductive forces, on which "the soul" soars as a pure thing-in-itself--as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a word, holiness, had not already done much more damage to life than all imaginable horrors and vices. . . The pure soul is a pure lie. . . So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as a higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative. 9. Upon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and dishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith: in other words, closing one's eyes upon one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness upon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon faulty vision; they argue that no other sort of vision has value any more, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of "God," "salvation" and "eternity." I unearth this theological instinct in all directions: it is the most widespread and the most subterranean form of falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: what ever is most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called "false."... When theologians, working through the "consciences" of princes (or of peoples--), stretch out their hands for power, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will to make an end, the nihilistic will exerts that power... 10. Among Germans I am immediately understood when I say that theological blood is the ruin of philosophy. The Protestant pastor is the grandfather of German philosophy; Protestantism itself is its peccatum originale. Definition of Protestantism: hemiplegic paralysis of Christianity--and of reason. ... One need only utter the words "Tubingen School" to get an understanding of what German philosophy is at bottom--a very artful form of theology. . . The Suabians are the best liars in Germany; they lie innocently. . . . Why all the rejoicing over the appearance of Kant that went through the learned world of Germany, three-fourths of which is made up of the sons of preachers and teachers--why the German conviction still echoing, that with Kant came a change for the better? The theological instinct of German scholars made them see clearly just what had become possible again. . . . A backstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the "true world," the concept of morality as the essence of the world (--the two most vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then at least no longer refutable... Reason, the prerogative of reason, does not go so far. . . Out of reality there had been made "appearance"; an absolutely false world, that of being, had been turned into reality. . . . The success of Kant is merely a theological success; he was, like Luther and Leibnitz, but one more impediment to German integrity, already far from steady.-- 11. A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity--these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find hisown virtue, his own categorical imperative. A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.--To think that no one has thought of Kant's categorical imperative as dangerous to life!...The theological instinct alone took it under protection !--An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a right action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that Nihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as an objection . . . What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure--as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for decadence, and no less for idiocy. . . Kant became an idiot.--And such a man was the contemporary of Goethe! This calamitous spinner of cobwebs passed for the German philosopher--still passes today! . . . I forbid myself to say what I think of the Germans. . . . Didn't Kant see in the French Revolution the transformation of the state from the inorganic form to the organic? Didn't he ask himself if there was a single event that could be explained save on the assumption of a moral faculty in man, so that on the basis of it, "the tendency of mankind toward the good" could be explained, once and for all time? Kant's answer: "That is revolution." Instinct at fault in everything and anything, instinct as a revolt against nature, German decadence as a philosophy--that is Kant!---- 12. I put aside a few sceptics, the types of decency in the history of philosophy: the rest haven't the slightest conception of intellectual integrity. They behave like women, all these great enthusiasts and prodigies--they regard "beautiful feelings" as arguments, the "heaving breast" as the bellows of divine inspiration, conviction as the criterion of truth. In the end, with "German" innocence, Kant tried to give a scientific flavour to this form of corruption, this dearth of intellectual conscience, by calling it "practical reason." He deliberately invented a variety of reasons for use on occasions when it was desirable not to trouble with reason--that is, when morality, when the sublime command "thou shalt," was heard. When one recalls the fact that, among all peoples, the philosopher is no more than a development from the old type of priest, this inheritance from the priest, this fraud upon self, ceases to be remarkable. When a man feels that he has a divine mission, say to lift up, to save or to liberate mankind--when a man feels the divine spark in his heart and believes that he is the mouthpiece of supernatural imperatives--when such a mission in. flames him, it is only natural that he should stand beyond all merely reasonable standards of judgment. He feels that he is himself sanctified by this mission, that he is himself a type of a higher order! . . . What has a priest to do with philosophy! He stands far above it!--And hitherto the priest has ruled!--He has determined the meaning of "true" and "not true"! 13. Let us not under-estimate this fact: that we ourselves, we free spirits, are already a "transvaluation of all values," a visualized declaration of war and victory against all the old concepts of "true" and "not true." The most valuable intuitions are the last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which determine methods. All the methods, all the principles of the scientific spirit of today, were the targets for thousands of years of the most profound contempt; if a man inclined to them he was excluded from the society of "decent" people--he passed as "an enemy of God," as a scoffer at the truth, as one "possessed." As a man of science, he belonged to the Chandala^2... We have had the whole pathetic stupidity of mankind against us--their every notion of what the truth ought to be, of what the service of the truth ought to be--their every "thou shalt" was launched against us. . . . Our objectives, our methods, our quiet, cautious, distrustful manner--all appeared to them as absolutely discreditable and contemptible.--Looking back, one may almost ask one's self with reason if it was not actually an aesthetic sense that kept men blind so long: what they demanded of the truth was picturesque effectiveness, and of the learned a strong appeal to their senses. It was our modesty that stood out longest against their taste...How well they guessed that, these turkey-cocks of God! 14. We have unlearned something. We have be come more modest in every way. We no longer derive man from the "spirit," from the "god-head"; we have dropped him back among the beasts. We regard him as the strongest of the beasts because he is the craftiest; one of the results thereof is his intellectuality. On the other hand, we guard ourselves against a conceit which would assert itself even here: that man is the great second thought in the process of organic evolution. He is, in truth, anything but the crown of creation: beside him stand many other animals, all at similar stages of development... And even when we say that we say a bit too much, for man, relatively speaking, is the most botched of all the animals and the sickliest, and he has wandered the most dangerously from his instincts--though for all that, to be sure, he remains the most interesting!--As regards the lower animals, it was Descartes who first had the really admirable daring to describe them as machina; the whole of our physiology is directed toward proving the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, it is illogical to set man apart, as Descartes did: what we know of man today is limited precisely by the extent to which we have regarded him, too, as a machine. Formerly we accorded to man, as his inheritance from some higher order of beings, what was called "free will"; now we have taken even this will from him, for the term no longer describes anything that we can understand. The old word "will" now connotes only a sort of result, an individual reaction, that follows inevitably upon a series of partly discordant and partly harmonious stimuli--the will no longer "acts," or "moves." . . . Formerly it was thought that man's consciousness, his "spirit," offered evidence of his high origin, his divinity. That he might be perfected, he was advised, tortoise-like, to draw his senses in, to have no traffic with earthly things, to shuffle off his mortal coil--then only the important part of him, the "pure spirit," would remain. Here again we have thought out the thing better: to us consciousness, or "the spirit," appears as a symptom of a relative imperfection of the organism, as an experiment, a groping, a misunderstanding, as an affliction which uses up nervous force unnecessarily--we deny that anything can be done perfectly so long as it is done consciously. The "pure spirit" is a piece of pure stupidity: take away the nervous system and the senses, the so-called "mortal shell," and the rest is miscalculation--that is all!... 15. Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginarybeings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginarynatural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginaryteleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality. . . . The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for decadence... 16. A criticism of the Christian concept of God leads inevitably to the same conclusion.--A nation that still believes in itself holds fast to its own god. In him it does honour to the conditions which enable it to survive, to its virtues--it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of power, into a being to whom one may offer thanks. He who is rich will give of his riches; a proud people need a god to whom they can make sacrifices. . . Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.--Such a god must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he must be able to play either friend or foe--he is wondered at for the good he does as well as for the evil he does. But the castration, against all nature, of such a god, making him a god of goodness alone, would be contrary to human inclination. Mankind has just as much need for an evil god as for a good god; it doesn't have to thank mere tolerance and humanitarianism for its own existence. . . . What would be the value of a god who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn, cunning, violence? who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous ardeurs of victory and of destruction? No one would understand such a god: why should any one want him?--True enough, when a nation is on the downward path, when it feels its belief in its own future, its hope of freedom slipping from it, when it begins to see submission as a first necessity and the virtues of submission as measures of self-preservation, then it must overhaul its god. He then becomes a hypocrite, timorous and demure; he counsels "peace of soul," hate-no-more, leniency, "love" of friend and foe. He moralizes endlessly; he creeps into every private virtue; he becomes the god of every man; he becomes a private citizen, a cosmopolitan. . . Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a people, everything aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a people; now he is simply the good god...The truth is that there is no other alternative for gods: either they are the will to power--in which case they are national gods--or incapacity for power--in which case they have to be good. 17. Wherever the will to power begins to decline, in whatever form, there is always an accompanying decline physiologically, a decadence. The divinity of this decadence, shorn of its masculine virtues and passions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically degraded, of the weak. Of course, they do not call themselves the weak; they call themselves "the good." . . . No hint is needed to indicate the moments in history at which the dualistic fiction of a good and an evil god first became possible. The same instinct which prompts the inferior to reduce their own god to "goodness-in-itself" also prompts them to eliminate all good qualities from the god of their superiors; they make revenge on their masters by making a devil of the latter's god.--The good god, and the devil like him--both are abortions of decadence.--How can we be so tolerant of the na?vet? of Christian theologians as to join in their doctrine that the evolution of the concept of god from "the god of Israel," the god of a people, to the Christian god, the essence of all goodness, is to be described as progress?--But even Renan does this. As if Renan had a right to be na?ve! The contrary actually stares one in the face. When everything necessary to ascending life; when all that is strong, courageous, masterful and proud has been eliminated from the concept of a god; when he has sunk step by step to the level of a staff for the weary, a sheet-anchor for the drowning; when he be comes the poor man's god, the sinner's god, the invalid's god par excellence, and the attribute of "saviour" or "redeemer" remains as the one essential attribute of divinity--just what is the significance of such a metamorphosis? what does such a reduction of the godhead imply?--To be sure, the "kingdom of God" has thus grown larger. Formerly he had only his own people, his "chosen" people. But since then he has gone wandering, like his people themselves, into foreign parts; he has given up settling down quietly anywhere; finally he has come to feel at home everywhere, and is the great cosmopolitan--until now he has the "great majority" on his side, and half the earth. But this god of the "great majority," this democrat among gods, has not become a proud heathen god: on the contrary, he remains a Jew, he remains a god in a corner, a god of all the dark nooks and crevices, of all the noisesome quarters of the world! . . His earthly kingdom, now as always, is a kingdom of the underworld, a souterrain kingdom, a ghetto kingdom. . . And he himself is so pale, so weak, so decadent . . . Even the palest of the pale are able to master him--messieurs the metaphysicians, those albinos of the intellect. They spun their webs around him for so long that finally he was hypnotized, and began to spin himself, and became another metaphysician. Thereafter he resumed once more his old business of spinning the world out of his inmost being sub specie Spinozae; thereafter he be came ever thinner and paler--became the "ideal," became "pure spirit," became "the absolute," became "the thing-in-itself." . . . The collapse of a god: he became a "thing-in-itself." 18. The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy! . . . 19. The fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this Christian god does little credit to their gift for religion--and not much more to their taste. They ought to have been able to make an end of such a moribund and worn-out product of the decadence. A curse lies upon them because they were not equal to it; they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a part of their instincts--and since then they have not managed to create any more gods. Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! Instead, there still exists, and as if by some intrinsic right,--as if he were the ultimatum and maximum of the power to create gods, of the creator spiritus in mankind--this pitiful god of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid image of decay, conjured up out of emptiness, contradiction and vain imagining, in which all the instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and wearinesses of the soul find their sanction!-- 20. In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they are both decadence religions--but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.--Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and secondly, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the "impersonal." (--Both of these states will be familiar to a few of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me). These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood; finally, no worry, either on one's own account or on account of others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer--he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health. Prayer is not included, and neither is asceticism. There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery (--it is always possible to leave--). These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with unbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to revenge, aversion, ressentiment (--"enmity never brings an end to enmity": the moving refrain of all Buddhism. . .) And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful. The mental fatigue that he observes, already plainly displayed in too much "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and of "egoism"), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual interests back to the ego. In Buddha's teaching egoism is a duty. The "one thing needful," the question "how can you be delivered from suffering," regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet. (--Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon pure "scientificality," to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to the estate of a morality) . 21. The things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and no militarism; moreover, it must get its start among the higher and better educated classes. Cheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata, and they are attained. Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.--Under Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed come to the fore: it is only those who are at the bottom who seek their salvation in it. Here the prevailing pastime, the favourite remedy for boredom is the discussion of sin, self-criticism, the inquisition of conscience; here the emotion produced by power (called "God") is pumped up (by prayer); here the highest good is regarded as unattainable, as a gift, as "grace." Here, too, open dealing is lacking; concealment and the darkened room are Christian. Here body is despised and hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself against cleanliness (--the first Christian order after the banishment of the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova alone) . Christian, too; is a certain cruelty toward one's self and toward others; hatred of unbelievers; the will to persecute. Sombre and disquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of mind, bearing the most respectable names are epileptoid; the diet is so regulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves. Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"--along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (--one resigns one's "body" to them--one wantsonly one's "soul" . . . ). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general . . . 22. When Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest orders, the underworld of the ancient world, and began seeking power among barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with exhausted men, but with men still inwardly savage and capable of self torture--in brief, strong men, but bungled men. Here, unlike in the case of the Buddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is not merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on the contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a tendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity had to embrace barbaric concepts and valuations in order to obtain mastery over barbarians: of such sort, for example, are the sacrifices of the first-born, the drinking of blood as a sacrament, the disdain of the intellect and of culture; torture in all its forms, whether bodily or not; the whole pomp of the cult. Buddhism is a religion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that have become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized (--Europe is not yet ripe for it--): it is a summons 'that takes them back to peace and cheerfulness, to a careful rationing of the spirit, to a certain hardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering beasts of prey; its modus operandi is to make them ill--to make feeble is the Christian recipe for taming, for "civilizing." Buddhism is a religion for the closing, over-wearied stages of civilization. Christianity appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof. 23. Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. It no longer has to justify its pains, its susceptibility to suffering, by interpreting these things in terms of sin--it simply says, as it simply thinks, "I suffer." To the barbarian, however, suffering in itself is scarcely understandable: what he needs, first of all, is an explanation as to why he suffers. (His mere instinct prompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in silence.) Here the word "devil" was a blessing: man had to have an omnipotent and terrible enemy--there was no need to be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an enemy. --At the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong to the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is believed to be true. Truth and faith: here we have two wholly distinct worlds of ideas, almost two diametrically opposite worlds--the road to the one and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact thoroughly--this is almost enough, in the Orient, to make one a sage. The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. When, for example, a man gets any pleasure out of the notion that he has been saved from sin, it is not necessary for him to be actually sinful, but merely to feel sinful. But when faith is thus exalted above everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and patient inquiry have to be discredited: the road to the truth becomes a forbidden road.--Hope, in its stronger forms, is a great deal more powerful stimulans to life than any sort of realized joy can ever be. Man must be sustained in suffering by a hope so high that no conflict with actuality can dash it--so high, indeed, that no fulfillment can satisfy it: a hope reaching out beyond this world. (Precisely because of this power that hope has of making the suffering hold out, the Greeks regarded it as the evil of evils, as the most malign of evils; it remained behind at the source of all evil.)^3--In order that love may be possible, God must become a person; in order that the lower instincts may take a hand in the matter God must be young. To satisfy the ardor of the woman a beautiful saint must appear on the scene, and to satisfy that of the men there must be a virgin. These things are necessary if Christianity is to assume lordship over a soil on which some aphrodisiacal or Adonis cult has already established a notion as to what a cult ought to be. To insist upon chastity greatly strengthens the vehemence and subjectivity of the religious instinct--it makes the cult warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.--Love is the state in which man sees things most decidedly as they are not. The force of illusion reaches its highest here, and so does the capacity for sweetening, for transfiguring. When a man is in love he endures more than at any other time; he submits to anything. The problem was to devise a religion which would allow one to love: by this means the worst that life has to offer is overcome--it is scarcely even noticed.--So much for the three Christian virtues: faith, hope and charity: I call them the three Christian ingenuities.--Buddhism is in too late a stage of development, too full of positivism, to be shrewd in any such way.-- 24. Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity. The first thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity is to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung--it is not a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the Jews. In the words of the Saviour, "salvation is of the Jews." ^4--The second thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the Galilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most degenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign features) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used: as a type of the Saviour of mankind. --The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions--one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance. We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the "people of God," shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism. In my "Genealogy of Morals" I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a noble morality and a ressentiment morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able to say Nay to everything representing an ascending evolution of life--that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval--the instincts of ressentiment, here become downright genius, had to invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable. Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for decadence--not as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which "the world" could be defied. The Jews are the very opposite of decadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all decadent movements (--for example, the Christianity of Paul--), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,--that is to say, to the priestly class-decadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of "good" and "bad," "true" and "false" in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it. 25. The history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt to denaturize all natural values: I point to five facts which bear this out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel maintained the right attitude of things, which is to say, the natural attitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power, its joy in itself, its hopes for itself: to him the Jews looked for victory and salvation and through him they expected nature to give them whatever was necessary to their existence--above all, rain. Jahveh is the god of Israel, and consequently the god of justice: this is the logic of every race that has power in its hands and a good conscience in the use of it. In the religious ceremonial of the Jews both aspects of this self-approval stand revealed. The nation is grateful for the high destiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the benign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its herds and its crops.--This view of things remained an ideal for a long while, even after it had been robbed of validity by tragic blows: anarchy within and the Assyrian without. But the people still retained, as a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who was at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge--a vision best visualized in the typical prophet (i.e., critic and satirist of the moment), Isaiah. --But every hope remained unfulfilled. The old god no longer could do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? simply this: the conception of him was changed--the conception of him was denaturized; this was the price that had to be paid for keeping him.--Jahveh, the god of "justice"--he is in accord with Israel no more, he no longer visualizes the national egoism; he is now a god only conditionally. . . The public notion of this god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators, who interpret all happiness as a reward and all unhappiness as a punishment for obedience or disobedience to him, for "sin": that most fraudulent of all imaginable interpretations, whereby a "moral order of the world" is set up, and the fundamental concepts, "cause" and "effect," are stood on their heads. Once natural causation has been swept out of the world by doctrines of reward and punishment some sort of unnatural causation becomes necessary: and all other varieties of the denial of nature follow it. A god who demands--in place of a god who helps, who gives counsel, who is at bottom merely a name for every happy inspiration of courage and self-reliance. . . Morality is no longer a reflection of the conditions which make for the sound life and development of the people; it is no longer the primary life-instinct; instead it has become abstract and in opposition to life--a fundamental perversion of the fancy, an "evil eye" on all things. What is Jewish, what is Christian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness polluted with the idea of "sin"; well-being represented as a danger, as a "temptation"; a physiological disorder produced by the canker worm of conscience... 26. The concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified ;--but even here Jewish priest craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel ceased to be of any value: out with it!--These priests accomplished that miracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the documentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the face of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the past of their people into religious terms, which is to say, they converted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all offences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was rewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as something far more shameful if familiarity with the ecclesiastical interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our inclinations for uprightness in historicis. And the philosophers support the church: the lie about a "moral order of the world" runs through the whole of philosophy, even the newest. What is the meaning of a "moral order of the world"? That there is a thing called the will of God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and what he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual thereof, is to he measured by the extent to which they or he obey this will of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual arecontrolled by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to the degree of obedience manifested.--In place of all that pitiable lie reality has this to say: the priest, a parasitical variety of man who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the name of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he himself determines the value of all things "the kingdom of God"; he calls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained "the will of God"; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and all individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the power of the priestly order. One observes him at work: under the hand of the Jewish priesthood the great age of Israel became an age of decline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was transformed into a punishment for that great age-during which priests had not yet come into existence. Out of the powerful and wholly free heroes of Israel's history they fashioned, according to their changing needs, either wretched bigots and hypocrites or men entirely "godless." They reduced every great event to the idiotic formula: "obedient or disobedient to God."--They went a step further: the "will of God" (in other words some means necessary for preserving the power of the priests) had to be determined--and to this end they had to have a "revelation." In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and "holy scriptures" had to be concocted--and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of "sin" now ended, they were duly published. The "will of God," it appears, had long stood like a rock; the trouble was that mankind had neglected the "holy scriptures". . . But the ''will of God'' had already been revealed to Moses. . . . What happened? Simply this: the priest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest meticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to the smallest (--not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for the priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be known just what he wanted, what "the will of God" was.... From this time forward things were so arranged that the priest became indispensable everywhere; at all the great natural events of life, at birth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the "sacrifice" (that is, at meal-times), the holy parasite put in his appearance, and proceeded to denaturize it--in his own phrase, to "sanctify" it. . . . For this should be noted: that every natural habit, every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice, marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value in itself, is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the reverse of valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the "moral order of the world"). The fact requires a sanction--a power to grant values becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is by denying nature. . . . The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all.--Disobedience to God, which actually means to the priest, to "the law," now gets the name of "sin"; the means prescribed for "reconciliation with God" are, of course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the thumb of the priest; he alone can "save". Psychologically considered, "sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning". . . . Prime axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth"--in plain English, him that submitteth to the priest. 27. Christianity sprang from a soil so corrupt that on it everything natural, every natural value, every reality was opposed by the deepest instincts of the ruling class--it grew up as a sort of war to the death upon reality, and as such it has never been surpassed. The "holy people," who had adopted priestly values and priestly names for all things, and who, with a terrible logical consistency, had rejected everything of the earth as "unholy," "worldly," "sinful"--this people put its instinct into a final formula that was logical to the point of self-annihilation: asChristianity it actually denied even the last form of reality, the "holy people," the "chosen people," Jewish reality itself. The phenomenon is of the first order of importance: the small insurrectionary movement which took the name of Jesus of Nazareth is simply the Jewish instinct redivivus--in other words, it is the priestly instinct come to such a pass that it can no longer endure the priest as a fact; it is the discovery of a state of existence even more fantastic than any before it, of a vision of life even more unreal than that necessary to an ecclesiastical organization. Christianity actually denies the church... I am unable to determine what was the target of the insurrection said to have been led (whether rightly or wrongly) by Jesus, if it was not the Jewish church--"church" being here used in exactly the same sense that the word has today. It was an insurrection against the "good and just," against the "prophets of Israel," against the whole hierarchy of society--not against corruption, but against caste, privilege, order, formalism. It was unbelief in "superior men," a Nay flung at everything that priests and theologians stood for. But the hierarchy that was called into question, if only for an instant, by this movement was the structure of piles which, above everything, was necessary to the safety of the Jewish people in the midst of the "waters"--it represented theirlast possibility of survival; it was the final residuum of their independent political existence; an attack upon it was an attack upon the most profound national instinct, the most powerful national will to live, that has ever appeared on earth. This saintly anarchist, who aroused the people of the abyss, the outcasts and "sinners," the Chandala of Judaism, to rise in revolt against the established order of things--and in language which, if the Gospels are to be credited, would get him sent to Siberia today--this man was certainly a political criminal, at least in so far as it was possible to be one in so absurdly unpolitical a community. This is what brought him to the cross: the proof thereof is to be found in the inscription that was put upon the cross. He died for his own sins--there is not the slightest ground for believing, no matter how often it is asserted, that he died for the sins of others.-- 28. As to whether he himself was conscious of this contradiction--whether, in fact, this was the only contradiction he was cognizant of--that is quite another question. Here, for the first time, I touch upon the problem of the psychology of the Saviour.--I confess, to begin with, that there are very few books which offer me harder reading than the Gospels. My difficulties are quite different from those which enabled the learned curiosity of the German mind to achieve one of its most unforgettable triumphs. It is a long while since I, like all other young scholars, enjoyed with all the sapient laboriousness of a fastidious philologist the work of the incomparable Strauss.^5At that time I was twenty years old: now I am too serious for that sort of thing. What do I care for the contradictions of "tradition"? How can any one call pious legends "traditions"? The histories of saints present the most dubious variety of literature in existence; to examine them by the scientific method, in the entire absence of corroborative documents, seems to me to condemn the whole inquiry from the start--it is simply learned idling. 29. What concerns me is the psychological type of the Saviour. This type might be depicted in the Gospels, in however mutilated a form and however much overladen with extraneous characters--that is, in spite of the Gospels; just as the figure of Francis of Assisi shows itself in his legends in spite of his legends. It is not a question of mere truthful evidence as to what he did, what he said and how he actually died; the question is, whether his type is still conceivable, whether it has been handed down to us.--All the attempts that I know of to read the history of a "soul" in the Gospels seem to me to reveal only a lamentable psychological levity. M. Renan, that mountebank in psychologicus, has contributed the two most unseemly notions to this business of explaining the type of Jesus: the notion of the genius and that of the hero ("heros"). But if there is anything essentially unevangelical, it is surely the concept of the hero. What the Gospels make instinctive is precisely the reverse of all heroic struggle, of all taste for conflict: the very incapacity for resistance is here converted into something moral: ("resist not evil !"--the most profound sentence in the Gospels, perhaps the true key to them), to wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy. What is the meaning of "glad tidings"?--The true life, the life eternal has been found--it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions, from all keeping of distances. Every one is the child of God--Jesus claims nothing for himself alone--as the child of God each man is the equal of every other man. . . .Imagine making Jesus a hero!--And what a tremendous misunderstanding appears in the word "genius"! Our whole conception of the "spiritual," the whole conception of our civilization, could have had no meaning in the world that Jesus lived in. In the strict sense of the physiologist, a quite different word ought to be used here. . . . We all know that there is a morbid sensibility of the tactile nerves which causes those suffering from it to recoil from every touch, and from every effort to grasp a solid object. Brought to its logical conclusion, such a physiological habitus becomes an instinctive hatred of all reality, a flight into the "intangible," into the "incomprehensible"; a distaste for all formulae, for all conceptions of time and space, for everything established--customs, institutions, the church--; a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of reality survives, a merely "inner" world, a "true" world, an "eternal" world. . . . "The Kingdom of God is withinyou". . . . 30. The instinctive hatred of reality: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation--so great that merely to be "touched" becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound. The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds and distances in feeling: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation--so great that it senses all resistance, all compulsion to resistance, as unbearable anguish (--that is to say, as harmful, as prohibited by the instinct of self-preservation), and regards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer necessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or dangerous--love, as the only, as the ultimate possibility of life. . . These are the two physiological realities upon and out of which the doctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation of paganism. Epicurus was a typical decadent: I was the first to recognize him.--The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain--the end of this can be nothing save a religion of love. . . . 31. I have already given my answer to the problem. The prerequisite to it is the assumption that the type of the Saviour has reached us only in a greatly distorted form. This distortion is very probable: there are many reasons why a type of that sort should not be handed down in a pure form, complete and free of additions. The milieu in which this strange figure moved must have left marks upon him, and more must have been imprinted by the history, the destiny, of the early Christian communities; the latter indeed, must have embellished the type retrospectively with characters which can be understood only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda. That strange and sickly world into which the Gospels lead us--a world apparently out of a Russian novel, in which the scum of society, nervous maladies and "childish" idiocy keep a tryst--must, in any case, have coarsened the type: the first disciples, in particular, must have been forced to translate an existence visible only in symbols and incomprehensibilities into their own crudity, in order to understand it at all--in their sight the type could take on reality only after it had been recast in a familiar mould.... The prophet, the messiah, the future judge, the teacher of morals, the worker of wonders, John the Baptist--all these merely presented chances to misunderstand it . . . . Finally, let us not underrate the proprium of all great, and especially all sectarian veneration: it tends to erase from the venerated objects all its original traits and idiosyncrasies, often so painfully strange--it does not even see them. It is greatly to be regretted that no Dostoyevsky lived in the neighbourhood of this most interesting decadent--I mean some one who would have felt the poignant charm of such a compound of the sublime, the morbid and the childish. In the last analysis, the type, as a type of the decadence, may actually have been peculiarly complex and contradictory: such a possibility is not to be lost sight of. Nevertheless, the probabilities seem to be against it, for in that case tradition would have been particularly accurate and objective, whereas we have reasons for assuming the contrary. Meanwhile, there is a contradiction between the peaceful preacher of the mount, the sea-shore and the fields, who appears like a new Buddha on a soil very unlike India's, and the aggressive fanatic, the mortal enemy of theologians and ecclesiastics, who stands glorified by Renan's malice as "le grand maitre en ironie." I myself haven't any doubt that the greater part of this venom (and no less of esprit) got itself into the concept of the Master only as a result of the excited nature of Christian propaganda: we all know the unscrupulousness of sectarians when they set out to turn their leader into an apologia for themselves. When the early Christians had need of an adroit, contentious, pugnacious and maliciously subtle theologian to tackle other theologians, they created a "god" that met that need, just as they put into his mouth without hesitation certain ideas that were necessary to them but that were utterly at odds with the Gospels--"the second coming," "the last judgment," all sorts of expectations and promises, current at the time.-- 32. I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word imperieux, used by Renan, is alone enough to annul the type. What the "glad tidings" tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children; the faith that is voiced here is no more an embattled faith--it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit. The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not denounce, it does not defend itself: it does not come with "the sword"--it does not realize how it will one day set man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by rewards and promises, or by "scriptures": it is itself, first and last, its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own "kingdom of God." This faith does not formulate itself--it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds only concepts of a Judaeo--Semitic character (--that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category--an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics^6 an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,^7and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse ^8--and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.--With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a "free spirit"^9--he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,^10 a whatever is established killeth. 'The idea of "life" as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: "life" or "truth" or "light" is his word for the innermost--in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory. --Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather ecclesiastical prejudices: such a symbolism par excellence stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art--his "wisdom" is precisely a pure ignorance^11 of all such things. He has never heard of culture; he doesn't have to make war on it--he doesn't even deny it. . . The same thing may be said of the state, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war--he has no ground for denying" the world," for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of "the world" . . . Denial is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.--In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a "truth," may be established by proofs (--his proofs are inner "lights," subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple "proofs of power"--). Such a doctrine cannot contradict: it doesn't know that other doctrines exist, or can exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it. . . If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the "blindness" with sincere sympathy--for it alone has "light"--but it does not offer objections . . . 33. In the whole psychology of the "Gospels" the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. "Sin," which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished--this is precisely the "glad tidings." Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality--what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it. The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a "belief" that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles ("neighbour," of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates ("Swear not at all") .^12 He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.--And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.-- The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life--and so was his death. . . He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God--not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one's self "divine," "blessed," "evangelical," a "child of God."Not by "repentance,"not by "prayer and forgiveness" is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God--it is itself "God!"--What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of "sin," "forgiveness of sin," "faith," "salvation through faith"--the wholeecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the "glad tidings." The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is "in heaven" and is "immortal," despite many reasons for feeling that he isnot "in heaven": this is the only psychological reality in "salvation."--A new way of life, not a new faith. 34. If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as "truths"--hat he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of "the Son of God" does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an "eternal" fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the "kingdom of God," and of the "sonship of God." Nothing could he more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a "kingdom of God" that is to come, of a "kingdom of heaven" beyond, and of a "son of God" as the second person of the Trinity. All this--if I may be forgiven the phrase--is like thrusting one's fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism. . . .But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols "Father" and "Son"--not, of course, to every one--: the word "Son" expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and "Father" expresses that feeling itself--the sensation of eternity and of perfection.--I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story^13 at the threshold of the Christian "faith"? And a dogma of "immaculate conception" for good measure? . . --And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness-- The "kingdom of heaven" is a state of the heart--not something to come "beyond the world" or "after death." The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The "hour of death" isnot a Christian idea--"hours," time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of "glad tidings." . . . The "kingdom of God" is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a "millennium"--it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere. . . . 35. This "bearer of glad tidings" died as he lived and taught--not to "save mankind," but to show mankind how to live. It was a way of life that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the officers, before his accusers--his demeanour on the cross. He does not resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off the most extreme penalty--more, he invites it. . . And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in those, who do him evil . . . Not to defend one's self, not to show anger, not to lay blames. . . On the contrary, to submit even to the Evil One--to love him. . . . 36. --We free spirits--we are the first to have the necessary prerequisite to understanding what nineteen centuries have misunderstood--that instinct and passion for integrity which makes war upon the "holy lie" even more than upon all other lies. . . Mankind was unspeakably far from our benevolent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the spirit which alone makes possible the solution of such strange and subtle things: what men always sought, with shameless egoism, was their own advantage therein; they created the church out of denial of the Gospels. . . . Whoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity's hand in the great drama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the stupendous question-mark that is called Christianity. That mankind should be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the origin, the meaning and the law of the Gospels--that in the concept of the "church" the very things should be pronounced holy that the "bearer of glad tidings" regards as beneath him and behind him--it would be impossible to surpass this as a grand example of world-historical irony-- 37. --Our age is proud of its historical sense: how, then, could it delude itself into believing that the crude fable of the wonder-worker and Saviour constituted the beginnings of Christianity--and that everything spiritual and symbolical in it only came later? Quite to the contrary, the whole history of Christianity--from the death on the cross onward--is the history of a progressively clumsier misunderstanding of an original symbolism. With every extension of Christianity among larger and ruder masses, even less capable of grasping the principles that gave birth to it, the need arose to make it more and more vulgar and barbarous--it absorbed the teachings and rites of all the subterranean cults of the imperium Romanum, and the absurdities engendered by all sorts of sickly reasoning. It was the fate of Christianity that its faith had to become as sickly, as low and as vulgar as the needs were sickly, low and vulgar to which it had to administer. A sickly barbarism finally lifts itself to power as the church--the church, that incarnation of deadly hostility to all honesty, to all loftiness of soul, to all discipline of the spirit, to all spontaneous and kindly humanity.--Christian values--noble values: it is only we, we free spirits, who have re-established this greatest of all antitheses in values!. . . . 38. --I cannot, at this place, avoid a sigh. There are days when I am visited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy--contempt of man. Let me leave no doubt as to what I despise, whom I despise: it is the man of today, the man with whom I am unhappily contemporaneous. The man of today--I am suffocated by his foul breath! . . . Toward the past, like all who understand, I am full of tolerance, which is to say, generous self-control: with gloomy caution I pass through whole millenniums of this mad house of a world, call it "Christianity," "Christian faith" or the "Christian church," as you will--I take care not to hold mankind responsible for its lunacies. But my feeling changes and breaks out irresistibly the moment I enter modern times,our times. Our age knows better. . . What was formerly merely sickly now becomes indecent--it is indecent to be a Christian today. And here my disgust begins.--I look about me: not a word survives of what was once called "truth"; we can no longer bear to hear a priest pronounce the word. Even a man who makes the most modest pretensions to integrity must know that a theologian, a priest, a pope of today not only errs when he speaks, but actually lies--and that he no longer escapes blame for his lie through "innocence" or "ignorance." The priest knows, as every one knows, that there is no longer any "God," or any "sinner," or any "Saviour"--that "free will" and the "moral order of the world" are lies--: serious reflection, the profound self-conquest of the spirit,allow no man to pretend that he does not know it. . . All the ideas of the church are now recognized for what they are--as the worst counterfeits in existence, invented to debase nature and all natural values; the priest himself is seen as he actually is--as the most dangerous form of parasite, as the venomous spider of creation. . - - We know, our conscience now knows--just what the real value of all those sinister inventions of priest and church has been and what ends they have served, with their debasement of humanity to a state of self-pollution, the very sight of which excites loathing,--the concepts "the other world," "the last judgment," "the immortality of the soul," the "soul" itself: they are all merely so many in instruments of torture, systems of cruelty, whereby the priest becomes master and remains master. . .Every one knows this,but nevertheless things remain as before. What has become of the last trace of decent feeling, of self-respect, when our statesmen, otherwise an unconventional class of men and thoroughly anti-Christian in their acts, now call themselves Christians and go to the communion table? . . . A prince at the head of his armies, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and arrogance of his people--and yet acknowledging, without any shame, that he is a Christian! . . . Whom, then, does Christianity deny? what does it call "the world"? To be a soldier, to be a judge, to be a patriot; to defend one's self; to be careful of one's honour; to desire one's own advantage; to be proud . . . every act of everyday, every instinct, every valuation that shows itself in a deed, is now anti-Christian: what a monster of falsehood the modern man must be to call himself nevertheless, and without shame, a Christian!-- 39. --I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.--The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings," a Dysangelium.^14It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith," and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian. . . To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages. . . . Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being. . . . States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true--as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity. In fact, there are no Christians. The "Christian"--he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian--is simply a psychological self-delusion. Closely examined, it appears that, despite all his "faith," he has been ruled only by his instincts--and what instincts!--In all ages--for example, in the case of Luther--"faith" has been no more than a cloak, a pretense, a curtain behind which the instincts have played their game--a shrewd blindness to the domination of certain of the instincts . . .I have already called "faith" the specially Christian form of shrewdness--people always talk of their "faith" and act according to their instincts. . . In the world of ideas of the Christian there is nothing that so much as touches reality: on the contrary, one recognizes an instinctive hatred of reality as the motive power, the only motive power at the bottom of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That even here, in psychologicis, there is a radical error, which is to say one conditioning fundamentals, which is to say, one in substance. Take away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place--and the whole of Christianity crumbles to nothingness !--Viewed calmly, this strangest of all phenomena, a religion not only depending on errors, but inventive and ingenious only in devising injurious errors, poisonous to life and to the heart--this remains a spectacle for the gods--for those gods who are also philosophers, and whom I have encountered, for example, in the celebrated dialogues at Naxos. At the moment when their disgust leaves them (--and us!) they will be thankful for the spectacle afforded by the Christians: perhaps because of this curious exhibition alone the wretched little planet called the earth deserves a glance from omnipotence, a show of divine interest. . . . Therefore, let us not underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false to the point of innocence, is far above the ape--in its application to the Christians a well--known theory of descent becomes a mere piece of politeness. . . . 40. --The fate of the Gospels was decided by death--it hung on the "cross.". . . It was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only--it was only this appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the real riddle: "Who was it? what was it?"--The feeling of dismay, of profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their cause; the terrible question, "Why just in this way?"--this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here everything must be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a meaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple excludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: "Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?"--this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one's self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in his character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present its opposite. Obviously, the little community had not understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of ressentiment--a plain indication of how little he was understood at all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself, was to offer the strongest possible proof, or example, of his teachings in the most public manner. But his disciples were very far from forgiving his death--though to have done so would have accorded with the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared to offer themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a similar death. . . . On the contrary, it was precisely the most unevangelical of feelings, revenge, that now possessed them. It seemed impossible that the cause should perish with his death: "recompense" and "judgment" became necessary (--yet what could be less evangelical than "recompense," "punishment," and "sitting in judgment"!) --Once more the popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground; attention was riveted upon an historical moment: the "kingdom of God" is to come, with judgment upon his enemies. . . But in all this there was a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the "kingdom of God" as a last act, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation, the fulfillment, therealization of this "kingdom of God." It was only now that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees and theologians began to appear in the character of the Master was thereby turned into a Pharisee and theologian himself! On the other hand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal right of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of elevating Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him from themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge themselves upon their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him on a great height. The One God and the Only Son of God: both were products of resentment . . . . 41. --And from that time onward an absurd problem offered itself: "how could God allow it!" To which the deranged reason of the little community formulated an answer that was terrifying in its absurdity: God gave his son as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. At once there was an end of the gospels! Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious and barbarous form: sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What appalling paganism !--Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of "guilt," he denied that there was any gulf fixed between God and man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that was precisely his "glad tidings". . . And not as a mere privilege!--From this time forward the type of the Saviour was corrupted, bit by bit, by the doctrine of judgment and of the second coming, the doctrine of death as a sacrifice, the doctrine of the resurrection, by means of which the entire concept of "blessedness," the whole and only reality of the gospels, is juggled away--in favour of a state of existence after death! . . . St. Paul, with that rabbinical impudence which shows itself in all his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that indecent conception, in this way: "If Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain!"--And at once there sprang from the Gospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality. . . Paul even preached it as a reward . . . 42. One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth--real, not merely promised. For this remains--as I have already pointed out--the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing.--Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels--nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth! . . . Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history--he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and invented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now appeared, had referred to his "Saviour." . . . Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity . . . The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his death--nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence--in the lie of the "risen" Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour--what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself--this would be a genuine niaiserie in a psychologist. Paul willed the end; therefore he also willed the means. --What he himself didn't believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he spread his teaching.--What he wanted was power; in Paul the priest once more reached out for power--he had use only for such concepts, teachings and symbols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the masses and organizing mobs. What was the only part of Christianity that Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul's invention, his device for establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the immortality of the soul--that is to say, the doctrine of "judgment". 43. When the centre of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond"--in nothingness--then one has taken away its centre of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct--henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life. . . . Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? . . . Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the "straight path."--"One thing only is necessary". . . That every man, because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf--it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely this miserable flattery of personal vanity for its triumph--it was thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side. The "salvation of the soul"--in plain English: "the world revolves around me." . . . The poisonous doctrine, "equal rights for all," has been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to say, upon the first prerequisite to every step upward, to every development of civilization--out of the ressentiment of the masses it has forged its chief weapons against us, against everything noble, joyous and high spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth . . . To allow "immortality" to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most vicious outrage upon noble humanity ever perpetrated.--And let us not underestimate the fatal influence that Christianity has had, even upon politics! Nowadays no one has courage any more for special rights, for the right of dominion, for feelings of honourable pride in himself and his equals--for the pathos of distance. . . Our politics is sick with this lack of courage!--The aristocratic attitude of mind has been undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if belief in the "privileges of the majority" makes and will continue to make revolution--it is Christianity, let us not doubt, and Christian valuations, which convert every revolution into a carnival of blood and crime! Christianity is a revolt of all creatures that creep on the ground against everything that is lofty: the gospel of the "lowly" lowers . . . 44. --The gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption that was already persistent within the primitive community. That which Paul, with the cynical logic of a rabbi, later developed to a conclusion was at bottom merely a process of decay that had begun with the death of the Saviour.--These gospels cannot be read too carefully; difficulties lurk behind every word. I confess--I hope it will not be held against me--that it is precisely for this reason that they offer first-rate joy to a psychologist--as the opposite of all merely naive corruption, as refinement par excellence, as an artistic triumph in psychological corruption. The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is not to be compared to them. Here we are among Jews: this is the first thing to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the matter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal "holiness" unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art--all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race. The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery. The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying, is the Jew all over again--he is threefold the Jew. . . The underlying will to make use only of such concepts, symbols and attitudes as fit into priestly practice, the instinctive repudiation of every other mode of thought, and every other method of estimating values and utilities--this is not only tradition, it is inheritance: only as an inheritance is it able to operate with the force of nature. The whole of mankind, even the best minds of the best ages (with one exception, perhaps hardly human--), have permitted themselves to be deceived. The gospels have been read as a book of innocence. . . surely no small indication of the high skill with which the trick has been done.--Of course, if we could actually see these astounding bigots and bogus saints, even if only for an instant, the farce would come to an end,--and it is precisely because I cannot read a word of theirs without seeing their attitudinizing that I have made am end of them. . . . I simply cannot endure the way they have of rolling up their eyes.--For the majority, happily enough, books are mere literature.--Let us not be led astray: they say "judge not," and yet they condemn to hell whoever stands in their way. In letting God sit in judgment they judge themselves; in glorifying God they glorify themselves; in demanding that every one show the virtues which they themselves happen to be capable of--still more, which they must have in order to remain on top--they assume the grand air of men struggling for virtue, of men engaging in a war that virtue may prevail. "We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good" (--"the truth," "the light," "the kingdom of God"): in point of fact, they simply do what they cannot help doing. Forced, like hypocrites, to be sneaky, to hide in corners, to slink along in the shadows, they convert their necessity into aduty: it is on grounds of duty that they account for their lives of humility, and that humility becomes merely one more proof of their piety. . . Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud! "Virtue itself shall bear witness for us.". . . . One may read the gospels as books of moral seduction: these petty folks fasten themselves to morality--they know the uses of morality! Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose!--The fact is that the conscious conceit of the chosen here disguises itself as modesty: it is in this way that they, the "community," the "good and just," range themselves, once and for always, on one side, the side of "the truth"--and the rest of mankind, "the world," on the other. . . In that we observe the most fatal sort of megalomania that the earth has ever seen: little abortions of bigots and liars began to claim exclusive rights in the concepts of "God," "the truth," "the light," "the spirit," "love," "wisdom" and "life," as if these things were synonyms of themselves and thereby they sought to fence themselves off from the "world"; little super-Jews, ripe for some sort of madhouse, turned values upside down in order to meet their notions, just as if the Christian were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even thelast judgment of all the rest. . . . The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish: once a chasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had no choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish instinct had devised, even against the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a Jew of the "reformed" confession.-- 45. --I offer a few examples of the sort of thing these petty people have got into their heads--what they have put into the mouth of the Master: the unalloyed creed of "beautiful souls."-- "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Mark vi, 11)--How evangelical! "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark ix, 42) .--How evangelical! -- "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire; Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark ix, 47)^15--It is not exactly the eye that is meant. "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark ix, 1.)--Well lied, lion!^16 . . . . "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For . . ." (Note of a psychologist. Christian morality is refuted by its fors: its reasons are against it,--this makes it Christian.) Mark viii, 34.-- "Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew vii, l.)^17--What a notion of justice, of a "just" judge! . . . "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matthew V, 46.)^18--Principle of "Christian love": it insists upon being well paid in the end. . . . "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew vi, 15.)--Very compromising for the said "father." "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew vi, 33.)--All these things: namely, food, clothing, all the necessities of life. An error, to put it mildly. . . . A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases. "Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." (Luke vi, 23.)--Impudent rabble! It compares itself to the prophets. . . "Know yea not that yea are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelt in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple yea are." (Paul, 1 Corinthians iii, 16.)^19--For that sort of thing one cannot have enough contempt. . . . "Do yea not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are yea unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (Paul, 1 Corinthians vi, 2.)--Unfortunately, not merely the speech of a lunatic. . . This frightful impostor then proceeds: "Know yea not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?". . . "Hat not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. . . . Not many wise men after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble are called: But God hat chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hat chosen the weak things of the world confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hat God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." (Paul, 1 Corinthians i, 20ff.)^20 --In order to understand this passage, a first rate example of the psychology underlying every Chandala-morality, one should read the first part of my "Genealogy of Morals": there, for the first time, the antagonism between a noble morality and a morality born of ressentiment and impotent vengefulness is exhibited. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge. . . . 46. --What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would as little choose "early Christians" for companions as Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them . . . Neither has a pleasant smell.--I have searched the New Testament in vain for a single sympathetic touch; nothing is there that is free, kindly, open-hearted or upright. In it humanity does not even make the first step upward--the instinct for cleanliness is lacking. . . . Only evil instincts are there, and there is not even the courage of these evil instincts. It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a self-deception. Every other book becomes clean, once one has read the New Testament: for example, immediately after reading Paul I took up with delight that most charming and wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of whom one may say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote of Ceasar Borgia to the Duke of Parma: "e tutto Iesto"--immortally healthy, immortally cheerful and sound. . . .These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation. They attack, but everything they attack is thereby distinguished. Whoever is attacked by an "early Christian" is surely not befouled . . . On the contrary, it is an honour to have an "early Christian" as an opponent. One cannot read the New Testament without acquired admiration for whatever it abuses--not to speak of the "wisdom of this world," which an impudent wind bag tries to dispose of "by the foolishness of preaching." . . . Even the scribes and pharisees are benefitted by such opposition: they must certainly have been worth something to have been hated in such an indecent manner. Hypocrisy--as if this were a charge that the "early Christians" dared to make!--After all, they were the privileged, and that was enough: the hatred of the Chandala needed no other excuse. The "early Christian"--and also, I fear, the "last Christian," whom I may perhaps live to see--is a rebel against all privilege by profound instinct--he lives and makes war for ever for "equal rights." . . .Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. When a man proposes to represent, in his own person, the "chosen of God"--or to be a "temple of God," or a "judge of the angels"--then every other criterion, whether based upon honesty, upon intellect, upon manliness and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of the heart, becomes simply "worldly"--evil in itself. . . Moral: every word that comes from the lips of an "early Christian" is a lie, and his every act is instinctively dishonest--all his values, all his aims are noxious, but whoever he hates, whatever he hates, has real value . . . The Christian, and particularly the Christian priest, is thus a criterion of values. --Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously--that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less-- what did it matter? . . . The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value--and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?". . . 47. --The thing that sets us apart is not that we are unable to find God, either in history, or in nature, or behind nature--but that we regard what has been honoured as God, not as "divine," but as pitiable, as absurd, as injurious; not as a mere error, but as acrime against life. . . We deny that God is God . . . If any one were to show us this Christian God, we'd be still less inclined to believe in him.--In a formula: deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio.--Such a religion as Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must be inevitably the deadly enemy of the "wisdom of this world," which is to say, of science--and it will give the name of good to whatever means serve to poison, calumniate and cry down all intellectual discipline, all lucidity and strictness in matters of intellectual conscience, and all noble coolness and freedom of the mind. "Faith," as an imperative, vetoes science--in praxi, lying at any price. . . . Paul well knew that lying--that "faith"--was necessary; later on the church borrowed the fact from Paul.--The God that Paul invented for himself, a God who "reduced to absurdity" "the wisdom of this world" (especially the two great enemies of superstition, philology and medicine), is in truth only an indication of Paul's resolute determination to accomplish that very thing himself: to give one's own will the name of God, thora--that is essentially Jewish. Paul wants to dispose of the "wisdom of this world": his enemies are the good philologians and physicians of the Alexandrine school--on them he makes his war. As a matter of fact no man can be a philologian or a physician without being also Antichrist. That is to say, as a philologian a man sees behind the "holy books," and as a physician he sees behind the physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says "incurable"; the philologian says "fraud.". . . 48. --Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible--of God's mortal terror of science? . . . No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger.-- The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain.^21What does he do? He creates man--man is entertaining. . . But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining--he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself.--So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God.--"Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva"--every priest knows that; "from woman comes every evil in the world"--every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science. . . It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike--it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.--"Thou shalt not know"--the rest follows from that.--God's mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man must not think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don't allow him to think. . . Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of science !--Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific--there is no help for it: he must be drowned!". . . . 49. --I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the whole psychology of the priest.--The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science--the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions--a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to "know." . . ."Therefore, man must be made unhappy,"--this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.--It is easy to see just what, by this logic, was the first thing to come into the world :--"sin." . . . The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole "moral order of the world," was set up against science--against the deliverance of man from priests. . . . Man must not look outward; he must look inward. He must not look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to learn about them; he must not look at all; he must suffer . . . And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.--Away with physicians! What is needed is a Saviour.--The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of "grace," of "salvation," of "forgiveness"--lies through and through, and absolutely without psychological reality--were devised to destroy man's sense of causality: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and effect !--And not an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty in hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of priests! An attack of parasites! The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches! . . . When the natural consequences of an act are no longer "natural," but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of superstition--by "God," by "spirits," by "souls"--and reckoned as merely "moral" consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons, then the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed--then the greatest of crimes against humanity has been perpetrated.--I repeat that sin, man's self-desecration par excellence, was invented in order to make science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.-- 50. --In this place I can't permit myself to omit a psychology of "belief," of the "believer," for the special benefit of 'believers." If there remain any today who do not yet know how indecent it is to be "believing"--or how much a sign of decadence, of a broken will to live--then they will know it well enough tomorrow. My voice reaches even the deaf.--It appears, unless I have been incorrectly informed, that there prevails among Christians a sort of criterion of truth that is called "proof by power." Faith makes blessed: therefore it is true."--It might be objected right here that blessedness is not demonstrated, it is merely promised: it hangs upon "faith" as a condition--one shall be blessed because one believes. . . . But what of the thing that the priest promises to the believer, the wholly transcendental "beyond"--how is that to be demonstrated?--The "proof by power," thus assumed, is actually no more at bottom than a belief that the effects which faith promises will not fail to appear. In a formula: "I believe that faith makes for blessedness--therefore, it is true." . . But this is as far as we may go. This "therefore" would be absurdum itself as a criterion of truth.--But let us admit, for the sake of politeness, that blessedness by faith may be demonstrated (--not merely hoped for, and not merely promised by the suspicious lips of a priest): even so, could blessedness--in a technical term, pleasure--ever be a proof of truth? So little is this true that it is almost a proof against truth when sensations of pleasure influence the answer to the question "What is true?" or, at all events, it is enough to make that "truth" highly suspicious. The proof by "pleasure" is a proof of "pleasure--nothing more; why in the world should it be assumed that true judgments give more pleasure than false ones, and that, in conformity to some pre-established harmony, they necessarily bring agreeable feelings in their train?--The experience of all disciplined and profound minds teaches the contrary. Man has had to fight for every atom of the truth, and has had to pay for it almost everything that the heart, that human love, that human trust cling to. Greatness of soul is needed for this business: the service of truth is the hardest of all services.--What, then, is the meaning of integrityin things intellectual? It means that a man must be severe with his own heart, that he must scorn "beautiful feelings," and that he makes every Yea and Nay a matter of conscience!--Faith makes blessed:therefore, it lies. . . . 51. The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an idee fixe by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum. Not, of course, to a priest: for his instincts prompt him to the lie that sickness is not sickness and lunatic asylums not lunatic asylums. Christianity finds sickness necessary, just as the Greek spirit had need of a superabundance of health--the actual ulterior purpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to make people ill. And the church itself--doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal?--The whole earth as a madhouse?--The sort of religious man that the church wants is a typical decadent; the moment at which a religious crisis dominates a people is always marked by epidemics of nervous disorder; the inner world" of the religious man is so much like the "inner world" of the overstrung and exhausted that it is difficult to distinguish between them; the "highest" states of mind, held up be fore mankind by Christianity as of supreme worth, are actually epileptoid in form--the church has granted the name of holy only to lunatics or to gigantic frauds in majorem dei honorem. . . . Once I ventured to designate the whole Christian system of training^22in penance and salvation (now best studied in England) as a method of producing a folie circulaire upon a soil already prepared for it, which is to say, a soil thoroughly unhealthy. Not every one may be a Christian: one is not "converted" to Christianity--one must first be sick enough for it. . . .We others, who have the courage for health and likewise for contempt,--we may well despise a religion that teaches misunderstanding of the body! that refuses to rid itself of the superstition about the soul! that makes a "virtue" of insufficient nourishment! that combats health as a sort of enemy, devil, temptation! that persuades itself that it is possible to carry about a "perfect soul" in a cadaver of a body, and that, to this end, had to devise for itself a new concept of "perfection," a pale, sickly, idiotically ecstatic state of existence, so-called "holiness"--a holiness that is itself merely a series of symptoms of an impoverished, enervated and incurably disordered body! . . . The Christian movement, as a European movement, was from the start no more than a general uprising of all sorts of outcast and refuse elements (--who now, under cover of Christianity, aspire to power)-- It does not represent the decay of a race; it represents, on the contrary, a conglomeration of decadence products from all directions, crowding together and seeking one another out. It was not, as has been thought, the corruption of antiquity, of noble antiquity, which made Christianity possible; one cannot too sharply challenge the learned imbecility which today maintains that theory. At the time when the sick and rotten Chandala classes in the whole imperium were Christianized, the contrary type, the nobility, reached its finest and ripest development. The majority became master; democracy, with its Christian instincts, triumphed . . . Christianity was not "national," it was not based on race--it appealed to all the varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core--the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well--constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul's priceless saying: "And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised":^23 this was the formula; in hoc signo the decadence triumphed.--God on the cross--is man always to miss the frightful inner significance of this symbol?--Everything that suffers, everything that hangs on the cross, is divine. . . . We all hang on the cross, consequently we are divine. . . . We alone are divine. . . . Christianity was thus a victory: a nobler attitude of mind was destroyed by it--Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanity.-- 52. Christianity also stands in opposition to all intellectual well-being,--sick reasoning is the only sort that it can use as Christian reasoning; it takes the side of everything that is idiotic; it pronounces a curse upon "intellect," upon the superbia of the healthy intellect. Since sickness is inherent in Christianity, it follows that the typically Christian state of "faith" must be a form of sickness too, and that all straight, straightforward and scientific paths to knowledge must be banned by the church as forbidden ways. Doubt is thus a sin from the start. . . . The complete lack of psychological cleanliness in the priest--revealed by a glance at him--is a phenomenon resulting from decadence,--one may observe in hysterical women and in rachitic children how regularly the falsification of instincts, delight in lying for the mere sake of lying, and incapacity for looking straight and walking straight are symptoms of decadence. "Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true. The pietist, the priest of either sex, is a fraud because he is sick: his instinct demands that the truth shall never be allowed its rights on any point. "Whatever makes for illness is good; whatever issues from abundance, from super-abundance, from power, is evil": so argues the believer. The impulse to lie--it is by this that I recognize every foreordained theologian.--Another characteristic of the theologian is his unfitness for philology. What I here mean by philology is, in a general sense, the art of reading with profit--the capacity for absorbing facts without interpreting them falsely, and without losing caution, patience and subtlety in the effort to understand them. Philology as ephexis^24 in interpretation: whether one be dealing with books, with newspaper reports, with the most fateful events or with weather statistics--not to mention the "salvation of the soul." . . . The way in which a theologian, whether in Berlin or in Rome, is ready to explain, say, a "passage of Scripture," or an experience, or a victory by the national army, by turning upon it the high illumination of the Psalms of David, is always so daring that it is enough to make a philologian run up a wall. But what shall he do when pietists and other such cows from Suabia^25 use the "finger of God" to convert their miserably commonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of "grace," a "providence" and an "experience of salvation"? The most modest exercise of the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to convince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness of such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our piety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the head at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very instant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that he'd have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic servant, as a letter carrier, as an almanac--man--at bottom, he is' a mere name for the stupidest sort of chance. . . . "Divine Providence," which every third man in "educated Germany" still believes in, is so strong an argument against God that it would be impossible to think of a stronger. And in any case it is an argument against Germans! . . . 53. --It is so little true that martyrs offer any support to the truth of a cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything to do with the truth at all. In the very tone in which a martyr flings what he fancies to be true at the head of the world there appears so low a grade of intellectual honesty and such insensibility to the problem of "truth," that it is never necessary to refute him. Truth is not something that one man has and another man has not: at best, only peasants, or peasant apostles like Luther, can think of truth in any such way. One may rest assured that the greater the degree of a man's intellectual conscience the greater will be his modesty, his discretion, on this point. To know in five cases, and to refuse, with delicacy, to know anything further . . . "Truth," as the word is understood by every prophet, every sectarian, every free-thinker, every Socialist and every churchman, is simply a complete proof that not even a beginning has been made in the intellectual discipline and self-control that are necessary to the unearthing of even the smallest truth.--The deaths of the martyrs, it may be said in passing, have been misfortunes of history: they have misled . . . The conclusion that all idiots, women and plebeians come to, that there must be something in a cause for which any one goes to his death (or which, as under primitive Christianity, sets off epidemics of death-seeking)--this conclusion has been an unspeakable drag upon the testing of facts, upon the whole spirit of inquiry and investigation. The martyrs have damaged the truth. . . . Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.--But why? Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid down his life for it?--An error that becomes honourable is simply an error that has acquired one seductive charm the more: do you suppose, Messrs. Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred for your lies?--One best disposes of a cause by respectfully putting it on ice--that is also the best way to dispose of theologians. . . . This was precisely the world-historical stupidity of all the persecutors: that they gave the appearance of honour to the cause they opposed--that they made it a present of the fascination of martyrdom. . . .Women are still on their knees before an error because they have been told that some one died on the cross for it. Is the cross, then, an argument?--But about all these things there is one, and one only, who has said what has been needed for thousands of years--Zarathustra. They made signs in blood along the way that they went, and their folly taught them that the truth is proved by blood. But blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth; blood poisoneth even the purest teaching and turneth it into madness and hatred in the heart. And when one goeth through fire for his teaching--what doth that prove? Verily, it is more when one's teaching cometh out of one's own burning!^26 54. Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him. . . . A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view. . . That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the "believer" of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The "believer" does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement. . . When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and "faith." To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth. . . . The believer is not free to answer the question, "true" or "not true," according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons. . . . 55. --One step further in the psychology of conviction, of "faith." It is now a good while since I first proposed for consideration the question whether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than lies. ("Human, All-Too-Human," I, aphorism 483.)^27 This time I desire to put the question definitely: is there any actual difference between a lie and a conviction?--All the world believes that there is; but what is not believed by all the world!--Every conviction has its history, its primitive forms, its stage of tentativeness and error: it becomes a conviction only after having been, for a long time, not one, and then, for an even longer time, hardly one. What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction?--Sometimes all that is needed is a change in persons: what was a lie in the father becomes a conviction in the son.--I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not before witnesses is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence.--Now, this will not to see what one sees, this will not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar. For example, the German historians are convinced that Rome was synonymous with despotism and that the Germanic peoples brought the spirit of liberty into the world: what is the difference between this conviction and a lie? Is it to be wondered at that all partisans, including the German historians, instinctively roll the fine phrases of morality upon their tongues--that morality almost owes its very survival to the fact that the party man of every sort has need of it every moment?--"This is our conviction: we publish it to the whole world; we live and die for it--let us respect all who have convictions!"--I have actually heard such sentiments from the mouths of anti-Semites. On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle. . . The priests, who have more finesse in such matters, and who well understand the objection that lies against the notion of a conviction, which is to say, of a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle because it serves a purpose, have borrowed from the Jews the shrewd device of sneaking in the concepts, "God," "the will of God" and "the revelation of God" at this place. Kant, too, with his categorical imperative, was on the same road: this was hispractical reason.^28 There are questions regarding the truth or untruth of which it is not for man to decide; all the capital questions, all the capital problems of valuation, are beyond human reason. . . . To know the limits of reason--that alone is genuine. philosophy. Why did God make a revelation to man? Would God have done anything superfluous? Man could not find out for himself what was good and what was evil, so God taught him His will. Moral: the priest does not lie--the question, "true" or "untrue," has nothing to do with such things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to knowwhat is true. But this is more than man can know; therefore, the priest is simply the mouth-piece of God.--Such a priestly syllogism is by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the shrewd dodge of "revelation" belong to the general priestly type--to the priest of the decadence as well as to the priest of pagan times (--Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom "God" is a word signifying acquiescence in all things) --The "law," the "will of God," the "holy book," and "inspiration"--all these things are merely words for the conditionsunder which the priest comes to power and with which he maintains his power,--these concepts are to be found at the bottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or priestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The "holy lie"--common alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the Christian church--is not even wanting in Plato. "Truth is here": this means, no matter where it is heard, the priest lies. . . . 56. --In the last analysis it comes to this: what is the end of lying? The fact that, in Christianity, "holy" ends are not visible is my objection to the means it employs. Only bad ends appear: the poisoning, the calumniation, the denial of life, the despising of the body, the degradation and self-contamination of man by the concept of sin--therefore, its means are also bad.--I have a contrary feeling when I read the Code of Manu, an incomparably more intellectual and superior work, which it would be a sin against the intelligence to so much as name in the same breath with the Bible. It is easy to see why: there is a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling mess of Jewish rabbinism and superstition,--it gives even the most fastidious psychologist something to sink his teeth into. And, not to forget what is most important, it differs fundamentally from every kind of Bible: by means of it the nobles, the philosophers and the warriors keep the whip-hand over the majority; it is full of noble valuations, it shows a feeling of perfection, an acceptance of life, and triumphant feeling toward self and life--the sun shines upon the whole book.--All the things on which Christianity vents its fathomless vulgarity--for example, procreation, women and marriage--are here handled earnestly, with reverence and with love and confidence. How can any one really put into the hands of children and ladies a book which contains such vile things as this: "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; . . . it is better to marry than to burn"?^29 And is it possible to be a Christian so long as the origin of man is Christianized, which is to say, befouled, by the doctrine of the immaculata conceptio? . . . I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of women as in the Code of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a way of being gallant to women that it would be impossible, perhaps, to surpass. "The mouth of a woman," it says in one place, "the breasts of a maiden, the prayer of a child and the smoke of sacrifice are always pure." In another place: "there is nothing purer than the light of the sun, the shadow cast by a cow, air, water, fire and the breath of a maiden." Finally, in still another place--perhaps this is also a holy lie--: "all the orifices of the body above the navel are pure, and all below are impure. Only in the maiden is the whole body pure." 57. One catches the unholiness of Christian means in flagranti by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu--by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible.--A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained truth are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the "thou shalt," on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.--At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live--or can live--has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and hard experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation--the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized ad infnitum. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, revelation, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are not of human origin, that they were not sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle . . . ; and on the other hand, tradition, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one's forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers lived it.--The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been proved to be right by wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism--a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu's means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection--it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.--The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no "modern idea," can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It isnot Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity--the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste--I call it the fewest--has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum:^30 goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness--or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. "The world is perfect"--so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. "Imperfection, what ever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection. "The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others. . . . Knowledge--a form of asceticism.--They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.--The second caste: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals, the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is rough in the business of ruling-their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples.--In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing "made up"; whatever is to the contrary is made up--by it nature is brought to shame. . . The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types--the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.--A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights--the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart--it is simply his duty. . . . Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence--who make him envious and teach him revenge. . . . Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights. . . . What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.--The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry. . . . 58. In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an "eternal" social organization,--Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight. . . .That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism--those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world,"which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another--and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters. . . . The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future. . . . Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,-- overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,--this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!--This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things--the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption--against Christians. . . . These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality--this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge--all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon--not paganism, but "Christianity," which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.--He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.--Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean--when Paul appeared. . . Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world," in the flesh and inspired by genius--the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence. . . . What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God on the cross," all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. "Salvation is of the Jews."--Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth--he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand. . . This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme. 59. The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.--And, considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with adamantine self-consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to go on for thousands of years, the whole meaning of antiquity disappears! . . To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans?--All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably--that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road,--the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly understood? Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready;--and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness. What we have to day reconquered, with unspeakable self-discipline, for ourselves--for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies--that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge--all these things were already there, and had been there for two thousand years! More, there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste! Not as mere brain-drilling! Not as "German" culture, with its loutish manners! But as body, as bearing, as instinct--in short, as reality. . . All gone for naught! Overnight it became merely a memory !--The Greeks! The Romans! Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life . . --All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anemic vampires! Not conquered,--only sucked dry! . . . Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top!--One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:--ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected--perhaps forgot--to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts. . . Between ourselves, they are not even men. . . . If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . . 60. Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian. . . . 61. Here it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred times more painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed for Europe the last great harvest of civilization that Europe was ever to reap--the Renaissance. Is it understood at last, will it ever be understood, what the Renaissance was? The transvaluation of Christian values,--an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values. . . . This has been the one great war of the past; there has never been a more critical question than that of the Renaissance--it is my question too--; there has never been a form of attack more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a whole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more noble values--that is to say, to insinuate them into the instincts, into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there . . . I see before me the possibility of a perfectly heavenly enchantment and spectacle :--it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter--Caesar Borgia as pope! . . . Am I understood? . . . Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today--: by it Christianity would have been swept away!--What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion against the Renaissance in Rome. . . . Instead of grasping, with profound thanksgiving, the miracle that had taken place: the conquest of Christianity at its capital--instead of this, his hatred was stimulated by the spectacle. A religious man thinks only of himself.--Luther saw only the depravity of the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming apparent: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things! . . . And Luther restored the church: he attacked it. . . . The Renaissance--an event without meaning, a great futility !--Ah, these Germans, what they have not cost us! Futility--that has always been the work of the Germans.--The Reformation; Liebnitz; Kant and so-called German philosophy; the war of "liberation"; the empire-every time a futile substitute for something that once existed, for something irrecoverable . . . These Germans, I confess, are my enemies: I despise all their uncleanliness in concept and valuation, their cowardice before every honest yea and nay. For nearly a thousand years they have tangled and confused everything their fingers have touched; they have on their conscience all the half-way measures, all the three-eighths-way measures, that Europe is sick of,--they also have on their conscience the uncleanest variety of Christianity that exists, and the most incurable and indestructible--Protestantism. . . . If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity the Germans will be to blame. . . . 62. --With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal. . . . For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!--The "equality of souls before God"--this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded--this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order--this is Christian dynamite. . . . The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!--Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul--against life itself. . . . This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . . And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell--from the first day of Christianity!--Why not rather from its last?--From today?--The transvaluation of all values! . . . THE END FOOTNOTES created and inserted by H.L. Mencken: 1. Cf. the tenth Pythian ode. See also the fourth hook of Herodotus. The Hyperboreans were a mythical people beyond the Rhipaean mountains, in the far North. They enjoyed unbroken happiness and perpetual youth. 2. The lowest of the Hindu castes. 3. That is, in Pandora's box. 4. John iv, 22. 5. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74), author of "Das Leben Jesu" (1835-6), a very famous work in its day. Nietzsche here refers to it. 6. The word Semiotik is in the text, but it is probable that Semantik is what Nietzsche had in mind. 7. One of the six great systems of Hindu philosophy. 8. The reputed founder of Taoism. 9. Nietzsche's name for one accepting his own philosophy. [RETURN TO TEXT] 10. That is, the strict letter of the law--the chief target of Jesus's early preaching. 11. A reference to the "pure ignorance" (reine Thorheit) of Parsifal. 12. Matthew v, 34. 13. Amphytrion was the son of Alcaeus, King of Tiryns. His wife was Alcmene. During his absence she was visited by Zeus, and bore Heracles. 14. So in the text. One of Nietzsche's numerous coinages, obviously suggested by Evangelium, the German for gospel. 15. To which, without mentioning it, Nietzsche adds verse 48. [RETURN TO TEXT] 16. A paraphrase of Demetrius' "Well roar'd, Lion!" in act v, scene 1 of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The lion, of course, is the familiar Christian symbol for Mark. 17. Nietzsche also quotes part of verse 2. 18. The quotation also includes verse 47. 19. And 17. 20. Verses 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29. 21. A paraphrase of Schiller's "Against stupidity even gods struggle in vain." 22. The word training is in English in the text. 23. I Corinthians i, 27, 28. 24. That is, to say, scepticism. Among the Greeks scepticism was also occasionally called ephecticism. 25. A reference to the University of Tubingen and its famous school of Biblical criticism. The leader of this school was F. C. Baur, and one of the men greatly influenced by it was Nietzsche's pet abomination, David F. Strauss, himself a Suabian. Vide ? 10 and ? 28. 26. The quotations are from "Also sprach Zarathustra" ii, 24: "Of Priests." 27. The aphorism, which is headed "The Enemies of Truth," makes the direct statement: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." 28. A reference, of course, to Kant's "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft" (Critique of Practical Reason). 29. I Corinthians vii, 2, 9. 30. Few men are noble. Index From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 19:48:57 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:48:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Scruton: The Unobservable Mind Message-ID: The Unobservable Mind http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/02/issue/review_mind.asp?p=0 The Unobservable Mind Roger Scruton Febuary 2005 Consciousness is more familiar to us than any other feature of our world, since it is the route by which anything at all becomes familiar. But this is what makes consciousness so hard to pinpoint. Look for it wherever you like, you encounter only its objects -- a face, a dream, a memory, a color, a pain, a melody, a problem, but nowhere the consciousness that shines on them. Trying to grasp it is like trying to observe your own observing, as though you were to look with your own eyes at your own eyes without using a mirror. Not surprisingly, therefore, the thought of consciousness gives rise to peculiar metaphysical anxieties, which we try to allay with images of the soul, the mind, the self, the subject of consciousness, the inner entity that thinks and sees and feels and that is the real me inside. But these traditional solutions merely duplicate the problem. We cast no light on the consciousness of a human being simply by redescribing it as the consciousness of some inner homunculus -- be it a soul, a mind, or a self. On the contrary, by placing that homunculus in some private, inaccessible, and possibly immaterial realm, we merely compound the mystery. Putting the point in that way makes it clear that, in the first instance at least, the problem of consciousness is a philosophical, not a scientific, problem. It cannot be solved by studying the empirical data, since consciousness (as normally understood) isnt one of them. We can observe brain processes, neurons, ganglions, synapses, and all the other intricate matter of the brain, but we cannot observe consciousness. I can observe you observing, but what I observe is not that peculiar thing that you know from within and that is present, in some sense, only to you. At least, so it would seem; if this is some kind of mistake, it is a philosophical and not a scientific argument that will tell us so. This appropriation of the question by philosophy is apt to make scientists impatient. Surely, they will argue, if consciousness is real it must be part of the real worldthe world of space and time, which we observe with our senses and explain by science. But what part? First-person reports of conscious states are radically affected by brain damage, and the behavior that leads us to describe others as conscious originates in the nervous system, whose functions seem to be largely controlled by the brain. Common sense and scientific inference therefore both point to the brain as the seat of consciousness. So, scientists argue, lets study the brain and find out exactly which of its processes correspond to our conscious mental states. That way, they suggest, we will find out what consciousness is. But will we? Unfortunately, the philosophical problem comes back at us in another form. How exactly do we discover a correspondence between consciousness and a brain process, given that consciousness is not something that we observe? And suppose we overcome that difficulty and produce a theory correlating conscious mental states with specific neurological events. This means that we have discovered what consciousness is only if we can advance from correspondence to identity. And that is precisely what so many philosophers doubt we can do. True, there are some who defend the view that conscious states are identical with brain processes, but they defend it on philosophical, not scientific, grounds. And their view is open to radical objections: for example, how can a state of one thing (a person) be identical with a process in another (a brain)? If the neurobiologist Christof Koch, professor of cognitive and behavioral biology at Caltech, enters this territory with some trepidation, he nevertheless hopes to take possession of it in the name of science. The task, he believes, is to avoid getting lost in definitions and conceptual puzzles and instead to discover the neuronal correlates of consciousness. He at once narrows that target, however, to the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms jointly sufficient for a specific conscious percept. In other words, the object of study is not consciousness as such but specific conscious percepts, in particular those involved in visual perception. Kochs ambition, nevertheless, is to integrate the analysis of vision into the more general program that he developed with the late Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, who contributes the foreword to the book. That program is to explain how consciousness evolved and identify the processes in the brain that carry it. The book gives a fairly comprehensive account of what neurobiology has to say about the higher functions of the brain. It is not surprising, therefore, that the writing is densely scientific and heavily referenced, with many digressions. But proceeding on the supposition that the science is correct, what do we make of the title? Does neurobiology in the style of Crick and Koch really take us further in the quest for consciousness? Or is it simply amassing more and more information about the brain, without telling us how brain and mind are connected? First Person Singular One of the problems, which constantly intrudes on Kochs argument but is never resolved, is that conscious mental states do not belong to a single category. We assume that all sensations are conscious (there is no such thing, for example, as unconscious toothache), that there is both conscious and unconscious thought, and that while desire may be unconscious, intention never is. But what do conscious mental states have in common? At times Koch seems to suggest that they are all felt by the subject, or that they each possess a particular subjective quality or quale that is observable only to the subject. But we dont feel our thoughts, and there is no subjective quale that distinguishes the belief that two plus two is four from the belief that three plus three is six, or the intention to sit down to supper from the intention to eat a steak. In the case of language-using creatures, we distinguish conscious from unconscious mental states through the first-person perspective. A state is conscious if the subject can truly confess to it, without having to carry out an investigation and on no basis other than understanding the words that he uses. Hence in other places Koch seems to take the first-person case as characteristic of consciousness, a procedure that deprives him of a clear basis for attributing consciousness to animals, who never confess to their mental states because they never confess to anything. This is serious, since the science on which Koch draws derives from examining the brains of mice and monkeys. Crucial to the Koch-Crick approach is a thought experiment involving the idea of the unconscious zombie. This is a creature all of whose behavior issues by reflex action, mediated by the cortex, but who is not conscious of what he is doing. This creature feels nothing, has no inner qualia andpresumablyno first-person awareness of his own mental states. So what else does he lack? Or can he be exactly like us and lack only those things? Koch is of the view that a zombie would lack the capacity to plan for the future or to deal with multicontingency situations where complex choices must be made. Plotting, planning, and deciding, he says, are among the important functions of consciousness and point to a Darwinian explanation of why consciousness exists. Such an argument will help in the quest for consciousness only if we can show how feeling, qualia, and the first-person case are connected to plotting and planning. If the connection is only contingent, then a zombie could possess all the functions of consciousness without the feelings. If the connection is necessary, then it must be established in some way other than by scientific inference. As it is, the reader is left at the end of Kochs book with the puzzle with which it began: granted that there are neuronal correlates of consciousness, what exactly are they correlated with? And what exactly do we mean by correlation? To answer that question, I would suggest first that we dismiss the idea of purely subjective qualia. The belief that these essentially private features of mental states exist, and that they form the introspectible essence of whatever possesses them, is grounded in a confusion, one that Wittgenstein tried to sweep away in his arguments against the possibility of a private language. When you judge that I am in pain, it is on the basis of my circumstances and behavior, and you could be wrong. When I ascribe a pain to myself, I dont use any such evidence. I dont find out that I am in pain by observation, nor can I be wrong. But that is not because there is some other fact about my pain, accessible only to me, which I consult in order to establish what I am feeling. For if there were this inner private quality, I could misperceive it; I could get it wrong, and I would have to find out whether I am in pain. To describe my inner state, I would also have to invent a language, intelligible only to meand that, Wittgenstein plausibly argues, is impossible. The conclusion to draw is that I ascribe pain to myself not on the basis of some inner quale but on no basis at all. Of course, there is a difference between knowing what pain is and knowing what pain is like. But to know what it is like is not to know some additional inner fact about it, but simply to have felt it. We are dealing with familiarity rather than information. While one philosopherThomas Nagel, a professor at New York University and author of The View from Nowhere, a fascinating study of subjectivityhas placed great emphasis on the what its like idea, suggesting that it describes a distinctive mark of conscious experience, the idea remains opaque to further analysis. What its like is not a proxy for a description but a refusal to describe. We can spell it out, if at all, only in metaphors. Q: Whats it like, darling, when I touch you there? A: Like the taste of marmalade, harmonized by late Stravinsky. Similarly, we are not going to get very far in understanding consciousness if we concentrate on the idea of feeling things. For there are conscious mental states that have nothing to do with feeling. We feel our sensations and emotions, certainly, just as we feel our desires. All of those mental states would once have been classified as passions, as opposed to mental actionsthought, judgement, intention, deductionwhich are not felt but done. I can deliberately think of Mary, judge a picture, make a decision or a calculation, even imagine a centaur, but not deliberately have a pain in the finger, a fear of spiders, or a desire for more cake. Even if I could have a pain by willing it, or if I manage to suppress my desires, this does not mean that pains and desires are actions, but only that they are passions that I can affect through mental discipline, as a yogi might reduce his heart rate. Moreover, there are psychologists and philosophers who seem quite happy with the idea of unconscious feelings. We may balk at the expression, but we know what they mean. It is possible to feel something without being conscious of the feeling. Feeling is a mark of consciousness only if we interpret feeling as awareness. But what is it to be aware of something? Well, to be conscious of it. Emergent Properties How do we fight ourselves free from this tangle of circular definitions and misleading pictures? Two ideas seem to me especially helpful in explaining our sense of consciousness as a realm apart. The first is that of an emergent property. Mental states generally, and conscious states in particular, can be seen as emergent states of organisms. A useful analogy is the face in a picture. When a painter applies paint to a canvas, she creates a physical object by purely physical means. This object is composed of areas and lines of paint, arranged on a surface that we can regard, for the sake of argument, as two dimensional. When we look at the painting, we see a flat surface, and we see those areas and lines of paint, and also the surface that contains them. But that is not all we see. We also see a face that looks out at us with smiling eyes. In one sense, the face is a property of the canvas, over and above the blobs of paint; you can observe the blobs and not see the face, and vice versa. And the face is really there: someone who does not see it is not seeing correctly. On the other hand, there is a sense in which the face is not an additional property of the canvas, for as soon as the lines and blobs are there, so is the face. Nothing more needs to be added in order to generate the faceand if nothing more needs to be added, the face is surely nothing more. Moreover, every process that produces just these blobs of paint, arranged in just this way, will produce just this faceeven if the artist herself is unaware of the face. (Imagine how you would design a machine for producing Mona Lisas.) Maybe consciousness is an emergent property in that sense: not something over and above the life and behavior in which we observe it, but not reducible to them either. The second helpful thought is one first given prominence by Kant and thereafter emphasized by Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and a whole stream of thinkers down to Heidegger, Sartre, and Thomas Nagel. The idea is to draw a distinction between the subject and the object of consciousness, and to recognize the peculiar metaphysical (Wittgenstein would say grammatical) status of the subject. As a conscious subject, I have a point of view on the world. The world seems a certain way to me, and this seeming defines my unique perspective. Every conscious being has such a perspective, since that is what it means to be a subject rather than a mere object. When I give a scientific account of the world, however, I am describing objects only. I am describing the way things are, and the causal laws that explain them. This description is given from no particular perspective. It does not contain words like here, now, and I; and while it is meant to explain the way things seem, it does so by giving a theory of how they are. In short, the subject is in principle unobservable to science, not because it exists in another realm but because it is not part of the empirical world. It lies on the edge of things, like a horizon, and could never be grasped from the other side, the side of subjectivity itself. Is it a real part of the real world? The question begins to look as though it has been wrongly phrased. I refer to myself, but this does not mean that there is a self that I refer to. I act for the sake of my friend, but there is no such thing as a sake for which I am acting. (The parallel illustrates Wittgensteins view of these puzzles as essentially grammatical.) We can relate to conscious creatures in ways that we cannot relate to objects. Their behavior is the outcome of the way things seem to them and can therefore be altered by altering the way things seem. Giving them food for thought orin the case of more primitive animalsfood for perception and food for belief, we also bend them to our purposes. Because they feel pleasure and pain, they can be rewarded and punished and so taught to behave in new ways. Everybody who has trained a dog or a horse in even the simplest task knows that consciousness is an essential intermediary in achieving the final result, and that there is nothing puzzling about this at all: consciousness is as much a part of the behavioral repertoire of the animal as eating and excreting. It consists in a set of functional connections between world and behavior, of a kind that leads us to identify a point of view, a way things seem that distinguishes the creature with which we are dealing. This point of view is also the quickest and easiest channel to the springs of its behavior. In referring to behavior, we dont have to accept the old behaviorist theory that mental predicates can simply be reduced to behavioral syndromes. When we interpret behavior as the expression of a conscious state, we are expressly situating it in an intuitively understood nexus of causal relations. The behavior of a man in pain is only superficially like the behavior of an actor who is pretending to be in pain. The sufferer really cannot stand on his injured leg, and the leg really is injured; the actors behavior is voluntary, the sufferers involuntary. And so on. All those judgments are hypotheses concerning the functional connections between world and behavior, and they form parts of a spontaneous theory that some philosophers have called folk psychology. Now, there are certainly neuronal correlates of consciousness, so understood: namely, all the electrical processes that are necessary to generate conscious behavior (among which, according to Koch, gamma wavesoscillations recorded by an electroencephalogram in the 30- to 70-hertz domainare particularly important). Some animals exhibit these processes; some (insects, for instance) dont. To discover the source of these processes is, in a sense, to discover the seat of consciousness in the brain. But does this bring us any nearer to knowing what consciousness is? Suppose you came across a person who behaved and talked as you did, who related to you in all the ways that people relate to each other, and who one dayto your astonishmentunzipped the top of his head to reveal nothing save a dead kitten and a ball of string. Scientifically impossible, perhaps. But logically possible, and giving no grounds at all to deny that this person was conscious. The Unselfconscious Dog To put the point another way, consciousness is an emergent property of organisms. But it emerges from the total behavioral and neurological repertoire, not from brain processes considered in themselvesjust as the face in the painting emerges from the whole array of colored patches, not from the canvas that supports them, considered in itself. Of course, you cannot have the behavior without the brain, just as you cant have the painting without the canvas. In that sense there will be neuronal correlates of consciousness. But the discovery of these correlates does not tell us what consciousness is, nor does it solve the mystery of the subject, nor the equally perplexing mystery of the first-person case. There is a difficulty that I have avoided, and which Koch too avoids, though incidental remarks show that he is aware of it. This difficulty arises from two radical ontological divisions in the realm of the mental. First, there is the division that separates conscious from unconscious creatures. We attribute perception of a kind to mussels and oystersbut are they conscious? Should we feel remorse when we pry open the oyster and sting its wounds with lemon juice? We are inclined to say that such organisms are too primitive to admit the application of concepts like those of feeling, belief, and desire. Maybe that goes for insects, too, however much we may admire their amazing social organization and perceptual powers. Secondly, there is the division that separates merely conscious creatures from self-conscious creatures like us. Only the second have a genuine first-person perspective, from which to distinguish how things seem to me from how they seem to you. The creature with I thoughts has an ability to relate to its kind that sets it apart from the rest of nature, and many thinkers (Kant and Hegel among them) believe that it is this fact, not the fact of consciousness per se, that creates all the mysteries of the human condition. Although dogs are conscious, they do not reflect on their own consciousness as we do: they live, as Schopenhauer put it, in a world of perception, their thoughts and desires turned outwards to the perceivable world. The difficulty is this: we want to say of human beings that their self-consciousness is a systematic attribute of their mental life, which affects everything that they think and feel. We want to say of dogs that their consciousness is a systematic attribute of their mental life too, since it distinguishes them categorically from mollusks and beetles. Yet similar mental states seem to exist at all three levels. The beetle sees things; so does the dog; so does the person. How is it that one and the same mental processvisual perceptioncan exist in three different ontological predicaments, so to speak: as a reflex link between visual input and behavioral output, as a conscious perception, and as part of the continuous and distinguishing sense of self? That question has led some writers (the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio in his book Looking for Spinoza, for instance) to think of consciousness and self-consciousness as monitoring processesa move that comes dangerously close to the old homunculus fallacy. It is not as though my mind were just like a dogs, only with a self observing it, or a dogs just like an insects, only with an internal monitor. Consciousness and self-consciousness are holistic properties, which emerge from the totality of a creatures physiognomy and behavior. We may discover organizations in the brain and nervous system that are biologically necessary for these features. But those neuronal correlates are no more likely to cast light on the mysteries of consciousness than the back of Leonardos Mona Lisa can explain the mystery of her smile. The conclusion to which I am tempted is not that there is no such thing as consciousness, but that there is nothing that consciousness is, just as there is no physical object that actually is Mona Lisas smile. Roger Scruton is visiting professor in the Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College, London, and the author of more than 20 books, including Modern Philosophy and England: an Elegy. He farms in Wiltshire, England. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 19:51:46 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Chirobase: What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You Message-ID: What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html [Mr. Mencken praise chiropractioners many times, on the grounds that a visit to one would mean one less radio fan. He saw this as the Darwinian selection process at work.] Samuel Homola, D.C. Spinal manipulation can relieve some types of back and neck pain and other conditions related to tightness and loss of mobility, such as tension headache or aching in muscles and joints. We also know that massage may be as effective as cervical manipulation in relieving tension headache. And physical therapy techniques may be as effective as spinal manipulation in long-term relief of back pain. Rational chiropractors can offer all of these modalities, when appropriate, and thus provide patients with a choice. They may also offer basic advice about nutrition, weight loss, exercise, ergonomics, relaxation techniques, body mechanics, home care (such as use of hot or cold packs), massage, and other self-help measures that might help relieve or prevent aches and pains. Science-based chiropractors make appropriate judgments about the nature of their patients' problems, determine whether these problems lie within their scope, and make appropriate referrals for problems that do not. If you can find one who uses manipulation and physical therapy appropriately and who is willing to coordinate with your personal physician, you can benefit from the best that both have to offer. Diagnosis Essential While some types of back pain can benefit from spinal manipulation, not every patient who sees a chiropractor needs it. Proper diagnosis should precede treatment of any type. This is why, if you consult a chiropractor, it is crucial to choose one who can make an appropriate diagnosis, uses spinal manipulation only when indicated, does not order unnecessary x-rays, and refers to an appropriate physician when needed. Chiropractors whose practice is not based on subluxation theory are in the best position to judge whether your problem requires medical treatment. Never rely upon the diagnosis of a straight chiropractor or one who "specializes" in such fields as internal medicine, neurology, or pediatrics. Back-pain sufferers who have been diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and have reservations about spinal manipulation should ask their physician whether a referral for physical therapy is appropriate for their condition. (Actually, many chiropractors offer physical therapy modalities as well as manipulation.) A study published in 1998 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that the long-term effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation was no better than the McKenzie method of physical therapy (an exercise program) [1]. However, many patients have told me that manipulation was more effective in providing immediate relief. Manipulation vs. Mobilization Manipulation and mobilization are used primarily in the treatment of conditions related to mechanical-type problems in joints and muscles. Manipulation is a hands-on procedure used to restore normal movement by loosening joints and stretching tight muscles. In some cases, manipulation will restore normal movement by unlocking a joint or by breaking down adhesions. A popping sound often occurs when a spinal joint is stretched a little beyond its normal range of motion. Mobilization simply stretches soft tissues by moving joints through a full range of movement. Mobilization can increase the range of motion of the arms, legs, and shoulders, but manipulation may be more effective in relieving pain and restoring normal movement in the spinal joints. Any portion of the spine that is tight, stiff, or painful on movement might benefit from appropriate manipulation. Different methods are used in different portions of the spine, since joint structure and the direction of movement in the neck and upper back differ from those of the lower back. For example: neck manipulation might be done while the patient sits on a stool; upper-back manipulation might be done while the patient lies facedown; and lower-back manipulation might be done while the patient lies on one side. Dozens of manipulative techniques can be used to meet the special needs of patients who must be positioned one way or another. Tables with specially designed cushions are used to support patients in certain postures. Neck Manipulation Manipulation may improve the mobility of a cervical spine that has been stiffened by osteoarthritis or by scar tissue from an old injury. Disc degeneration caused by wear and tear or by injury is a common cause of loss of range of motion in the cervical spine and can often benefit from manipulation. Neck manipulation or mobilization may improve range of motion and provide relief for neck pain and muscle-tension headache. But remember that benefit must be weighed against risk. Neck manipulation should not be used unless symptoms indicate a specific need for it. It should be done gently with care to avoid excessive rotation that could damage the patient's vertebral artery. Neck manipulation should not be done immediately after an injury that causes acute neck pain. When the acute pain subsides, usually after a few days, manipulation may be useful to relieve fixations and restore normal joint mobility. Once the patient is symptom-free, it should be discontinued. A small percentage of chiropractors advocate neck manipulation to "balance" or "realign" the spine no matter where the patient's problem is located. I recommend avoiding such chiropractors. Neck manipulation is safest when neck rotation does not exceed 50 degrees. When rotation is not indicated or appropriate, special techniques can be used with the patient in a face-down position so that manipulative traction can be applied or there can be thumb contact with specific spinal segments. Patients who have pain caused by acute inflammation, as in rheumatoid arthritis or spondylitis, will rarely benefit from neck manipulation. Damage to upper cervical connective tissues in rheumatoid arthritis can also be a contraindication. When in doubt about whether you should undergo neck manipulation, check with an orthopedist. A competent chiropractor should not object to your seeing a specialist for a second opinion. Tension headaches, often called muscle-contraction headaches, may benefit from manipulation that loosens joints and stretches tight neck muscles. Some chiropractic case reports suggest that migraine headache can be relieved with cervical manipulation. However, true migraine is unlikely to be relieved by neck manipulation. Any kind of persistent headache should be brought to the attention of your family physician or a neurologist. And so should any headache accompanied by fever, vomiting, weakness, a change in speech or vision, or any other unexplained symptoms. Severe headaches may require medical attention for pain relief. Before submitting to the risk of cervical manipulation for the treatment of headache, it is essential to determine whether the problem might be caused by a sinus infection, food sensitivity, a brain tumor, or another cause unrelated to the cervical spine. Fortunately, most headaches are of the simple tension or muscle-contraction variety. So there is a good chance that simple massage or stretching of neck muscles will relieve them. A study published in 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that cervical manipulation may be no more effective than massage in the treatment of episodic or recurring tension headache [2]. Thus people with frequent tension headaches might want to first try massage rather than risk injury from cervical manipulation. Up and Down the Back Pain in the upper and lower portions of the spine can often be treated successfully with manipulation and physical therapy. Low-back pain is more common, is usually more serious, and deserves more attention. Herniated discs are rarely a problem in the upper back or thoracic spine, for example, while a herniated disc in the lower back or lumbar spine can pinch spinal nerves and cause weakness and loss of sensation in the legs or encroach upon the spinal canal to impair bladder or bowel function (cauda equina syndrome). This is why the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines for treating low-back pain caution against manipulating the lumbar spine when there is leg pain caused by nerve-root involvement [3]. Except when the thoracic vertebrae have been softened by disease or by aging, appropriate thoracic spine manipulation is rarely harmful and often can relieve backache related to fatigue, postural strain, arthritis, myofacitis, or other problems involving muscles and joints. Many people undergo thoracic spine manipulation simply for the relaxing effect that results from "popping the back." Other Joints and Muscles Uncomplicated mechanical-type problems of the muscles or joints of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee, ankle, and foot can often be helped by a competent chiropractor who uses physical therapy. Most chiropractors learn manipulative techniques for treatment of extremity joints, but these joints often benefit as much from mobilization as from manipulation. And they are often best treated by a physical therapist or an orthopedist. While chiropractors who have additional postgraduate training in orthopedics or sports medicine can be expected to have more extensive knowledge of injuries involving the extremities, few can do more than the average chiropractor, since none of them can prescribe pain medication, reduce a dislocated joint, set a broken bone, drain a swollen knee, or perform injections or invasive diagnostic procedures. Thus, a chiropractor with a diplomate in orthopedics or sports medicine cannot do much more than a physical therapist other than manipulate the spine. Although some physical therapists are now manipulating the spine, most are using mobilization techniques. Severe or prolonged problems with extremity joints should always be brought to the attention of an orthopedist. As with back pain, diagnosis is essential. When a condition under chiropractic care has not improved after two to four weeks, a specialist should be consulted for a second opinion. On the other hand, there are many situations where home care can be effective once the diagnosis has been made and acute symptoms have subsided. A rational chiropractor will be able to advise when cost-saving self-care can be substituted for office treatment. It is rarely necessary to continue any form of chiropractic office treatment month after month. Pain in other joints is not often as ominous as shoulder pain that might occur as a result of a problem with the heart or the lungs or because of a disc herniation in the neck. But it is always necessary to rule out bone tumors, advanced forms of arthritis, and other problems before beginning long-course treatment of any kind. Tips on Choosing a Chiropractor If you decide to consult a chiropractor, try to find one whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of musculoskeletal problems. Ask your family doctor for the names of chiropractors who fit this description and who appear to be competent and trustworthy. If your doctor cannot provide a name, ask other people and, if they recommend one, be sure to ask what conditions the chiropractor treats. If the chiropractor claims to treat infections or a wide range of other diseases, look elsewhere. But don't depend upon the Yellow Pages. You should avoid chiropractors who make extravagant claims or who advertise extensively. When you have selected a chiropractor, go for a consultation or conduct a telephone interview to find out how he or she practices. If the chiropractor treats infants, offers spinal adjustments as a treatment for visceral disease or infection or as a method of preventing ill health, requires that every patient be x-rayed, or requires payments in advance for a long course of treatments, call another chiropractor. The [2]Chirobase Guidelines provide additional tips about what to avoid. Chiropractors who follow these guidelines have been invited to post their names in the Chirobase Referral Directory. Remember that diagnosis is critical to the establishment of proper treatment. Some chiropractors are competent in diagnosis, and some are not. For example, "straight" chiropractors who examine only the spine and who believe that "subluxated" vertebrae are the primary cause of illness may "analyze" the spine rather than offer a diagnosis. Such chiropractors may be unable to determine when chiropractic treatment should not be used. Since evaluating some chiropractors may be difficult, it might be wise to look for one who is willing to work with your family physician by exchanging office notes. This would offer the additional safeguard of assuring a second opinion. Once you have found a rational chiropractor, you may find effective relief for some types of back and neck pain as well as for various other musculoskeletal problems. You may also benefit from the comforting effect of a hands-on treatment that provides a pleasurable way of relieving the aches and pains of everyday stress and strain. Physical therapists, osteopaths, and a few physicians also offer manipulative therapy. Chiropractors can sometimes be found working with these practitioners in back-pain clinics. As the benefits of spinal manipulation become better known as a result of scientific research, such treatment will become more available from physical therapists and other practitioners, as well as well as from properly limited chiropractors. About the Author Dr. Homola, who lives in Panama City, Florida, retired in 1998 after practicing chiropractic for 43 years. His 12 books include [3]Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism; Backache: Home Treatment and Prevention; and Muscle Training for Athletes. He has also written many articles for magazines and journals, ranging from Cosmopolitan and Scholastic Coach to Chiropractic Technique and Archives of Family Medicine. This article is adapted from [4]Inside Chiropractic: A Patient's Guide (Prometheus Books, June 1999). References 1. Cherkin DC and others. [5]A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine 339:1021-1029, 1998. 2. Bove G, Nilsson N. [6]Spinal manipulation in the treatment of episodic tension-type headache: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:1576-1579, 1998. 3. Bigos S and others. Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994. AHCPR publication 95-0642. [7]Chirobase Home Page This article was revised on May 19, 1999. References 1. http://www.chirobase.org/index.html 2. http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/chiroguidelines.html 3. http://www.chirobase.org/05RB/BCC/00c.html 4. http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/C/homola.html 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9761803&dopt=Abstract 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9820258&dopt=Abstract 7. http://www.chirobase.org/index.html From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 31 20:09:14 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:09:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] can't read all the articles In-Reply-To: <20050331191116.65721.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050331191116.65721.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424C58EA.70302@earthlink.net> Michael, >>Also, it would be kind of cool if people would post articles by balanced sources, rather than Ann Coulter or some other biased pundit. >> Now that's a hefty task Michael. Possibly you might offer names of media people whom you consider "balanced". >>We should never mark someone for assassination with our words by comparing them to a Nazi or labeling them as evil rather than misled or sincere but wrong.>> I both agree and disagree with this statement. Yes, no one should be condemned outright with words because there are so many alternate ways of attacking an idea. About Nazis being misled or wrong....my first thought is "not really" since many of the medical advances today promote "perfect beauty" and "perfect health". But could you perhaps elaborate on why you consider Nazis as being misled. Hitler was a madman, there is no doubt but likely he was suffering from many psychological and physcial afflictions. Gerry Reinhart-Waller From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:19:20 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:19:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: States Taking a New Look at End-of-Life Legislation Message-ID: The New York Times > National > States Taking a New Look at End-of-Life Legislation http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/national/31states.html March 31, 2005 By SHAILA DEWAN ATLANTA, March 30 - As Terri Schiavo lies dying in a Florida hospice, the fierce debate over end-of-life decisions has moved into statehouses across the country, bringing new scrutiny to who should make the decision to stop life support. Some legislative proposals are drawn straight from the battle between Terri Schiavo's parents and her husband. Among them is the Alabama Starvation and Dehydration Prevention Act, which would forbid the removal of a feeding tube without express written instructions from the patient. And a legislator in Michigan is writing a bill that would bar adulterers from making decisions for an incapacitated spouse. In other cases, state lawmakers want to make living wills more widely available or simply to clarify the laws that govern the fate of someone in Ms. Schiavo's position. She left no written instructions. New end-of-life legislation has been introduced in at least 10 states. But once the emotion surrounding the Schiavo case subsides, how many of the proposals will become law is an open question. Polls indicating broad public opposition to government involvement in the Schiavo case may be giving some politicians second thoughts. With many legislatures approaching the end of their sessions, some bills, including those in Hawaii, Kansas and Kentucky, have already stalled. Yet last-minute efforts by Congress and Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida have changed the rules of legislative intervention, some experts said. "What legislatures in Tallahassee and Washington have done in the last weeks has broken all of our crystal balls," said Kenneth W. Goodman, an ethics professor at the University of Miami and a co-director of the Florida Bioethics Network, a group of ethicists who consult with hospitals on end-of-life care. "In fact, this had been a settled area in medicine, law, ethics and across the faith traditions - that it's O.K. to say no to the use of a machine that's keeping you alive." All 50 states already have laws that allow people to write an advance directive, or a living will, that specifies their health care preferences if they are incapacitated, designates a health care proxy to make decisions for them, or both. The new proposals primarily address situations in which, like Ms Schiavo, the incapacitated person has not done so. Social conservatives are pushing for laws that put a premium on preserving life, raising protests from those who have fought for right-to-die laws, the most far-reaching of which is Oregon's law permitting doctor-assisted suicide. Those advocates say the Schiavo case threatens to wipe out their three decades of effort to give weight to patient choice and quality-of-life considerations. In Kansas, a proposal that passed the House by a large margin last week would require a guardian to get court approval before ending life support. The bill is championed by abortion opponents as well as by advocates for the rights of the disabled, who say that Kansas law does not require guardians to consider their wards' intentions or wishes. "The Schiavo case, when it made the headlines, gave us the urgency in the Legislature - made it real to people," said Representative Mary Pilcher-Cook, a Republican and one of the proposal's supporters. "They could see that our most vulnerable people were really at risk." Kansas' legislative session is expected to end this week, however, and the bill's supporters say that the Republican-led Senate has indicated it will not bring the measure to the floor. In Michigan, Representative Joel Sheltrown, the author of a proposal to strip people who are having extramarital affairs of their right to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, is a Democrat, meaning he may have an uphill battle in the Republican-dominated Legislature. But Mr. Sheltrown was not the only one to entertain such a notion. Last week Ken Connor, a legal adviser to Governor Bush on the Schiavo case, said Florida should have such a law. Opponents of Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, say he should not be allowed to make medical decisions for his wife because he is living with another woman. Other bills seek to draw a line between a feeding tube and other life-sustaining measures. In Louisiana and Alabama, Republicans have introduced bills that would assume, in the absence of a written directive, that a patient wanted food and water. In Louisiana, the bill would require that a feeding tube remain in place until any litigation over its removal was resolved. In Alabama, Representative Dick Brewbaker, the bill's Republican sponsor, said he would probably make the law apply only in the event of a family dispute. Although doctors say Ms. Schiavo is not in pain, the notion of a patient's starving to death strikes emotional chords. "That's a horrible way to die," said State Senator James David Cain, the Republican who is the sponsor of the Louisiana bill. "Your tongue swells up, your lips become all swollen up and chapped." Mr. Cain said he was reminded of his sister, who died of leukemia years ago. "I remember her asking my daddy to wet her lips," he said. Yet most states, including Florida, regard artificial nutrition and hydration as a medical intervention like using dialysis or keeping a patient on a ventilator. Florida's 15-year-old Death With Dignity law, one of the few to say outright that oral declarations of a patient's wishes are valid, had been considered a model before the Schiavo case. Senator James King Jr., the Republican who sponsored the law after watching his father die of cancer, said he felt strongly about the oral-declaration provision. "I recognized after we started on this that just demanding a written declaration wasn't going to do it," Mr. King said. Because people do not like to think about death, he said, "most people would shy away from exercising their given right." Until the Schiavo case, the statute worked smoothly, he said. But in 2003, Mr. King, then president of the Senate, bowed to intense pressure to take legislative action that he now says violated the principles of the earlier statute. With his help, the Legislature pushed through Terri's Law, which restored Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube despite court orders and was later ruled unconstitutional. Mr. King now offers that as a cautionary tale. "I had said then publicly and many times since: that was probably the worst vote I ever made in my years of being a legislator," he said. Last week, Mr. King was one of nine Republicans to vote against a bill called Terri's Law II. Ariel Hart contributed reporting from Atlanta for this article, and Carolyn Marshall from San Francisco. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:22:19 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:22:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: An Early Wartime Profile Depicts a Tormented Hitler Message-ID: Science > An Early Wartime Profile Depicts a Tormented Hitler http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/science/31hitler.html March 31, 2005 By BENEDICT CAREY He was a feminine boy, averse to manual work, who was "annoyingly subservient" to superior officers as a young soldier and had nightmares that were "very suggestive of homosexual panic." The mass killings that he later perpetrated stemmed in part from a desperate loathing of his own submissive weakness, and the humiliations of being beaten by a sadistic father. What is believed to be the first psychological profile of Hitler commissioned by the Office of Strategic Services, a predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency, was posted this month by Cornell University Law Library on its Web site ([2]www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/). Although declassified some years ago, the report, written in 1943, has not been widely cited or available to the public, historians and librarians at Cornell say. The library published the analysis after receiving permission from a relative of its author, the late Dr. Henry A. Murray, a prominent personality expert at Harvard in the middle of the last century. The document's release was reported on Tuesday on the Fox News program "The Big Story With John Gibson." "For a long time, people thought there was only one psychological profile of Hitler commissioned by the O.S.S.," said Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a professor of psychiatry at George Washington University and the founder of the C.I.A.'s psychological branch, referring to a wartime report by Dr. Walter C. Langer that formed the basis of his 1972 book, "The Mind of Adolf Hitler." Dr. Langer, a noted psychoanalyst, died in 1981. Dr. Murray was among several psychoanalysts who had worked with him in profiling Hitler for the O.S.S., and the Murray profile was apparently incorporated into the later, more definitive Langer account. It is clear that this earlier profile added to the definitive profile of Hitler, Dr. Post said, "and very few people have known that it even exists." Dr. Post said he came upon a draft of the Murray profile in 2000 while researching a book of his own, "The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders." Some experts, including Dr. Post himself, are not convinced that the report is without significant shortcomings. The posted document is a condensed version of Dr. Murray's evaluation, a mixture of psychoanalytic theorizing, speculation and lurid detail about Hitler's life that could have come from a crime novel. In an authoritative voice, Dr. Murray diagnoses in Hitler neurosis, hysteria, paranoia, Oedipal tendencies, schizophrenia, "infinite self-abasement" and "syphilophobia," which he describes as a fear of contamination of the blood through contact with a woman. But the document refers only vaguely to its sources, and presents no scientific evidence for its findings. "There's a whole lot of what we would now think of as psychobabble in Murray's article," Dr. Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia University School of Medicine, said after reviewing the profile. One example, Dr. Stone said, is "the suggestion that as a child Hitler witnessed his mother and father having sex, which in those days was given great weight as a source of psychological turmoil." Such an effect has since been discredited. Dr. Murray did not have the benefit of genetic studies, or of more carefully distinguished categories of mental illness established later. "Almost anyone who appeared crazy was called schizophrenic back then," Dr. Stone said, "and people didn't make distinctions between schizophrenia, for example, and manic depression." In a more recent psychological profile, the neurologist and psychiatrist Dr. Fritz Redlich argued in his 1998 book, "Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet," that while troubled and with paranoid tendencies, Hitler had probably not been mentally ill. Even during the war, many historians were very skeptical of efforts to explain, with what they described as armchair psychoanalysis, acts of transcendent cruelty. Dr. Murray himself was a controversial figure. Having returned to Harvard after the war, he was involved in psychological experiments in 1959-62 in which a stress test similar to one the O.S.S. had used to assess recruits was administered to student volunteers. Among them was the young Theodore J. Kaczynski, a precocious student at Harvard who later became known as the Unabomber. Lawyers for Mr. Kaczynski, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to letter bomb attacks that killed 3 people and wounded 28 others, traced some of his emotional instability and fear of mind control to those tests. Still, historians say, the spirit of Hitler is alive, and infused with morbid detail, in Dr. Murray's pages. The growing boy, a frustrated romantic who loved painting castles and temples, and who was enthralled with architecture, also developed "a profound admiration, envy and emulation of his father's masculine power and a contempt for his mother's feminine submissiveness and weakness," Dr. Murray wrote. "Thus," the profile says, "both parents were ambivalent to him: his father was hated and respected; his mother was loved and depreciated. Hitler's conspicuous actions have all been in imitation of his father, not his mother." The assessment also includes advice for how the Allies should handle Hitler if he was captured (secretly film him, replete with sound track, in his cell so that the world would witness his rantings) and what name to give him when talking to his defeated countrymen (False Prophet or False Messiah at first; Corporal Satan or World Criminal No. 1 later). As for how Hitler's life would play out in the absence of capture, Dr. Murray predicted suicide. "There is a powerful compulsion in him to sacrifice himself and all of Germany to the revengeful annihilation of Western culture, to die, dragging all of Europe with him into the abyss," Dr. Murray wrote. Barring a deadly coup or insanity, Dr. Murray speculated, Hitler would arrange to have himself killed by a German or a Jew, to complete the myth of the hero betrayed. Or he would retreat to his bunker and, in dramatic fashion, shoot himself. In the spring of 1945, as far as historians can determine, that is exactly what he did. References 2. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:27:11 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:27:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT Op-Ed: Spring Forward Faster Message-ID: The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Spring Forward Faster http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/opinion/31prerau.html March 31, 2005 [Daylight Savings Time is a perfect example of liberals trying to get something for nothing.] By DAVID PRERAU Brookline, Mass. AS we once again "spring forward" and turn our clocks ahead on Sunday, the start of daylight saving time, there's no better time to think about giving ourselves more daylight every year. Extending daylight time would give us considerable energy savings in an era of record oil prices, as well as many other benefits. Daylight saving time, of course, has its roots in conservation: Benjamin Franklin suggested it as a way to save on candles, and it was used in both world wars to save energy for the military effort. By 1966, most areas of the country had permanently adopted it, and Congress standardized the daylight time period to run from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. Twenty years later, Congress moved the starting date to the first Sunday in April. Studies in many countries have found that daylight saving time curbs energy consumption and reduces traffic fatalities. While I was a researcher at the Transportation Department in the 1970's, we did a study that found that under daylight time in spring and fall, electrical energy use fell by about 1 percent, the equivalent today of roughly three billion kilowatt-hours per month, while the reduction in traffic accidents saved 25 lives and averted 1,000 injuries each month. Crime also decreased. These results derive directly from the shift of daylight from morning to evening. For example, many people sleep through morning sunlight and then depend on electric lighting after the sun sets. Even taking commuters into account, far more people travel in the evening than in the morning, and this, when combined with poor visibility, leads to more traffic accidents. And more crimes in which darkness is a factor, like muggings, take place after dusk than before dawn. Under the present law we have daylight time in October but not in March, even though the sun rises at similar times in both months. The European Union starts daylight time on the last Sunday in March, with few complaints. Adding one spring week of daylight time would synchronize us with Europe. Adding two weeks in the spring would double the benefit while not making a single sunrise later than those we already experience in October, thus reducing concerns about dark mornings for farmers and children heading for school. We should also consider adding a week of daylight time in the fall. Daylight time now always ends just before Halloween - sometimes, as last year, on Halloween morning. Alarmingly, children's pedestrian deaths are four times higher on Halloween than on any other night of the year, and daylight time would provide another hour of light for young trick-or-treaters. Today, daylight saving time has been adopted by more than one billion people in about 70 countries. At a time when energy conservation is increasingly important and oil prices are skyrocketing, additional daylight time in the United States can save us energy while also preventing traffic accidents, cutting crime, helping trick-or-treaters safely across the street, and providing millions of gardeners, softball players and backyard barbecuers an additional hour in the sun. David Prerau is the author of "Seize the Daylight: The Curious and Contentious Story of Daylight Saving Time." From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:28:37 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:28:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Aristocracy) Time, gentlemen Message-ID: Time, gentlemen http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2108295&window_type=print Richard Davenport-Hines 23 July 2004 IN DEFENCE OF ARISTOCRACY. By Peregrine Worsthorne. 232pp. HarperCollins. ?15. - 0 00 718315 1 THE GUARDSMEN. Harold Macmillan, three friends and the world they made. By Simon Ball. 456pp. HarperCollins. ?25. - 0 00 257110 2 The recent insistence by British Airways on providing a Scottish duke and his wife with tickets inscribed "Mr. Duke of Buccleuch" and "Mrs. Duchess of Buccleuch" is a reminder that the British aristocracy, despite retaining some privileges and having adapted its economic powers, is hedged around with ignorant hostility. This could not be clearer than in the critical reception of Peregrine Worsthorne's rueful manifesto - it is far too gentle to be called a polemic - In Defence of Aristocracy. His book has been caricatured as a muddle-headed, snobbish plea for the revival of a hereditary aristocracy, and teased for being full of reactionary hankering for the days when young men were recruited as journalists at The Times over a grilled chop at Pratt's. It is nothing of the sort. Worsthorne's real theme is the systematic destruction of authoritative opinion in Britain and the diminution of the public service ethic. He argues for the revival of "a state of public opinion in which the old upper classes and their institutions, shorn of their legal privileges, are once again seen as a strength . . . and above all as ideally suited - rather than exceptionally unsuited - for public service". Worsthorne does not want to reimpose obsolete class hegemony but rather to reinforce social equity, community responsibility and respect for intelligent expertise in a period of unashamed selfishness and brazen ignorance. For him, Britain has become "a nation of . . . anti-gentlemen" - the best definition of a gentleman that I have heard being someone who never speaks harshly or contemptuously to a person who is in no position to answer back on an equal footing - for which he blames the non-magnanimous temper of the Thatcherite 1980s. There is everywhere, he shows, a revolt against authoritative knowledge, bias against superior achievements, and a privileging of cheapskate emotion, childish resentment and surly suspicion against profundity of experience, education and sensibility. The long controversy in Britain over the vaccination of children against measles, mumps and rubella, which does not figure in Worsthorne's manifesto, exemplifies the malaise which he deplores. The Government's recommendation of a combined vaccine against these diseases and the endorsement of the MMR vaccine by the overwhelming weight of disinterested expert opinion was for years treated (by print journalists and some shockingly irresponsible broadcasters) as of equal authority as the hunches and confused emotional outbursts of unqualified people who were convinced that MMR vaccine caused autism or bowel disorders. "Feelings" were accorded equal authority with the meticulous, conscientious and informed research of highly qualified people. A Conservative MP, when asked if she doubted the honesty or accuracy of MMR supporters in Whitehall, dismissed the question as a side-issue: what was important to her was Tony Blair's refusal to confirm publicly that his children had been vaccinated with MMR. Worsthorne, who stresses that respect for personal privacy is prerequisite to all dignity and authority, identifies the press onslaught on privacy since the 1980s as part of the movement to devalue expert authority, discredit notions of disinterested public service, and mock all concepts of personal duty. MMR makes Worsthorne's point perfectly: the demotic political temper of the times, combined with the insistence on personal choice (however illinformed) as a political priority, means that every noodle can reckon themselves the peer of our greatest experts and thinkers. The educated (or to Worsthorne "gentlemanly") classes are stripped of authority, while the public pronounces with crass confidence and emotive verbiage on the thorniest technical questions. Peregrine Worsthorne at the age of eighty is still bubbling with youthful idealism. He has remained, at heart, the schoolboy of the 1930s whom he recalls in one of this book's many autobiographical asides: a loyal, demonstrative creature who believed in duty and self-sacrifice, thought selfishness was the mark of the beast, and that altruism was the root of all virtue. As faith in Christianity weakened, "the sub-Christian cult of the English gentleman enormously increased its hold, and during my lifetime became the main moral force holding the nation together and determining the manner and manners in which individuals and classes treated one another". The code of the English gentleman was for him far more morally influential than the Ten Commandments: "Gentlemanliness was a universal presence, like that of the Almighty . . . . The moral hold of the ideals of the English gentleman was one of the wonders of the modern world". He claims that rectitude and self-respect pervaded all classes: curiously his description of gentlemanly virtues prompts the thought that Methodism, not Anglicanism, is the real creed of gentlemen. Worsthorne's idealization is somewhat belied by Simon Ball's scholarly, readable and perceptive group biography, The Guardsmen. As a study of statecraft, showing how politicians obtain and use power, it is the type of history that Worsthorne regrets is being eliminated from the school curriculum. Harold Macmillan (afterwards Earl of Stockton), Oliver Lyttelton (afterwards Viscount Chandos), Bobbety Cranborne (afterwards Marquess of Salisbury) and Harry Crookshank (afterwards Viscount Crookshank) all went as pupils to Eton in 1906, all served in the First World War in the same battalion of the Grenadier Guards; and all entered Winston Churchill's Cabinet during the Second World War. Born in the mid 1890s, they were the first generation of British politicians whose careers were entirely spent under a system of universal suffrage and the last generation to have (in the case of Lyttelton, Cranborne and arguably Macmillan) an authentically aristocratic style. Ball traces the political trajectories of this quartet, examines their motives and assesses their achievements. His shrewd and even-handed narrative, which is based on sturdy archival research, combines the grand sweep with juicy morsels. It makes, though, the code of the Worsthornes seem rather starry eyed. Each of Ball's egotistically driven quartet recognized that money was crucial to political advancement and treated politics not as the jockeying for place of Tadpole and Taper, but as a war of attrition. "In their age, as in every other, this struggle was projected in idealistic rhetoric, aimed at securing and buttressing power", says Ball. They were men of great fortitude. After the Battle of the Somme, Macmillan hovered for months on the brink of death from his wounds; Crookshank, who was both buried alive and blown up, was castrated by his horrible injuries and had to wear a surgical truss for the rest of his life. Aggression, understandably, became central to the course of their lives. It seems a metaphor of power politics that Salisbury was one of the progenitors of the Atomic Energy Authority and that Chandos in retirement headed the company that built the world's first privately owned nuclear reactor at Aldermaston. Their long careers of public service, as Simon Ball shows, contained much to admire, but also much to make Peregrine Worsthorne squeamish. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:29:42 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:29:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] TLS: (Lucia Joyce): A mania for insects Message-ID: A mania for insects http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2108013&window_type=print Brenda Maddox 02 July 2004 LUCIA JOYCE. To dance in the Wake. By Carol Loeb Shloss. 561pp. Bloomsbury. ?20. 0 7475 7033 7. US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. $30. 0 374 19424 6 James Joyce made a religion of himself, with two sacred days in his ecclesiastical calendar: his birthday, on February 2, and June 16, the day in 1904 when he first walked out with Nora Barnacle, the girl who became his wife, and on which he subsequently set the entire action of Ulysses. His nimbus encompasses his Holy Family group. Nora and his father have been the subject of biographies. His brother, Stanislaus, wrote his own. Now, Carol Loeb Shloss focuses on Joyce's daughter, Lucia, with emphasis on her brief career as a modern dancer. So far, only his son, Giorgio - also an artist, and a trained baritone who might have become a concert singer instead of an alcoholic had he had a less awesome father - has escaped treatment. The cause of Joyce's greatest anguish, Lucia was born in Trieste in 1907, the second child of impoverished and (until 1931) unwed parents. With them, she moved to Zurich during the First World War, and later to Paris where Joyce, on Ezra Pound's advice, found the Modernist milieu conducive to finishing Ulysses. At home the Joyces spoke Italian, or a Triestine dialect thereof (a fact which makes nonsense of the Irish brogues affected by the actors playing Giorgio and Lucia in Michael Hastings's recent play, Calico). The children's rackety upbringing was marked by the two abrupt changes of language and schooling as well as by constant shifts of address in whichever city they were living. They were scarred too by sharing their home with their obsessive artist father, who was becoming blind. Perhaps worse, was the sudden celebrity, following the 1922 publication of Ulysses. Both young Joyces began their own romantic lives under its fierce glare. In 1931, Giorgio married a New York divorcee ten years his senior, a woman delighted to enter the inner circle of the great writer. In the late 1920s, Lucia fell in love with the young Samuel Beckett (as dramatized in Calico) and was heartbroken when he made clear that his prime interest was in her father, rather than her. Erratically, Lucia found lovers and, briefly in 1932, a fiance. Serious trouble had manifested itself in 1932, on Joyce's fiftieth birthday, when Lucia hurled a chair at her mother. Subsequently, Giorgio had her removed to a maison de sante. Her behaviour became increasingly irrational, and Joyce asked himself if he was to blame. He encouraged her work as a designer of illuminated initials, lettrines, in order that she should not think her whole life a failure. Dispatched to England, to his generous and long-suffering patron, Harriet Shaw Weaver, then to relatives in Ireland, she manifested unexplained disappearances, catatonia, incendiarism, sexual mania. Throughout the 1930s, Lucia endured a succession of French and Swiss sanatoriums. The crude, often cruel, treatments of the day - solitary confinement, straitjackets, enforced rest, sea-water injections, even (in Zurich with Carl Jung) an attempt at the "talking cure" - had no visible benefit. In 1939, she was sent to a clinic near La Baule, and never lived outside an institution again. Joyce's distress at the plight of his beloved daughter was intensifed with the fall of France in 1940. Giorgio's wife had had a breakdown and returned to the United States. Joyce, Nora, Giorgio and grandson, Stephen, left Paris in the autumn of 1939. From the village of Saint-Gerand-le-Puy near Vichy, Joyce laboured to move his family, including Lucia, to Switzerland. Agonizingly, just as he finally managed to clear Swiss and French bureaucratic hurdles, Lucia's exit permit from the Occupation authorities expired. So, in December 1940, the Joyce family left France without her. In time, Joyce might have succeeded in finding a place for his daughter in a Swiss clinic. Yet on January 13, 1941, following an operation for a perforated ulcer, he died. Thereafter, Lucia's welfare was handled by Joyce's London lawyers together with Miss Weaver. Even once the the Second World War was over, getting funds from Britain to the Continent was difficult. In 1951, when Nora Joyce died in Zurich, Miss Weaver, as Lucia's legal guardian, arranged for her transfer to England, to St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, where her bills could be paid and she could be visited, and where she remained until her death in 1982. With the advent of phenothyazine drugs in the 1950s, she was calm and tractable. She might have lived outside an institution, had there been anywhere for her to go. So much is known. Carol Shloss, a lecturer at Stanford University, has chosen to tell Lucia's story as that of a thwarted dancer and a silenced woman. In Paris, the young Lucia became a pupil of Raymond Duncan (brother of Isadora); then, at eighteen, she joined Margaret Morris (granddaughter of William) in her school of modern dance. Subsequently, she became a performing member of "Les Six de rythme et couleur". Her party piece was an amusing imitation of Charlie Chaplin. She travelled with her group to Austria and Germany, and enjoyed life away from her family for the first time. In 1929 she decided to become a Morris teacher, but then turned down an offer to join a group in Darmstadt and effectively gave up dancing. Joyce told Harriet Weaver that this resulted in "a month of tears as she thinks she has thrown away three or four years of hard work and is sacrificing a talent". Therein lies Shloss's book. Her research is impressive. Joyce studies are the richer for her mining of the Paul Leon papers at the National Library of Ireland. Leon rescued the papers from Joyce's Paris flat in 1940 and lodged them with the Irish Consul in the city, with instructions that in the event of his and Joyce's death, they were to go to the Dublin library, and not to be opened until fifty years after Joyce's death. Soon after, the Nazis arrested Leon, and he died in an internment camp in 1942. Thus it was not until 1991 that the papers became available to scholars and it was possible to take a detailed look at the financial records of Lucia's medical treatments. Other archives available to Shloss are those of Richard Ellmann, and Joyce's close friends in Paris, Maria Jolas and Stuart Gilbert. These have enabled Shloss to give previously unknown details of Lucia's friendships and love affairs in Paris -her involvement with the artistic Fernandez family, and with various beaux. Her medical records for gynaecological care suggest a possible abortion in 1933 or 1934. But all this good scholarship is undermined by Shloss's intemperate, polemical tone. She appears to hold the Laingian view that mental illness is a response to a harsh society's intolerance of aberrant behaviour, rather than a sadly common affliction, often inherited, often striking young people in late adolescence or early adulthood. She is not interested in the possibility that, in the case of Lucia, genetics could be relevant. And she dismisses the varied professional psychiatric diagnoses offered for what even Joyce recognized as "a fire in her (Lucia's) brain". The frustrated dancer is the key to Shloss's wordy interpretation: In illness as in health, Lucia continued to experience the lessons of the dance world and to use its wisdom in her response to experience. Western culture is built upon a system of exclusions, and the expressive, "dancing" body is regulated, disciplined, normalized, and individualized in proportion to the fears it arouses about transgression. In Shloss's view, Lucia was not schizophrenic but "Dionysian". Starting fires or trying to unbutton men's trousers was "bacchic activity". Later efforts, notably by Lucia's nephew, Stephen Joyce, to prevent written accounts of her life are attributed to a determination to expunge traces of a gifted female, rather than a wish to protect family privacy. Shloss's culprits include Giorgio, for being the first to send Lucia to a mental hospital; Jung for misunderstanding Ulysses; Ellmann and myself (as the biographer of Nora Joyce) for perpetuating the myth that Lucia was mad; and Nora for being a jealous and rejecting mother. Shloss is most convincing when she discusses Lucia's influence on Ulysses and on Finnegans Wake. Both books, wisely or not, can be read as coded autobiographies. Incest themes are detectable. Scholars of Ulysses have long noticed the incestuous ruminations of Leopold Bloom about his daughter, Milly. Although she is away in Mullingar, Bloom's mind is full of thoughts about her doomed virginity: "A soft qualm of regret, flowed down his backbone, increasing. Will happen, yes. Prevent. Useless". And what is the hidden secret of the Wake? Scholars ponder what is meant by the pivotal word "insect". Incest? Father, or brother? Shloss observes that during much of her girlhood Lucia had to share a room and perhaps a bed with Giorgio. Yet it is one thing to say that Lucia helped her father with his word-games and research for the magnificent dead-end of the Wake. It is quite another to declare that, after Giorgio's marriage, the book became for Lucia "a rival sibling" and, in time, "a fantastical child", of which she, the "daughter wife", was part author. And the assertion that the Joyce-Lucia relationship was "one of the great love stories of the twentieth century" is preposterous. It is interesting to speculate just how good a dancer Lucia was. Some lovely photographs exist. None, however, conveys the grace or elegance of those showing her mentor, Margaret Morris. The main surviving critical judgement of Lucia's abilities is an often quoted sentence from an interview in the Paris Times in 1928: "When she reaches her full capacity for rhythmic dancing, James Joyce may yet be known as his daughter's father". Yet the existence of this sentence suggests that, to the Paris of her time, her main distinction was precisely that she was her father's daughter. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:35:58 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:35:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WP: A New Deal Message-ID: A New Deal http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5436-2005Mar27 [Working for Uncle Sam was an esp. good deal under the old retirement system that you couldn't join after 1984. I wouldn't advise a young person to start a career in the Federal government, if the job security is actually going to go down. We shall see. I do advise putting aside 25% of one's income from the start of your career so, if you become unemployable, because of transhumanist developments or just bad luck, you'll have enough saved by the time you are 40 to live out your days as a college student.] How to Shake Up the Bureaucracy? Change the Work Rules. By Ann Gerhart Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 28, 2005; Page C01 Hundreds of thousands of federal workers made a deal when they signed up with Uncle Sam. Whether they were janitors pushing a broom or naval designers floating tiny model destroyers or econometricians micro-simulating Social Security scenarios, the deal was the same: They would do good work, even rewarding, satisfying work. It wouldn't be sexy work, and it wouldn't make them rich. But what they would get was stability, the federal holidays, transit subsidies, Cadillac health care, the flextime allowing every other Friday off. The hours would be regular. The raises would come -- click, click, click up the general service scale. No one would insist that a GS-5 or GS-15 be anyone's political crony. And, when the day came to get out, they would get their pot at the end of the rainbow -- a fat federal pension, plump enough for a cabin in the woods, maybe, or a fishing skiff and condo in Florida. Hand in hand with Uncle Sam, they would construct lives of comforting predictability. Oh, every decade or so, some politicians would rumble about the bloated bureaucracy and talk sternly of the need to shrink big government. They would insult the workforce. Deride them as lazy. Red-tape creators. And the civil servants, the very engine of this region's economy, would put their heads down, mumble to each other in the agency cafeterias and wait them out. Eventually, those politicians would go back to wherever they came from. They always did. Until now. President Bush and his Texas comrades have succeeded in doing what no one else could in 120 years of civil service. They have ended the deal. New personnel regulations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense will dramatically change the way 860,000 workers there are paid, promoted, demoted and disciplined. The plan is to spread the changes throughout all the land of federal government. No more automatic raises. No more simple pass-fail evaluations. No more Job for Life. The unions have taken it on the lip. While the pay-for-performance changes won't take effect until 2009, workers are getting anxious. They don't know what their life will look like. And knowing what life would look like, after all, was always the point. And when their lives change, this region, with a $27 billion federal payroll in 2003, will change with them. The afternoon rush hour may no longer begin at 3:30. The malls may not clog on Presidents' Day. The institutions of community -- the PTA, the soccer teams, the Scout programs, the civic groups -- may go begging for volunteers because it's harder to find someone who can make it to a 4:30 practice or a 7 p.m. planning session. If the world is divided into two types of people, those restless for risk and those repulsed by it, government work attracts the latter. If you are not one of them, they are the people waiting patiently in the slug lines to go home as the late-afternoon sun slants across the concrete canyons of federal Washington. They are the ones riding Metro happily immersed in paperback novels rather than BlackBerrys, not bothering to tuck away their ID cards on chains. If they are particularly proud of their jobs, the ladies upgrade to more decorative lanyards, studded with pretty glass beads. They speak in a jargon all their own. They nod wisely when the ads on WTOP tell them "to save 30 to 80 percent on your FEGLD option B" or trust VeriSign for "HPSD 12 solutions and FISMA compliance." They are content with code. It orders their world. Their day ends at a regular time, and they leave their work behind. "In the beginning, it was good," says Joyce Raeford, who got into government work nearly 20 years ago, working in the day-care center on the Army base where her husband was stationed. It paid better than her first job at Fort Dix, in a Head Start pilot program in the '60s, where she started out at 90 cents an hour, and, "girl, when we got that raise to $1.10 we were jumping up and down. I will never forget it," she says. "We had a party." Now a widow in her late fifties, Raeford is making about $19 an hour as a lead education aide at one of the child development centers at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. She works 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. Her ID card hangs from a WWJD lanyard, and she is a matriarch: four children, 13 grands, and, she says, with a big smile, "three greats." The work is fine, and she is still proud of teaching "my babies." But? "Change is scary," says Raeford. "Coming to work one day, and not having a job for sure, that you could be gone with a wave of the hand?" She shakes her head. You could get a boss who just didn't like the way you presented yourself. "Mmm mmm mmm." It seems unthinkable to many that the government, a model, progressive, benevolent employer, could come to resemble the private sector, with its layoffs and loss of loyalty to long-term employees. In the spring of 1973, Colleen Kelly was getting ready to graduate from Drexel University with an accounting degree. She was figuring she'd join one of the big public accounting firms or go into private industry. "And the IRS came to campus," she recalls. "I really would not have thought to look at the federal government. But they talked about their training program on tax law and the career opportunities, and the salary grade in the GS system. They showed us the promotion opportunities, and the health insurance and the retirement." She became a revenue agent, auditing corporate tax returns. She went to graduate school at night. She specialized in making sure that companies with foreign subsidiaries had not improperly shifted their income offshore, where it would be taxed at a lower rate. Your tax dollars at work to get more tax dollars! It might seem like tedious, squint-eyed work, but she says, "I really liked what I was doing. There were times in the first years when I would look outside to see what was available." She would hear the siren call of higher salaries and bonuses, but caution always prevailed. "When I weighed that against the system I knew and understood, and that if I did what I was supposed to do, if I excelled, well, I valued" more the deal with the government. Kelly did eventually go outside, but not to one of the big accounting firms. She is now president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 employees in 30 governmental agencies, and is one of the leaders of an effort to ask the courts to stop implementation of the new personnel rules. She hears her members' worries every day. "They signed up for the long haul," says Kelly. "So many of them have 10 or 15 years [to go until retirement], and there is no question it was their intent to have a career and retire from the federal government, from a work environment that had rules that provided balance and fairness. And now there are a lot of questions about the future." Payback Time The 1.8 million federal workers owe their jobs to Charles Guiteau. An attorney and failed journalist, he became a fanatical supporter of James Garfield for president. Usually, he stood outside Republican headquarters on Fifth Avenue in New York, speechifying and haranguing anyone who passed by. When Garfield was elected in 1880, Guiteau moved to Washington, assuming his fierce support would earn him an appointment in government. He bombarded Secretary of State James G. Blaine with letters demanding a job, a standard practice. At that time, newspaper advertising swelled after elections. "WANTED -- A GOVERNMENT CLERKSHIP at a salary of not less than $1,000 per annum. Will give $100 to anyone securing me such a position," read a typical ad. According to one government archive, Garfield found "hungry office-seekers lying in wait for him like vultures for a wounded bison." Guiteau was so disappointed to be rebuffed that he killed the president. The shock waves propelled the Pendleton Act through Congress. Signed into law in 1883, it removed jobs from the patronage ranks and reestablished the Civil Service Commission to administer a system based on merit instead of connections. The civil service examination weeded out the hacks who merely wanted indoor work with no heavy lifting. It built the miracle of a meritocracy out of a corrupt world of political favors. It built Washington, helping to transform a swampy, mosquito-infested river town into a colossus of power. People streamed here for government work, building an educated, skilled middle class that plowed under farms in Maryland and Virginia and replaced them with hundreds of thousands of acres of brick Colonials, garages attached. Over the decades, a government job became a destination, rather than a fallback position. Attracted to a philosophy of government as protector that began with the New Deal and built through President John F. Kennedy's call to Americans to ask "what you can do for your country," college graduates with political science degrees poured into public service. During the 1970s and early '80s, says Paul Light, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a civil service expert, "if you would ask graduates about their intent, most would say government." By the late '80s, only a third would answer that way. And young people today, he says, have little to no interest in the federal government as an employer. "The reputation couldn't be worse," he says. "Young people think it's difficult to get a job, the hiring process is slow and confusing, a substantial minority figure it's unfair." The government's capacity to create tidy, orderly lives has no appeal for twenty-somethings. With some surveys showing they will hold an average of nine different jobs by the time they're 32, they have no expectation of loyalty to or from an employer. Although there are 15 GS levels (with 10 steps within each one), there are really only two categories of workers: professionals and support staff. What they share is a preference for an orderly life. The federal system, with its rigid personnel rules, can breed a culture where workers prefer being told what to do, rather than taking individual initiative. "There is a kernel of truth in the reputation," says Light. "A lot of workers did take their job for the security and benefits. It is also a lot better workforce than the politicians like to admit." In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush argued that the old work rules and regulations hampered government's ability to respond quickly to crises. He easily won congressional approval to change the system. In January of 2003, the bipartisan National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by Paul Volcker, called for the abolishment of the general schedule. The new rules will replace the half-century-old GS schedule with a pay-for-performance system, as recommended in 2003 by a bipartisan commission on public service, and will also limit the unions' ability to intervene on behalf of their members. "We think those flexibilities make it possible for agencies to better focus on results and to hold the people and managers accountable," Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office for Management and Budget, said at a briefing to unveil the new rules. Some sort of change is certainly necessary, says Pat McGinniss, the executive director of the nonpartisan Council for Excellence in Government. "Government has not been as innovative as the private sector," she says. "How can we get to a more flexible, more nimble, more results-oriented government?" Easy Targets Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, acknowledges that the current system needs to be "less cumbersome" when poorly performing workers need to be removed. But both Kelly, the union president, and Hoyer raise the specter of political favoritism creeping into the system. "One of the reasons we have a civil service system was to get away from patronage," says Hoyer. Before, "if a person was seen as politically incorrect they would suffer in terms of salary or responsibility. There could be a stability and nonpartisanship to the process." The changes, he says, are going to undermine that. What particularly sticks in the Maryland congressman's craw is the hostility he hears toward the 55,000 people who stream each day into the U.S. Census Bureau in Suitland, the National Archives in College Park, the Goddard Space Center in Beltsville, the Food and Drug Administration laboratories in White Oak. "For years in Washington there has been a group [in power] that essentially believes the public service is not as important as the private service, the smaller the government the better it is," he says. "It is easy to whip up disrespect and antipathy toward a big bureaucracy that is sucking your taxes and not giving anything in return." And yet, he points out, "these are the people we are talking about: They're going to work every day to find a cure for cancer or heart disease or Alzheimer's. Or the guy on the border to protect us against terrorists. Or the person down at the space center who is working to put a satellite up to better analyze the weather to give you greater warning of a hurricane coming. Or at the FDA trying to make sure that the drugs and the food are safe." Or keeping the allergy clinic on Fort Belvoir running smoothly. That is what Renee Garris does. She is 45. GS-5, step 5. Makes about $28,000 a year. She likes to wear suits to work, and eyeglasses that are hip but mean business. She grew up in the District, had a baby at 16, got married, finished school, had another baby. Her husband, Jerome, is out of the Marines after 22 years and works for Sodexho as a manager. Her girls are 23 and 29 now. Over the years, she has gone back to school so she can earn more money and also, she says, "because I had girls watching me." When her husband was stationed at Camp Pendleton in California, she worked as a cashier at the post exchange and took college classes in medical administration. Without additional training, she says, "you can only go so far." Once, for about 30 days, she ventured into the private sector. That was enough. What she enjoys about working for the Department of Defense and her current bosses, she says, is "they don't mind you doing new things, helping with different training to help you meet your goals." And her goal is to be able to get out, if the day comes when her workplace changes on her. Her daughters have no interest in working for their mother's employer. The elder is a teacher. The younger works in day care. Both her sons-in-law are in the military and have been stationed in Iraq. "We say a lot of prayers," says Garris. The deal she has made has her life looking like this: Up every morning at her Spotsylvania home at 3:45 to catch the van pool at 5, which gets her into work by 6 or 6:15 a.m. The clinic doesn't open until 7:45, but that's when the van pool comes, so she's early every day. But there's always something to do. Her husband goes in the opposite direction, to his job in Richmond. She leaves at 3:45 p.m. With traffic, Garris might not get home until 5:45. After years of living in apartments and base housing, she and Jerome own their own brick-and-stone split-level in a quiet, pretty neighborhood. Most nights, her husband makes dinner. Most nights, between 7 and 9:30, they play dominoes, often with another couple, "young neighbors we mentor," says Garris. Her days are long, but they have a certainty to them. She knows where she'll stand this time next year, and maybe the year after that. The system has its patterns, and she's come to understand its rules. You sign on with Uncle Sam, and it's mostly a good deal. Until it isn't anymore. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 20:38:21 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:38:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] CHE: Reinventing Physics: the Search for the Real Frontier Message-ID: Reinventing Physics: the Search for the Real Frontier The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5.2.11 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i23/23b00601.htm By ROBERT B. LAUGHLIN A few years ago I had occasion to engage my father-in-law, a retired academician, on the subject of the collective nature of physical law. We had just finished playing bridge late one afternoon and were working on a couple of gin and tonics in order to escape discussing movies of emotional depth with our wives. My argument was that reliable cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world have something to tell us about ourselves, in that they owe this reliability to principles of organization rather than microscopic rules. The laws of nature that we care about, in other words, emerge through collective self-organization and really do not require knowledge of their component parts to comprehend and exploit. After listening carefully, my father-in-law declared that he did not understand. He had always thought that laws cause organization, not the other way around. He was not even sure the reverse made sense. I then asked him whether legislatures and corporate boards made laws or were made by laws, and he immediately saw the problem. He pondered it for a while, and then confessed that he was now deeply confused about why things happen and needed to think more about it. Exactly so. It is a terrible thing that science has grown so distant from the rest of our intellectual life, for it did not start out that way. The writings of Aristotle, for example, despite their notorious inaccuracies, are beautifully clear, purposeful, and accessible. So is Darwin's Origin of Species. The opacity of modern science is an unfortunate side effect of professionalism, and something for which we scientists are often pilloried -- and deservedly so. Everyone gets wicked pleasure from snapping on the radio on the drive home from work to hear Doctor Science give ludicrous answers to phone-in questions such as why cows stand in the same direction while grazing (they must face Wisconsin several times a day) and then finish up with, "And remember: I know more than you. I have a master's degree in science." On another occasion my father-in-law remarked that economics had been terrific until they made it into a science. He had a point. The conversation about physical law started me thinking about what science had to say about the obviously very unscientific chicken-and-egg problem of laws, organizations of laws, and laws from organization. I began to appreciate that many people had strong views on this subject, but could not articulate why they held them. The matter had come to a head recently when I realized I was having the same conversation over and over again with colleagues about Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe (W.W. Norton, 1999), a popular book about string theory -- a set of speculative ideas about the quantum mechanics of space. The conversation focused on the question of whether physics was a logical creation of the mind or a synthesis built on observation. The impetus for the discussion was never an existential problem, of course, but money, the lack of which is the universal common denominator of world science. But the subject always seemed to drift back from there to the pointlessness of making models of the world that were beautiful but predicted no experiments, and from there to the question of what science is. After this happened a number of times in such disparate venues as Seattle, Taipei, and Helsinki, it struck me that the disagreement spawned by Greene's book was fundamentally the same problem that had occupied us that day after bridge. Moreover it was an ideological dispute: It had nothing to do with what was true and everything to do with what "true" was. It is commonly said in physics that good notation advances while bad notation retards. This is certainly true. A phonetic alphabet takes less time to master than a pictorial one and thus makes writing more accessible. Decimal numbers are easier to use than Roman numerals. The same idea applies to ideologies. Seeing our understanding of nature as a mathematical construction has fundamentally different implications from seeing it as an empirical synthesis. One view identifies us as masters of the universe; the other identifies the universe as masters of us. Little wonder that my colleagues down in the trenches of experimental science had become so animated over the question. At its core the matter is not scientific at all but concerns one's sense of self and place in the world. The threads of these two worlds run very deep. When I was a kid I drove with my parents to Yosemite for a rendezvous with my aunt and uncle, who had driven in from Chicago. My uncle was a brilliant and highly successful patent attorney who seemed to know everything and was not shy about sharing this fact. On this occasion he and my aunt checked in at the Ahwahnee, the fanciest hotel in the place, held court there with us, consumed a few buffet breakfasts, and then left to drive over Tuolumne Pass to the desert and home. I don't think they saw a single waterfall up close. There was no point, since they had seen waterfalls before and understood the concept. The worldview motivating my uncle's attitude toward Yosemite, and arguably also Brian Greene's attitude toward physics, is expressed with great clarity in John Horgan's The End of Science (Addison-Wesley, 1996), in which he argues that all fundamental things are now known and there is nothing left for us to do but fill in details. This pushes my experimental colleagues beyond their already strained limits of patience, for it is both wrong and completely below the belt. The search for new things always looks like a lost cause until one makes a discovery. If it were obvious what was there, one would not have to look for it. Unfortunately this view is widely held. I once had a conversation with the late David Schramm, the famous cosmologist at the University of Chicago, about galactic jets. These are thin pencils of plasma that beam out of some galactic cores to fabulous distances, sometimes several galactic radii, powered somehow by mechanical rotation of the core. How they can remain thin over such stupendous distances is not understood, and something I find tremendously interesting. But David dismissed the whole effect as "weather." He was interested only in the early universe and astrophysical observations that could shed light on it, even if only marginally. He categorized the jets as annoying distractions on the grounds that they had nothing in particular to tell him about what was fundamental. I, by contrast, am fascinated by weather and believe that people claiming not to be are fibbing. I think primitive organizational phenomena such as weather have something of lasting importance to tell us about more complex ones, including ourselves: Their primitiveness enables us to demonstrate with certainty that they are ruled by microscopic laws but also, paradoxically, that some of their more sophisticated aspects are insensitive to details of these laws. In other words, we are able to prove in these simple cases that the organization can acquire meaning and life of its own and begin to transcend the parts from which it is made. What physical science thus has to tell us is that the whole being more than the sum of its parts is not merely a concept but a physical phenomenon. Nature is regulated not only by a microscopic rule base but by powerful and general principles of organization. Some of these principles are known, but the vast majority are not. New ones are being discovered all the time. At higher levels of sophistication the cause-and-effect relationships are harder to document, but there is no evidence that the hierarchical descent of law found in the primitive world is superseded by anything else. Thus if a simple physical phenomenon can become effectively independent of the more fundamental laws from which it descends, so can we. I am carbon, but I need not have been. I have a meaning transcending the atoms from which I am made. I am increasingly persuaded that all physical law we know about has collective origins, not just some of it. In other words, the distinction between fundamental laws and the laws descending from them is a myth -- as is therefore the idea of mastery of the universe through mathematics solely. Physical law cannot generally be anticipated by pure thought, but must be discovered experimentally, because control of nature is achieved only when nature allows this through a principle of organization. One might subtitle this thesis the end of reductionism (the belief that things will necessarily be clarified when they are divided down into smaller and smaller component parts), but that would not be quite accurate. All physicists are reductionists at heart, myself included. I do not wish to impugn reductionism so much as establish its proper place in the grand scheme of things. To defend my assertion I must openly discuss some shocking ideas: the vacuum of space-time as "matter," the possibility that relativity is not fundamental, the collective nature of computability, epistemological barriers to theoretical knowledge, similar barriers to experimental falsification, and the mythological nature of important parts of modern theoretical physics. The radicalness is, of course, partly a stage prop, for science, as an experimental undertaking, cannot be radical or conservative but only faithful to the facts. But these larger conceptual issues, which are not science at all but philosophy, are often what most interest us because they are what we call upon to weigh merit, write laws, and make choices in our lives. The objective, then, is not to make controversy for the sake of itself but to help us see clearly what science has become. To do this we must forcibly separate science's function as the facilitator of technology from its function as a means of understanding things -- including ourselves. The world we actually inhabit, as opposed to the happy idealization of modern scientific mythology, is filled with wonderful and important things we have not yet seen because we have not looked, or have not been able to look because of technical limitations. The great power of science is its ability, through brutal objectivity, to reveal to us truth we did not anticipate. In this it continues to be invaluable, and one of the greatest of human creations. The idea of science as a great frontier is timeless. While there are clearly many nonscientific sources of adventure left, science is the unique place where genuine wildness may still be found. The wildness in question is not the lurid technological opportunism to which modern societies seem so hopelessly addicted but rather the pristine natural world that existed before humans arrived -- the vast openness of the lone rider splashing across the stream with three pack animals under the gaze of mighty peaks. It is the choreography of ecologies, the stately evolution of minerals in the earth, the motion of the heavens, and the birth and death of stars. Rumors of its death, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are greatly exaggerated. My particular branch of science, theoretical physics, is concerned with the ultimate causes of things. Physicists have no monopoly on ultimate causes, of course, for everyone is concerned with them to some extent. I suspect it is an atavistic trait acquired long ago in Africa for surviving in a physical world in which there actually are causes and effects -- for example between proximity to lions and being eaten. We are built to look for causal relations between things and to be deeply satisfied when we discover a rule with cascading implications. We are also built to be impatient with the opposite -- forests of facts from which we cannot extract any meaning. All of us secretly wish for an ultimate theory, a master rule set from which all truth would flow and which could forever free us from the frustration of dealing with facts. Its concern for ultimate causes gives theoretical physics a special appeal even to nonscientists, even though it is by most standards technical and abstruse. Learning about these things is an intellectual roller-coaster ride. First you find that your wish for an ultimate theory at the level of people-scale phenomena has been fulfilled. We are the proud owners of a set of mathematical relationships that, as far as we know, account for everything in the natural world bigger than an atomic nucleus. They are very simple and beautiful and can be written in two or three lines. But then you find that this simplicity is highly misleading. The equations are devilishly difficult to manipulate and impossible to actually solve in all but a small handful of instances. Demonstrating that they are correct requires arguments that are lengthy, subtle, and quantitative. While the basic ideas were invented by Schr?dinger, Bohr, and Heisenberg in the 1920s, it was not until powerful electronic computers were developed and armies of technically competent people were generated by governments that these ideas could be tested quantitatively against experiment over a wide range of conditions. Thus 80 years after the discovery of the ultimate theory we find ourselves in difficulty. The repeated, detailed experimental confirmation of these relationships has now officially closed the frontier of reductionism at the level of everyday things. Like the closing of the American frontier, this is a significant cultural event, causing thoughtful people everywhere to debate what it means for the future of knowledge. At the same time, the list of even very simple things found "too difficult" to describe with these equations continues to lengthen alarmingly. Those of us on the real frontier listening to the coyotes howl at night find ourselves chuckling over all of this. There are few things a real frontiersman finds more entertaining than the insights from people back in civilization who can barely find the supermarket. I find this moment in history charmingly similar to Lewis and Clark's wintering on the Columbia estuary. Through grit and determination their party had pushed its way across a continent, only to discover that the value had not been in reaching the sea but in the journey itself. The official frontier at that time was a legal fiction having more to do with property rights and homesteading policy than with a confrontation with nature. The same is true today. The real frontier, inherently wild, may be found right outside the door, if one only cares to look. The important laws we know about are, without exception, serendipitous discoveries rather than deductions. This is fully compatible with one's everyday experience. The world is filled with sophisticated regularities and causal relationships that can be quantified, for this is how we are able to make sense of things and exploit nature to our own ends. But the discovery of these relationships is annoyingly unpredictable and certainly not anticipated by scientific experts. This common-sense view continues to hold when the matter is examined more carefully and quantitatively. It turns out that our mastery of the universe is largely a bluff -- all hat and no cattle. The argument that all the important laws of nature are known is part of this bluff. Thus the end of knowledge and the closing of the frontier it symbolizes is not a looming crisis at all, but merely one of many embarrassing fits of hubris in civilization's long history. In the end it will pass away and be forgotten. Ours is not the first generation to struggle to understand the organizational laws of the frontier, deceive itself that it has succeeded, and go to its grave having failed. One would be wise to be humble, like the Irish fisherman observing quietly that the sea was so wide and his boat so small. The wildness we all need to live, grow, and define ourselves is alive and well, and its glorious laws are all around. Robert B. Laughlin is a professor of physics at Stanford University and a 1998 Nobel laureate in physics. He is on leave from Stanford to serve as president of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, in Taejon, South Korea. This essay is adapted from A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics From the Bottom Down, to be published in March by Basic Books. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 21:01:12 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:01:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Science: Three Articles on Race Message-ID: GENETICS: Harvesting Medical Information from the Human Family Tree David Altshuler and Andrew G. Clark* [More on racial medicine. The third article is a decreasingly obligatory one not to use racial information for evil purposes.] A central goal of human genetics is to identify and understand causal links between variant forms of genes and disease risk in patients. To date, most progress has been made studying rare, Mendelian diseases in which a mutation in a single gene acts strictly in a deterministic manner, that is, the mutation causes the disease. The fact that such mutations strictly cosegregate with disease in families offers a shortcut to identifying the relevant chromosomal region, and means that the enrichment of mutations in patients with the disease compared with healthy controls can be convincingly documented in small numbers of individuals. In contrast, common diseases typically are caused by a complex combination of multiple genetic risk factors, environmental exposures, and behaviors. Because mutations involved in complex diseases act probabilistically--that is, the clinical outcome depends on many factors in addition to variation in the sequence of a single gene--the effect of any specific mutation is smaller. Thus, such effects can only be revealed by searching for variants that differ in frequency among large numbers of patients and controls drawn from the general population. Limited knowledge about genetic variants in the human population, and the scarcity of technologies to score them accurately and at a reasonable cost, have been key impediments to performing this type of search. On page 1072 of this issue, Hinds et al. (1 ) describe dramatic progress toward overcoming these impediments. They describe a publicly available, genome-wide data set of 1.58 million common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)--genome sequence sites where two alternative "spellings" exist in the population--that have been accurately genotyped in each of 71 people from three population samples. A second public data set of more than 1 million SNPs typed in each of 270 people has been generated by the International Haplotype Map (HapMap) Project (2 ). These two public data sets, combined with multiple new technologies for rapid and inexpensive SNP genotyping, are paving the way for comprehensive association studies involving common human genetic variations. The rationale for genetic mapping by association to a dense map of common polymorphisms is based on two observations. The first is that most heterozygosity in the human population is due to a finite collection of common variants (on the order of 10 million and with a frequency exceeding 1%). The second is that nearby variants tend to correlate with one another in the population (known as linkage disequilibrium). Correlations among variants exist because when a mutation first arises, it does so on a single chromosome that carries a particular combination of alleles at flanking polymorphisms. Over time the mutation may spread to become common in a population, carrying with it the nearby flanking markers (see the figure). This correlation is eroded over the generations by recombination, just as in a pedigree study, except that the time scale may be thousands of generations, instead of one or two. In essence, genetic mapping with linkage disequilibrium treats the entire human population as a large family study with an unknown pedigree. The use of unrelated individuals makes it feasible to obtain sample sizes large enough to demonstrate modest relationships between genotype and phentoype through statistical associations. Gene mapping in families and in populations. (Left ) The cotransmission of genes in families remains an important approach for the genetic mapping of human diseases. Pedigrees are collected, and genetic markers of many types (SNPs, microsatellites, insertions and deletions) are scored in each individual. Computer programs then calculate the probability that the pattern of transmission through the family is consistent with linkage of the disease and certain markers. (Right) For linkage disequilibrium mapping, the time scale is much longer, going back thousands of years. The diagram depicts a gene genealogy. At the top is an ancestral chromosome, with time flowing down the page, and the tips of the tree are individual chromosomes in the population today. Across a population sample, linkage is inferred if there is a statistical correlation (linkage disequilibrium) between the disease and a SNP marker. Numbers indicate mutations that generate SNP variations. A Mendelian disease is caused by mutation 2 (blue); all descendant chromosomes also carry mutation 1. Because recombination may occur over many generations, this correlation between variants is found only when the two are very close together (less than about 100 kb). Patterns of linkage disequilibrium are shaped by the local recombination rate, genealogical history, and chance. In the human genome, recombination is highly variable (3) and often clusters in regions of local high intensity or "hotspots" (4 ). Moreover, the human population has expanded recently from a much smaller founder pool, experiencing bottlenecks as well as expansions in its history. These forces combine to make human SNP patterns simpler and broader, such that they extend over longer distances than would otherwise be the case. Nevertheless, because the typical span of linkage disequilibrium is from thousands to more than 100,000 base pairs, genetic maps of very high density are needed to use linkage disequilibrium for mapping genes. These goals motivated the creation of the public human SNP map, which today contains more than 8 million variants (5 ). Developing genotyping assays for large numbers of these variants, determining their frequencies in population samples, and establishing their patterns of correlation have been the goals of both Perlegen--a private company whose work is described in the Hinds et al. (1) paper--and of the International HapMap Project. In their study, Hinds et al. describe the genotyping of 1.58 million SNPs in each of 71 individuals. Critically, the authors document that the data are highly accurate. They identified 157,000 SNPs and nine individuals in their own data set that had also been collected and released by the public HapMap Project (6 ). Comparing these overlapping genotypes, the authors show that both data sets are of exceptionally high accuracy: 99.6% of genotype calls were identical in the two independent studies. High-quality data are extremely important because the goal is to identify associations among variants. Errors cause both an underestimation of correlation and an overestimation of diversity. The SNPs genotyped by Hinds et al. are distributed across the genome, but as with all methods, certain biases of experimental design have shaped the data collected. Two major biases arise in the Perlegen study: One is caused by a desire to study variants that have appreciable frequency in the population (also shared by the HapMap project); the other is a particular technical aspect of the oligonucleotide chips used by Perlegen that limits analysis to unique (nonrepetitive) DNA sequences. A critical question is how completely this subset of SNPs allows prediction of the larger set of all common variants. To answer this question, the authors cleverly included in their study a set of DNA samples in which a large collection of genes had been resequenced by a project at the University of Washington called SeattleSNPs (7 ). Hinds and colleagues measured the fraction of variants in this more complete data set that could be highly correlated with Perlegen's less complete set of genetic markers. The results are encouraging: 73% of all common variants in the SeattleSNP genes showed a strong correlation (r2 > 0.8) with Perlegen's 1.58 million SNPs, and the mean correlation coefficient was 0.84. Moreover, the authors find that for future studies, an equivalent level of statistical power can be maintained by typing a selected set of just 300,000 SNPs in the samples with ancestry from Europe and Asia, and 500,000 SNPs in the African American sample. Because it is likely that the pairwise method of tagging used by the authors is conservative (8, 9), even fewer markers would be likely to achieve a similar power. In addition to the potential utility for disease research, such data are an excellent resource for population and evolutionary geneticists. Of particular interest is the inference of past natural selection. For example, if a mutation with a strong positive effect is "swept" to fixation, it leaves a footprint of low diversity and a skewed spectrum of allele frequencies nearby (10 ). Methods that incorporate information on this genomic scale are being devised to find these selective footprints. The hope is, of course, to locate genes that have evolved under positive selection in the recent history of humans, presumably because those changes were required for local adaptation to different environments. Some of these changes may cause differences in susceptibility to modern diseases in today's human populations. Although the data described by Hinds et al. represent a major step forward, much more is needed to develop the resources for comprehensive genetic association studies. As the number and density of SNPs typed in reference samples become more complete, the power and efficiency of the markers selected will rise. In this regard, it is exciting that Perlegen and the public HapMap Project are now working together to generate an even denser map for the 270 HapMap samples. Integrating these SNP data with duplication, deletion, and inversion polymorphisms (11, 12 ) will be required to fully capture all common sequence variations. It will be important to document how well allele frequencies and patterns of linkage disequilibrium observed in the 71 samples studied by Perlegen, and the 270 samples studied by the HapMap Project, will project over disease cohorts collected across the globe. Collecting data on diet, exercise, and relevant environmental exposures in long-term studies is key if we are ever to understand the confounding roles of genes and environment in influencing disease risk. Although there are many promising technologies for collecting genotype data, there is an acute need for improved methods to analyze these data for association with disease and to achieve robust results (13). Ultimately, a complete description of each disease will require finding all variants, common and rare, and understanding their interactions with one another, with environmental exposures, and with multiple disease phenotypes. Association studies with common variants represent a screening method to find the most prevalent genetic risk factors. Although our population clearly contains common allelic variants that contribute to disease, the ultimate explanatory power of this approach depends critically on the unknown frequency distribution of genetic variants that contribute to disease risk, and on the magnitude of the effect of each allelic variant. There may be diseases for which there are no common alleles, presumably because the mutations that occurred long ago have been lost due to purifying selection, leaving only the more recent, rare mutations in the population. In such cases, because it is so hard to demonstrate association with rare variants, even direct resequencing data may be difficult to interpret. Where effects of common alleles are particularly weak, or if they are entangled in complex interactions with other genes and environmental factors, all methods will have correspondingly lower power. Suppose, for example, that a disease had the genetic architecture of the oil content of corn, where at least 50 genes, all of small effect, have been found to influence the trait (14, 15 ). Such a disease would demand an enormous amount of resources and yield little predictive information of use to public health--although the biological insights could still be of tremendous value. In short, we need to pick the targets for these approaches judiciously, and to modify the approach in light of what is learned. Although population genetic theory has played a vital role in shaping our thinking about these problems (16 ), ultimately the contribution of common and rare variants in complex disorders is an empirical question that will only be answered by collecting data on an adequate scale. It is exciting to live in a time when the necessary tools are becoming available so that we can stop debating the hypothetical, and turn our attention to what we can learn from the data about real human diseases. References 1.. D. A. Hinds et al. Science 307, 1072 (2005). 2.. The International HapMap Consortium, Nature 426, 789 (2003) [Medline]. 3.. A. G. Clark et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 285 (2003) [Medline]. 4.. G. A. McVean et al., Science 304, [581] (2004) . 5.. See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/. 6.. See www.hapmap.org. 7.. D. C. Crawford et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 610 (2004) [Medline]. 8.. K. R. Ahmadi et al., Nature Genet. 37, 84 (2005) [Medline]. 9.. D. M. Evans, L. R. Cardon, A. P. Morris, Genet Epidemiol. 27, 375 (2004) [Medline]. 10.. Y. Kim, W. Stephan, Genetics 164, 389 (2003) [Medline]. 11.. J. Sebat et al., Science 305, [525] (2004). 12.. A. J. Iafrate et al., Nature Genet. 36, 949 (2004) [Medline]. 13.. J. N. Hirschhorn, K. Lohmueller, E. Byrne, K. Hirschhorn, Genet. Med. 4, 45 (2002) [Medline]. 14.. C. C. Laurie et al., Genetics 168, 2141 (2005) [Medline]. 15.. W.G. Hill, Science 307, [683] (2005). 16.. J. K. Pritchard, N. J. Cox, Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2417 (2002) [Medline]. -------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Altshuler is at the Broad Institute of Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. E-mail: altshuler at molbio.mgh.harvard.edu A. G. Clark is in the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. E-mail: ac347 at cornell.edu 10.1126/science.1109682 Volume 307, Number 5712, Issue of 18 Feb 2005, pp. 1052-1053. ------------------- Science, Vol 307, Issue 5712, 1072-1079 , 18 February 2005 Whole-Genome Patterns of Common DNA Variation in Three Human Populations David A. Hinds,1 Laura L. Stuve,1 Geoffrey B. Nilsen,1 Eran Halperin,2 Eleazar Eskin,3 Dennis G. Ballinger,1 Kelly A. Frazer,1 David R. Cox1* Individual differences in DNA sequence are the genetic basis of human variability. We have characterized whole-genome patterns of common human DNA variation by genotyping 1,586,383 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 71 Americans of European, African, and Asian ancestry. Our results indicate that these SNPs capture most common genetic variation as a result of linkage disequilibrium, the correlation among common SNP alleles. We observe a strong correlation between extended regions of linkage disequilibrium and functional genomic elements. Our data provide a tool for exploring many questions that remain regarding the causal role of common human DNA variation in complex human traits and for investigating the nature of genetic variation within and between human populations. 1 Perlegen Sciences Inc., 2021 Stierlin Court, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. 2 International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA. 3 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: david_cox at perlegen.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most abundant form of DNA variation in the human genome. It has been estimated that there are 7 million common SNPs with a minor allele frequency (MAF) of at least 5% across the entire human population (1). Most common SNPs are to be found in most major populations, although the frequency of any allele may vary considerably between populations (2). An additional 4 million SNPs exist with a MAF between 1 and 5%. In addition, there are innumerable very rare single-base variants, most of which exist in only a single individual. The relationship between DNA variation and human phenotypic differences (such as height, eye color, and disease susceptibility) is poorly understood. Although there is evidence that both common SNPs and rare variants contribute to the observed variation in complex human traits (3, 4), the relative contribution of common versus rare variants remains to be determined. The structure of genetic variation between populations and its relationship to phenotypic variation is unclear. Similarly, the relative contribution to complex human traits of DNA variants that alter protein structure by amino acid replacement, versus variants that alter the spatial or temporal pattern of gene expression without altering protein structure, is unknown. In some cases, these issues have been studied in limited genomic intervals, but comprehensive genomic analyses have not been possible. Genome-wide association studies to identify alleles contributing to complex traits of medical interest are currently performed with subsets of common SNPs, and thus they rely on the expectation that a disease allele is likely to be correlated with an allele of an assayed SNP. Although studies have shown that variants in close physical proximity are often strongly correlated, this correlation structure, or linkage disequilibrium (LD), is complex and varies from one region of the genome to another, as well as between different populations (5, 6). Selection of a maximally informative subset of common SNPs for use in association studies is necessary to provide sufficient power to assess the causal role of common DNA variation in complex human traits. Although a large fraction of all common human SNPs are available in public databases, lack of information concerning SNP allele frequencies and the correlation structure of SNPs within and between human populations has made it difficult to select an optimal subset. Here we examine the SNP allele frequencies and patterns of LD between 1,586,383 SNPs distributed uniformly across the human genome in unrelated individuals of European, African, and Asian ancestry. Our primary aim was to create a resource for further investigation of the structure of human genetic variation and its relationship to phenotypic differences. A dense SNP map. To characterize a panel of markers that would be informative in whole-genome association studies, we selected a total of 2,384,494 SNPs likely to be common in individuals of diverse ancestry (7). We identified the majority (69%) of the SNPs by performing array-based resequencing of 24 human DNA samples of diverse ancestry (5). These SNPs were supplemented with SNPs chosen from public databases to obtain a more uniform physical distribution across the human genome. Further details of the SNP ascertainment are given in the supporting online material (7). We designed 49 high-density oligonucleotide arrays for genotyping these SNPs (8, 9) and roughly 300,000 long-range polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primer pairs covering the selected SNPs, with an average of eight SNPs per individual region being amplified by PCR. The amplicons had an average length of 9 kb and covered 92% of the available human genome. An average of 6250 amplicons derived from a single individual were pooled and hybridized to a single high-density oligonucleotide array, producing genotypes for 48,000 SNPs. We genotyped 71 unrelated individuals from three populations: 24 European Americans, 23 African Americans, and 24 Han Chinese from the Los Angeles area. The 71 individuals genotyped here were not related to the individuals previously used for SNP discovery. DNA samples were selected from the Coriell Cell Repositories' Human Variation Collection, and we relied on Coriell's determinations of sample populations. We complied with all Coriell policies for research use DNA of samples from named populations. Each SNP was scored with a combination of metrics that had been shown to correlate with genotype quality on our platform, and data for poorly performing SNPs was rejected. These metrics included the call rate; the number of observed genotype clusters; the existence of near-perfect matches for SNP flanking sequences elsewhere in the genome; the presence of other known SNPs in probe-flanking sequences; and consistency with Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. Tests for Hardy Weinberg equilibrium are very effective for identifying some types of genotyping artifacts (10); however, because we used these tests for quality control, our genotype data are unsuitable for investigating biologically interesting true deviations from Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. Further details of our genotype quality control are described in the supporting online material (7). A subset of 1,586,383 SNPs was successfully genotyped based on our quality criteria, with two alleles each observed at least once among the 71 individuals. In total, more than 112 million individual genotypes were determined for these SNPs. There were no missing genotypes for 64% of these SNPs, and 92% of these SNPs had less than 5% missing data. The overall frequency of successful genotype calls was 98.6%. SNP assay details and individual genotypes have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)'s SNP database (dbSNP, build 123, accession nos. ss23145044 to ss24731426). Genotypes for 156,757 SNPs for nine of the European-American individuals that were part of this project had been previously determined by the International HapMap Project, using a variety of genotyping platforms (11). Our data for these 1.6 million genotypes is 99.54% concordant with the HapMap project data. The distribution of discordant genotypes is very nonrandom; only 0.3% of the SNPs account for 50% of all the discrepancies, and we estimate that 90% of the SNPs in the complete data set have no incorrect genotypes. Haplotype analyses in particular will generally benefit from this error distribution, because accurate inference of haplotypes requires consistent genotypes across large groups of nearby markers. The distribution of the 1.6 million high-quality genotyped SNPs (table S1) is similar to that of a previously reported map of 1.42 million SNPs (12). More than 95% of the genome is in inter-SNP intervals of less than 50 kb, and roughly two-thirds of the sequenced genome is covered by inter-SNP intervals of 10 kb or less (table S2). The average distance between adjacent SNPs is 1871 base pairs (bp). Although repetitive elements are underrepresented in our collection, we genotyped 269,611 SNPs within repetitive elements where the SNP flanking sequences could be uniquely mapped. There are 735,094 SNPs (46%) in genic regions of the genome, which we define as being within 10 kb of the transcribed intervals for 22,904 protein-coding genes in release 3 of NCBI's build 34 annotations. At least one SNP is present in 78% of all transcripts. When the 10-kb region of DNA upstream and downstream of each transcript is included, 93% of all the protein-coding genes contain at least one SNP. A total of 20,165 SNPs (1.3%) are present in amino acid coding sequences and 9370 of these SNPs are nonsynonymous, leading to an amino acid change (table S3). Although our SNP ascertainment is not random, this subset of SNPs is quite uniformly distributed throughout the human genome with respect to annotated protein-coding genes as well as physical distance. Common SNPs in three populations. Table 1 illustrates our success in obtaining a set of common SNPs that are informative in human populations of diverse ancestry. Most of the 1,586,383 SNPs with high-quality genotypes are polymorphic in each of the three population samples genotyped in this study. Ninety-four percent of the SNPs (1,483,594 SNPs) have two alleles in the African-American sample; 81% (1,286,277 SNPs) have two alleles in the European-American sample; and 74% (1,168,029 SNPs) have two alleles in the Han Chinese sample. In each population, the majority of the segregating SNPs have a MAF greater than 10%, ranging from 68% of all segregating SNPs in the African-American sample to 57% of all segregating SNPs in the Han Chinese sample. Only 263,029 of the 1,586,383 SNPs (17%) have a MAF of less than 10% in all three of the population samples. The distributions of MAFs we see in the three populations is very similar for the European-American and Han Chinese samples, with a higher frequency of rarer alleles in the African-American sample (fig. S1). Consistent with previous studies (2, 13), we observed the greatest genetic diversity in individuals of African descent. Our SNP ascertainment strategy makes it difficult to make more definitive statements regarding the precise distribution of SNP allele frequencies in different populations. Table 1. SNPs segregating in the three genotyped populations. Percentages are of 1,586,383 genotyped SNPs or of 291,012 private SNPs. -------------------------------------------------------- Population Segregating ------------------------------------------------ MAF > 0.05 ------------------------------------------------ MAF > 0.10 ------------------------------------------------ SNPs % SNPs % SNPs % ------------------------------------------------ All SNPs African-American 1,483,594 93.5 1,267,594 79.9 1,083,652 68.3 European-American 1,286,277 81.1 1,123,765 70.8 991,046 62.5 Han Chinese 1,168,029 73.6 1,027,109 64.7 910,451 57.4 Private SNPs African-American 218,500 75.1 139,536 47.9 88,525 30.4 European-American 44,555 15.3 18,284 6.3 8,062 2.8 Han Chinese ------------------------------------------------ 27,957 ------------------------------------------------ 9.6 ------------------------------------------------ 15,946 ------------------------------------------------ 5.5 ------------------------------------------------ 9,817 ------------------------------------------------ 3.4 ------------------------------------------------ Although the small sample sizes in this study preclude any definite conclusion regarding the complete absence of a particular allele in any given population, we observed 291,012 SNPs (18%) that were segregating in only one population sample ("private SNPs"). Most of these private SNPs (75%) were segregating in the African-American sample, although private SNPs were observed for each of the three population samples (Table 1). Although private SNPs tend to have lower MAFs than other SNPs in our collection, a substantial fraction are common: 106,404, or 37%, have MAF > 0.10. To quantify genetic variation within and between populations, we calculated FST for each SNP in each pair of populations, as well as combined values across all three populations (14). FST measures the genetic variance between populations as a fraction of the total genetic variance. Because African Americans are a relatively admixed population with substantial but heterogeneous European genetic contributions (15), the FST estimates for comparisons with this group will be more variable but should generally underestimate the results that would be obtained with a native African sample. The distribution of pairwise FST is very similar for the African-American versus European-American and European-American versus Han Chinese samples, with more large FST values between the African-American and Han Chinese samples (fig. S2). These findings are consistent with prior studies (16, 17) showing that most common DNA variation is shared across human populations, with differences in allele frequencies between populations. Markers with large between-population variance will be useful for admixture mapping studies to identify genetic variants causing phenotypic differences (18). Admixture mapping exploits relatively long-range allelic correlations in a recently admixed population to identify functional variants that have different prevalences in the ancestral populations, whether because of genetic drift or local natural selection. The technique requires selection and genotyping of limited numbers of "ancestry-informative markers." Our identification of large numbers of such markers removes one of the major barriers to practical use of this promising but largely untested technique. Evidence for natural selection between populations. It has been suggested that natural selection distorts the observed distribution of FST across the human genome and that large FST values can be used to identify candidate loci likely to have undergone local selection (13, 19). If this is true, then larger FST values should be found near functional genetic elements. We looked at the distribution of FST for SNPs that were genic or nongenic, coding or noncoding, and synonymous or nonsynonymous. We performed the analysis within subsets of SNPs grouped by MAF, so that effectively, we looked at the fraction of between-population variance for SNPs with the same total genetic variance (fig. S3). Common SNPs in genic regions do have slightly but significantly higher FST values than nongenic SNPs with the same MAF [analysis of variance (ANOVA), P = 1.8 x 10-46], and common coding SNPs have slightly higher FST values than noncoding SNPs in genic regions (ANOVA, P = 1.1 x 10-4). We did not see a significant difference in FST between synonymous and nonsynonymous coding SNPs, but our sensitivity is limited by the small sample sizes and expected correlations among SNPs within the same transcript. These results are consistent with local selection changing the distribution of FST near functional sequences. However, because the distributions of FST among genic and nongenic SNPs are very similar, large FST values by themselves appear to be very weak evidence of selection. We performed a similar analysis to see if there is also an association between private SNPs and functional genetic elements. When conditioned on MAF, we saw no difference in frequency of private SNPs among genic and nongenic SNPs or among coding and noncoding SNPs (fig. S4). This indicates that the SNPs responsible for evidence of local selection in the FST analysis tend not to be private and instead are segregating in multiple populations. Although there are known examples linking population-specific SNP alleles to phenotypic differences (20-22), our results are more consistent with the conclusion that most functional human genetic variation is not population-specific. Correlation structure of common SNPs. DNA variants in physical proximity along a chromosome tend to be correlated, and these correlations are known as linkage disequilibrium. LD results from a combination of processes, including mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. It can initially extend over very long genomic distances but is steadily broken down over time by recombination. The observed structure of LD in any particular genomic interval thus depends on a complex interplay of demographic history, stochastic events, and functional constraints. Several metrics exist for measuring LD between pairs of SNPs; we used r2, the squared correlation coefficient for a 2 by 2 table of haplotype frequencies (23). We have used a modification of a previously described algorithm to identify bins of common SNPs that are in very strong LD, where each bin has at least one "tag SNP" with an r2 of at least 0.8 with every other SNP in the bin (24). This "greedy" algorithm works by iteratively identifying the largest possible subset with these properties from a list of available SNPs, then removing those SNPs from the list used in the next iteration. By assaying a reduced set of tag SNPs, the genotyping burden of an association study may be substantially reduced while retaining most of the power to discover disease associations of the entire SNP set. Unlike haplotype blocks, which are defined as contiguous groups of SNPs, the SNPs that make up a bin may be interdigitated with SNPs that are part of other bins. Table 2 summarizes bin characteristics across the genome, excluding the Y chromosome, for each of the three population samples. We focused on common SNPs with MAF > 10% in this analysis, because estimates of LD for variants with lower MAF are unreliable unless large numbers of individuals are genotyped (23). Although most LD bins contained just one SNP, these isolated SNPs were a small proportion of all SNPs, and most SNPs were tightly correlated with multiple other SNPs. In the European-American data, 52.3% of 293,677 bins contained one SNP; however, these constituted only 15.5% of the 991,185 common SNPs. A substantial portion of all SNPs qualified as tag SNPs by having a high r2 value with every other bin member, indicating that the bins are generally quite densely connected. For the African-American sample, there were substantially fewer bins made up of large numbers of SNPs extending over large distances (Fig. 1). It should be kept in mind that the LD structure we observed is based on an analysis of only 25% of all common SNPs in the genome. Although the sizes of longer intervals of LD should be relatively robust to our incomplete ascertainment, the proportion of all common SNPs in high LD with other SNPs may be substantially underestimated from our data. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Fig. 1. Size distribution of LD bins. We show, for a given minimum bin size, the fraction of SNPs in bins of that size or larger. The size distributions for the European-American and Han Chinese LD maps are essentially identical. [View Larger Version of this Image (26K GIF file)] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2. LD bin statistics in three populations. Bins were classified by the number of SNPs they contained. -------------------------------------------------------- Size* Bins % Bins kb SNPs % SNPs ------------------------------------------------ African-American ------------------------------------------------ 1 362,465 67.4 0.0 362,465 33.5 2 to 4 131,737 24.5 12.4 337,877 31.2 5 to 9 32,081 6.0 37.2 202,512 18.7 10 11,530 2.1 78.4 180,556 16.7 Total 537,813 1,083,410 European-American ------------------------------------------------ 1 153,511 52.3 0.0 153,511 15.5 2 to 4 84,890 28.9 14.6 226,172 22.8 5 to 9 33,745 11.5 37.3 218,491 22.0 10 21,531 7.3 89.5 393,011 39.7 Total 293,677 991,185 Han Chinese ------------------------------------------------ 1 129,759 50.8 0.0 129,759 14.3 2 to 4 74,232 29.1 13.2 198,422 21.8 5 to 9 30,569 12.0 34.8 198,429 21.8 10 20,708 8.1 83.7 383,580 42.1 Total ------------------------------------------------ 255,268 ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 910,190 ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ * The number of SNPs per LD bin. Average distance spanned by the SNPs in each LD bin, in kb. LD and functional elements. We observed a strong relationship between extended intervals of LD and functional genomic features (Table 3). Large bins were significantly overpopulated with genic versus nongenic SNPs (trend test, P 0), and in genic regions, coding SNPs were significantly enriched over noncoding SNPs (trend test, P = 1.9 x 10-26). Large bins were also overrepresented for nonsynonymous versus synonymous SNPs (trend test, P = 5.3 x 10-4). This result is consistent with the hypothesis of an association between selection and some regions of extended LD (25, 26) and suggests that some genomic regions of extended LD may play a particularly important role in determining the genetic basis of human phenotypic differences. Table 3. Distribution of genic, synonymous, and nonsynonymous coding SNPs spanned by bins of extended LD in any of the three population samples. Genic SNPs are defined as within 10 kb of a protein-coding gene annotation. -------------------------------------------------------- Longest spanning LD bin (kb) SNPs Genic ------------------------------------------------ Synonymous ------------------------------------------------ Nonsynonymous ------------------------------------------------ SNPs % SNPs % SNPs % ------------------------------------------------ <500 1,536,094 707,950 46.1 10,330 0.67 8,898 0.58 500 to 1000 42,432 22,189 52.3 347 0.82 302 0.71 1000 ------------------------------------------------ 7,857 ------------------------------------------------ 4,955 ------------------------------------------------ 63.1 ------------------------------------------------ 120 ------------------------------------------------ 1.52 ------------------------------------------------ 171 ------------------------------------------------ 2.17 ------------------------------------------------ We identified five bins of more than 200 SNPs each and 17 genomic intervals containing bins that span more than 1000 kb in one or more populations (tables S4 and S5). Several of these large bins spanned similarly large genes. The bin with the most SNPs was on chromosome 17 in the European-American map and had an unusual pattern of variation, with two previously reported haplotypes extending across 518 SNPs and spanning a distance of 800 kb (27). The rarer haplotype had a frequency of 25% in the European-American sample and a 9% frequency in the African-American sample and was absent in the Han Chinese sample. This bin includes the gene for microtubule-associated protein tau, mutations of which are associated with a variety of neurodegenerative disorders; a gene coding for a protease similar to presenilins, mutations of which result in Alzheimer's disease; and the gene for corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor, which mediates immune, endocrine, autonomic, and behavioral responses to stress (27-29). Large-scale patterns of LD. The distribution of SNPs and LD across the entire human genome is shown in Fig. 2 and can be examined in more detail online. The top track illustrates the relative uniformity of coverage of the analyzed SNPs apart from intervals of centromeric and telomeric heterochromatin. The middle track shows the fraction of common SNPs that are in high LD with at least one other SNP. In most regions, we observed a high level of redundancy for the European-American and Han Chinese samples and somewhat less redundancy in the African-American sample. The bottom track shows the fraction of common SNPs observed to be in relatively large LD bins in each population. This track shows substantial structure on a scale of megabases. Although there is generally good agreement between populations, there are also intervals where there is substantial divergence. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Fig. 2. Distribution of SNP positions and LD structure across the genome. For each chromosome, the top track shows SNP density per kb, with a window size of 500 kb. The middle track shows, for each population, the fraction of common SNPs with MAF > 10% that are in high LD (r2 > 0.8) with at least one other common SNP, with a window size of 500 kb. The bottom track shows, for each population, the fraction of common SNPs that are in an LD bin extending over at least 50 kb, with a window size of 1000 kb. [View Larger Version of this Image (147K GIF file)] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Our whole-genome analysis reveals that the large-scale structure of LD across the genome is correlated with large-scale differences in recombination rates, consistent with previous findings for a single chromosome (30). In particular, regions of very strong LD are mostly located in regions of low recombination (fig. S5). This correlation of large-scale LD structure with recombination rate and the finding that regions of extended LD show evidence of selection provide strong support for the hypothesis that the LD structure of the human genome has functional significance and is not simply a byproduct of random genetic drift and population demographics. SNP subsets capture most common variation. As only a fraction of all common SNPs in human populations have been characterized to date, association studies based on available subsets of SNPs rely on the expectation that an undiscovered, disease-associated variant is likely to be correlated with an allele of an assayed SNP. The statistical power to detect an unassayed, disease-associated allele indirectly with a correlated allele of an assayed SNP is related to r2. Specifically, the power to detect an association indirectly in N individuals is equivalent to the power to detect it directly in Nr2 individuals (31). The actual power to detect a particular causal variant depends on that variant's mode of action and penetrance as well as details of the study design. Thus, r2 can only be used to answer the narrower question of what is the sample size penalty, in an otherwise appropriately designed study, for not directly assaying a causal variant. To determine our ability to detect unassayed, disease-associated variants with this SNP collection, we took advantage of the fact that the European-American and African-American individuals genotyped in this study were also sequenced across selected genes by the SeattleSNPs Program for Genomic Applications (PGA) (32). For these individuals, this data provides an essentially complete assessment of genetic variation in the sequenced regions, allowing us to estimate the fraction of all variation contained in our SNP set. In addition, the data allows us to determine the coverage of our genotyped SNPs for the sites we did not directly assay. We evaluated data for 16,601 sequence variants identified in 152 genes, of which 2465 were part of our SNP set. The concordance between our genotype data and the PGA data for these 2465 SNPs was 99.2%. Our SNP set contained 24% of all SNPs with a MAF 10% for these 152 genes in the African-American and European-American samples. SNPs with low MAF are underrepresented in our data compared to the PGA data, because our SNPs were typically discovered with sequence data from fewer distinct chromosomes. These rarer variants account for relatively small fractions of the total nucleotide diversity. In the PGA data for the European Americans, 45% of SNPs have MAF < 10% but account for only 15% of nucleotide diversity; for the African Americans, 58% of SNPs have MAF < 10% and account for 23% of nucleotide diversity. Table 4 shows the average r2 and the fraction of r2 values exceeding thresholds, for any PGA SNP with the most-correlated SNP in the same region that was included in our SNP set. These results indicate that, with the stringent threshold of r2 > 0.8, our SNP set ascertains 73% of common variation in the European-American sample and 54% of common variation in the African-American sample. These values are similar to those previously predicted if 2.7 million SNPs from public databases were developed into genotyping assays (17). This analysis sets a very conservative lower bound on coverage, because it treats SNPs below the threshold of r2 = 0.8 as completely uncovered and does not reward coverage that exceeds the threshold. Using a less stringent threshold of r2 > 0.5, coverage would improve to 86% in the European-American sample and 71% in the African-American sample. The skewed distribution of r2 toward high values is apparent in the mean values of 0.84 for the European-American sample and 0.72 for the African-American sample. These numbers are especially impressive considering that we did not genotype 75% of all the common SNPs in these intervals. Table 4. LD statistics for common SNPs genotyped in this study, with common variants identified by complete resequencing in 152 genes. -------------------------------------------------------- Subset* Yield (%) r2 r2 > 0.5 (%) r2 > 0.8 (%) r2 = 1.0 (%) ------------------------------------------------ African-American All 23.3 0.715 70.9 53.7 41.5 Tag 12.3 0.698 70.1 51.9 33.2 European-American All 25.0 0.841 86.5 72.6 62.4 Tag ------------------------------------------------ 8.1 ------------------------------------------------ 0.810 ------------------------------------------------ 85.6 ------------------------------------------------ 69.7 ------------------------------------------------ 44.8 ------------------------------------------------ * SNPs from the current study: either all common SNPs or a minimal tagging subset. Percentage of all SeattleSNPs PGA variants that were in the selected set. Across all PGA variants, the mean maximum r2 with a selected SNP in the same locus. Percentages of PGA variants having an r2 greater than the specified threshold with any selected SNP in the same locus. Selection of one tag SNP from each LD bin for the three population samples yielded 296,313 of the 991,398 SNPs segregating in the European-American sample (30%); 256,766 of the 909,824 SNPs segregating in the Han Chinese sample (28%); and 540,533 of the 1,083,638 SNPs segregating in the African-American sample (50%). When tag SNPs from European Americans and African Americans were used to assess common variation in the PGA data, for MAF 10%, the amount of all common variation ascertained was reduced very little compared to that ascertained with the complete sets of common SNPs (Table 4). These tag SNP numbers are smaller than have previously been predicted with a similar selection strategy (24); however, we did not attempt to achieve 100% coverage as in that work. Although choosing subsets of SNPs based on bin relationships reduces the genotyping burden for a comprehensive whole-genome scan to some degree in all populations, these data indicate that even taking advantage of such tag SNP selection, a comprehensive whole-genome association study requires genotyping each individual for at least several hundreds of thousands of SNPs. Haplotype block structure. LD maps and haplotype maps represent somewhat different aspects of the local structure of genetic variation. The genetic architecture of a particular phenotype will determine which representation is most powerful for the identification of functional variants (33). In parallel with our LD analysis, we used the HAP program (34) to infer haplotypes from our diploid genotype data. We partitioned these reconstructed haplotypes into blocks with limited diversity, separately for each of the three population samples. These blocks were defined as sets of SNPs for which at least 80% of the inferred haplotypes could be grouped into common patterns with population frequencies of at least 5%. Table 5 summarizes the structure of the three resulting haplotype maps for the whole genome, excluding the Y chromosome. The haplotype map statistics across the three populations appear qualitatively similar to the LD maps, with substantially more blocks in the map derived from the African-American sample than in the maps from the European-American and Han Chinese samples. The numbers of SNPs required to represent frequencies of common haplotype patterns were similar to the numbers of tag SNPs identified in the LD maps. Substantial fractions of LD bins of two or more SNPs crossed haplotype block boundaries, ranging from 33% in the Han Chinese map to 48% in the African-American map. Table 5. Haplotype block partition results for the three populations. -------------------------------------------------------- Population Blocks Average size, kb* Required SNPs ------------------------------------------------ African-American 235,663 8.8 570,886 European-American 109,913 20.7 275,960 Han Chinese ------------------------------------------------ 89,994 ------------------------------------------------ 25.2 ------------------------------------------------ 220,809 ------------------------------------------------ * Average distance spanned by segregating sites in each block. Minimum number of SNPs required to distinguish common haplotype patterns with frequencies of 5% or higher. The bin structure for SNPs in the region of the CFTR gene on chromosome 7 (Fig. 3) demonstrates some of the differences between the LD bin and haplotype block maps and further illustrates that there can be substantial population differences in local map structure. In this interval, the European-American and African-American LD maps have similar complexity, with multiple overlapping bins, but the Han Chinese map is dominated by two disjoint bins of highly correlated SNPs. Conversely, a break point near the 116,790-kb position is shared in the African-American and Han Chinese LD maps but is bridged by multiple LD groupings in the European-American map. All three haplotype maps share this break point. However, the African-American map contains many more distinct haplotype blocks than the maps for the other two population samples. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Fig. 3. Extended LD bin and haplotype block structure around the CFTR gene. LD bins, where each bin has at least one SNP with r2 > 0.8 with every other SNP, are depicted as light horizontal bars, with the positions of constituent SNPs indicated by vertical tick marks as well as the extreme ends of the bars. Isolated SNPs are indicated by plain tick marks. Haplotype blocks, within which at least 80% of observed haplotypes could be grouped into common patterns with frequencies of at least 5%, are depicted as dark horizontal bars. Unlike haplotype blocks that are by design sequential and nonoverlapping, SNPs in one LD bin can be interdigitated with SNPs in multiple other overlapping bins. [View Larger Version of this Image (27K GIF file)] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Common genetic variation and human health. Our focus on common genetic variation has several motivations. Common variants account for a larger share of human nucleotide diversity than rare variants and are more experimentally tractable. For the same allelic effect, a common variant represents a larger fraction of phenotypic variance and population attributable risk than a rare one, so common variants are more valuable from the perspective of diagnostics and intervention. Finally, detecting and characterizing effects of rare variants requires very large sample sizes to obtain statistically meaningful numbers of individuals carrying a rare allele. There is no doubt that rare variants play a role in the etiology of common disease, but pursuit of common variants is more tractable with available technologies. Common human diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and psychiatric illness, are caused by the interplay of multiple genetic and environmental factors. The bounded nature of the human genome and the availability of the complete human genome sequence have resulted in extensive efforts to define the genetic basis of a wide variety of complex human traits. One approach for identifying such genetic risk factors is the case-control association study, in which a group of individuals with disease is found to have an increased frequency of a particular genetic variant compared to a group of control individuals. A number of genetic risk factors for common disease have been identified by such association studies (3, 4, 35, 36). These studies suggest that many different genes distributed throughout the human genome contribute to the total genetic variability of a particular complex trait, with any single gene accounting for no more than a few percent of the overall variability of the trait (37). Case-control study designs that include on the order of 1000 individuals can provide adequate power to identify genes accounting for only a few percent of the overall genetic variability of a complex trait, even using the very stringent significance levels required when testing large numbers of common DNA variants (37). Using such study designs in conjunction with the detailed description of common human DNA variation presented here, it may be possible to identify a set of major genetic risk factors contributing to the variability in a complex disease and/or treatment response. Although knowledge of a single genetic risk factor can seldom be used to predict the treatment outcome of a common disease, knowledge of a large fraction of all the major genetic risk factors contributing to a treatment response or common disease could have immediate utility, allowing existing treatment options to be matched to individual patients without requiring additional knowledge of the mechanisms by which the genetic differences lead to different outcomes. In our analyses, we selected representations of the data, including pairwise LD as well as a haplotype-based approach, that we felt would be most useful for an initial characterization of this resource. We focused attention on pairwise LD analyses because they provide a particularly simple framework for evaluating coverage and information content of different SNP collections. The optimal representation of genetic variation data remains an area of active research. Although we have determined example haplotype maps of the human genome in these three populations, the most appropriate representation of the data depends substantially on the specific questions to be answered. There will be many maps of human genetic variation, each tailored for specific uses. Public data availability. We have implemented an instance of the Generic Genome Browser (38) at http://genome.perlegen.com for viewing the SNP, LD, and haplotype data reported here; this data will also be available from Science upon request. More detailed haplotype analysis results are available at http://research.calit2.net/hap/wgha/ and through dbSNP. The data reported here represent a massive increase in the available number of SNPs characterized in multiple populations. For comparison, although the public SNP database, dbSNP build 122, contained map positions for more than 8.1 million human SNPs, frequencies were available for only 797,000 of these SNPs, mostly in just one population, and genotypes were available for only 210,000 SNPs. Our data also complement the results of the International HapMap Project (11), by providing data for many more SNPs across fewer individuals. This work enables detailed analyses of the structure of human genetic variation on a whole-genome scale. We examined genetic variation in individuals from three populations with substantially different histories and describe general features of variation within and between populations. Because these samples do not capture the full genetic diversity of the populations from which they were selected, our data are not suitable for answering many questions about the detailed genetic structure of human populations (39). However, the public availability of these data will enable a wide variety of additional analyses to be carried out by scientists investigating the structure of human genetic variation as well as the genetic basis of human phenotypic differences. References and Notes 1. L. Kruglyak, D. A. Nickerson, Nature Genet. 27, 234 (2001).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 2. C. Romualdi et al., Genome Res. 12, 602 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 3. J. P. Hugot et al., Nature 411, 599 (2001).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 4. A. D. Roses, Neurogenetics 1, 3 (1997).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 5. N. Patil et al., Science 294, 1719 (2001).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. S. B. Gabriel et al., Science 296, 2225 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 7. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online. 8. D. A. Hinds et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 317 (2004).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 9. D. A. Hinds et al., Hum. Genom. 1, 421 (2004). 10. L. Hosking et al., Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12, 395 (2004).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 11. International HapMap Consortium, Nature 426, 789 (2003), available at www.hapmap.org. 12. International SNP Map Working Group, Nature 409, 928 (2001).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 13. A. M. Bowcock et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 839 (1991).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. B. S. Weir, C. C. Cockerham, Evolution 38, 1358 (1984).[ISI] 15. E. J. Parra et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63, 1839 (1998).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 16. N. A. Rosenberg et al., Science 298, 2381 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. C. S. Carlson et al., Nature Genet. 33, 518 (2003).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 18. N. Patterson et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 979 (2004).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 19. J. M. Akey, G. Zhang, K. Zhang, L. Jin, M. D. Shriver, Genome Res. 12, 1805 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 20. Q. Xiao, H. Weiner, D. W. Crabb, J. Clin. Invest. 98, 2027 (1996).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 21. P. Duggal et al., Genes Immun. 4, 245 (2003).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 22. K. Nakayama et al., J. Hum. Genet. 47, 92 (2002).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 23. B. Devlin, N. Risch, Genomics 29, 311 (1995).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 24. C. S. Carlson et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 106 (2004).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 25. G. A. Huttley, M. W. Smith, M. Carrington, S. J. O'Brien, Genetics 152, 1711 (1999).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 26. P. C. Sabeti et al., Nature 419, 832 (2002).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 27. A. M. Pittman et al., Hum. Mol. Genet. 13, 1267 (2004).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 28. G. Van Gassen, W. Annaert, Neuroscientist 9, 117 (2003).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 29. E. R. De Kloet, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1018, 1 (2004).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 30. E. Dawson et al., Nature 418, 544 (2002).[ISI][Medline] 31. J. K. Pritchard, M. Przeworski, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, 1 (2001).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 32. SeattleSNPs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Program for Genomic Applications, University of Washington-Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, available at http://pga.gs.washington.edu. 33. J. S. Bader, Pharmacogenomics 2, 11 (2001).[ISI][Medline] 34. E. Halperin, E. Eskin, Bioinformatics 20, 1842 (2004).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 35. D. Altshuler et al., Nature Genet. 26, 76 (2000).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 36. L. A. Pennacchio et al., Science 294, 169 (2001).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 37. N. J. Risch, Nature 405, 847 (2000).[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 38. L. D. Stein et al., Genome Res. 12, 1599 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 39. D. Serre, S. P??bo, Genome Res. 14, 1679 (2004).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 40. We thank B. Margus and S. Fodor for many helpful discussions, S. Ptak for comments on the manuscript, and the following individuals for expert technical assistance: high throughput genotyping, C. Chen, P. Chu, D. Dalija, J. Doshi, P. Jain, A. Johnson, L. Kamigaki, J. Karbowski, C. Kautzer, V. Mendoza, M. Morenzoni, B. Nguyen, C. Owyang, N. Patil, K. Perry, R. Patel, C. Pethiyagoda, T. L. Pham, C. Sanders, A. Sparks, R. Stokowski, D. Telman, R. Vergara, P. Vu, and P.-H. Wang; bioinformatics design, W. Barrett, H. Huang, M. Jen, X. Li, B. Mooney, and S. Pitts; data analysis, A. Berno, K. Konvicka, A. Ollmann, K. Pant, and J. Sheehan; laboratory information management, R. Gupta, E. Jacobs, C. Radu, and P. Starink; engineering and instrumentation, R. Hartlage, M. Norris, G. Park, and A. Yee; computer systems and operations, T. Fleury, R. Galvez, R. Gordon, P. Hickey, C. LaPlante, J. Nordhal, T. Ogi, and J. VandenHengel. E.E. is supported by the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology. Supporting Online Material www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5712/1072/DC1 Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S5 Tables S1 to S5 References and Notes 20 September 2004; accepted 14 January 2005 Volume 307, Number 5712, Issue of 18 Feb 2005, pp. 1072-1079. From checker at panix.com Sat Feb 19 20:38:53 2005 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:38:53 -0500 (EST) From: Premise Checker To: Premise Checker Subject: Science: Enhanced: Race and Reification in Science ----------- MEDICINE: Enhanced: Race and Reification in Science Troy Duster[HN12]* Alfred North Whitehead warned many years ago about "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" [HN1] (1 ), by which he meant the tendency to assume that categories of thought coincide with the obdurate character of the empirical world. If we think of a shoe as "really a shoe," then we are not likely to use it as a hammer (when no hammer is around). Whitehead's insight about misplaced concreteness is also known as the fallacy of reification [HN2] . Recent research in medicine and genetics makes it even more crucial to resist actively the temptation to deploy racial categories as if immutable in nature and society. Hypertension and Heart Disease In the last two decades, there has been extensive publication on the differences in hypertension and heart disease between Americans of European descent and Americans of African descent (2-4). Racial designations are frequently used in efforts to assess the respective influences of environmental and genetic factors. In November, a study was published regarding a combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine (BiDil) [HN3] that was originally found to be ineffective in treating heart disease in the general population but was then shown to work in a 3-year trial of a group of 1050 individuals designated as African Americans (5 ). BiDil is likely to get FDA approval this year and has been labeled "the first ethnic drug," although in medical practice, this becomes "the first racial drug." In presenting their justification for FDA approval of an ethnic/race-specific drug, the company (NitroMed) [HN4] announced, "The African American community is affected at a greater rate by heart failure than that of the corresponding Caucasian population. African Americans between the ages of 45 and 64 are 2.5 times more likely to die from heart failure than Caucasians in the same age range" (6). However, both age and survey population complicate this picture. The age group 45 to 64 only accounts for about 6% of heart failure mortality, and for those over 65, the statistical differences between "African Americans and Caucasians" nearly completely disappear (7 ). Researchers recently published a study that was explicitly designed to compare racial differences, by sampling whites from eight surveys completed in Europe, the United States, and Canada and contrasting these results with those of a sample of three surveys among blacks from Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States (8 ). Hypertension rates were measured in 85,000 subjects. The data from Brazil, Trinidad, and Cuba show a significantly smaller racial disparity in blood pressure than is found in North America (8).[HN5] Even within the category African American, the highly variable phenotype of skin color complicates the hypertension and race thesis. A classic epidemiological study on the topic also found differences within the African American population--with darker-skinned blacks generally having higher mean blood pressure than lighter-skinned blacks. The authors concluded that it was not the color of the skin that produced a direct causal outcome in hypertension, but that darker skin color in the United States is associated with less access to scarce and valued resources of the society. There is a complex feedback loop and interaction effect between phenotype and social practices related to that phenotype (4, 9). Others have voiced concerns about the pitfalls of using race as anything but a temporary proxy: As the geneticist David Goldstein [HN6] observed, "Race for prescription is only an interim solution to carry us through a period of ignorance until we find the underlying causes" (10 ). There is every evidence that these underlying causes interact with each other. However, race is such a dominant category in the cognitive field that the "interim solution" can leave its own indelible mark once given even the temporary imprimatur of scientific legitimacy by molecular genetics. Studies of Human Genetic Diversity The procedures for answering any inquiry into the empirical world determine the scientific legitimacy of claims to validity and reliable knowledge, but the prior question will always be: Why that particular question? The first principle of knowledge construction is, therefore, which question gets asked in the research enterprise. A paper published in this week's issue of Science [HN7] (11 ) is well-intentioned, well-crafted, and designed to help better understand the molecular basis of disease. The researchers were searching for and found patterns of SNPs [HN8] differentially distributed in three population groups, formed from a total of 71 persons who were Americans of African, European, or Han Chinese descent. Why was the question raised in this manner? The answer is a scientific Catch-22. This and other similar efforts (12 ) to create linkage disequilibrium and haplotype maps have a logic for choosing to study people from disparate geographic regions of the world. The purpose is to generate maps that can indicate subtle differences in the patterning or structuring of human genetic diversity across the globe. [HN9] An increased understanding of these patterns of genetic diversity will help scientists doing gene-association studies by identifying new variants and reducing the likelihood of false-positive associations. The hope is that it may aid scientists to identify medically relevant genes for diseases However, the particular groups of individuals chosen to represent each region of the world are often chosen because of their convenience and accessibility. Cell and tissue repositories are created to decrease the cost and difficulty of obtaining samples, and the archived samples will be extensively characterized and frequently utilized. Sample collections from repositories may be treated as populations in the narrow sense of the term, even when there is little evidence that they represent a geographically localized, reproductively isolated group. These samples are often subtly portrayed as representing racially categorized populations. Finding a higher frequency of some alleles in one population versus another is a guaranteed outcome of modern technology, even for two randomly chosen populations. When the boundaries of those populations coincide with the social definition of race, a delicate tightrope needs to be better navigated between: (i) acknowledging race as a stratifying practice in societies that can lead to different frequencies of alleles in different modern populations but also to different access to health-related resources, and (ii) reifying race as having genetically sufficiently distinctive features, i.e., with "distinctive gene pathways," which are used to explain health disparities between racially categorized populations. If we fall into the trap of accepting the categories of stored data sets, then it can be an easy slide down the slope to the misconceptions of "black" or "white" diseases. By accepting the prefabricated racial designations of stored samples and then reporting patterns of differences in SNPs between those categories, misplaced genetic concreteness is nearly inevitable. SNP Patterns and Searches for a Biological Basis for Criminal Behavior Several countries now have national DNA databases (13). [HN10] Although I use the U.S. criminal justice system as an example, I have no doubt that the principles being considered are universal ones. It is now relatively common for scholars to acknowledge the considerable and documented racial and ethnic bias in the criminal justice system, from police procedures, prosecutorial discretion, jury selection, and sentencing practices--of which racial profiling is but the tip of an iceberg (14-16 ). If the FBI's DNA database is primarily composed of those who have been touched by the criminal justice system and that system has engaged in practices that routinely select more from one group, there will be an obvious skew or bias toward this group in this database. If we turn the clock back just 60 years, whites constituted about 77% of all prisoners in America, while blacks were only 22% (17 ). In just six decades, the incarceration rate of African Americans in relation to whites has gone up in a striking manner. In 1933, blacks were incarcerated at a rate about three times that of whites (18 ). In 1950, the ratio had increased to about four times; in 1970, it was six times; and in 1990, it was seven times that of whites. Among humans, gene pools and SNP patterns cannot change much in 60 years, but economic conditions and the practices of the criminal justice system demonstrably do. The comparative explanatory power of SNP patterns surely pales before the analytic utility of examining shifting institutional practices and economic conditions. However, given the body of "ethnic-estimation" research being published on behalf of forensic applications (19, 20) and the exponential growth of national DNA databases (21, 22 ), it is not at all unreasonable to expect that a project that proposed to search for SNP profiles among sex offenders and felons convicted of violent crimes would meet with some success, both for funding and for finding "something." This could begin with the phenotype of "three populations," as in the study cited above (11 ), because that is the way these data are collected by the FBI and the contributing states. We must maintain vigilance to prevent SNP profiling from providing the thin veneer of neutral scientific investigation, while reinscribing the racial taxonomies of already collected data. [HN11] Conclusions As I have tried to show, a set of assumptions about race has animated the development of BiDil, genetic diversity analyses, "ethnic estimation" research, and the siren's call to do SNP research on the ever-expanding databases of DNA from the incarcerated. These elements are poised to exert a cascading effect--reinscribing taxonomies of race across a broad range of scientific practices and fields. Biomedical research must resist setting off the cascade and, while still moving forward in their efforts to identify the molecular correlates of disease, climb back on the tightrope to address racial disparities in health, in all their biosocial complexity. The ability to use genomic knowledge to deliver effective pharmaceuticals more safely to special subpopulations that have some functional genetic markers holds promise. Thus, if the FDA approves BiDil, it should do so only under the condition that further research be conducted to find the markers that have the actual functional association with drug responsiveness--thus assuring that the drug be approved for everyone with those markers, regardless of their ancestry, or even of their ancestral informative markers. The technology will be increasingly available to provide SNP profiles of populations. When the phenotype distinguishing these populations is race, the likelihood of committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, in science, is nearly overwhelming. For this reason, when geneticists report population data, they should always attach a caveat or warning label that could read something like this, "allelic frequencies vary between any selected human groups--to assume that those variations reflect 'racial categories' is unwarranted." Whereas this will not completely block the tendency to reify race, it will be an appropriately cautious intervention that tries to prevent science from unwittingly joining the current march toward a biological reinscription of the concept. References and Notes 1.. A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality (Harper, New York, 1929), p. 11. 2.. J. Kahn, Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 4, 1 (2004). 3.. R. S. Cooper, J. S. Kaufman, Hypertension 32, 813 (1998) [Medline] [Full text]. 4.. M. J. Klag et al., JAMA 265, 599 (6 February 1991) [Medline]. 5.. A. L. Taylor et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2049 (2004) [Medline] [Abstact]. 6.. NitroMed, Inc., "BiDil Named to American Heart Association's 2004 'Top 10 Advances' List; Only Cardiovascular Drug Recognized by AHA for Dramatically Improving Survival in African American Heart Failure Patients," PR Newswire US, 11 January 2005. 7.. Jonathan Kahn, Jay Kaufman, personal communication. 8.. R. S. Cooper et al., BMC Med. 3, 11 (2005) [Medline] [Abstract/full text]. 9.. V. Griffith, "FDA backs ethnically targeted drug," Financial Times, 9 March 2001, p. 13. 10.. www.bioitworld.com/news/102904_report6447.html 11.. D. A. Hinds et al., Science 307, 1072 (2005). 12.. International HapMap Consortium, Nature 426, 789 (2003); available at www.hapmap.org [Medline]. 13.. M. Jobling, P. Gill, Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 739 (2004) [Medline] [Abstract]. 14.. M. Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (New Press, New York, 1999) [publisher's information]. 15.. J. Donohue, S. Levitt, J. Law Econ. 44, 367 (2001) [Abstract]. 16.. J. Knowles, N. Persico, P. Todd, J. Polit. Econ. 109, 203 (2001) [Abstract]. 17.. A. Hacker, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (Scribner's, New York, 1992), p. 197. 18.. T. Duster, in DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, D. Lazer, Ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004), pp. 315-334. [publisher's information] 19.. M. D. Shriver et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 957 (1997) [Medline]. 20.. A. L. Lowe, A. Urquhart, L. A. Foreman, I. W. Evett, Forensic Sci. Int. 119, 17 (2001) [Abstract]. 21.. D. Lazer, Ed., DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004), pp. 1-2. [publisher's information] 22.. T. Simoncelli, Genewatch 17 (March and April 2004). [Full text] -------------------------------------------------------------------- The author is director of the Institute for the History of the Production of Knowledge, New York University, 269 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10003-6687, USA. E-mail: troy.duster at nyu.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------- HyperNotes Related Resources on the World Wide Web General Hypernotes Dictionaries and Glossaries The Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms is made available by the National Human Genome Research Institute. A genome glossary is provided by the Human Genome Project Information Web site. Web Collections, References, and Resource Lists MedlinePlus from the U.S. National Library of Medicine provides links to news and Internet resources on medical topics. The library of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, provides collections of Internet resources on genetics. The Public Health Genetics Unit, funded by the UK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust, provides a collection of Internet links. The Human Genome Project Information Web site provides a resource page on minorities, race, and genomics. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) provides a list of online bioethics resources. For an anthropology course on race and racism in the modern world, P. Willoughby, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, offers links to related Internet resources. Online Texts and Lecture Notes The Rediscovering Biology Web site includes a textbook chapter and other resources on genomics. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) provides a science primer on genetics and genomics. DNA Interactive from the Dolan DNA Learning Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory includes a section on DNA applications. The Human Genome is an educational presentation of the Wellcome Trust. A section on genetics and society is included. The University of Montr?al's HumGen Web site deals with the social, ethical, and legal aspects of human genetics. The FAQ includes a section on human population genetics issues. The History of Race in Science Web site is a resource for scholars and students interested in the history of "race" in science, medicine, and technology. Molecular Genetics is a tutorial provided by U. Melcher, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University. R. L. Miesfeld, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, University of Arizona, provides lecture notes for a course on applied molecular genetics. Lecture notes on DNA forensics and pharmacogenomics are included. General Reports and Articles The 14 June 1997 issue of BMJ had an article by R. Bhopal titled "Is research into ethnicity and health racist, unsound, or important science?" NHGRI provides links to the series of articles on "Genes, race and psychology in the genome era" that appeared in the January 2005 issue of the American Psychologist. V. Randall, Institute on Race, Health Care and the Law, University of Dayton School of Law, makes available an article by S. S.-J. Lee, J. Mountain, and B. Koenig titled "The reification of race in health research," which was adapted from a Spring 2001 article (available in PDF format) in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics. The November 1998 issue of Hypertension had an article by R. S. Cooper and J. S. Kaufman titled "Race and hypertension: Science and nescience" (3). The 24 October 2003 issue of Science was a special issue on genomic medicine. Included was a News article by C. Holden titled "Race and medicine." The 15 November 2002 issue of Science had an Enhanced Perspective by P. Sankar and M. K. Cho titled "Toward a new vocabulary of human genetic variation." The November 2004 issue of Nature Genetics had a special supplement titled "Genetics for the human race." Numbered Hypernotes 1.. Alfred North Whitehead. Biographical information about Alfred North Whitehead is provided by the Columbia Encyclopedia and the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry on Alfred North Whitehead with a discussion of his "fallacy of misplaced concreteness." 2.. Reification is defined by the Principia Cybernetica Web. Wikipedia has an entry on reification. 3.. The BiDil drug study. The 11 November 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine had an article by A. L. Taylor, J. N. Cohn et al. (for the African-American Heart Failure Trial Investigators) titled "Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in Blacks with heart failure" (5); the issue included a related editorial ("Nitroso-redox balance in the cardiovascular system" by J. M. Hare) and a perspective ("Race-based therapeutics" by M. G. Bloche). The University of Minnesota Academic Health Center issued an 8 November 2004 press release titled "First African American Heart Failure Trial shows 43 percent increase in survival." The 6 December 2004 issue of American Medical News had an article by S. J. Landers titled "New drug combo intensifies race-based medicine debate." Cardiology Online makes available an 11 November 2004 news article about the research. ClinicalTrails.gov provides information on the African-American Heart Failure Trial. The Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder makes available a 24 November 2004 article by L. Boyce titled "BiDil controversy raises specter of racial profiling in medicine." 4.. NitroMed offers a presentation about BiDil and makes available press releases about BiDil dated 1 November 2004 and 8 November 2004, as well as a 3 February 2005 press release titled "FDA accepts NitroMed's new drug application resubmission for BiDil." 5.. Recent study of race and hypertension. BMC Medicine had an 5 January 2005 article by R. S. Cooper et al. titled "An international comparative study of blood pressure in populations of European vs. African descent" (8). BMC Medicine had a 7 January 2005 article by J. Tomson and G. Y. H. Lip titled "Blood pressure demographics: Nature or nurture ... genes or environment?" that includes a discussion of Cooper et al.'s research. 6.. David B. Goldstein is in the Department of Biology, University College London. Goldstein is quoted in a 29 October 2004 Bio-IT World article by K. Davies titled "Scientists debate race, genetics, and 'ethnic medicine'" (10). The November 2004 Nature Genetics Supplement had an article by S. K. Tate and D. B. Goldstein titled "Will tomorrow's medicines work for everyone?" 7.. Paper in this issue of Science. The Research Article in this issue by D. A. Hinds et al. is titled "Whole genome patterns of common DNA variation in three human populations" (11). The article authors David A. Hinds, Laura L. Stuve, Geoffrey B. Nilsen, Dennis G. Ballinger, Kelly A. Frazer, and David R. Cox are at Perlegen Sciences, Inc., Mountain View, CA; Eran Halperin is at the International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA; and Eleazar Eskin is in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego. Also in this issue of Science is a related Perspective by D. Altshuler and A. G. Clark titled "Harvesting medical information from the human family tree." 8.. SNPs. NHGRI's Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms defines SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms); an extended audio definition is also provided. The Wellcome Trust's Human Genome Web site provides an introduction to single nucleotide polymorphisms. The SNP Consortium provides an introduction to SNP markers. The NCBI's Science Primer includes a presentation on SNPs. A SNP fact sheet is provided by the Human Genome Project Information Web site. BioTechniques had a June 2002 supplement titled "SNPs: Discovery of markers for disease." Perlegen Sciences, Inc. offers an introduction to SNPs and genetic variation. 9.. Human genetic diversity and the HapMap Project. D. O'Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, CA, provides a tutorial on human variation as part of a collection of physical anthropology tutorials. The Genome News Network offers a presentation titled "Human genome variations." Rediscovering Biology offers an introduction to genetic variation within species and SNPs. The International HapMap Project is a international partnership of scientists and funding agencies to develop a public resource to identify genes associated with human disease and response to pharmaceuticals; the project makes available in PDF format the 18 December 2003 Nature article titled "The International HapMap Project" (12). The 30 April 2004 issue of Science had a News Focus article by J. Couzin titled "Consensus emerges on HapMap strategy." NHGRI provides a resource page about the HapMap project; a 7 February 2005 press release titled "International HapMap Consortium expands mapping effort" is made available. 10.. National DNA databases. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities makes available a December 2002 report titled "Population-based large-scale collections of DNA samples and databases of genetic information." M. A. Jobling, Department of Genetics, University of Leicester, UK, makes available in PDF format an October 2004 Nature Reviews Genetics article by M. A. Jobling and P. Gill titled "Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis" (13). The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation provides the text of Congressional testimony on the FBI DNA database program and information on the Combined DNA Index System. The March-April 2004 issue of GeneWatch had an article by T. Simoncelli titled "Retreating justice: Proposed expansion of federal DNA database threatens civil liberties" (22). A November 2004 report titled "Genetic information and crime investigation: Social, ethical and public policy aspects of the establishment, expansion and police use of the National DNA Database" by R. Williams, P. Johnson, and P. Martin is available in PDF format from the authors at the School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Durham, UK. GeneWatch UK makes available a briefing and a press release about its January 2005 report titled "The Police National DNA Database: Balancing crime detection, human rights and privacy." The UK Forensic Science Service provides a collection of fact sheets, including one on the UK National DNA database. The National DNA Data Bank of Canada provides a FAQ. 11.. Race, genes, and the criminal justice system. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service makes available in PDF format the September 2004 summary report titled "Disproportionate minority confinement: 2002 update," issued by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and other publications on minority overrepresentation. T. Duster makes available in PDF format a chapter titled "Selective arrests, an ever-expanding DNA forensic database, and the specter of an early-twenty-first-century equivalent of phrenology." The Human Genome Project Information Web site makes available a November-December 1999 Judicature special issue on genes and justice. The June 2004 issue of Genomics & Proteomics had an article by A. Dove titled "Molecular cops: Forensic genomics harnessed for the law." DNAPrint genomics, Inc. makes available a 13 August 2002 article on forensic science (from Australian Biotechnology News) by M. Trudinger titled "From the textbooks to the courts." Forensic Bioinformatics makes available the presentations from its August 2004 conference ("DNA from crime scene to court room: An expert forum"); included is a presentation (PowerPoint, with relevant articles provided in PDF format) by T. Kessis titled "Racial identification and future application of SNPs." 12.. Troy Duster is at the Institute for the History of the Production of Knowledge and in the Department of Sociology, New York University. Volume 307, Number 5712, Issue of 18 Feb 2005, pp. 1050-1051. From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 31 21:02:53 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:02:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WP: Why We Know Painfully Little About Dying Message-ID: Why We Know Painfully Little About Dying http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2527-2005Mar26?language=printer By June Lunney and Joanne Lynn Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B04 Those of us who specialize in advanced illness and the end of life have been fielding reporters' calls nonstop for the past couple of weeks. Everyone wants to know: How many people like Terri Schiavo lack living wills? How many might die every year from having treatment or nutrition withheld? How many families have been torn apart by the complex decisions that must be made when a loved one is dying? Again and again, the answer is sad but simple: We don't know. In fact, no one knows. Even in an era when life-extending treatment makes quality of life an ever more crucial issue, no one has invested much in this kind of research. So we pose a different question: How can it be that there is so little research on dying and the time just before death? Surely self-interest alone would motivate us, since everyone dies. And before our own fatal illnesses, most of us go through the painful problems of life's end along with family members or friends. Yet what we find, when we seek the guidance of reliable information, is that it's not there. Just a few months ago, the National Institutes of Health, led by the National Institute of Nursing Research, held a conference in Bethesda to review the state of the science, with an eye toward giving more useful information to dying patients, their families and their health care providers. The result was mostly a numbing review of missing data. An independent panel at the conference concluded that there is a vast deficit of knowledge about end-of-life symptoms, caregiver burdens and what services should be available. This nation boasts the most sophisticated biomedical research enterprise in the world. For understandable reasons, research in the United States has tended to focus on preventing and curing disease -- but eventually, everyone faces some condition that cannot be prevented or cured. The NIH is the most influential engine behind America's research; and as it happens, NIH comes up this year for congressional reauthorization. This is a good time for politicians and policymakers to ensure that end-of-life issues are more prominent on the research agenda. The gaps in what we know are awesome. We don't have adequate studies on how to deliver effective pain relief to cancer patients or to relieve the struggle to breathe that accompanies some of the most terrible deaths. No data show how many family caregivers face bankruptcy or emotional crisis, or what kind of improvements would most effectively support them. As we have told reporters over and over again, we cannot even pretend to guess how many Americans are alive only by virtue of a feeding tube or a mechanical respirator. These questions would not be that hard to answer. Most of NIH's $27 billion annual budget supports complex research teams, giant database projects and elegant, randomized controlled trials. The fairly straightforward surveys, care-delivery demonstrations and medication trials required to advance the understanding of end-of-life issues would show quite a return on an investment of even a very small percentage of that budget. Yet somehow the funding doesn't happen. A 2003 report from the Institute of Medicine recalled a federal survey, begun in the 1960s, that for nearly 30 years described how Americans die. Researchers asked randomly selected family members basic questions about what the deceased had been doing in the year before death, what they thought about the health care the patients had received, and what costs had not been covered by insurance or government support. The panel sharply noted that the survey was last done in 1993. This wasn't an active decision; the project was simply put off, delayed, never reauthorized. Soon, we won't even know in a timely fashion exactly how many Americans have died and of what causes: Because of funding cutbacks, our national mortality records are falling behind at the rate of a couple of months a year. Several large philanthropic organizations, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Soros Foundation, responded to a 1997 Institute of Medicine report by providing money to launch research concerning several aspects of dying and death. But once those initial investments were used up, no major funding agency, public or private, picked up the slack. Some important attempts are being made. In the last session of Congress, two Minnesota representatives -- Democrat James Oberstar and Republican Jim Ramstad -- sponsored a bill that called on an array of federal agencies to support research, demonstrations and data collection about end-of-life issues, and they aim to reintroduce it in this session. The veterans health care system has begun to prioritize good care at the end of life and has expanded its services and research. The NIH itself has a small group of program staff working to promote end-of-life research. But much more needs to be done, and quickly, before the famously large baby boom generation begins to get old and sick together. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could monitor the trends in comfort and suffering. The Labor Department could start to pay attention to family caregivers and health aides as a specific labor force and assess its size, working conditions, benefits and retirement income. Biomedical researchers could focus more attention upon the prevention and alleviation of pain, nausea and pressure ulcers. The case of Terri Schiavo is not unique -- just an extreme example of a common situation. America's massive health care establishment needs to make it a priority to get the facts so that more of us can count on living as meaningfully and comfortably as possible -- to the end of our days. Authors' e-mails: [3]jlunney at hsc.wvu.edu[4]jlynn at rand.org June Lunney is the associate dean for research at the West Virginia University School of Nursing and lead author of "Describing Death in America" (National Academy Press). Joanne Lynn is a geriatrician and researcher for Rand Corp. and author of "Sick to Death and Not Going to Take It Anymore! Reforming Health Care for the Last Years of Life" (University of California Press).