"Where have all the [atheists] gone?"
Allan Adler
Have those who have basically dropped out of soc.atheism instead gone over
to other groups such as talk.atheism to talk about atheist issues? If so,
I'd like to know where everyone has gone.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Steve Kelley
> No one has posted here in a long time.
>
> Have those who have basically dropped out of soc.atheism instead gone over
> to other groups such as talk.atheism to talk about atheist issues? If so,
> I'd like to know where everyone has gone.
I'm still here. In fact I was going to post links to the Wed and Thu
Fresh Air programs since they are pertinent to this group. I'll get
those posted tomorrow.
I was also waiting until after the 31st to see if I am in fact going to
be the Democratic Party district chairman for my district. Our party
convention is Sat. and I have been nominated for the post. To make
things fun, 80% of the registered voters in my district are registered
as Republicans.
--
Steve Kelley
ekrubmeg
Atheists don't have issues, it is the supernatural believers that
have issues. The answers raise questions that have answers that have
questions and so on. The xtins have to recruit disciples as the more
that believe what you do the safer you feel.
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
Atheists do have issues - like the discrimination and bigotry against
them.
Allan Adler
> I was also waiting until after the 31st to see if I am in fact going to
> be the Democratic Party district chairman for my district. Our party
> convention is Sat. and I have been nominated for the post. To make
> things fun, 80% of the registered voters in my district are registered
> as Republicans.
Keep us posted on developments.
I seem to recall that the last time I asked you about your political
aspirations, you indicated that you had basically given up on them,
but I forget what your reasons were.
Well, now that you are back in politics, let me ask you this: what do you
think of the Family Assistance Plan proposed by the Nixon Administration?
I happen to be reading Daniel P. Moynihan's book, "The politics of a
guaranteed income. The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance
Plan" and finding it pretty interesting. Moynihan is pretty thorough.
I got the book for half a buck at a library sale.
Steve Kelley
meaningful way.
Our convention was a let down. A couple of districts had no more than 1
representative so the voting for party chair, vice chairs(2) etc. was at
large so there were no district based representatives, everyone was
declared a member of the executive committee. I did get the chance to
lobby for a solar energy grant program I would like to see put in place.
Nothing very exciting happened.
Allan Adler wrote:
> Steve Kelley <ske...@proteaninstrument.com> writes:
>
>> I was also waiting until after the 31st to see if I am in fact going to
>> be the Democratic Party district chairman for my district. Our party
>> convention is Sat. and I have been nominated for the post. To make
>> things fun, 80% of the registered voters in my district are registered
>> as Republicans.
>
> Keep us posted on developments.
>
> I seem to recall that the last time I asked you about your political
> aspirations, you indicated that you had basically given up on them,
> but I forget what your reasons were.
>
> Well, now that you are back in politics, let me ask you this: what do you
> think of the Family Assistance Plan proposed by the Nixon Administration?
> I happen to be reading Daniel P. Moynihan's book, "The politics of a
> guaranteed income. The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance
> Plan" and finding it pretty interesting. Moynihan is pretty thorough.
> I got the book for half a buck at a library sale.
--
Steve Kelley
ekrubmeg
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:59:27 -0400, "ekrubmeg" <ekrub...@yahoo.com>
I would call that "their" problem. They preach "love" and
"forgiveness" yet "hate" anybody or any group that threatens what
'they' believe.
Tim McGaughy
a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu wrote on 3/29/07 1:40 AM:
> No one has posted here in a long time.
>
> Have those who have basically dropped out of soc.atheism instead gone over
> to other groups such as talk.atheism to talk about atheist issues? If so,
> I'd like to know where everyone has gone.
alt.atheism has a pretty healthy posting rate.
Allan Adler
> I am not familiar with Nixon's plan so I can not comment on it in any
> meaningful way.
OK. If you get a chance, take a look at Moynihan's book.
> Our convention was a let down. A couple of districts had no more than 1
> representative so the voting for party chair, vice chairs(2) etc. was at
> large so there were no district based representatives, everyone was
> declared a member of the executive committee. I did get the chance to
> lobby for a solar energy grant program I would like to see put in place.
> Nothing very exciting happened.
In Illinois, the Larouchians managed to get one of their people on the
Democratic ballot as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor some time ago.
Adlai Stevenson III, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, when he found
out, refused to run as a Democrat, and instead ran as an independent. The
main reason that the Larouchians were able to get their guy on the
ballot as a Democrat was that they made it a point to show up at local
Democratic meetings which, apparently, no one else bothered to do.
Just out of curiosity, how many districts are, in principle, represented
in your convention?
Also, I can't tell from your posting whether you were selected to head
the group or not.
Allan Adler
Thanks, that's good to know. What's your opinion of the overall caliber of
the postings there, especially as compared with those here?
Steve Kelley
person running for chairman of the party that I know had been vice chair
and attended meetings and worked hard for the party. Apparently, there
are some power brokers in the county that wanted somebody else to be
chair. Large groups from one two districts showed up to support a
different candidate and he won the vote. It was not handled the way I
think it should of been but I'm not 100% sure the party won't be better
off. The power brokers may have been acting in the best interest of the
party. Although I know he would have worked hard, I'm not sure the
losing candidate was really the right man for the job intellectually.
There are 7 districts in the county.
Because there were two districts under represented the convention was
thrown open and voting was at large so there are no district level
officers so I didn't become district chair. I do intend to continue to
go to meetings.
Allan Adler wrote:
> Steve Kelley <ske...@proteaninstrument.com> writes:
>
>> I am not familiar with Nixon's plan so I can not comment on it in any
>> meaningful way.
>
> OK. If you get a chance, take a look at Moynihan's book.
>
>> Our convention was a let down. A couple of districts had no more than 1
>> representative so the voting for party chair, vice chairs(2) etc. was at
>> large so there were no district based representatives, everyone was
>> declared a member of the executive committee. I did get the chance to
>> lobby for a solar energy grant program I would like to see put in place.
>> Nothing very exciting happened.
>
> In Illinois, the Larouchians managed to get one of their people on the
> Democratic ballot as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor some time ago.
> Adlai Stevenson III, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, when he found
> out, refused to run as a Democrat, and instead ran as an independent. The
> main reason that the Larouchians were able to get their guy on the
> ballot as a Democrat was that they made it a point to show up at local
> Democratic meetings which, apparently, no one else bothered to do.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how many districts are, in principle, represented
> in your convention?
>
> Also, I can't tell from your posting whether you were selected to head
> the group or not.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> We had a similar coup only the people who took over were Democrats.
Thanks for the explanations. I don't know much about the structure of
political parties in the US. Are meetings open to the public and are
they advertised? What you say about how hard the guy worked is consistent
with my impression that, to a certain extent, advancement in the party
structure is contingent on volunteerism. I'm not really interested in
volunteering for anything, plus I'm pretty sure that my priorities are
quite different from those of party leadership. Also, politicians have
very bad press, not unlike show business people. E.e.cummings wrote, in
a short poem: "A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except
a man." Also, I'm never entirely convinced that everyone is honest, in
the legal sense of the term. I once read a book entitled "On the Take"
which portrayed politics as a factional struggle for access to corruption.
Steve Kelley
> Steve Kelley <ske...@proteaninstrument.com> writes:
>
>> We had a similar coup only the people who took over were Democrats.
>
> Thanks for the explanations. I don't know much about the structure of
> political parties in the US. Are meetings open to the public and are
> they advertised? What you say about how hard the guy worked is consistent
> with my impression that, to a certain extent, advancement in the party
> structure is contingent on volunteerism. I'm not really interested in
> volunteering for anything, plus I'm pretty sure that my priorities are
> quite different from those of party leadership. Also, politicians have
> very bad press, not unlike show business people. E.e.cummings wrote, in
> a short poem: "A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except
> a man." Also, I'm never entirely convinced that everyone is honest, in
> the legal sense of the term. I once read a book entitled "On the Take"
> which portrayed politics as a factional struggle for access to corruption.
There are many in politics that are in it because of what they believe
in and want to do good work. Unfortunately, too many are in it for the
reason you mention. We recently had a judge busted for a kickback scheme
where he was getting money from a 'driving school' for every traffic
offender he sent there. I have talked with him on several occasions and
had a nodding acquaintance with him and he always seemed like a nice guy
but I never trusted him.
BTW the other atheist groups I have visited do not have the caliber of
postings we have here. There seem to be a lot of believers trying to set
us straight and there is a lot of name calling and R rated language. The
language doesn't really bother me but it does indicate the level of debate.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> There are many in politics that are in it because of what they believe
> in and want to do good work. Unfortunately, too many are in it for the
> reason you mention. We recently had a judge busted for a kickback scheme
> where he was getting money from a 'driving school' for every traffic
> offender he sent there. I have talked with him on several occasions and
> had a nodding acquaintance with him and he always seemed like a nice guy
> but I never trusted him.
Apart from outright corruption, there is the more subtly corrupting combined
influence of lobbyists and the high costs of running for office. But the
genuinely and cynically corrupt politicians also play a role, I think,
even in the case of otherwise honest politicians. Someone running for
high office often needs the organizing help of other politicians, some
of whom happen to be crooks. What exactly is the honest politician supposed
to do? Hilary Clinton got a lot of help in her first senatorial bid from
a New York politician who was subsequently indicted and convicted for
corruption. When this became public, Hilary's public statements, as far
as I was aware of them, did not condemn the corrupt practices, but merely
said that her sympathies went out to his family during this difficult time,
or something to that effect.
> BTW the other atheist groups I have visited do not have the caliber of
> postings we have here. There seem to be a lot of believers trying to set
> us straight and there is a lot of name calling and R rated language. The
> language doesn't really bother me but it does indicate the level of debate.
I recently visited talk.atheism and observed some of the endless acrimony.
I posted an invitation for them to come over here if they wanted to discuss
any substantive issues and thought they could meet the reasonable standards
of moderation here, but so far there have been no takers. I don't think
there is any harm in having religious people contribute to soc.atheism,
as long as they meet the same standards. It could even be stimulating.
One point I'm not absolutely clear on is the significance of the soc
in soc.atheism. I think that means that we here are concerned with
social issues connected with atheism and less with the correctness
of religious or non-religious points of view. Since a society is made
up of religious as well as non-religious people, all points of view
are really needed in order to evaluate the impact of policies. Of
course, social issues doesn't necessarily refer to public policy.
For example, it also pertains to how we, as atheists, experience
local societies that don't meet out needs.
I only have about 100 pages to go in Moynihan's book, "The politics of
a guaranteed income. The Nixon administration and the Family Assistance
Plan". I'm trying to figure out what I will read next along those lines.
I picked up a book at a library sale for 75 cents by David L. Weimer
and Aidan R. Vining entitled "Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice",
but I'm not sure it will be sufficiently challenging after reading
Moynihan. Textbooks are often pretty superficial and I haven't made up
my mind yet about this one. It might be that I should also read a book
on political science but I don't have one in mind at the moment.
Steve Kelley
Ah, to have sufficient time to do serious reading. With 3 kids and all
my self-imposed projects I don't end up being able to read as much as I
would like. Maybe I should invest in a speed reading class. If you
haven't read Carter's book <UL>Our Endangered Values" you might want to
pick it up. It definitely has to do with societal values.
--
Steve Kelley
David Wolff
Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> One point I'm not absolutely clear on is the significance of the soc
> in soc.atheism. I think that means that we here are concerned with
> social issues connected with atheism and less with the correctness
> of religious or non-religious points of view. Since a society is made
> up of religious as well as non-religious people, all points of view
> are really needed in order to evaluate the impact of policies. Of
> course, social issues doesn't necessarily refer to public policy.
> For example, it also pertains to how we, as atheists, experience
> local societies that don't meet out needs.
I think "soc.*" relates to things that people do socially or are
affected by socially, not to solving social issues. Panix shows 271
soc.* groups, for example: soc.college.grad, soc.couples,
soc.culture.arabic (and many other soc.culture.* groups),
soc.genealogy.benelux, soc.personals, soc.religion.christian,
soc.support.stroke.
So more focused than "talk.*", but less than "comp.*" or "sci.*", in a
sense. But hey, this is Usenet, type your little heart out. :-)
Thanks --
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
Allan Adler
> > I only have about 100 pages to go in Moynihan's book, "The politics of
> > a guaranteed income. The Nixon administration and the Family Assistance
> > Plan". I'm trying to figure out what I will read next along those lines.
> > I picked up a book at a library sale for 75 cents by David L. Weimer
> > and Aidan R. Vining entitled "Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice",
> > but I'm not sure it will be sufficiently challenging after reading
> > Moynihan. Textbooks are often pretty superficial and I haven't made up
> > my mind yet about this one. It might be that I should also read a book
> > on political science but I don't have one in mind at the moment.
> Ah, to have sufficient time to do serious reading. With 3 kids and all
> my self-imposed projects I don't end up being able to read as much as I
> would like.
I've seen sweatshirts that say, "So many books, so little time". I make sure
I spend a few hours every day reading and writing. Even so, there is a lot
more to do than I have time for. I didn't have time to read some of Bernard
Lewis' other books after reading "The political language of Islam", but the
library had some of his books on DVD. I simply listened to them while I
was having lunch, a little at a time. The books on DVD are arranged the same
way that cuts of a musical disk are arranged, so one can simply note the last
cut one listened to and pick up on the next one next time. It was very
convenient. Also, suppose that you have a 200 page book and you spend 5
minutes a day reading one page or so. In about six months, you will have
read the book. So, even if one doesn't have a lot of time to read, a little
time each day will still get the book read. I usually read several books
at a time in this way on the side.
> Maybe I should invest in a speed reading class. If you
> haven't read Carter's book <UL>Our Endangered Values" you might want to
> pick it up. It definitely has to do with societal values.
Thanks. I'm more interested in how things get done and how to evaluate
ideas for things to do.
After the Columbine shootings, I heard a lot more from certain people about
"what is happening in our society". I think they tended to be religious and
political conservatives, but also some air heads without strong religious or
political convictions. Probably they said the same things before Columbine,
but the events gave them an excuse to say it louder and more often. In the
last 15 years, since George II and Dan Quayle decided to base their platform
on "family values", the religious right, through the Republicans, have
presented themselves as the sole arbiter of societal values. Democrats have
decided that they have to take this moral monopoly away from them and, as
a result, we are now hearing more from Democrats about societal values,
religious principles, etc. That being the case, I tend to tune out everything
I hear along those lines as just being an artifact of the current electoral
struggles. Maybe they really need to do it, but their reasons for doing it
are aimed at an entirely different part of the electorate. I don't owe it
to them to read it, when I didn't want to read the crap from the religious
right that preceded it and to which it is largely a reaction.
Of course, I like Carter, but I've never felt it necessary to read anything
he has written. Maybe if he wrote a book on nuclear physics (he is after all
a nuclear physicist, I think) I would want to read it.
I'm interested in finding good books on policy analysis, economics, political
science, collections of data (e.g. the Statistical Abstracts of the US)
and other technical stuff.
Actually, there is one other thing I am interested in. The Congress has its
own website but apparently it is inconvenient to use. I heard on NPR an
interview in which someone had set up a website with its own search engines
that makes it very easy to search for information about voting records on
particular bills and other information. If you know the website I'm talking
about, maybe you can post it here.
Steve Kelley
lost their moral compass. He takes exception to how the religious right
have taken over and how they claim to speak for all Christians. He also
talks about the moral imperatives around helping others both here and
abroad. I find that I agree with him on just about everything except the
existence of a god.
I do read the news paper (some) and I get Newsweek which I mostly read
but I can't seem to find time for books except to read up on new
technologies. I try to keep up with the 'teach yourself' genre. Mostly
in programming languages. I have read several political books over the
last couple of years. I am going to try to put reading up a little
higher on my priority list.
I still recommend <UL>Don't Think of an Elephant</UL> by George Lakoff.
Although his subject matter does not fit directly with what you are
looking for he does go into how the brain takes in and process
information and how language choices effect the way we think about
things. It is a short book and easy to read but has some good insights
in it.
--
Steve Kelley
Steve Kelley
lost their moral compass. He takes exception to how the religious right
have taken over and how they claim to speak for all Christians. He also
talks about the moral imperatives around helping others both here and
abroad. I find that I agree with him on just about everything except the
existence of a god.
I do read the news paper (some) and I get Newsweek which I mostly read
but I can't seem to find time for books except to read up on new
technologies. I try to keep up with the 'teach yourself' genre. Mostly
in programming languages. I have read several political books over the
last couple of years. I am going to try to put reading up a little
higher on my priority list.
I still recommend <UL>Don't Think of an Elephant</UL> by George Lakoff.
Although his subject matter does not fit directly with what you are
looking for he does go into how the brain takes in and process
information and how language choices effect the way we think about
things. It is a short book and easy to read but has some good insights
in it.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
Steve Kelley <ske...@proteaninstrument.com> writes:
> Carter's book deals more with how the power brokers, not society, have
> lost their moral compass.
Thanks for explaning what Carter's book is about.
Is it his belief that power brokers *used* to have a moral compass?
> He takes exception to how the religious right
> have taken over and how they claim to speak for all Christians. He also
> talks about the moral imperatives around helping others both here and
> abroad. I find that I agree with him on just about everything except the
> existence of a god.
I'm sure I would agree with a lot of what he has to say. As I mentioned,
I like Carter.
> I do read the news paper (some) and I get Newsweek which I mostly read
> but I can't seem to find time for books except to read up on new
> technologies.
I rarely have time to read newspapers. I mostly get my information from
NPR and from the News Hour on PBS. When I do read, I like to read the
New York Times, Le Monde, the International Herald Tribune, depending
on what is available. However, I can't afford to buy good newspapers
and it is inconvenient to travel to the library to read them. Ditto for
news magazines. So, NPR and PBS are better for me most of the time.
> I try to keep up with the 'teach yourself' genre. Mostly in programming
> languages.
Are you a programmer? Some of the "teach yourself" books are quite good.
I have Michael Coulson's book, Teach Yourself Sanskrit and have read it.
It's an excellent book.
> I still recommend Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff.
I got a stack of George Lakoff's books from the library to look over. I'm
just skeptical about his approach. I think it is important to his take on
politics that the things he is saying are based on science, rather than on
his own opinions. I'm not sure about the science and I don't know how to
find out about it by reading sources other than George Lakoff.
One of the books I'm reading on the side is entitled, "Revolutions of 1848",
which is a social history of the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. It
is quite good.
Steve Kelley
> Hi, Steve. For some reason, two copies of your posting showed up here.
>
> Steve Kelley <ske...@proteaninstrument.com> writes:
>
>> Carter's book deals more with how the power brokers, not society, have
>> lost their moral compass.
>
> Thanks for explaning what Carter's book is about.
>
> Is it his belief that power brokers *used* to have a moral compass?
I think the interesting thing is that on so many issues I see eye to eye
with Carter but his reasons for his beliefs are so different from mine.
Also, here is a man whose religious credentials can hardly be questioned
saying the values of the religious right are not in line with
Christianity. It's the rise to dominance of the leaders of the religious
right and their lost ways (so to speak) that he finds objectionable. He
used to be on the board of directors of the Southern Baptist Convention
but quit because he didn't like what was happening to the church. He
talks about how helping others and tolerance are moral imperatives based
on the teachings of Jesus and we sure don't see that in government
policies today due in part to the influence of the religious right.
>
>> He takes exception to how the religious right
>> have taken over and how they claim to speak for all Christians. He also
>> talks about the moral imperatives around helping others both here and
>> abroad. I find that I agree with him on just about everything except the
>> existence of a god.
>
> I'm sure I would agree with a lot of what he has to say. As I mentioned,
> I like Carter.
Carter is one of the few people I would very much like to sit down and
talk to. He's one of my heroes.
>
>> I do read the news paper (some) and I get Newsweek which I mostly read
>> but I can't seem to find time for books except to read up on new
>> technologies.
>
> I rarely have time to read newspapers. I mostly get my information from
> NPR and from the News Hour on PBS. When I do read, I like to read the
> New York Times, Le Monde, the International Herald Tribune, depending
> on what is available. However, I can't afford to buy good newspapers
> and it is inconvenient to travel to the library to read them. Ditto for
> news magazines. So, NPR and PBS are better for me most of the time.
>
I used to have a long commute so had plenty of time to listen to NPR in
the car. My commute is much shorter now but I still listen to as much as
I can.
>> I try to keep up with the 'teach yourself' genre. Mostly in programming
>> languages.
>
> Are you a programmer? Some of the "teach yourself" books are quite good.
> I have Michael Coulson's book, Teach Yourself Sanskrit and have read it.
> It's an excellent book.
>
I am a software engineer working primarily in C and C++.
>> I still recommend Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff.
>
> I got a stack of George Lakoff's books from the library to look over. I'm
> just skeptical about his approach. I think it is important to his take on
> politics that the things he is saying are based on science, rather than on
> his own opinions. I'm not sure about the science and I don't know how to
> find out about it by reading sources other than George Lakoff.
I don't know much about the science either but what I read made sense to
me. One of the insights I got from the book was that you have to make a
physical change in someone's brain to get him/her to change an opinion.
I had never thought of it that way but it does help explain why it can
be so difficult.
>
> One of the books I'm reading on the side is entitled, "Revolutions of 1848",
> which is a social history of the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. It
> is quite good.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> I don't know much about the science either but what I read made sense to
> me. One of the insights I got from the book was that you have to make a
> physical change in someone's brain to get him/her to change an opinion.
> I had never thought of it that way but it does help explain why it can
> be so difficult.
What makes things complicated is that each person can hold contradictory
opinions on a given topic, depending on how the topic is framed. I guess
that is one of Lakoff's points. He also points out that this capacity for
double think is deliberately exploited (e.g. calling the estate tax a death
tax). I don't know whether the people who came up with the "death tax"
formulation were aware that there used to be something that really was
explicitly a death tax and was one of the issues that led to the German
Peasants' War of 1625. There is no comparison between that 17th century
death tax and the modern estate tax. In Moynihan's book, the White House
team that put together the Family Assistance Plan (including Moynihan)
spent some time trying to make sense of the apparently contradictory
views that the public held about welfare and other forms of government
assistance. They failed completely to account for the views demographically
and concluded that the contradictions existed in each individual citizen.
So, the things that I've heard Lakoff say (I watched a lecture of his
on Don't Think of an Elephant on BookTV) that do make sense seem to be
well known for a long time. I think his main point in Don't Think of
an Elephant is that Democrats became complacent while Republicans were
busy doing their homework about how citizens look at things or could be
persuaded to look at things, and that in order to catch up, people who
favor progressive points of view need to fund the same kinds of research
that conservatives did.
That makes sense, but there is also the force of factionalism. One of the
lessons one learns from Moynihan's book is that if one party proposes
something that would normally be proposed by the other party, the other
party will be strongly tempted to oppose it no matter how well it fits
its own policies. This is apparently not the reason the FAP eventually
failed to be enacted, but it was certainly one aspect of the politics
surrounding it. This has nothing to do with how things get framed in
the mind of the individual voter, just with how things work at a political
level in the institutions of government.
Steve Kelley
The person behind the Republican's language usage is Frank Luntz. Here
is a link to the Wikipedia article about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
He is very shrewd. He was a guest on Fresh Air some time back and, bless
her heart, Terri just couldn't get him admit that he was often
misleading people. The death tax phrase was one example she used to get
him to admit he was purposely deceiving people through the use of
language. She repeatedly pointed out to him that the tax is on the
estate not the death but he wouldn't back down. His argument was that it
was someone's death that triggered the tax so therefore... An
intelligent ideologue is a dangerous thing.
> That makes sense, but there is also the force of factionalism. One of the
> lessons one learns from Moynihan's book is that if one party proposes
> something that would normally be proposed by the other party, the other
> party will be strongly tempted to oppose it no matter how well it fits
> its own policies. This is apparently not the reason the FAP eventually
> failed to be enacted, but it was certainly one aspect of the politics
> surrounding it. This has nothing to do with how things get framed in
> the mind of the individual voter, just with how things work at a political
> level in the institutions of government.
I agree in general to what you are saying here but I would argue that it
does have to do with frames. If you have a frame that essentially says
that anything from the 'other side' is not good your judgment gets clouded.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
> He is very shrewd. He was a guest on Fresh Air some time back and, bless
> her heart, Terri just couldn't get him admit that he was often
> misleading people. The death tax phrase was one example she used to get
> him to admit he was purposely deceiving people through the use of
> language. She repeatedly pointed out to him that the tax is on the
> estate not the death but he wouldn't back down. His argument was that it
> was someone's death that triggered the tax so therefore... An
> intelligent ideologue is a dangerous thing.
I think I heard him interviewed on NPR, but I'm not sure it was on
Fresh Air.
> I agree in general to what you are saying here but I would argue that it
> does have to do with frames. If you have a frame that essentially says
> that anything from the 'other side' is not good your judgment gets clouded.
I think we have to distinguish between frames, as they apply to the
perceptions of the electorate, and frames as they apply to politicians.
Ultimately, the general political classification of politicians might have
to do with a set of frames. But once they have classified themselves, how
they act in a particular situation probably has more to do with strategy
than with cognitive science.
If I can draw a parallel, in the Byzantine empire, political groupings
were based on which team one favored in the chariot races. Once that
choice had been made, it was all about us against them. The parallel
isn't perfect, since there really are issues at stake, but factionalism
is still alive and well.
Allan Adler
> Well, now that you are back in politics, let me ask you this: what do you
> think of the Family Assistance Plan proposed by the Nixon Administration?
> I happen to be reading Daniel P. Moynihan's book, "The politics of a
> guaranteed income. The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance
> Plan" and finding it pretty interesting. Moynihan is pretty thorough.
> I got the book for half a buck at a library sale.
I happened to hear part of an interview with Elizabeth Drew yesterday,
who has written a biography of Nixon. She said that she also debunks
what she describes as recent nostalgia for Nixon. She specifically
mentioned the Family Assistance Plan. She acknowledged that it was
a radical piece of social legislation but also referred to some
correspondence between Nixon and Haldeman in which Nixon told him
to make sure it didn't pass. That's good to know, as far as Nixon
goes.
Even so, a plan for a guaranteed income can still be considered on its
merits. I wish someone was doing so.
David Danowski
Let's face it, there is no advantage to admit to it, this is a christian
society and culture so you have to at least pretend that you're a
christian to get ahead.