response to Bellum omnium contra omnes comment...

On my political and rhetorical approach...

Stating people possess the scenario between conservative or liberal cognition seems like an "either-or" fallacy. I will need to read the study further to be certain. I too believe in checks and balances in the form of policy. There is no evidence one form of political rhetoric is more harmful to our republic than another, at the least there is no harm when there is balance between the ideologies. The combination of conservative and liberal values (independence versus social welfare) can work together in the government system. Evidence for my claim can be found here.

"The combination of conservative and liberal values (independence versus social welfare) can work together in the government system."

To protect and empower... you can't do any of that with conservative policy goals... so I would disagree. Every man for themselves pull yourself up by your boot-straps... individualist ethics is destructive economically and socially. See Adam Smith... Stiglitz... modern economics as a whole on the importance of infrastructure investment which the private sector never does...

So i'd totally disagree on that one. Oh and I'd love to see the impacts on people from the welfare reform now that the growth of the Clinton era are now gone.

Science can't create either/or fallacies. The world is either flat or its not...

if the empirical data doesn't hold then that would be the legitimate challenge. Not likely though... we're getting better and better at cognitive science and neuroscience... and free will as we conceive of it... and all of that nonsense entailed in it will soon fade (okay not likely... but a boy can dream.)

the age of reason is quite dead...

Thats the biggest problems with philosophy in general... it sticks to theory and all these "ideas" that are reasoned out...

My philosophy professor at UC Davis... a guy name Cummins had a great cartoon it had an armchair with a red cross over it... like no smoking. It was "no arm-chair philosophy".

To see logical knock-out blows to metaphysics as an accurate description of the world and all that is there-entailed see Logic, Truth, and language by A.J. Ayer.

Metaphysics is useful for subjective truth and the way individual brains understanding the paradoxes and complexities of the world, as well as human interaction. But science is the method for accurate descriptions of the world that can be verifiable and therefore the only rational public discourse that one can use in areas such as politics.

Its fine for interpersonal relations and religion and such... but those are subjective at their core... (think of the bond between two friends... or the subjectivity of what one person means by god... as compared to another... see the quote by Dennett at the top of the page)

Bellum omnium contra omnes... kudos to you for using a blog the way its supposed to be used... to debate and create a dialogue... I'm learning a lot from you and improving my ability to explain and understand my own positions. Thanks!

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

On my political and rhetorical approach...

Bellum omnium contra omnes made a very accurate point on the comments page...

You use my quotes as a pseudo representation of the Republican Party (although I'm more of a moderate-Independent, Libertarian).

There is something to that... and here is why I do it--Cognitive Scientist George Lakoff and others are finding that the Brain uses frames, metaphors, and linguistic constructs in certain ways... these are biological.

Lakoff argues that there are--broadly--two frames. He calls them conservative and progressive. He isn't arguing about political philosophy and more so about how peoples brains respond and or react because of things they see, hear, and think... and they have found that everyone has these. He argues there is no such thing as the center... (i.e. "centrists" "independents") because those are just people who use progressive frames in some circumstances and conservative frames in others.

There are two important points to that...

first conservatives use certain language and phrases... these are the tricks of the trade to make people more inclined to support their policies (i.e. words and phrases that are more inclined to cause certain patterns in the brain to fire rather than others).

So I'm learning more and more to pick up on it and point it out to others. Lots of people get offended because they don't think they are conservatives and/or don't like the fact that conservatives undermine our civil liberties, torture at will, and refuse the founding fathers principles of checks and balances and think that their language usage is not a form of acceptance of that. WHich I agree they don't think its a form of acceptance... but it is.

Basically when people use conservative frames they are doing the bidding of the Dick Cheney's and Heritage Foundation's of the world. Its a meme thats spreads for free without any conservative dollars being put to use. Most of McCain's attack adds... you know the Obama next to a white woman ads have been shown very little and have spread across the universe for free in the media and online. People talk to their friends and family with those frames... and poof...

One is inadvertently spreading the conservative frames when you use their words and ways of approaching questions, which increases conservatives ability to impact policy. The more people hear it and think it the more inclined their brains our to use conservative frames and think in terms of conservative frames.

These frames undermine our economy, our solidarity within society, and our communities at large. These frames keep people apathetic, helpless, and frightened to the point of seeing their neighbor and/or those who need our protection as threats to their well being.

I work hard to re frame things in terms of empowerment and protection. They work hard to make people feel that its every man for themselves. Having come up in a Methodist household I stay true to my belief that it is that which we do to the least of these... ironically my passion for the market system has caused me to be even more passionate and committed to those values know that I know my morals and the market system work on the same principles.

So I'm not spoofing quotes... I'm accurately pointing out from the work of Lakoff that you are doing the bidding of authoritarians, statists, and perpetrators of human rights violations... I sincerely doubt that is your intention. But your intention, your will, isn't the question. You can't control that which you have no control over.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Obama is a socialist...

I was intrigued with the Obama leans socialists comment I had recently on this blog... not because I think its wrong (I do but always must clarify what socialist means first...) but because it is very common to hear and therefore is a very legitimate question for people to be asking if that is what they are hearing.

Thats why it is illegitimate to be reporting such outright fabrication without comment/context in the newspapers and on tv. Dean Bakers recent blog post points out a likely reason why people think Democrats are socialist--the fact that the media does a terrible job of accurately representing and describing the context of issues and peoples positions on them...

Barack Obama Wants to Reform Taxes on the Rich

That's how the NYT would describe it if it employed the same euphemism in describing Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy as it did to describe proposed cuts to pensions in Europe.

It includes several comments that are inaccurate or peculiar. For example, the article tells readers that France's spending on public pensions is projected to rise from 13.3 percent of GDP today to 14.8 percent in 2050. It then describes this as three times the share in the United States.

The current share of GDP going to pensions in France is more than three times the share for the United States, but the share in 2050 will be less than two and a half times the 6.1 percent share of GDP projected to go to Social Security in 2050. The increase in pension benefits in France projected for the next 40 years is actually relatively minor.

At one point it compares Sweden's partial privatization to the one proposed by President Bush in 2004. It is worth noting that Sweden's public system, after the privatization, is one-third larger than the system in the United States.

The article also asserts that the public system in the United States faces less stress than in Europe because of the U.S. system of employer based pension. Actually, this system is collapsing rapidly so that most workers will not be able to anticipate substantial income from either defined benefit or defined contribution pensions.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Thank you Bill O'Reilly, Thank you Neil Boortz

This might make us pause the next time we chuckle at talking head talk show hosts like O'Rielly, Boortz, and i'm sure their are left wing ones... (but they aren't as popular so I don't know their names) who use invective and condecencions. Its not funny... people who are angry for legitimate reasons, and lack education on many complex issues--will take their anger out on others in sometimes dangerous and definately unporductive ways.

As chairman for the Democrats in Henry I have actively reached out to Republican leaders and told them my focus is on policy not people and that if there ever see myself or others out in public representing the Democratic party who get out of line and turn to mud/invective to please call me and tell me.

This stuff matters... those discussing the issues... escpecially those on radio should be leaders. Its time for everyone to hold them accountable for that trash. You are what you say... you are what you do...

Phone message warns Sierra Club 'bullets are coming' (AJC)

By TIM EBERLY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/18/08

The Sierra Club might have made an enemy in Early County.
Staffers for the environmental organization's chapter in Atlanta reported to police that someone left a threatening message on its voicemail, presumably because the Sierra Club won a lawsuit that prevented the building of a power plant in the poverty-stricken county desperately in need of jobs.

"We need those jobs," the anonymous caller said. "You (expletive) communists have screwed us for the last time. You better have eyes in the back of your head because the bullets are coming."

The call came in on July 4 — four days after the Sierra Club and other environmental groups won a lawsuit in Fulton County that prevented the coal-burning plant from being built, charging that it would emit up to 9 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

The plant would have brought millions in tax revenues and more than 100 high-paying jobs to the county, which is in Georgia's southwestern corner and ranks as the state's sixth poorest.

A Sierra Club staffer reported the incident to police July 8. A police report describes the caller as a white man, possibly 30 years old or older, with a Southern accent.

Atlanta police advised the Sierra Club to save the threatening message and contact its phone service provider to trace the call, the report said.
When reached by phone Friday afternoon, Patty Durand, director of the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club, declined to comment.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

quote

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” --Albert Einstein **