Oy 14

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   odograph Posted 7:45 am
   30 May 2007

   "in-group boundaries"Future Pundit had a dangerous little article called Moral Reasoning Done To Justify Intuitions?
   It's worth reading in full, but a bit that probably shouldn't be taken out of context says:
   Haidt argues that human morality is a cultural construction built on top of - and constrained by - a small set of evolved psychological systems. He presents evidence that political liberals rely primarily on two of these systems, involving emotional sensitivities to harm and fairness. Conservatives, however, construct their moral understandings on those two systems plus three others, which involve emotional sensitivities to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.
   I think these attacks on environmentalists serve two purposes.  They attack a generally opposing set of ideas, but perhaps more importantly, they reinforce "in-group boundaries."
   I may think I'm a conservative, but in many settings I'm not a good one.  By thinking about environmental questions, I've crossed the boundary.

   Permalink

2. 

   ebaerren Posted 8:00 am
   30 May 2007

   I'm not sure what this means, but...I may think I'm a conservative, but in many settings I'm not a good one.  By thinking about environmental questions, I've crossed the boundary.
   
   It's worth remembering that the environment was essentially ceded to liberals back in the early 80s.  Up until that time, when the conservative wing of the Republican Party decided that the easiest way to combat regulation in the name of the environment was to pretend that there were a) economic trade-offs even when none were provable and b) environmental problems simply didn't exist, Republicans had done much for the environment (here in Michigan, our most eco-friendly governor was a moderate Republican).

   Permalink

3. 

   odograph Posted 8:45 am
   30 May 2007

   the "ist" in environmentalistThe thing I've been trying to understand is why the "conservative" reaction to an environmental question is so often not to talk about the question, but to talk about the environmentalist.
   I guess that works purely as a "strategy" but I'm not sure it would get the deep traction it does if that's all it was.  Why does this Rachel Carson thing have such wide appeal? (and it does!)
   I think it's because these people are reacting to the reinforcement of "the other," or as I heard it in such a context "rich white liberals."
   Oh sure, the rich white liberals do it too ;-), talking about faceless corporate devils or whatever, but it seems less common.  And it is interesting that the Future Pundit article tells us the relations (and mechanisms of thought) are not really symmetrical across the political spectrum.

   Permalink

4. 

   David Roberts Posted 9:24 am
   30 May 2007

   Odo,I could talk about this forever, but to cut to the chase: modern-day conservatism has drifted to the point where it overlaps almost entirely with authoritarianism, which means traditional gender roles, submission to authority, and always a dehumanized, hated Other. That's why virtually the only thing holding the right coalition together any more is its enemies -- liberals, greens, Democrats, Muslims, professors, journalists, etc. -- which it lumps together into one undifferentiated lump of "evil." That's why when they are confronted with issues, they resort every time to attacks on the messenger. They are defined by hatred.
   I highly, highly recommend this article.
   I actually have deep respect for the caution, prudence, and libertarian instincts of classical conservatism. People who fall in that category have nowhere to go -- no political coalition left. Maybe they can retake the Republican party. I hope so.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

5. 

   odograph Posted 10:28 am
   30 May 2007

   that 70's showGrowing up with Nixon gave me some caution, and gave the 60's slogan "question authority" a case in point.  I also liked the Reason attempted on Bill Buckley's show.  I think Bill's out now too, without a coalition.  The real wingers say "good riddance" which is terribly sad.
   Yeah, I think the Republicans will have to get pummeled in a few elections before they seriously consider reinvention.
   (I'm still registered Republican, but that's mostly so I can nag the wingers ;-)

   Permalink

6. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 5:47 pm
   30 May 2007

   Credit where credit is dueDave, Eli Rabett dug that source document out of the tobacco files and blogged about it first.  But of course the big, big wayback credit for getting all of this material exposed goes to Stan Glantz (a larger, hairier and very much alive Rachel Carson for our times).  

   Permalink

7. 

   Whiskerfish Posted 6:35 pm
   30 May 2007

   these smearsextend around the planet.
   If you look into CFACT (http://www.cfact.org), who have been sponsored by Exxon to do climate change denialist propaganda, you will discover that they are associated with two South Africans, Kelvin Kemm and Leon Louw.
   Both Kemm and Louw are rather influential in South Africa. They have invented fake green NGOs, spend lots of time lobbying government ministers to use more coal and build nukes, and publish climate change denialist stuff widely. Both are big cahunas at the South African Free Market Foundation, a libertarian group that is funded by big business.
   Their propaganda tactics are a straight copy of those employed by CEI, Frank Luntz etc. etc.
   Amazing how this stuff travels around the globe!
   Whiskerfish

   Permalink

8. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 8:29 pm
   30 May 2007

   Better url for Stan GlantzHis UCSF page (with links to current projects) here

   Permalink

9. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:54 am
   31 May 2007

   Grow Up
   
   The problem with all the hippies at Grist is they never grew up.   What they keep failing to see is that their own icons and ideas are now the Establishment.
   For example, a Rachel Carson, an enshrined goddess, is like the Richard Nixon of yesteryear.  If anyone criticizes the Liberal Gods, they get struck down by the media and other Pharisees.
   
   John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

10. 

    odograph Posted 3:37 am
    31 May 2007

    LOLAt least Nixon gets blamed for the things he did when he was alive.  This Carson thing is all "if the people who read Carson's book got their way ..."

    Permalink

11. 

    caniscandida Posted 4:33 pm
    05 Jun 2007

    John Tierney, another torpedoYesterday, this anti-Carson piece by John Tierney was printed in the NYTimes:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.ht ...
    Possibly no criticism of her work and her book will have had a greater potential readership.
    
    Chickens are our cousins!
    
    So are other sensitive animals!
    
    Enough is enough!
    
    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

12. 

    SustainableGreen Posted 5:19 pm
    05 Jun 2007

    Selective criticism and the Big LieHey, all:
    Those bastards are talking about one of my heroes.  I notice that Tierney left out some of the worst characteristics of DDT and its metabolites: that it is  biomagnified and bioaccumulated in fatty tissues, that it interferes with the transport of Calcium during egg laying in birds, and because of these two things predatory birds often laid eggs that were too thin to be brooded.   He leaves out the fact that resistance occurs in target species, requiring higher spray rates over time, and at the same time broad spectrum insecticides such as DDT kill a wide range of non-target insect species.  He also leaves out the fact that because the Congress listened and acted in the 60s and 70s, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act were all passed, avoiding the conditions Carson warned about--so of course they did not come to pass.   Pretty tone-deaf.  
    All this assault on people like Carson is part of the campaign to get DDT approved for use again, to the great benefit and profit of Big Oil.  The Big Lie lives.
    While at the same time, the simplest measures to stop malaria in Africa are to drain standing water, and use mosquito netting.  This gets very little attention, though, since the profit margin for such activities just sucks.  Got to be able to make money off the most destitute cultures on the planet, or it just ain't any good.
    David
    
    Sustainability For Life
    Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

    Permalink

13. 

    Leon Louw Posted 11:00 am
    04 Jul 2008

    these smearsOne of the best things about the internet, and one of the worst, is that people like "Whiskerfish" can publish whatever lies they wish.
    *    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/30/142416/385
    
    *    Whiskerfish at 1:35 AM on 31 May 2007
    S/he/it has published such a scurrilous personal attack on me on your website that I suggest that you ban him/her/it from it in the interests of truth and your integrity. Alternatively, dishonesty should be removed before publication (if anything coherent remains).
    The attack includes the absurd assertion that I "spend lots of time lobbying government ministers to use more coal and build nukes, and publish climate change denialist stuff widely".  
    I have done no such thing - hundreds, perhaps thousands, of published articles, papers, monographs and books by me, to all of which this nefarious character has access, exist. None have a single word to that effect.
    Most of my writing is on highly technical aspects of such issues as tribal land tenure, by-laws governing informal trade, the empirical characteristics of highly effective policies, and the mathematics of network marketing. Most of my activism is development work with low-income communities.
    This is not the first time I've been falsely accused of being a "climate change denialist".  It appears as if that perpetrators, including "Whiskerfish", may be disinformation agents fronts for the right-wing conspiracy. One of their stratagems is to infiltrate progressive organizations by faking radicalism.
    Since I am no scientist and have done no climatology research, I am, like "Whiskerfish", in no position to express an informed opinion, which is why my only published position supports the scientific orthodoxy - the conclusions of the majority of scientists in their respective fields should be regarded as correct for policy purposes. In other words, I accept the established climate change hypothesis.
    It happens to have been drawn to my attention last week that there is a YouTube clip in which I express my unambiguous endorsement of climate change orthodoxy, and move onto my area of expertise: which economic countries should adopt in response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stc2xNO0PyQ&feature=re ...).
    As an economist and policy analyst, my interest in the matter, and my deep concern, positions me on the opposite side of the debate from "denialists". The orthodoxy, including (to my surprise)  the Kyoto Protocol, IPCC and Al Gore, anticipate and even appear to endorse increasing greenhouse emissions globally, especially from developing countries, which implies accelerated climate change. If the orthodoxy is right, poor countries are in urgent need of the growth, prosperity, expertise and technology to cope, and my interest is confined to the neglected area of which polices they need to that end.
    It would be interesting to know if "Whiskerfish" has expertise in any relevant field (apart from the ability to propagate right-wing disinformation).
    sincerely
    
    Leon Louw
    PS:  Whiskerfish's guilt-by-association babble about us being "funded by big business" is nearly as bizarre as her/his other lies - the Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa is one of a cluster of very small and poor NGOs working mainly on development projects for low-income communities, and getting a much smaller proportion of funding from "big business" that that of any recognised environmental organization.
    
    Leon Louw

    Permalink

14. 

    Backcut Posted 1:09 pm
    04 Jul 2008

    It's too badthat the term "environmentalist" has such bad connotations these days. It doesn't deserve such ire from Americans. My definition of an "environmentalist" is a person who cares about the environment and wants to do hands-on work to fix it. A "preservationist" loves the environment but prefers to fix it by doing nothing, regardless of the results or "unintended consequences" of that fundamentalist pseudo-religious, non-scientific, emotional concern.
    It's true that most of their hearts ARE in the right place but "re-wilding" of our environment is just not at all possible in this modern world.
    
    Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

    Permalink