Not that it’s an earth-shaking announcement or anything, but I’ve decided to dedicate all my available hours in the rest of the month and February to meeting a big editorial deadline.
My silence does not connote agreement or disagreement with any of the world’s madness that’s sure to transpire! My best advice: keep your heads about you and hold onto hope.
I’ll be back in March. Wish me luck, please, with the “Second Edit” of my much neglected manuscript
G’night and good luck …
Let’s not mince words. When Joe Paterno, Penn State’s “Great Man of Rectitude,” was informed that his “emeritus coach” butt-fucked an 11-year-old boy in the Penn State showers, he simply told the Athletic Director that the pedophile engaged in “inappropriate” and “disturbing” behavior (2002). And when the AD did nothing, Paterno–his moral obligation thus “satisfied”– sat on the information for 9 years, allowing the pedophile to roam loose. I … am … Angry! Tear down the whole sick Penn State football program and start over.
[NOTE: The first version of this story had the assistant coach continuing to work on Paterno's coaching staff. That was in error. But in 1999, after the assistant's earlier act of pedophilia in Paterno's locker room, "Joe Pa" simply told the pervert he would not be the next head coach and allowed him to enjoy "emeritus" status with an office full access to the locker room.]
Readers will notice that my blog has undergone a facelift. OK, maybe it’s not “sexier.” But it’s a little less pastoral, a bit more edgy. That seems to fit better with its content. (And hey, what is “edgy” if not these times!) If you have a mind to, tell me what you think.
After a hiatus of more than a year, I’ll be posting more often, while continuing my other writing projects. I hope you will enjoy the result here. If you do, please become a subscriber. You’ll get an email notice when I put up a new post. I won’t overload your inbox, promise!
With the corporate mass media concentrated more and more in conservative hands, we need more outlets for liberal and progressive thought. I hope to not disappoint. You’re are a part of this too! I welcome your contributions.
Have you ever debated someone who is, say, a swell person in almost all things–perhaps a good neighbor–but in politics inexplicably hews to the far right? Is perhaps sympathetic to the Tea Party?
And when you trump their argument with documented facts, they dig in or grow even more obnoxiously adamant?
Well, it’s because one’s beliefs trump facts. In other words, facts that don’t bolster one’s argument are dismissed because they don’t square with one’s preconceived beliefs.
Mother Jones recently ran an article on this behavioral dysfunction: “The Science Of Why We Don’t Believe Science.” Its focus is on rejection of empirical scientific evidence but the phenomenon applies to other spheres of human discourse and understanding, too. A key excerpt:
In America new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience have further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president, and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.”
So we’re doomed to ignorance and superstition? No, but the article holds that the antidote lies in how we “frame” our issues. In this skill, The Right, frankly, consistently clobbers Democrats. It’s a big reason why Democrats lost the House in 2008 and Obama looks to be in trouble in 2012. I write this in hopes the Ds, for the sake of the nation and its posterity, will wise up.
What is framing? I taught about it in my government classes at Southern Oregon University and wrote about it in a 2006 book, Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Management. I used as my example, Dubya’s phrase, “healthy forests” to characterize his administration’s effort to increase logging in the public’s national forests:
It was a masterpiece of political framing—the art of creating a central organizing idea or context for an issue through use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. ‘Healthy forests’ evokes a sense of environmental stewardship and personal safety at a time of deep fear of wildland fire.
Okay, are you ready to go out and win the day for right against wrong? Here’s your manual: George Lakoff, Howard Dean and Don Hazen’s excellent book, Don’t Think of an Elephant/ How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.
If you want to make a difference in 2012, this may be the most important tract you’ll ever read.
