Persnickety

What is Groupthink Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making above quoted from http://www.psysr.org OK, so you're probably expecting some easy joke about watching FOX NEWS. But it's no joke, and it isn't just for FOX watchers or Limbaugh listeners. It applies just as much to those Madden fanatics or other left-leaning commentators. The point is we are all boxing ourselves in by limiting our awareness. And we often are not even aware of our self-imposed limits. Someone recently told...

Who hasn't seen one of those feel good ads on TV these days, touting the benefits of natural gas like it was the next cold fusion? The one I like best, but which I cannot find on the internet as of yet, shows a group of students after class having one of those ad hoc debates so common in academia these days (though I believe in real life it's more likely to involve a heated discussion of Halo). A couple of students rush into the debate all morally superior ("Big oil! What about the environment!"), getting in the faces of the others who calmly stand back while the opposition digs a deep, deep hole for themselves. And then the other two spring into action like members of some Seal-6 anti-terrorist squad. "Actually, it's cleaner! " says one about, you know, methane, or natural gas as it is commonly known. And don't you love that name, too? Natural gas, 'cause it's "natural." So it must be good for us, right? Of course, cyanide is natu...

In light of the Occupy Wall Street protests, I thought a review of the Declaration of Independence might be apropos. Here, I think, is the salient quotation: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and...

New RINOs must lead Republicans | The Journal News | LoHud.com | LoHud.com This article on RINOs says it all, so I'm just linking to it and leaving it at that.

NFL 2011: The Kansas City Chiefs' sad cavalcade of torn knee ligaments. (14) - By Tommy Craggs, Stefan Fatsis, Nate Jackson, Josh Levin, Drew Magary, Barry Petchesky, and Tom Scocca - Slate Magazine OK, so an NFL star spits up blood from a hit to the head. And what do people talk about? Fantasy football. And the chances of the guy's team winning. Check out the link and read the comments. Only one that I saw mentioned that football might be changed as a result of all these concussions (and I take his comment as nostalgic for the "good ol' days" when men were men and could kill anyone as a sign of manliness). The recent walk-out by the players included discussion of medical benefits. John Mackey's name was bandied about as a poster-child for what can happen to a player after he retires. There is a link between concussions and Alzheimer's like disease. The name for this is Pugilistic Dementia, named after the "sport" in which one tries to induce a c...

MarketWatch has an interesting article ("Follow the money, Mr. Speaker") that concerns a question I've had for some time. You may have noticed that the last couple of years we've heard a refrain from Republican leaders and pundits that speaks to the issue of large government deficits costing jobs, because (in the words of John Boehner, House Speaker), "The massive borrowing and spending by the Treasury Department crowded out private investment by American businesses of all sizes." But is this true? My initial reaction to this sort of thinking was that of course it wasn't. We'd have heard of this before now. This seemed some sort of catchphrase that someone in the media felt was pithy and could knock the democrats out. Rex Nutting, MarketWatch's commentary editor, checked into this and found that indeed there was no truth to the claim. But don't expect the Republican's to stop just because it isn't true; it's just too good a phrase...

So what then is a Republican? This question has come up since I have been weeded out by the core, extreme Republicans, as they have found my ideology wanting. I expressed the need for this country to finally solve the problem of caring for its sick, and doing away with the ugly for-profit health care "system" that exists currently, replacing it with a single-payer system and thus saving our country billions of dollars, and millions of lives. How do we define Republicanism? By the core? Should we allow it to be encircled by the focused interiority of those most fervent--and most fanatical? Should those who do not adhere to every single jot and tittle of the party platform hang our heads and retreat to the desert region of our foes? (And would they admit us, or also vanquish us as not being suitable for their use either?) Does fanaticism define the party unit, or something more reasonable, something more rationally defined? Let me consider for a bit the following position: Repu...