Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (174045)	8/17/2003 10:07:58 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574258

Spotlight on naming of Kelly Mr Blair's close aides will face the inquiry The government's role in the public naming of Dr David Kelly is likely to come under scrutiny as Tony Blair's key advisers give evidence at the inquiry into the weapons expert's death. First before the Hutton Inquiry on Monday will be Pam Teare, head of the Ministry of Defence press office. The inquiry will want to know why she confirmed Dr Kelly's name to journalists searching for the source of a BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons capability, said BBC political correspondent Shaun Ley. Mr Blair's close aides - chief of staff Jonathan Powell and David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy adviser - will also be questioned on Monday. THIS WEEK'S WITNESSES Monday: Pam Teare, Ministry of Defence Press Office head; Jonathan Powell, Number 10 chief of staff; David Manning, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser Tuesday: David Manning continued; Alastair Campbell, Number 10 communication director Wednesday: Sir Kevin Tebbit, MoD permanent secretary; Godric Smith and Tom Kelly, prime minister's official spokesmen Thursday: Newspaper journalists Nick Rufford, James Blitz, Richard Norton-Taylor, Tom Baldwin; Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Donald Anderson; inquiry secretary Lee Hughes But it is communications director Alastair Campbell's appearance before the inquiry on Tuesday that is likely to attract the most attention as Lord Hutton examines his role in the use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat. The inquiry is examining whether or not the pressures of Dr Kelly's public exposure contributed to his apparent decision to take his own life. His body was found in woodland last month just days after he gave evidence to MPs at the Commons foreign affairs select committee. Campbell 'not off the hook' Mr Campbell is expected to reiterate he played no part in Dr Kelly's public naming. But shadow deputy prime minister, David Davis, told the BBC Mr Campbell was not yet "off the hook". Evidence given to the hearings last week, he said, raised important questions about Mr Campbell's role in compiling the September dossier. Three BBC reporters told the inquiry Dr Kelly had raised concerns with them about Number 10's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons capability. Speaking to Radio 4's The Westminster Hour, he said: "What came through in the raw material... was that the substantive story was right, what Dr Kelly told three different journalists, that the document had been changed in such a way as to make some in the intelligence community uncomfortable with the use of the intelligence. "I don't think that has let Alastair Campbell off the hook... What [Dr Kelly] said in terms was that the changes were at the behest of No 10 and the unit Alastair Campbell runs." The prime minister's spokesman, Tom Kelly will go before the inquiry on Wednesday. He apologised after suggesting Dr Kelly was a "Walter Mitty" character. Some of the most damaging revelations of the inquiry so far have concerned Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon - who according to a Sunday newspaper told friends he expects to lose his job over the affair. Mr Hoon was said to have insisted - against the recommendations of his permanent secretary Kevin Tebbit - that Dr Kelly appear before MPs investigating the Iraq weapons row.

To: tejek who wrote (174045)	8/17/2003 10:45:44 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574258

<font color=orange> I couldn't remember if you posted the exact same article or not!<font color=black> ****************************************************** George F. Will: Conservatism on the chaise lounge By George F. Will Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, August 10, 2003 WASHINGTON -- This just in: Conservatism often is symptomatic of a psychological syndrome. It can involve fear, aggression, uncertainty avoidance, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatic dislike of equality, irrational nostalgia and need for "cognitive closure," all aspects of the authoritarian personality. Actually, this theory has been floating around academic psychology for half a century. It is reprised in "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," written by four professors for Psychological Bulletin. "Motivated social cognition" refers to the "motivational underpinnings" of ideas, the "situational as well as dispositional variables" that foster particular beliefs. Notice: situations and dispositions -- not reasons. Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological explanations for their beliefs. "Motivated cognition" involves ways of seeing and reasoning about the world that are unreasonable because they arise from emotional, psychological needs. The professors note, "The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began ... (with a 1950) study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality." The industry of studying the sad psychology of conservatism is booming. It began with a European mixture of Marxism and Freudianism. It often involves a hash of unhistorical judgments, including the supposedly scientific, value-free judgment that conservatives are authoritarians, and that fascists -- e.g., the socialist Mussolini, and Hitler, the National Socialist who wanted to conserve nothing -- were conservatives. The four professors now contribute "theories of epistemic and existential needs, and socio-political theories of ideology as individual and collective rationalizations" and "defensive motivations" -- defenses against fear of uncertainty and resentment of equality. The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses. "In the post-Freudian world, the ancient dichotomy between reason and passion is blurred," say the professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social situations or emotional needs rather than reason. The professors usefully survey the vast literature churned out by the legions of academics who have searched for the unsavory or pathological origins of conservatism (fear of death? harsh parenting? the "authoritarian personality"?). But it is difficult to take the professors' seriousness seriously when they say, in an essay responding to a critique of their paper, that Ronald Reagan's "chief accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal and the 1960s." His "accomplishment"? So that is why Social Security and Medicare disappeared. The professors write, "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives ... because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form." Until the professors give examples of political people who do not favor or condone equality in any form, it is fair to conclude that, for all their pretensions to scientific rigor, they are remarkably imprecise. And they are very political people, who would be unlikely ever to begin a sentence: "One is justified in referring to Stalin, Mao, Franklin Roosevelt and the editors of The New York Times as left-wing liberals because ..." The professors acknowledge that "the same motives may underlie different beliefs." And "different motives may underlie the same beliefs." And "motivational and informational influences on belief formation are not incompatible." And no reasoning occurs in a "motivational vacuum." And "virtually all belief systems" are embraced because they "satisfy some psychological needs." And all this "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false." Not necessarily. What a relief. But there is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism. Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable. The professors' paper is adorned with this epigraph: "Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine." -- George F. Will A "mistress" who is "demanding"? Freud, call your office. The epigraph is from "Bunts," a book of baseball essays, from an essay concerning what conservatives should think about the designated hitter. Will probably thought he was being lighthearted. Silly him. Actually, he was struggling with fear of ambiguity and the need for cognitive closure. Conservatives, in the crippling grip of motivated social cognition, think they oppose the DH because it makes the game less interesting by reducing managers' strategic choices. But they really oppose that innovation because mental rigidity makes them phobic about change and intolerant of the ambiguous status of the DH. And because Mussolini would have opposed the DH.