According to Rafael Reuveny, a professor at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Bloomington, the entire negotiation in Congress is “politics as usual” and meant to stall or defeat vital climate change legislation.

“We are trying to win this fight for our lives through consensus. Such compromise will never materialize — not in this country and not internationally,” said Reuveny, co-author of Complex Transformations: Democracy and Economic Openness in an Interconnected System (Cambridge University Press, 2009). “No matter how often President Obama pleads for it, bipartisanship has become a joke. So, while the two sides continue this ridiculous game, Rome — read: the planet — is burning.”

Reuveny said it’s imperative that President Obama bypass this unproductive haggling. “He must issue an Executive Order to the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately implement a system that will cut greenhouse emissions of the American economy by meeting the goals set by the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in 2009,” he said. “He should also order the EPA to design an all-inclusive command and control system of greenhouse emission quotas and monitoring to be backed by severe and immediate penalties on units that would emit more than their allotted amount.

“During his State of the Union address, President Obama made a bold move calling out Supreme Court judges, declaring their decision could enable U.S. and foreign corporations to determine our elections,” Reuveny said. “Surely, the president realizes that his opportunity to affect this crisis is coming to an end as energy-consuming corporations gain even more political power. An executive order is the only solution.”

Reuveny’s research focuses on political conflict and how it interacts with international trade, democracy, migration, and the environment. He is the co-author of “Climatic Natural Disasters, Political Risk, and International Trade” (Global Environmental Change, forthcoming) and the author of “Exploring the Link between Climate Change and Migration” (Human Ecology, 2008) and “Climate Change Induced Migration and Violent Conflict” (Political Geography, 2007).

Rate my professors for bias at liberal-education.com

(Daily 49er) In the past week, psychology professor Kevin MacDonald had his class interrupted by an organization claiming his views and recent involvement in political organization the American Third Option party are seen as racist and anti-Semitic.

MacDonald, a tenured professor at Cal State Long Beach, has been making headlines on the matter since he was investigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2006. The SPLC tracks hate crimes and groups across America.

“I’m used to being harassed,” MacDonald said. “I expect to be harassed because people on the left don’t like what I think. So what? We should be allowed to teach.”

Senior English major Doug Kauffman was one of the students who led the demonstration in MacDonald’s class last Tuesday.

“We planned this [demonstration] at least a month in advance; the goal would be to have every student just get up and walk out,” Kauffman said.

Marylou Cabral, a senior art education major and participant in the demonstration, commented on the student’s reactions.

“Many seemed appalled, and I think a few even left,” Cabral said. “Our goal is to let students know about [MacDonald’s] involvement in Freedom 14 and other neo-Nazi groups. We feel that the students need to know what they’re getting into.”

Both Kauffman and Cabral are students at CSULB and members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist and Leninist organization that advocates revolutionary change and progressive reform.

MacDonald is a member and listed as a director of the American Third Option party, or A3P. The A3P — whose slogan is “Liberty. Sovereignty. Identity.” — is said to be rooted in white nationalism. The A3P is currently on the list of non-qualified political parties but is intending to qualify as a ballot-accessible party by June.

“Any third party is a long shot,” MacDonald said. “My view is not so much that it would get people elected, but to raise consciousness on issues like immigration that should be discussed honestly.”

Several faculty members at CSULB are involved in politics and have no guilt about showing their political radicalism, MacDonald said.

“If you look at professors, they are far to the left of the average voter; they are far to the left of people who are similarly educated but go into different fields,” MacDonald said. “All the surveys show that they’re way to the left of just about any identifiable group that you can imagine, and so that’s an important historical question that has to be discussed.”

The Department of Psychology issued a statement on its Web page in 2008, saying that they “respect and defend his right to express his views, but we affirm that they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach.”

The department has since disassociated itself from MacDonald and his writings and is not alone, as other departments, including anthropology and history, have done so as well.

In 2008, the Academic Senate approved a written document disassociating itself. The document stated: “While the Academic Senate defends Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s academic freedom and freedom of speech, as it does for all faculty, it firmly and unequivocally condemns and disassociates itself from the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed.”

Some called on the university to do the same.

In an April 11, 2008, e-mail sent to the Daily 49er, CSULB President F. King Alexander wrote that “despite the fact that I personally disagree and even find deplorable some beliefs and opinions expressed by a few individuals on our campus, particularly those ideas are hurtful of certain groups, I believe as Thomas Jefferson stated that ‘errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.’”

Alexander further explained that the university is a forum itself, “Universities should also be firmly committed, even at times when it is against popular opinion, to freedom of thought, and when we act to restrict opinions from the far right or the far left, then it will not be long before we can no longer call ourselves a university.”

And in his most recent statement to the Daily 49er, on June 20, 2008, Alexander said that “[MacDonald's] views and opinions in no way represent the views of this university in any aspect whatsoever.”

The thesis of MacDonald’s books and papers claims that conflicts in society are based in ethnic interests and activism.

“The idea is that the construction of culture has been influenced by ethnic activism,” MacDonald said. “And I of course focus on Jewish groups. Jews tend to be elite; they tend to be involved in intellectual movements.”

After becoming A3P director, MacDonald resurfaced as the subject of several articles by OC Weekly’s Ask a Mexican columnist Gustavo Arellano, who discussed MacDonald’s views and gathered reactions from students and members of the Associated Students Inc.

The articles led to a one-hour radio program on KPFK last Thursday, during which Arellano spoke of MacDonald’s work that claims that “Jews are undermining western civilization” and the A3P’s “primary plank is to deport all non-whites and that homosexuality should be suppressed.”

MacDonald responded to Arellano in his own blog Friday morning saying:

“Arellano begins by baldly asserting that A3P and I advocate deportation of all non-whites, including African-Americans and every other group, legal or illegal, no matter how long they or their ancestors have been here.

“Not only that, he claims that A3P advocates suppression of all LBGT’s (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender, for those not in the loop of leftist acronyms). (For the record, my position is that gays and other sexual minorities have ethnic interests just like everyone else). For these supposed crimes, he advocates that I be fired from my academic position.”

Arellano also spoke by phone to ASI President Chris Chavez and former ASI presidential candidate Raul Preciado during the program, discussing what action CSULB is taking regarding MacDonald.

“This has been a perennial thorn in the side of the university,” Chavez said. “This has been an issue, but primarily a faculty issue.”

Chavez went on to discuss the difficulty of firing a tenured professor. However, his move to the directorship of the A3P may have “upped the ante,” Chavez said. “Now you’re going from belief to action.”

While no plan is in motion at this time, the message from ASI was made clear.

“We want to let him know that we don’t want people who are spreading his views on campus,” Preciado said.

The placement of MacDonald to his new position also works into the goals of the PSL to remove MacDonald from campus.

“We’re going to re-start a petitioning campaign to get him off campus. One of the key elements will be this recent development,” Kauffman said. “One petition to support his dismissal and one to support the nonparticipation in his class; we would like to get students groups and faulty to pressure him to leave campus. This is going to take a strong effort to remove him from class.”

Rate my professors for bias at liberal-education.com

Daly died Sunday of natural causes at Wachusett Manor nursing home in Gardner, Mass., said her longtime friend, Nancy Kelly.

She passed away as a friend read to Daly from one of her own books, “Websters’ First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language,” Kelly said Wednesday.

Daly’s tumultuous career at the Jesuit-run Boston College ended after three decades when she refused to open her classroom to men, believing women did not freely exchange ideas if men were present. Men, she said, “have nothing to offer but doodoo.” But Emily Culpepper, a friend and professor at the University of Redmond in California, said Daly was not anti-male.

“She was anti-male domination, which is a different thing,” Culpepper said.

Poet Robin Morgan called Daly “the first feminist philosopher.”

“She really pushed the boundaries, and that drove some people bananas,” Morgan said. “But that kind of intellectual courage is, in fact, what usually moves the species forward, even if it gets trampled on in its own time.”

Daly grew up in Schenectady, N.Y., the only child of an ice cream freezer salesman and telephone operator. She received her bachelor’s degree from the College of Saint Rose, then a master’s degree at Catholic University of America. She later earned doctorates at Notre Dame and the University of Fribourg in Switzerlandbefore becoming a professor at Boston College in 1966.

Daly’s career at BC ended in 2001, when she retired to settle a lawsuit. Daly sued BC after the school tried to force her to retire over her refusal to accept men in her classes. She had agreed to privately tutor men who wanted to take her classes

Daly wrote about her intellectual formation in a 1996 article in the New Yorker “Sin Big,” in which she recalled being mocked by a male classmate, and altar boy, at her parochial school because she could never “serve Mass” because she was a girl.

“(T)his repulsive revelation of the sexual caste system that I would later learn to call ‘patriarchy’ burned its way into my brain and kindled an unquenchable Rage,” she wrote.

Daly described herself as a pagan, an eco-feminist and a radical feminist in a 1999 interview with The Guardian newspaper of London. “I hate the Bible,” she told the paper. “I always did. I didn’t study theology out of piety. I studied it because I wanted to know.”

Her first book, “The Church and the Second Sex” in 1968, criticized the church as a product and fount of sexism amid the growing women’s movement. Five years later, she wrote “Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation.” Her other books included “Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy” in 1984.

Gloria Steinem called Daly “a brilliant writer, a brilliant theoretician,” who enabled women to move beyond the oppression of male-dominated religious hierarchies to see “that there’s God in themselves and in all living things.”

“She was enough ahead of her time so that I believe she will be appreciated far beyond it,” she said.

Daly’s ashes will be buried at Mt. Auburn cemetery in Cambridge, Kelly said. A memorial service is planned in the Boston-area in the spring.

Rate my professors at liberal-education.com.

Prof Hamilton said he did not doubt the science behind climate change and it was only for political reasons people refused to accept the science.

“The verdict is in and there isn’t any doubt that global warming is occurring and humans are causing it,” he said.

“I don’t think any serious person doubts that.

“If we don’t accept it, it will bring about dire consequences.”

According to NSW Farmers’ Association president Charles Armstrong the agricultural sector is already being severely impacted by ill-considered laws.

“The ban on development of farming land is impacting on the livelihood of farmers and their ability to supply the food required to meet growing demand,” he said.

“This ban has directly affected people such as Mr Spencer.”

NSW farmer Peter Spencer continues a 45-day hunger strike as he demands the Federal Government hold a Royal Commission into land-clearing laws that prevent him from felling native vegetation on his property.

According to agricultural minister Tony Burke the Government has taken action in relation to climate change that has resulted in any variances in the way farmers can use their land.

If anything, Prof Hamilton believes the association’s request will only jeopardise the future of primary producers.

“It is damaging to the people in rural and regional Australia as it will do nothing more than delay action,” he said.

“It is a bit rich for farming groups to want to be exempt from the costs of green house policy and call for measures so they’ll get greater

benefits, such as the carbon credits.

“You can’t have it both ways.”

According to the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM) annual climate statement released on Tuesday, last year was Australia’s second-hottest year on record

and closed the warmest decade on file.

The BOM states this temperature data “is consistent with global warming.”

Rate my professors for bias.

• I don’t believe that historians should become propagandists. (read below and see the irony in this remark)

• I was one of the steering committee members, one of the people who helped to plan a teach-in with the labor movement at Columbia. This happened a couple of years ago. And out of that has grown a group called Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice which is really a group of academics who are trying to reforge broken links between the trade union movement and the academy, using our stature in the academy, our voice as potential public intellectuals to speak out and advocate on behalf of the labor movement.

• My book is really an attempt to intervene in debates about poverty and social policy by making an argument that we can’t lay the blame for the persistence of urban poverty on the social programs of the 1960s. The conservative argument being that the Great Society unleashed welfare dependency and exacerbated the problem of poverty.

• I think the implication of my story for folks who are thinking about anti-poverty policy is that by focusing on the individual behavior and culture of poor people, which is say what welfare reform has as its fundamental premise today, that is, we need to modify and instill a work ethic and modify the behavior of poor folks to make them more responsible misses the boat.

• The New Deal did not centralize governmental power as its critics had feared it would; it left the administration of the most important relief efforts–unemployment insurance, old age assistance, aid to dependent children and job-creation programs (the Public Works Administration excepted)–in the hands of state and local officials who used federal funds as a form of local patronage and who often shunted aside politically marginal groups like African-Americans.

• To note the limitations of the New Deal should not diminish its accomplishments. The legacy of the New Deal is inescapable: think of our post offices, bridges, highways and national parks, many of which began falling into decrepitude in the late twentieth century when Republicans axed domestic spending.

Sugrue seems to like the New Deal don’t you think?  I wonder if he ever tells his students that more government spending is the best way to solve all our problems?

Rate my professors at liberal-education.com

• Conservatives have branded liberals, and the liberals let them get away with it: the “liberal elite,” the “latte liberals,” the “limousine liberals.” The funny thing is that conservatives are the elite. The whole idea of conservative doctrine is that some people are better than others, that some people deserve more. To conservatives, if you’re poor it’s because you deserve it, you’re not disciplined enough to get ahead.

• In another chapter I tell progressives how to talk to conservatives. This is not rocket science: you should show respect, know your values, always reframe, and say what you believe. The important thing is not to accept their framing of the issues, nor just negate their framing – that just reinforces it. Simply confronting them with facts won’t help. Frames trump facts. The facts alone will not set you free. You have to reframe the issues before the facts can become meaningful and powerful.

• Some conservatives are ideologues and you’re not going to sway them. But most conservatives are nice people. What you want to do is activate their nurturing model, engage their empathy. Ask them who they care about, what they care about, and why. Find out where their empathy lies. Connect with the part of them that shares your values, and get that to spread to other issues.

• (When asked if liberals are getting better at using linguistics to their advantage) There’s been a lot of improvement. In nine months we’ve managed to reach a lot of people. You saw it in action at the Democratic Convention, in the speeches by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and John Kerry. They talked about values. That’s a big change, and it’s not an accident. They talked about unity, not the culture war. They began to explain why Democratic values are traditional American values – an important step. The idea is very simple: Look at the things we are most proud of in this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the present. We had slavery then. We abolished it. Only male property owners could vote. Now both non-property owners and women can vote.  The New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act – these too are all products of progressive, liberal values. They represent advances of the nurturant parent model versus the conservative “strict father” model [articulated in Lakoff's "Moral Politics," see here for a brief discussion]. These movements are also seen as stemming from traditional American values, part of our shared heritage. So, when you start looking at what this country is rightfully proud of, it’s the extension of progressive values. And it’s time to say that loud and clear.

• Recently I’ve been talking about taxes as investments for the common good.

For even more of Professor Lakoff’s “progressive” ideas, look at this interview, from which the above has been excerpted.

Rate my professors for bias.