Danhedonia
Noted duckfat enthusiast
Dude, the Masons are totally out to fuck us.
OMG Politics, I'm over it already Mk III, The Search for Spock
- Thread starter Tiltsta
- Start date
- Status
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
If anything, they’ve built walls to divide us.
Frank Prince
Slowhand
I've encountered a couple of musicians around who have joined the Masons. Generally they seem to be uptight nuts.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
If anything, they’ve built walls to divide us.
https://www.npr.org/2009/09/16/112884584/secret-of-the-masons-its-not-so-secret
Seems to me much ado about not much. In modern times, any sort of "meeting" among community leaders might violate open meeting laws that have come into play. And I suppose suspicion and Dan Brown novels touching on this whole thing might further divide us. I do not think that was there intent. Probably, they should dump the secret handshakes and crap like that.
Still, no secret nor no real mystery that many leaders in this country have been members. Seems like the philosophy stated in this piece as: "They can agree that God compels them to do good in the community," Morris says. "And then they can stop talking about religion." sounds pretty much like what you would think most of the founders would think. Most believed in God (see, xhttps://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6529440), but religion was separate from state. At least, that is what I take from this.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Unfortunately, my daughter announced the other night she likes one of his new songs to pump up for workouts. I held my tongue. She is too young for politics. For not much longer, but still.
mongooz
.
a good portion of the 'founding fathers' were deists, so their version of religion would be quite different than many today. just sayin'
Danhedonia
Noted duckfat enthusiast
Kids are never too young for politics - I went to Stop the War rallies on my parents' shoulders.
And Kanye should only get a gold plated dildo up his bum.
And Kanye should only get a gold plated dildo up his bum.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Yeah, I intended to touch on that with the link to the NPR piece on faith of the founding fathers I linked. It says that.
Also, here is an example discussion of open meetings laws. If the local masons are meeting and discussing and deciding things in their meetings, perhaps they could run afoul of those laws. http://idahoptv.org/dialogue/openidaho/meetingsfaq.cfm
"All meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this act. . . ."3 "Governing body" is defined to mean the members of any public agency "with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public agency regarding any matter."
So if a group of county commissioners large enough to make a decision discuss and make a decision behind closed doors at a Mason meeting, if they get caught or someone gets wind of it, they could have someone file a claim. This has happened locally (not with the masons) where 3 out of 5 members of the school board have met "outside of class" and decided something without following proper procedures for a meeting, and someone then got wind of it because of some email someone later sent discussing the decision.
This is where people get in trouble. And it could include meetings of Freemasons/masons/kiwanis, whatever.
Question No. 9: Does the term "meeting" include such things as informal gatherings, briefing sessions, informal discussions, attendance at social functions, etc.?
Answer: As noted above, a "meeting" is the convening of a governing body to make a decision or deliberate toward a decision. Additionally, a quorum must be present.20
The California Court of Appeals discussed the dual facets of deliberation and action in Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors: It [California's open meeting law] declares the law's intent that deliberation as well as action occur openly and publicly. Recognition of deliberation and action as dual components of the collective decision-making process brings awareness that the meeting concept cannot be split off and confined to one component only, but rather comprehends both and either. To "deliberate" is to examine, weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against the choice . . . . Deliberation thus connotes not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision. 21 The California court then reasoned and ruled: An informal conference or caucus permits crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance. There is rarely any purpose to a non-public, pre-meeting conference except to conduct some part of the decisional process behind closed doors. Only by embracing the collective inquiry in discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices. As operative criteria, formality and informality are alien to the law's design, exposing it to the very evasions it was designed to prevent. Construed in light of the Brown Act's objectives, the term "meeting" extends to informal sessions or conferences of board members designed for the discussion of public business.22 A similar result was reached by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of City of Miami v. Berns wherein the Florida court ruled that public officials violate Florida's open meeting law when they meet privately or secretly and transact or agree to transact public business at a future time in a certain manner.23 The Florida court went on to state that, regardless of whether a meeting or gathering is formal or informal, "t is the law's intent that any meetings, relating to any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken, occur openly and publicly."relating to any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken, occur openly and publicly."relating to any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken, occur openly and publicly."
The same considerations must be applied with respect to the Idaho Open Meeting Law. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law must be complied with whenever a quorum of the members of the governing body of a public agency meets in order to decide or deliberate on matters which are within the ambit of official business. Those meetings can be formal, informal, or social. So long as a quorum is present and the intent is to deliberate or make a decision, then the meeting must be open.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
My 12 and 14 year old daughter’s have been to 2 marches on DC and I’m sure there will be many more before they are able to vote.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Well, let's say I didn't want to dump on her right then. she was just getting home from a long day and workout. I will show her Kanye's douchiness over time. She will not like it. Showing her just a vid or article or two will do the trick.
rickenvox
Animal Psychic
If anything, they’ve built walls to divide us.
I think the fact that they haven't built a new building in 60 years is just a plot to throw us off.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
GDSmithTX
Corporate cog
Duh. The "economic anxiety" canard never held up in the slightest to critical thinking. It was and is simply a convenient and sanitized excuse masking xenophobia.
_________________________________________________________
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/politics/trump-economic-anxiety.html
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.
Or so that narrative goes.
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.
In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.
In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.
Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.
The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.
Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.
“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.
For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by NORC at the University of Chicago, a research institution. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.
Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’
While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.
In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.
On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.
Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.
“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.
The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the NORC study.
What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?
If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.
_________________________________________________________
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/politics/trump-economic-anxiety.html
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.
Or so that narrative goes.
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.
In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.
In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.
Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.
The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.
Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.
“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.
For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by NORC at the University of Chicago, a research institution. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.
Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’
While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.
In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.
On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.
Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.
“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.
The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the NORC study.
What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?
If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.
Knox in Box
Rustbelt refugee.
White, Christian, male conservatives and flat out racists are cowards afraid of changing socio-political Dynamics. News at 11.
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Agreed. My mother and grandmother took me to the march for women’s lives before I was old enough to understand why all those women were waving coat hangers around.
Gary Blanchard
beloved, local musician
When I was 14, I started to see newsreels about the growing war in Vietnam. I had been exposed to Gandhi at 10 and was already a firm pacifist. I worked in the office for the Anti war mobilization in 66 or 67; I also participated in many marches. Kids will have to deal with the world that adults are creating. We need to give them access to information and critical thinking skills.
Danhedonia
Noted duckfat enthusiast
Trump voters driven by being fucking dumb, shitty people.
Up to here with the hand-wringing sociological apologism.
Up to here with the hand-wringing sociological apologism.
Lerxst
spaghetti and blankets
Yeah...when my parents told teenaged me how terrible my music was or how stupid the artists were, that totally did the trick. /s.
Good luck with that.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Nah. Would never do that. Just will allow some tweet or video or post or something from Kanye to come up as we are standing around the kitchen with people on their devices. Something that does not match up with the progressive views of the females in my family. Won't be my opinion at all. I don't think that will be hard. He seems to provide plenty of opportunities.
- Status