Nice interview, no offense. But in neither the interview, nor in any of the blurbs I could find online, was there any statement of what Weiler and Hetherington consider the definition of an authoritarian (and as well, they use the term high authoritarian which needs a definition, too). Nor any discussion whatsoever of what the research they did to create the book, what methods, etc.

I googled Weiler and found nothing really except posts at HuffingtonPost, and I then looked at the UNC at Chapel Hill website, and after scrounging around, found his entry in a faculty page, but he hasn't set up his faculty website, and like I said he doesn't seem to have another one that comes up readily on Google. So, no online publications (which faculty have more leeway putting up than the rest of us), even on citeseer, no online descriptions of what he means by authoritarian, no generalized description of what the research methods were. He mentions regressions during the interview so I know they collected data. I know he's written such descriptions because the Cambridge University Press has the table of contents to the book online and there is a chapter dealing with all of the above.

I'm sorry to say this, but someone who likes the characterization of the elite revolting and pulling away from the broad masses creating a two-tiered society might just act a little less academically elite himself.

If others found any of this information, I'd appreciate the links.

The article isn't bad. I agree with it. It is wrong to label people in a guilt by association fashion, and I suppose that those who say President Obama should not have received the Nobel Prize do not form a "category" of their own, but only by virtue of their broad spectrum, not by virtue of any logic.

But then, it is coming from an author who was probably an intended target of at least some of the criticism, and in all fairness, does agree with the Taliban about what the United States should do in Afghanistan, for better or worse. Just like there are comments by Nasrallah that I do agree with and that doesn't make me his supporter.

It's going to happen. Is it wrong for the Democratic National Committee to have impugned other peoples' patriotism? Yes. Is it also wrong to lump anyone who doesn't agree on an immediate withdrawal in Afghanistan with the neocons, under the title "chickenhawk"? You can argue that you didn't, because you said "supporters of the war". But your column very clearly indicates that it includes anyone whose option might be getting discussed by the Obama people, because you characterized only your immediate withdrawal option as "ending the war". I disagree strongly with a lot of what are being considered for options on the table in the White House, but there are elements proposed by some that I have advocated, and I don't like being a "chickenhawk" just because not everything being discussed there is something I disagree with, and yours is the only way to end a war.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/07/afghanistan/index.html

I know from experience, and I know from your posts, and the language used in them, that your epithet would include my beliefs, and I resent being lumped with neocons I vehemently disagree with, I resent what read to me like your exhorting people to call me names, just as you resent the use of the patriotism card.

It doesn't feel good that those who oppose you get the harshest of names, and you now don't like what others call you.

It doesn't feel fair.

Part of the problem is that people may be watching the wrong financial trail. While everyone is watching the campaign financing, a couple weeks ago, Kai Ryssdal had Marketplace reporter Stephen Henn on to discuss something called political intelligence. No, that isn't spying on the other party or something. It's trading and speculating on the business of Congress as an insider.

According to Henn, and the people he interviewed, the laws against insider trading are specific enough so you need to be an executive of the company on which you are speculating, or have gotten information from one. They very specifically do not cover lobbyists who speculate on the business deals they are working with members of Congress, and most importantly, they do not cover the Congresspeople themselves, or their staff. That means that the people who sit on the Finance Committee and their staff, can make deals on the markets based on what they know will be happening in their committee, and when the news will be released.

Henn details how the center of trading has actually moved to Washington, D.C. from New York, and the center of the financial universe is no longer Wall Street, but the Capitol Building.

None of this is anything that any changes in campaign finance laws would take care of, since it isn't about campaign coffers. It's about the investment portfolios of those who govern the country. In some sense, Washington owns Wall Street, too.

The story is here:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/17/pm-inside-dope/