http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/1427 2013-05-18T09:48:26Z 2013-05-18T09:48:26Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14776 2013-04-26T07:42:20Z 2013-04-23T00:00:00Z

N400 The Gun Debate I Lost Etzioni, Amitai

2013-04-23T00:00:00Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14775 2013-04-25T07:42:18Z 2013-04-23T00:00:00Z

N399 The Reasonable Interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Etzioni, Amitai

2013-04-23T00:00:00Z Amitai, Etzioni http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14769 2013-04-19T07:42:20Z 2013-04-18T00:00:00Z

North Korea and US Priorities - Chinese Translation Amitai, Etzioni

2013-04-18T00:00:00Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14768 2013-04-19T07:42:17Z 2013-04-18T00:00:00Z

N398 Time for New Paradigms Etzioni, Amitai

2013-04-18T00:00:00Z Amitai, Etzioni http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14766 2013-04-17T07:42:18Z 2013-04-15T00:00:00Z

N397 Israel -- 65 Years Ago Amitai, Etzioni Sixty-five years ago it was far from obvious that Israel would survive; it was even far from obvious that a Jewish state would be created in the first place. In 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted for a resolution calling for the division of British-controlled Palestine into two states -- one of which would be a Jewish state and one of which would be predominantly Palestinian. Specifically, Palestine would be divided into seven sections, three Jewish and four Arab, with Jerusalem placed under international administration. Jewish representatives accepted the deal; however, both the Arab League as well as the Palestinian organizations rejected the plan.

2013-04-15T00:00:00Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14765 2013-04-16T07:42:18Z 2013-04-15T00:00:00Z

N396 North Korea and U.S. Priorities Etzioni, Amitai

2013-04-15T00:00:00Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14760 2013-04-10T07:42:50Z 2013-04-09T00:00:00Z

N395 How Conservatives Still Run America, Despite Losing Elections Etzioni, Amitai There is more than may appear in President Obama’s plan to cut the social safety net in his new budget proposal. The offer, on the face of it, reflects a significant violation of a major liberal creed, discarding the strongest liberal political card, and Obama’s peculiar negotiation style of making major concessions at the opening of a give-and-take session. But it also reflects the sad but true fact that the dynamics of American politics cannot be understood in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans. Party labels aside, the nation is still being ruled by what I call a majority “conservative party.” If Democrats and Republicans were the true divide, the meager gun control measures recently introduced in the Senate would have the majority needed to pass. After all, there are 53 Democratic Senators (and two independents who generally side with them). Moreover, this time, the threat of a GOP filibuster is not to blame. Yet the Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, removed the assault weapons ban from the draft bill, because some 15 Democratic senators, in effect, supported the conservative, pro-gun position, making up — with the Republican senators — that majority “conservative party.” Thanks to this party, the same legislative defeat is about to befall liberal proposals to curtail high-capacity magazines. This leaves only better background checks on the table, but these, too, will inevitably be rendered ineffective by the conservatives via the underhanded gutting of enforcement (more about this shortly).

2013-04-09T00:00:00Z Etzioni, Amitai http://aladinrc.wrlc.org:80/handle/1961/14759 2013-04-10T07:42:48Z 2013-04-05T00:00:00Z

Individualism vs. Social Science Etzioni, Amitai NPR's social science maven reported that President Obama may have undermined the success of gun control legislation when he stated that "We don't live in isolation, we live in a society. A government of, and for, and by the people. We are responsible for each other." Americans, Shankar Vendantam stated, care about individual rights and liberty, not the common good. As evidence he cited a research paper by MarYam Hamedani and her associates called, "In the Land of the Free, Interdependent Action Undermines Motivation," showing that when researchers evoke concepts of the common good -- the subjects did less well on various tasks than when no such concepts were evoked. Much of the paper relies on the notoriously unreliable concept of psychological priming, contrived situations, and extremely trivial stimuli and responses. Thus, in one of the paper's experiments, students were asked to unscramble anagrams of communitarian words (e.g., "accommodate" or "coordinate") and then were given very difficult anagrams -- their motivation being measured in terms of how long they attempted to solve the puzzles. A second study by the authors had students role-play a job applicant "skilled at working with others," and then measured how long they would squeeze a handgrip -- a short squeeze was taken to show that communitarianism had undermined their motivation! In both cases, the authors found a measurable decline in motivation of the students when compared with various control groups.

2013-04-05T00:00:00Z