SOH Ideas: Festival of Dangerous Ideas 2013: Dan Savage - Savage Advice

There's a flaw in the way we choose our life partners. We pair up based (mostly) on preferences outside of the bedroom, and hope that what happens in the bedroom will match up. Infidelity is not the end of the world, it's a reality of long-term relationships. We accept the good and the bad when it comes to our partner's jobs, families, and failures, but quickly default to divorce when we yield to natural temptation.

It's time to stop fooling ourselves and accept that outdated concepts of "proper" sex are torpedoing discussions needed to reach mature sexual compromises. Many of the relationships that we think of as monogamous are actually probably 'monogomish': mostly monogamous, but with bits on the side. If we really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, we need to make it our playground, not our prison.

Join us for a dose of reality about love and some Savage advice on your questions and problems.

Dan Savage is the author of the internationally syndicated advice column Savage Love, host of the popular podcast Savage Lovecast. He is also an essayist whose work has featured in the New York Times and on This American Life. His latest book is American Savage: Insights, Slights, and Fights on Faith, Sex, Love, and Politics. 

Crooked Media: Wilderness The Change

What is Barack Obama’s legacy? A closer look at how an historic presidency shaped the party and the country.

The Wilderness is a documentary from Crooked Media and Two-Up about the history and future of the Democratic Party. Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau tells the story of a party finding its way out of the political wilderness through conversations with strategists, historians, policy experts, organizers, and voters. In fifteen chapters, the series explores issues like inequality, race, immigration, sexism, foreign policy, media strategy, and how Democrats can build a winning majority that lasts.

listen to the podcast

Social Europe: Breaking The Populism ‘Doom Loop’

When they raise issues that are of genuine concern to voters, populists from Trump to Grillo put forward simple solutions to complex issues – “Worried about immigration? Build a wall!”, “Tired of low pay and poor social services? Leave the EU!”, “Frustrated at how our nation is insulted by the global elite? Kick-out George Soros!” – that will not solve them. If populists have a point in highlighting the failures of liberal democracy with regard to managing immigration or facilitating increasing economic inequality, their opponents have failed in explaining that it is only with the consensus and compromise building approach inherent in liberal democracy that they can be solved. 

It is not enough for defenders of liberal democracy to wait on the sidelines for populism to fall on its sword. When the actions of populists fail to deliver change to the major policy challenges they promised to solve, there will still be popular resentment about the – both perceived and real – distance of liberal democracy from the lives of ordinary voters. This situation I describe as a ‘populism doom loop’. As liberal democratic institutions and actors continue to resist reform, the ‘doom loop’ of support for populists caused by distant and disconnected liberal democratic institutions and actors will continue. The loop must be broken for the crisis of democracy to end. [...]

The key issue here is with the ability of voters to process this information critically. This is not to label the electorate as ignorant or stupid, far from it. Rather it is to point to the desultory state of civics education around the world. Citizens have not received the kind of comprehensive education required to become active, involved, and informed citizens in an era of information oversaturation. Massachusetts has recently taken a step forward in this regard by passing a bill aimed at modernising civics education with a focus on explaining how the US political system works across its different levels, as well as promoting critical engagement with the media.

read the article

Aeon: What makes people distrust science? Surprisingly, not politics

The same research that has observed the effects of political ideology on attitudes towards climate change has also found that political ideology is not that predictive of skepticism about other controversial research topics. Work by the cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, as well as research led by the psychologist Sydney Scott, observed no relation between political ideology and attitudes toward genetic modification. Lewandowsky also found no clear relation between political conservatism and vaccine skepticism. [...]

My colleagues and I recently published a set of studies that investigated science trust and science skepticism. One of the take-home messages of our research is that it is crucial not to lump various forms of science skepticism together. And although we were certainly not the first to look beyond political ideology, we did note two important lacunae in the literature. First, religiosity has so far been curiously under-researched as a precursor to science skepticism, perhaps because political ideology commanded so much attention. Second, current research lacks a systematic investigation into various forms of skepticism, alongside more general measures of trust in science. We attempted to correct both oversights. [...]

From these studies there are a couple of lessons to be learned about the current crisis of faith that plagues science. Science skepticism is quite diverse. Further, distrust of science is not really that much about political ideology, with the exception of climate-change skepticism, which is consistently found to be politically driven. Additionally, these results suggest that science skepticism cannot simply be remedied by increasing people’s knowledge about science. The impact of scientific literacy on science skepticism, trust in science, and willingness to support science was minor, save for the case of genetic modification. Some people are reluctant to accept particular scientific findings, for various reasons. When the aim is to combat skepticism and increase trust in science, a good starting point is to acknowledge that science skepticism comes in many forms.

read the article

Al Jazeera: The ICC is reaching out to victims of war crimes in Palestine

In an extraordinary move, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court recently issued a decision ordering its registry "to establish, as soon as practicable, a system of public information and outreach activities for the benefit of the victims and affected communities in the situation in Palestine". [...]

The decision came at a time when state representatives gathered in The Hague to mark twenty years since the adoption of the Court's founding treaty, the so-called Rome Statute. Those participating in the celebrations reminisced at the landmark decision to establish the first permanent international criminal institution capable, in theory, of holding world leaders to account for their role in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The novelty of the decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber on the situation in Palestine reminds us, however, of the court's shortcomings in engaging with victims and affected communities in a timely, continuous, and valuable manner as well as ensuring their early participation in the proceedings so that their unique views and concerns are taken into consideration from the beginning until the end.  

The Rome Statute put victims at the heart of the court's work and gave them the right to participate in the proceedings and ultimately receive reparations for harm suffered. It also gave them the right to provide information to the court. As is rightly pointed out by the Pre-Trial Chamber, in order to exercise these rights, victims must be made aware of them and the work of the court. It is in this light that the decision on information and outreach for Palestinians should be praised. [...]

The meaningful implementation of the decision on the situation in Palestine is dependent on the allocation of adequate human and financial resources to information and outreach activities. It is also dependent on a mindful engagement between the court and civil society. But most importantly, it requires that the court itself directly and immediately interacts with Palestinian victims and affected communities. The responsibility to reach out to victims and include them in the work of the court lies primarily with the organs of the court.

read the article