Who is The Hippie Professor?
The Hippie Professor is Jim Dougan, a Professor of Psychology at a small midwestern university. He teaches History of Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods, Animal Behavior, and Learning Theory. He also has a strong interest in philosophy, particularly philosophy of mind. He is a proud and unrepentant Behaviorist.
The Hippie Professor in Rock Star mode
When he is not torturing students, The Hippie Professor is a closet Rock Star. He is often mistaken for Jerry Garcia, but only by people who really don’t what Jerry Garcia looks like. He plays bass, harmonica, and sings for the band Cross the Dog. You should check them out. Really. Their album Nights in the Garage is available on iTunes. Yeah – that was a shameless plug.
Hmmm…. what does the professor do other than rocking out and torturing students? Well, he is passionate about thai food, reading, and playing online golf on the wii. He has a wife and kids and pets. He lives in a subdivision. Yeah – those last few are not very hippie. But he is passionate about most liberal causes, in a nuanced way. Really. Nuanced. Really.
Lately The Hippie Professor is passionate about blogging. In fact, it is safe to say it is dominating his life these days. When “real life” work needs to be done – when there are papers to grade or syllabi to write or grades to turn in – it is always interesting to see if he will do it – or if he will write another blog post instead.
This topics on this blog will be all over the place. There will be lots of political rants, for sure. There will also be musings and reflections on life, book and music reviews, and all that fluffy stuff you expect on blogs. There will be an occasional set of song lyrics. Who knows, maybe even a recipe. Yeah – he cooks too.
August 30, 2009 at 11:19 am |
Psychology is a fascinating field. I was interested in the mindset of right-wingers because I couldn’t understand why people would lie to defend their party — the had done tremendous damage to our country.
John Dean wrote a good book, Conservatives Without Conscience, which described the authoritarian follower nature of conservatives, but it didn’t explain why they have that mentality.
So I started reading about Nazi Germany and found the answer. The Germans believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, but the success of the Jews in business, science, arts, etc… contradicted that belief. Therefore, the only solution was to eliminate the Jews.
Here in the U.S., right-wingers believe in the superiority of right-wing ideology, but every time a Republican is elected, they screw everything up — thus, the never ending campaign to destroy liberals. If they can keep Democrats out of office, then they can claim that things would be worse if Republicans were not in power.
~Ben
August 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
Ben – that is a very cogent analysis. It is something like a cultural cognitive dissonance – the dissonance is uncomfortable, and one way of removing that discomfort is to remove the source of the dissonance.
You and I have both seen some crazy rhetoric out there on the conservative blogs – rhetoric suggesting that the goal to “destroy liberals” is talking about something more insidious than action at the ballot box.
My blog entry today, in fact, is about just that.
You know – I wonder a bit if I am putting myself and my family at danger by being “out there” on this issue. I hope I am just being paranoid – but sometimes I really wonder.
Thanks for the comments and keep up the good fight.
– hippieprof
September 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
hippieprof, I’m part of The 44 Diaries and I was reading your comments from yesterday. I went to the site that you suggested and guess what, they eliminated all your comments but they DO show their answers to you. What a laugh.
I don’t go to the right wing Republican blogs because I’m a “recovering Republican”. In fact I was a Republican for 50 years. But I hadn’t voted Republican nationally since 1988. At any rate, I get so angry and upset when I hear the conservatives. I live where Michelle Malkin now lives and of course our city is a far right city with Focus on the Family here. So now you probably know what we deal with here. At any rate, I do keep the fight going with our right wing friends, and a right wing talk show host here. But it upsets me when they lie, which they do very well.
Hope that you do come back to our blog. Audie, Geo and I left a liberal blog because they were doing nothing but attacking Obama because they think he’s weak. So we formed our own blog.
September 13, 2009 at 7:44 pm |
betsmeier….
Thanks for dropping by. I hope you will come by regularly. I plan to make 44 Diaries a regular part of my day as well.
Like you, I have made a slow journey across the political spectrum. I was raised in a very conservative family and absorbed many of those values. Slowly, as I experienced more of the world I stared drifting left – and I hung out at “Independent” for a long time. I really only started calling myself a Democrat over the last 8 years. I don’t know that my views have changed that much – I just feel like the center has shifted away from me.
Again, thanks for dropping by!
– hippieprof
October 13, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
Professor,
Just sitting here before teaching my next government class (more precisely, “democracy” class) googling terms like “intelligent political blogs” and I found you. What a pleasure and a relief. My only solution to ideological division has been to emphasize the principles, intent and spirit of democracy (without the “drama” distortion) as our political and moral guide. Log on to “nodramademocracy.com” and give me some feedback. (I play trumpet and a little keyboard) Greg
October 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
Greg….
Thanks for stopping by and leaving the kind words. I haven’t been too active here for a few days – it is midterm time so I have a stack of papers – but I expect I will be getting back into the swing of things this weekend. I will certainly drop by your blog and check it out.
– hp
February 7, 2010 at 2:08 am |
Hippie,
Thanks for the comment on my blog despite our differing views. I am as conservative as you will find. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, pro-lower taxes and pro-peace through superior firepower. I think everything government does it screws up. The post office is a shambles, Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting the country and need to be slowly abolished. I think I will be having a post about how to do it shortly.
Lastly, now that that is out of the way, how rate you the liberal icon of the era Jimmy Carter?
February 7, 2010 at 2:35 am |
Informedmind….
Thanks for dropping by – this blog is all about rational discussion and I am always up for that.
I am going to surprise you. I was born in a strongly conservative household and absorbed those values. I myself was once a fairly strong conservative with a voting record to prove it. I absolutely detested Carter (voted for Anderson that election – my first Presidential election). I actually voted for Reagan twice. I slowly started to drift to the left over the years – at first because of what I considered to be hateful social rhetoric coming from the right. Abandoning economic conservatism took a little longer. I hung out at “independent” for a long time before finally moving towards “democrat” during the Bush years. I am not sure I changed that much – it seemed instead that the center was shifting away from me.
I still don’t detest Reagan the way some of my liberal colleagues do – though I do find his behavior (and that of his advisers) toward the AIDs crisis almost unforgivable. Lots of people died because of his inaction.
How do I feel about Carter now? I detested him at the time. Now, I tend to think of him as a man with good ideas but without the ability to put them into practice.
Feel free to drop by anytime – I actually enjoy talking to people with differing opinions.
– hippieprof
February 7, 2010 at 2:44 am |
Hippieprof,
Well, certainly you seem more, how shall I say it, civilized perhaps than other liberals I’ve debated. I’m disappointed that you’ve drifted left, but all of our opinions and stances are informed by our own experiences. I certainly appreciate that you do appear to be rational and less spiteful than other liberals. However, naturally you and I are WAY in opposite sections about the tea party. Every group has its fringe and I absolutely oppose Tancredo’s remarks. However, I do remember a certain Keith Olberman calling Scott Brown something along the lines of ‘sexist, racist, homophobic anti-woman’ something or other. Does that mean that all liberals are insane like he? Certainly not.
We will most likely meet again.
An Informed Mind
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm |
Informed Mine….
Sorry to be so long getting back to you….
I have been thinking a lot about Carter. The defining issue in his Presidency was probably the hostage crisis – and the defining moment of that was probably the failed commando raid attempting the rescue the hostages. Had that been successful I suspect Carter would have been viewed as a bold leader and would easily have beaten Reagan – and history would have a very different view of him. One event – but in the end so significant. All of this means nothing – but it is an interesting line of thought.
I know Tancredo’s view is on the fringe – though I am quite bothered that he was invited to give the opening speech. The opening speech is supposed to set the tone for the whole event – so what message does it send when he is invited to open the convention? I can’t see how Tancredo’s views have anything to do with the core Tea Party views – small government and lower taxes.
I don’t particularly like Olberman – he is frankly far too over-the-top for me, even when I agree with his views. I much prefer to watch CNN, where at least they make an attempt to present all viewpoints.
– hp
February 8, 2010 at 11:42 am |
HP,
I believe as you do that the defining moment in his presidency was that of the hostage situation. However, when you state that he would have defeated Reagan handily had the rescue went well I totally disagree. Reagan ran specifically against Carter on economics: “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”, “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours, a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.” While the weakness of Carter against the Iranians and his perceived lack of leadership in the situation certainly helped Reagan, I think he still would have lost on the economy.
As for Tancredo, his opening speech didn’t have much to do with the tea party so that was disappointing. However, his strong line against illegal immigration I am for. However, that is not to say that I am against LEGAL immigration or immigrants. My father’s family came from Czechoslovakia and a family friend is from Italy. Thus I have great respect for those that risk everything they have to make it to our shores. But illegal immigrants in my eyes are trying to jump the gun and do it the wrong way.
And during so called pro-immigration marches it seems that many illegal immigrants want the opportunities of America without the sacrifice, such as learning the unofficial language (English) and becoming a citizen the right way. When I see someone marching down the street in Phoenix or San Francisco with a Mexican flag, chanting in Spanish while wanting full rights as American citizens, it doesn’t make me too happy considering that my father served in WWII so freedom would not be extinguished from the earth. In my opinion, if you want to have full rights as an American, do it as the millions of other Mexicans, English, German, Irish, Japanese, Chinese etc. did. Come here legally, become a citizen, learn the language (if it takes time it doesn’t matter, all that counts is that you try), become a productive member of society. I love immigration, it makes us diverse and what makes us different can also tie us together. But do it right.
I never watch CNN’s opinion shows, I watch the news portions. MSNBC I watch to laugh at Maddow and Olberman. But in my opinion, O’Reilly is more independent than anybody else I’ve watched.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of the blog An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm |
Informed Mind said: “However, when you state that he would have defeated Reagan handily had the rescue went well I totally disagree. Reagan ran specifically against Carter on economics….”
You may well be right – and what I said was absolute speculation. I know that Reagan ran on economics – but I also think that had Carter come across as a strong leader in the Iran situation it would have made the economic argument far more difficult to sell. Remember, Carter was ahead of Reagan in the polls right up until the very last minute – the turning point being their one and only debate. Reagan’s “there you go again” line would not have played so well if Carter was perceived as a good leader.
Yes – we are certainly far apart in our views if you think O’Reilly is an independent thinker – though I also believe that we tend to peg the location of the “center” relative to our own position.
– hp
February 11, 2010 at 7:47 pm |
Hey Hippie,
Strange place to plaster this post, but as a Conservative like An Informed Mind, I’ll disagree with you both about Carter’s demise. And as someone whose first vote for President was Ronald Reagan, I have found one of the few good things about getting older is you can say, “Hey, I was there!”
IMHO, Carter’s biggest problem is the same thing Obama is going to experience – a failed economic policy quickly followed by dismal, even dangerous results. Bet you can remember 16% primes and 21% home interest rates and the energy crisis? While history may remember Carter for his weakness in dealing with Iran, his reputation was shot before the hostage crisis. And who can forget Carter’s malaise speech? America was ready to get rid of Carter by 1978. The only reason that the election wasn’t a complete route in 1980 was we were six years removed from Watergate and there was still a mistrust of Republicans. People who think Obama won overwhelmingly in 2008 have a poor account of history. Overwhelming was what Reagan did in 1984 and George Bush Sr. accomplished in ’88. Those were the days…
I have joked that Obama wears the WWCD bracelet (What Would Carter Do) for determining paths because in many ways, Obama reminds me of Carter with a heavy dose of narcissism. Observe the man and listen closely and you will note every speech, every point, every decision is about Obama. I don’t believe I have ever witnessed such arrogance.
It remains to be seen if Obama can follow Carter as a twofer: (1) Worst President; (2) Worst Ex-President. Obama will need to develop a raging case of anti-Zionism first. But otherwise, Obama is well on his way to repeating history.
February 12, 2010 at 12:49 pm |
Hey Tex…..
You are right on the economics. Indeed I remember the Carter years (I voted against him – and for Anerson – in my first Presidential election). I particularly remember the inflation rate. That was a big part of Carter’s undoing. I still tend to think that bold and successful leadership in Iran might well have saved him. Of course, you will never know.
I realize you would love to see Obama fail the way Carter did. It is interesting to note that the conditions for the “stagflation” of the 1970s of course existed well before Carter took office. “Headline Inflation” was 12.4 percent in 1974 and 13.3 percent in 1979. Carter inherited the situation. Note also that current inflation figures are nowhere near those levels.
Of course, the electorate doesn’t follow economics very carefully – and they tend to blame economic conditions on whoever happens to be in office – so Obama will eventually take the blame whether he is responsible or not. On this issue I am pleased to see that the public apparently still blames dubya for our economic problems:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/12/poll-bush-still-blamed-for-economy/?fbid=KoosPctMcDC
Inevitably, this will change and Obama will be blamed more and more – but for now he has avoided that.
It is funny – I don’t see the arrogance in Obama that you and others seem to see. Certainly he is confident – but I don’t see the arrogant part. This isn’t simply my liberal bias at work. I always found both Clinton’s to be arrogant – and it was indeed always about them.
– hp
February 12, 2010 at 1:06 pm |
Oh – I just ran across this old Time article. Interesting read.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854-1,00.html
Note that the article is particularly critical of his leadership.
BTW – I do find it interesting that you think of Carter as the “worst ex-President” – I tend to think of him as a far better ex-president than he was a president. I would think that you would applaud his work with Habitat for Humanity, for example – featuring grass-roots volunteerism over governmental intervention – would be right up your alley.
In terms of “worst President” rankings – the 2009 CSPAN poll had Carter at 25th – essentially middle of the pack – well ahead of GW Bush who at 36th has the lowest ranking of anyone since Harding. I suspect you won’t find ratings of Obama anywhere near that low. I tend to think of CSPAN asa relatively unbiased source.
– hp
February 12, 2010 at 7:49 pm |
Hippie,
I think Carter is a blatant Jew hater, and incompetent negotiator to boot, friendly to groups like Hamas. He’s delusional. His friendship with Yasser Arafat was nothing less than a blood libel. While I can commend Carter’s Habit for Humanity work and do, Carter did not found Habitat but lent his name to it – it was an “evil” Conservative Christian named Millard Fuller, believing it to be God’s work.
I do not blame Obama exclusively for the economy. I blame Obama for making it much worse – possibly irreparably damaged. Yes, I do think he is incompetent, a socialist in the mold of failed western Europe, his entire cabinet short of Gates a farce, and his naivete in foreign matters dangerous.
The blame can be cast at Bush to a degree since he was President – but I am more willing to point the fingers at corruption of our Congress, financial institutions, lending facilities and even many executives on Wall Street – especially Goldman Sachs; which make up a large part of Obama’s staff, by the way.
What happened was inexcusable and something I do not believe more regulation will fix. Anybody remember Sarbanes-Oxley from 2002? It did nothing to fix transparency, which was the intent and actually added a huge burden to corporations.
As far as your C-Span poll, I’ll just say this. Harry Truman left office with the lowest poll numbers recorded. I happen to think Harry Truman one of America’s best presidents of the 20th century – possibly right behind Reagan, and certainly better than the abysmal FDR. Sorry Hippie, but I find those polls so laughable and I’ll tell you why – if I’m not mistaken, that poll had JFK as the 5th or 6th greatest President in American history. That’s a joke. He wasn’t even in office long enough to have made a substantial difference.
February 13, 2010 at 12:23 am
Tex…..
I am actually in agreement with a lot of what you said about Carter – remember, I was a Republican back then. I probably would have felt differently had I been a Democrat – but we I will never know. I have one particularly vivid memory of something related to Carter. He had just discovered that the Russians had failed to disclose something about their nuclear weapons program. He exclaimed – in apparent surprise and exasperation – “They LIED to me!” Of course they lied to you, idiot – did you ever expect otherwise? I actually had something close to a panic attack and had to pull the car over because I realized that this fool could cause a nuclear war and there was nothing I could do about it.
But that was then….
As far as current economic conditions – my sense is that Obama has felt forced to do certain things he did not really want to do. In real-world economics we don’t get a control group – and I suspect we would be in a lot lot lot worse shape if AIG and GM and Chrysler had all gone under. We will never know – but that is what I think.
As far as the C-SPAN poll, you would be happy to note that give-em-hell Harry was 5th overall on the list – it is also a scholar survey so is less susceptible to approval poll numbers. Here is an interesting wiki article on Presidental rankings. A ways down you will find a review of a dozen or so different surveys. This is where I got the info on the C-SPAN poll – which I chose to cite because it was the most recent and because C-Span is relativelu unbiased. Anyway, it is an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Cheers!
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 8:20 pm
HP: Just read down this thread and it’s been enjoyable. Glad to see civility reigning here!
As a fellow liberal (Democrat anyway), I feel a need to come back at your references to CSpan as ‘relatively unbiased’.
I watch a lot of that network (what would we do without it?) and honestly, I’ve never experienced a purer form of reportage and interviewing than on CSpan. Their morning hosts are impeccably non partisan.
February 13, 2010 at 12:39 am
Oh….forgot to note… Tex said:
Carter did not found Habitat but lent his name to it – it was an “evil” Conservative Christian named Millard Fuller, believing it to be God’s work.
I know Carter did not found it – but he was an active and visible spokesman early on and really helped put it on the map.
I think Habitat is a wonderful organization – a perfect example of what volunteerism can in fact accomplish. I am well aware of its origins – and the fact that I don’t reject it might suggest to you that I am not such a knee-jerk liberal after all. Liberal, yes – knee jerk, no.
– hp
February 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
I need to correct myself as the memory fogs. 1980 was overwhelming. Reagan won 44 states, 489 electoral votes and won by 9.7% margin in the popular vote.
Beat down.
February 13, 2010 at 8:54 pm |
Hippie,
I put absolutely no credence in those polls. Look at Wilson’s numbers – 10th and 12th for the most part? He was an abysmal failure. I know you think I’m biased and nuts, but invariably I find “polls” by historians to be a poll of academicians with leftist indoctrination and bias.
For instance, I think the fact FDR even looked upon favorably demonstrates poor judgment. I believe his Keynesian policies prolonged the Depression, he was much too slow to enter WWII, was crooked and corrupt using social programs to pander for votes (reminds me of Barack), was a philanderer of low character…etc. Now this is heresy in liberal land, but I also know how libs love to rewrite history as demonstrated this week by none other than Joe Biden, as he professed Iraq possibly this administration’s greatest success? I’ve got only four words? Are you s******g me? Both he and Barack voted against the surge, with Barack still denying its success. If Iraq proves a success, every bit of due to George Bush, his cabinet, and lastly the United States military. They accomplished the win in spite of Biden (possibly the dumbest man in Washington IMO) and Obama.
This is a poll of how historians want us all to believe. I don’t even believe C-Span much representative, as I have always found liberals far more politically active than my side – that is, until Barack was elected. Then folks started to get off their collective butts.
And if you were to ask me to judge Presidents, there is no doubt in my mind the best one was the first one.
February 14, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
Tex, you say [I have always found liberals far more politically active than my side]
I take that to mean liberals care more about how democracy works and believe in effecting change from the bottom up. Which makes their activism a good thing.
Why weren’t conservatives more politically active?
February 14, 2010 at 9:49 pm |
Moe,
I think until recently Conservatives believed in the power of smaller government, equal opportunity, free enterprise, empowering individuals to make their own decisions for betterment, with the smallest governmental influence possible. I believe they thought good government characterized in the fairness of best ideas at the balance box.
I think progressives believe in a larger government influence modeled loosely after western Europe, an elitism that says they know best and most individuals incapable of making good decisions. The driving “Liberal” influence is complete power by a few, by judicial fiat if necessary.
The caricature of the Left’s activism mostly corrupt – as attested to ACORN, the NEA, NOW, NARAL, the ACLU, and the SEIU.
I find today’s Liberals (large “L”) generally the antithesis of the original intent of our Founding Fathers. And I believe the Left will finance their power by pandering for votes thru the public largesse, achieved by unfair and regressive taxation, creating individual dependency for more government.
February 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
And I agree – the best one WAS the first one.
March 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
HP: I’ll make sure to keep dropping by. Maybe adding some Zombie hunting tips occationally. Graduated from two small midwestern universities myself. But I’m still not sure if my MAC schools count. Now I just travel the globe spreading sanctioned political dissent of the oldest form.
March 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
Heya tree rat! It will be great to have you drop by – as you have seen we really mix it up here sometimes. The more the merrier!
Really – a Lions fan? That in itself calls from some respect.
– hp
March 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
Yeah, got the old bait-and-swith pulled on me during the Barry Sanders days and never shook it off. But one day I’ll be running down the street buck neked and painted blue after we win the Super Bowl…………. OK let’s not hold me to that as I’m not aging that well.
March 10, 2010 at 10:43 am |
This is another hilarious comic that is truly fitting.
March 10, 2010 at 11:01 am |
I love it!