The Chron's bizarre attack on Milk Airport

SFO could be HMO

It must have been hard for John Diaz, the Chron's editorial page editor, to just come out and oppose the idea of renaming San Francisco International Airport for Harvey Milk. So instead he put out a tortured argument that goes like this:

It's too easy to put things on the ballot in San Francisco. To wit:

San Francisco has a system that is ripe for abuse by politicians who want to call attention to themselves or want to try to acquire at the ballot box what they could not otherwise attain by working with their colleagues.

He actually quotes Lite Guv Gavin Newsom who says, apparently without blushing, that he went to "excrutiating lenghts" to avoid putting things on the ballot that he couldn't get passed through the Board of Supervisors. Excuse me? Care Not Cash? WiFi?

More Diaz:

The renaming of SFO is an example of an issue that demands a thorough public airing: about its cost, about the implication for the airport's global brand and about whether other San Franciscans should be considered. The regrettable upshot of the Harvey Milk San Francisco International Airport proposal is that it could devolve into a referendum on the late supervisor's worthiness for such an honor.

Wait: You don't think the supervisors will discuss this, that there won't be public comment, that this proposed city charter amendment won't go to committee for discussion? You don't think that's already happenning, or that a ballot campaign won't involve all of those issues? That's just silly.

Yeah, there have been things put on the ballot in the past without adequate hearings, but that's certainly not the case here. This thing will be discussed and dissected and cost-analyzed and debated at great length. And in the end, it ought to go on the ballot. The Diaz argument is just an excuse to oppose something that's hard to fight on the merits; if the supes had just gone ahead and done it on their own, we'd be hearing the opposite, that the voters need to weigh in.

And this?

There may be a time when an airport naming makes perfect sense, perhaps because of a San Franciscan's contribution to the airport itself or aviation generally. Harvey Milk simply does not offer such a natural connection.

Please. John F. Kennedy may have sent a man to the moon, but had nothing substantive to do with New York City aviation. Ronald Reagan didn't even fly into National Airport; Air Force One lands at Andrews Air Force Base. And his major contribution to civilian aviation was firing all the air traffic controllers and breaking their union.

Naming SFO after Milk would be a political statement on a grand scale. The City and County of San Francisco would be saying that a gay person deserves a monument of international scale, that Milk's contributions to changing the world are something this city should treat as so special that we should tell the whole world, loudly and forever.

I'm all for it. But if you're not, let's at least debate it on the merits


The trolls who post here as "Guest" and "Anonymous" are just pseudonyms for "John Diaz?"

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

Willie Brown Airport!

Do It!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

Okay. So,,,if that's what they want to rename SFO,,,it follows, then, that the BART service from there would be called the MILK TRAIN.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 1:51 pm

Aren't there more interesting issues to discuss...?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 2:10 pm

then why are you here discussing it?


Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

first place with no real significance. There's no reason for the iarport to have a name anyway, but we could not at least give the poeople a chocie of name?

And, ideally, not name the airport after any politican, but rather someone who actually does or makes things?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 3:14 pm

Harvey Milk isn't just some politician. Harvey Milk made history. He made social change. He made the human condition better. I suppose you prefer someone who just made money for themselves rather than making life better for others. People like you just don't get it.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

Bush airport, do you feel like bombing Iraq and praying to a right wing god?

Reagan airport, do you feel like invading Grenada and sending millions to Middle Eastern and Central American terrorists?

John Wayne airport do you feel like woodenly acting?


Why do the names of other airports not exhort you to emulating and honoring those people? While you seem to think that naming an airport after someone you like will be significant to others?

Yes I know, Reagan airport's name was insultingly forced on the citizens of DC by the fascist state.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

any other effort to honor someone by naming something after them, but all the sudden Milk gets your goat, speaks volumes about just what kind of human being you are.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

Our first gay supervisor. Being elected to represent the Castro with 6000 votes and then being martyred is not groundbreaking enough to deserve renaming a major airport after you.

Totally un-PC but totally true. People in this town love cults - look how many happily marched off with Jim Jones to Guyana. It's the same thing with the Cult of Harvey Milk, who, incidentally, was a big fan of Jim Jones/People's Temple and vice-versa (so was Willie Brown to be fair).

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:55 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:04 pm

Cults are cults. The cult around Harvey Milk won't result in anyone dying but it's still a cult nonetheless.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

The Milkies

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:49 am

Insults greg? How "progressive" of you. Why the hell would he comment about what some other city names its airport? He doesn't live there, so what right would he have to butt into their affairs? If New York wants to name its airport after LaGuardia it's NEW YORK's business. It's not as if they were renaming it Joseph Stalin International. If San Francisco wants to rename SFO after LaGuardia, Milk, Bush, whoever, then it's his business, your business, my business, and anyone else who lives in San Francisco's business.

One other thing. How do you know that he never opposed any other naming situation?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

And I've been coming across his monkey puke for a long time. I'm not just talking about airports. Anything. There are plenty of things named after people in San Francisco, and none of you trolls have any problems with it. But suddenly you all have an issue. I think homophobia has a lot to do with it.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:16 pm

It's an active plan to kill hope and stifle dissent.

(Same as the impetus behind most of the trollery here too.)

The idea of celebrating Harvey Milk in this way is frightening to the powers-that-be because it represent a set-back for the program. No. Now more than ever they'll want the airport named after Willie Brown.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:32 pm

named after right wingers you feel like reading Atlas Shrugged?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 2:39 am

Your entire political reality is based on what you think others believe. I suppose that makes it easy for your incoherent ravings to set in.

When I first noticed your stunted 12 year old posts you were screeching about how it must confuse your created racists for the government to deport a Frenchman and not a Hispanic. Your entire self referential and self righteous world view survives on what you think other people believe, not what they actually believe. It makes it mush more easy for you to howl.

Like a fringe right winger there is no wrong answer for you, everything is a symptom of class, race and sexual bigotry if people don't agree with you and your caringness. If I documented my long and extensive relations to gays my comments on meaningless symbolism around the airport would be a symptom of some other Freudianish ravings on your part.

No matter how I base an opinion it's somehow based on some external factor that you pass all of your crazy through. Like a right winger who bases everything on a persons relationship with a right wing jesus.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 2:37 am

You certainly spend a lot of time posting about something that's supposedly a non-issue with you.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 8:44 am

No wrong answer.

Whatever I post you will just turn it around somehow.

Just remain silent.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 12:36 pm

That is politic and we can change it! This situation will continue forever in my opinion! TV wall brackets

Posted by Manek on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 7:19 am

If Milk hadn't been shot, we'd no more be thinking of naming an airport after him than a dozen other former Supervisors.

SFO should not be named after a politician.

Posted by Peter on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

So incoherent in his ravings.

Please document the blogs that I was posting too circa 1998 corresponding to the renaming of Washington National airport.

So many of your arguments are based purely on what you think others believe. It makes sense for you to be a "progressive" because the world exists for you in such narrow terms. Sadly for you the world does not operate that way, instead there is a whole wide world of people out there not driven by petty jealousies and obsessions.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 2:22 am

Harvey Milk was a child molester ,Milk was open and unapologetic about his sexual exploits with underaged and of-age at-risk youth, discarding one after the other as they matured. Again, typical of pedophilia. Today there is a law called "Meghan's Law" which requires that pedophiles be registered so that communities can recognize them and keep their children away from them.

Posted by Guest AVM on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

still get all worked up over empty suit Newsom.

Newsom like Mirkarimi made a career out of flapping his cock sucker and it still drives you people crazy.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

I knew matlock was a boorish troll, but I really didn't expect *such* crudity in concert with *such* incomprehensibility. That's why I am considering this possibly the work of an well meaning imp.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

You weirdo, asexual freak. Sometimes a mouth is a cocksucker and not only gay men do it.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

Maybe try a doorknob dear, but put a rubber on it so as to provide for the safety of anyone who comes along afterwards.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

was that fifth of Popov vodka you downed last night in your grubby SRO.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:34 pm

enamored of meaningless gestures. It will still be called SFO by the FAA, it will still be known as San Francisco International Airport - this is a meaningless distraction from the tough issues and choices which face us as a city and a state.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

hope to move on to higher office, they need to maintain their name recognition.

Redmond Mocks Newsom while fawning over Avalos and Campos for doing it.

I would love to see the lunch room down at the Bay Guardian as Redmond and Jones make their political pronouncements while the account reps and office flunkies wait to see what opinions to hold.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

for whom every single issue, including people jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, became a "human rights issue." He's utterly devoid of any new ideas, however, and is only interested in policy where it intersects with tangential issues like "protecting queer spaces." While Harvey Milk at his heart was a populist who loved pushing issues like the pooper-scooper law (which today would be derided as "elitist" by people like Campos), Campos mainly exists to demand more free shit for people.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

This person has some sort of *strange* demons.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:59 pm

Harvey Milk, the former Republican, military man and populist, appears to have been more "radical," more "progressive" and more "leftist" not to mention more effective because he was not ideological in his anti-machine radicalism than most all "progressives" who's served on the Board of Supervisors recently.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

He beat the machine. You're right on that Marcos.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:14 pm

Used to be that government was about protecting people from having to deal with the deleterious consequences of the actions of others. Thus, the pooper scooper law protecting people from inconsiderate dog people.

Now, its about arbitrating claims on the public treasury and discretionary entitlements and figuring out new ways to for government to monetize living here to increase transfers per above, all on the machine's terms.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:55 pm

Doctrinaire progressives resorted to calling Sparks "conservative" because she didn't toe the line. Such is progressive establishment politics these days.

I think Milk would have been a good guy to have a beer with, he had real life experiences and seemed to enjoy life. The present group of "progressives" are a sour group of bitter doctrinaire loser.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:00 am

Redmond agrees that naming an airport after Milk would be a good statement to the world, but my guess is that he thinks that naming an airport after Reagan effects him ideologically in now way. Progressives think that the rest of the world's citizens are butt stupid and easily manipulated by airport naming. While naming airports after idiots like Bush doesn't make progressives into paleo conservatives.

Progressives are self identified as too smart to be manipulated by symbolism, yet they think the rest of us are easily manipulated by symbolism. Further right to life logic from the goofy left.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

What a pathetic clump of erroneous speech representing misshapen thoughts and willful misapprehensions. What crap. What matlocky.

matlocky, who's accused me of claiming to be super intelligent transfers the imputation to all progressives. Do you feel dopey in this world matlocky?

I think that's the problem: chip on the shoulder. Sad.

(Well, Sad-Funny anyhow.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

an airport named after a conservative president you feel like voting republican then?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:27 am

within the spotted page of the Chron's editorial.

Yes. As you wrote, the Diaz argument is "just an excuse to oppose something that's hard to fight on the merits; if the supes had just gone ahead and done it on their own, we'd be hearing the opposite, that the voters need to weigh in."

If the situation had been reversed, the complaint would have been reversed -- and yet the big lie that is repeatedly told is that progressives have situational ethics.

I think we *have* to rename the airport now after Harvey Milk, because now the hornet's nest has been kicked: its going to be Willie Brown or Harvey Milk and I have a god-damned preference.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:38 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:48 pm

Why does it have to be renamed at all? It can (and should) just remain San Francisco International.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:11 pm

I didn't mind SFO either. But I have no problem with Harvey Milk Airport either. That's what I find troubling about this whole thing -the fact that it really bugs some people. It shows that homophobia is alive and kicking, even in San Francisco.

I think it's a good gesture to honor the man and all that he stood for.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

of bias instantly puts those with which you disagree on the defensive - because no one, to your satisfaction, is going to prove that they're operating otherwise. Perhaps some people want the airport left named San Francisco International Airport because they like that name. Have you considered that?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:39 pm

All these excuses seem very disingenuous. You and your fellow trolls would be all over selling the naming rights to some corporation, but renaming it after San Francisco's first openly gay supervisor -oh, no, we can't have that. What are people supposed to think?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

The renaming of Candlestick sucked.

John Madden used to do games there and call it "the park at candle stick point," instead of 3-com park. Loved it, I thought it was hilarious. Not everything in the world should be monetized or politicized you are such a stunted screaming child Greg.

Everything in the world seems to revolve around your born again Christian like sense of entitlement. This describes you to a tee.


Indignation Is Not Righteous

Online Extras
Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian
September 27, 2012

The Twin Fallacies of Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity.

Appeals to righteous indignation or sanctity—which attempt to shield ideas from contemplation, discussion, investigation, or criticism—are common, impede rational discourse, and should be recognized as logical fallacies.

The following article is scheduled for the January/February 2013 Skeptical Inquirer and is being released pre-publication due to its topical nature.

Riots erupted on the streets in Afghanistan in late February 2012 in response to an apparently accidental burning of a few copies of the Koran. Placed in an incinerator along with other materials confiscated from Taliban prisoners, the singed Koranic remains were discovered later by Afghan workers. Apologies from United States officials were immediately forthcoming. However, rioting continued and reports indicated that at least twenty-nine Afghans and six American soldiers were killed in the violence (Rubin 2012).

For many Muslims, including an influential council of Muslim scholars (Rubin 2012), the apology was greeted with righteous indignation. The response of the rioters was continued (and perhaps even intensified) rage, as demonstrated by the murder of people who had nothing to do with prior events. A second outbreak of such violence in Libya (where the United States ambassador was murdered) and other Muslim countries occurred in September 2012 after a virulent anti-Islamic independent video appeared on the Internet via YouTube.

The problem of righteous indignation is conspicuous in, but not unique to, the Muslim world—it permeates cultures across religious, ethnic, and national boundaries. The destruction of Andres Serrano’s artwork, “Piss Christ,” by Catholic fundamentalist protesters in Avignon, France, is another well-known example.

Profound feelings of insult to a deeply held belief ranks among the most pervasive, powerful, and potentially dangerous failures of human reasoning. This reaction carries with it both practical dangers that threaten harmonious interactions between and among peoples, and also the capacity to insulate not merely a person, but an entire culture, from criticism and self-reflection.

We argue that “Appeal to Righteous Indignation” and the related “Appeal to Sanctity,” warrant recognition as fallacious types of reasoning and should be included in the larger lexicon of fallacies. (See “The Top 20 Logical Fallacies” by Jesse Richardson in the July/August 2012 Skeptical Inquirer for an overview of commonly recognized fallacies.)
Righteous Indignation: A Brief, Incomplete Genealogy

Righteous indignation, perhaps rooted in primitive instincts for social enforcement (Haidt 2001), appears to be an emotional response to perceived injustice (Haidt 2003; Dubreuila 2010; DeScioli and Kurzban 2009). The concept of “the sacred” appears to be more modern (Rossano 2006; Kirkpatrick 1999), but the impulse to sanctity may be rooted in emotions like disgust (as opposed to anger) (Rozin et al. 1999).

Science is only beginning to piece together the potential neurological basis for the impulse behind righteous indignation and its role in human behavior. Scientist and author David Brin, for example, has appealed to the scientific community to study righteous indignation more closely. Brin suggests that dogmatic thinking is driven by the emotional impulse to righteous indignation and the underlying brain biochemistry of behavioral addictive reinforcement (Brin 2011)—such as is involved in gambling (Blaszczynski et al. 1986).

In recent years, related phenomena (e.g., the role of punishment in the evolution of cooperation and the emotional basis of moral judgment) have been subjects of inquiry in anthropology (Sosis and Alcorta 2003), economics (Grant 2008), game theory (Dreber et al. 2008), psychology (Hunter 2005), and evolutionary psychology (Kirkpatrick 1999). Righteous indignation may have evolved to trigger participation in group punishment for non-compliance with group norms, and it may have influenced the evolution of cooperation (Boyd and Richerson 1992; Krebs 2008; Jaffe and Zaballa 2010). There is also a line of research literature suggesting some specific emotional foundations for moral behaviors, with indignation linked to anger, for example (Rozin et al. 1999).
Logical Fallacies: Righteous Indignation and Sanctity

There exists no nonideological reason why any given idea or belief should be placed beyond contemplation, discussion, investigation, or criticism. Two logical fallacies are routinely employed to shield ideas from such inspection. In accordance with the custom of the taxonomy:

Appeal to righteous indignation (argumentum ad probus indignatio); and

Appeal to sanctity (argumentum ad sanctimonia).

An Appeal to Righteous Indignation is a logical fallacy in which a person claims to be offended, insulted, or hurt by criticism of a proposition they hold, or by the advancement of a proposition with which they disagree. The expected consequence of the demonstration of the verbal or physical behavior associated with righteous indignation is that no further discussion or criticism is allowed.

An Appeal to Sanctity is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to deflect criticism of an idea by claiming that the idea or argument is holy, sacred, sacrosanct, or otherwise privileged and immune from critique.

A few possible rebuttals might be offered. It could be argued that an Appeal to Righteous Indignation is merely an appeal to emotion, which seeks to ignite an emotional response and dampen susceptibility to further reasoned discourse. It could be argued that Appeal to Sanctity is merely an example of circular reasoning. Appeal to Sanctity may be considered a compound fallacy, comprising an appeal to authority and emotion, at least to the extent that the ideas in question are associated with institutionalized dogma. However, Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity have distinguishing traits.

The salient feature of an Appeal to Sanctity is that it is employed as a shield against the critique of an idea or even a wholesale ideological critique. An Appeal to Sanctity is a claim that one must not critique an idea because the idea in question is sacrosanct, holy, or sacred. In other words, an Appeal to Sanctity, reduced to its simplest form, asserts as a moral virtue the claim that an idea is beyond critique. The circular appeal to special privilege frequently carries an implicit and credible threat of violence, for example, the decades-long aftermath of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his book Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoon controversy, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Christian millennium terrorist plots in Israel, and the bombing campaign dubbed “saffron terrorism” in 2008 in Malegon, India.

An Appeal to Righteous Indignation similarly attempts to place an idea beyond the reach of critique, but it employs a different mechanism. Rather than suggesting that the idea itself is privileged and thus must be immune from criticism, an Appeal to Righteous Indignation implies that a critique of an idea is equivalent to an attack on a person. Intrinsic to an Appeal to Righteous Indignation is the notion that attacks on an idea are morally equivalent to verbal or physical attacks on people, that an attack on an idea justifies a response at least proportionate to an attack on a person. Credible threats of violence often accompany displays of righteous indignation and are sometimes viewed as justified by members of the community. Consider the odd case of a man who burned a VFW flag in a drunken fit. He was taped to a flagpole for several hours the next day by an indignant VFW member, who then spoke about his actions openly to a local television reporter (Gardinier and Martínez 2009), apparently unconcerned about any possible legal repercussions.

Those who engage in these fallacies believe that becoming indignant, or refusing to question a particular belief, are virtues. In other words, one should become indignant, and not becoming indignant indicates a moral flaw in one’s character; one should refuse to question privileged beliefs, and persistence in questioning represents a character defect.

In recent years a growing number of public intellectuals, including Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996), Salman Rushdie (Duffy 2004), and Douglas Adams (Adams 1998) have asserted the general fallaciousness of Appeal to Sanctity, but no standard label exists, and no attempt to promote these as a standard part of the taxonomy of fallacies has been advanced.
The Harm

Righteous indignation undermines civil discourse and often corrodes efforts aimed at reasonable compromise. When righteous indignation is invoked, conversation stops and violence may begin. For the indignant party, reason may be suspended. Righteous indignation muddles thinking, elevates emotional reactions to primacy in the discourse, and displaces its alternative: impassioned, reasoned, thoughtful analysis.

Righteous Indignation may be a valid emotional experience and response to injustice. As Greta Christina has observed (Christina 2007) anger can be an important tool for motivating social change. However, its use to shield ideas from criticism impedes rather than advances discourse. Appeal to Righteous Indignation is therefore fallacious in the context of rational discourse.

The continuing demonstrations of the pervasiveness and disturbing nature of Appeals to Sanctimony and Righteous Indignation as primary or even sole arguments, and in an effort to end, rather than further, discussion in Afghanistan and elsewhere, make a compelling case for the urgency of this project. It may seem somewhat overdue to skeptics, atheists, and freethinkers that these classifications are necessary, but the cultural, social, and political world situation give these classifications an added urgency.


Adams, Douglas. 1998. Is there an artificial god? (Impromptu speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge, United Kingdom). Online at; accessed February 26, 2012.

Blaszczynski, Alex P., S. Winter, N. McConaghy. 1986. Plasma endorphin levels in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies 2: 3–14.

Boyd, R., and P.J. Richerson. 1992. Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology 13: 171–195.

Brin, David. 2011. An open letter to researchers of addiction, brain chemistry, and social psychology. Online at; accessed February 22, 2012.

Christina, Greta. 2007. Atheists and anger (blog post). Greta Christina’s Blog (October 15). Online at accessed February 27, 2012.

Dawkins, Richard. Science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder. 1996. Online at accessed February 26, 2012.

DeScioli, P., and R. Kurzban. 2009. Mysteries of morality. Cognition 112: 281–299. Online at

Dreber, Anna, David G. Rand, Drew Fudenberg, et al. 2008. Winners don't punish. Nature Publishing Group 452: 348–351.

Dubreuila, Benoît. 2010. Punitive emotions and norm violations. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action 13: 35–50.

Duffy, Jonathan. 2004. The right to be downright offensive. BBC News (December 21). Online at; accessed February 25, 2012.

Gardinier, Bob, and Humberto Martínez. 2009. Suspected flag burner pilloried: Alleged offender hunted down, ridiculed after incident at VFW post. Times Union (September 26). Online at accessed March 5, 2012.

Grant, Ruth. 2008. Passions and interests revisited: The psychological foundations of economics and politics. Public Choice 137: 451–461.

Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.

———. 2003. The moral emotions. In R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer, and H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press.(pp. 852–870). Online at

Hunter, Richard. 2005. Righteous Indignation: Driving Psychology. Bloomington, IN: Author House.

Jaffe, Klaus, and Luis Zaballa. 2010. Co-Operative punishment cements social cohesion. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 13: 4. Online at; accessed February 23, 2012.

Kirkpatrick, L.A. 1999. Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion and personality. Journal of Personality 67: 921–952.

Krebs, Dennis L. 2008. Morality: An evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 149–172.

Rossano, Matt J. 2006. The religious mind and the evolution of religion. Review of General Psychology 10(4): 346–364. Online at

Rozin, Paul, L. Lowery, S. Imada, et al. 1999. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 574–586.

Rubin, Alissa J. 2012. Chain of avoidable errors cited in Koran burning. New York Times (March 2). Online at accessed March 5, 2012.

Sosis, R., and C. Alcorta. 2003. Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12: 264–274. Online at
Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian

Gary Longsine is an entrepreneur, information systems consultant, patent holding inventor in network security, and freethinker at large. He can be reached via email:

Dr. Peter Boghossian is a full-time faculty member in Portland State University's Philosophy Department. His publication record and teaching areas are critical thinking and moral reasoning. He can be reached via email:

Posted by matlock on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 3:09 am

I'm not even going to bother reading something that takes several screenlengths to scroll through. But sitting up till 3AM writing that... man, you are OBSESSED!

Why do you hate Harvey Milk so much?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 8:48 am

If Milk hadn't been shot, we'd no more be thinking of naming an airport after him than a dozen other former Supervisors.

SFO should not be named after a politician.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 9:48 am would still be called Idlewild. So?

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 5:43 pm