Ah ideology. Whether it is left or right, pink or blue, it is ideology non the less. Ayn Rand was clearly an ideologue and people liked her because she provided justification for all sorts of greedy, selfish, and inconsiderate behaviors under the banner of some sort of naturally sanctioned individualism. But swing the pendulum the other way and we trod on our fellow peeps in the name of the collective good. My question? Are left and right really that different when the result (oppression, suppression, and concentrated wealth) are the same?

As a sociologist I often get heartburn listening to others talk about evolution. As every sociology student knows, from the time Herbert Spencer first coined his "survival of the fittest," Darwin's thoughts have been used, misused, and exploited in service of the status quo. You beat somebody down? You dominate another in business? You accumulate obscene wealth? You create a thousand losers for every winner? That's the natural order of things. Like Darwin NEVER said, survival of the fittest. But times they are a changin. From over due behavioral corrections, fresh air research onthe stupidity of competition (ya I said it), to this provocative article that suggests that having "big winners" is bad for our general survivability, we scientists are starting to reclaim our truths from the social classes that have exploited it. Yay team!

Through the medium of kinship, early humans developed cooperative arrangements that, according to Marshal Sahlins, were apparently mandated by virtue of the conditions of life. In his words, “The emerging human primate, in a life-and-death-struggle economic struggle with nature, could ...

The indoctrination, ahem, socialization starts at birth. Pink for girls, blue for boys. Up until recently you've been unable to escape it. But is it finally time for a change?