Yesterday, I had a flight lesson, but didn't get a chance to write about it with the scholarship and starting a new job.
I got to the train station and my instructor picked me up. He's so amazing for doing that, I appreciate it SO much and it just shows how much he cares. I was planning on buying a kick scooter to help me get the 1.8 miles quicker and with less energy (maybe?). My boyfriend was highly embarrassed for me, but I thought it was a great idea. It seems like I maybe won't have to buy it after all.
The day before it looked like it was going to be marginal at my lesson time, but the forecast was just holding out until after my lesson, great! So we preflighted and stayed at Republic because at first it was pretty empty. But boy, did the traffic pick up quickly!
Soon after my first landing, the controllers switched to my least favorite. I've also learned, everyone dislikes her. It turned into pretty entertaining though at some points. She was flustered right away. She always talks a little too much, so as soon as she stops about 3 people try to push to talk at the same time. First, she was screwing up and sighed saying sorry it was hot up in the tower. Mind you, it's the coolest it's been in a long time yesterday, about 19C. She also refused someone inbound touch and goes because she already had 5 people in the pattern doing them and couldn't handle anymore. And of course, as always my luck, I'm 7AD and there was a 6AD doing touch and goes as well. She then began to call the other 76AD which just confused me a bit more. But my favorite thing happened right before my last turn to base, I was extended about 5 miles out, and had already requested a full stop, hoping to get in her good graces to have a shorter pattern. She came on saying to "the traffic you're following is an Arrow…I'm sorry…the traffic you're following is yeah an Arrow..is…I'm a little confused right now…" That is definitely NOT what I want to hear a controller say when I'm looking for traffic! I was just listening to it again, liveatc.net KFRG Tower, August 1st, 1500Z-1530Z around 7:20.
Enough about the controller, more about the landings! They were getting better still. Everything up to the flare is much, the flare isn't terrible either, just could be higher, a bit later. We got in about 10 landings, I was keeping track myself this time because I always feel like I'm shocked by the end of the lesson how many I did. I had a landing that was too low, but my instructor was having me land right at the start of the runway. I was aiming for the third arrow of the displaced threshold versus the numbers as my last instructor had me do.
On my last landing, I felt like I had landed for the first time. It was so soft. My instructor even clapped at the end. Now, my goal is just to coordinate the flare later with how much higher it actually is than what I think.
My instructor brought his daughter's GoPro to the lesson, and I had bought my own memory card so all my landings are recorded. Maybe next time he can bring hers and I can bring my boyfriend's and get TWO angles! Check out my edited video.
Listening to it now – you're totally right, she talks way, way too much. None of our controllers are like that. Controllers don't need to friggin' explain why they want you to do something, they just say do this, and you say okay, Imma doing what you say.
We have the same problem at Harv's air though – we have one plane, GGP, and since the cadet season started up, the moved a couple more cessnas from steinbach to St. Andrews, including GGE and GPE.
I love managing those nice soft touchdowns. Sandra can do it every time, except maybe in 30G37kts 😛 I'm getting that more and more often, and sometimes even able to get them pretty smooth like that on the Citabria now.
It's so busy with all the student pilots and charter jets going in and out so it has to be quick so it doesn't get jammed up.
It is the busy season! So many people doing touch and goes. Even the rain didn't scare them away like we hoped!
wow 😛 And the discussing "do you want to doa 360, or just extend your downwind…" – what the hell was that? You're an air traffic controller! Control! Don't have discussions with pilots on what they'd prefer to do – just tell them what to do. For heaven's sakes. *headdesk* Makes me feel lucky we don't have any bonehead controllers like that.
She sounds like a decent controller. Busy, but doing a good job.
She keeps everyone safe, but everyone I've talked to at the airport know exactly who you're talking about if you mention a controller you don't like. It is a busy airport and can be hard to handle, I think maybe the other controllers just show her up because they are very good at what they do.


text:
conversations with bianca
Celebrating: Creativity. Positivity. Music. Art. DIY Culture.
About Bianca
Conversations With Punx
Chuck Dukowski: "It's super important to try and get on a better more productive path with humanity…"
Published on December 6, 2012 June 11, 2014 by Bianca
I spoke to Chuck a few months back for my Conversations with Punx project. For my reader's that may not be familiar with Chuck, he was a founding member and bassist for one of the greatest, if not the greatest, hardcore punk band of all-time, Black Flag! He co-owned SST Records which was one of the most influential and popular independent underground labels in the 80s that released important records by bands such as Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr, Minutemen, Hüsker Dü, the Descendents and the Meat Puppets. Chuck has also played in bands Würm, October Faction and SWA. His latest band, Chuck Dukowski Sextet (CD6), is one of my favourite projects to date, comprising of a close family friend and Chuck's family, fronted by his amazing wife Lora (who is also a wonderful artist). Here's a sneak peek of the conversation.
CHUCK DUKOWSKI: I guess I'm not making it [music] to fit into a peg hole, maybe someone will invent a peg hole for it to fit. I feel like by the time people get a handle on stuff it's already changed because, everything is in flux like that. It's like you invent a name and you're really talking about the past or you're throwing a handle on the present that references the past. The more literal minds build a box and then the people whose joy in life is to categorize and put things is boxes, can then debate which box it fits in and stuff. They can entertain themselves with that and go into the realm of academia and what not if it gets established enough [laughs].
I find when I read academic analysis of music it always seems to take something away from its essence and what it's really about, it always seems so clinical and soulless. For me music is quite an emotional, feeling thing.
CD: The thing is they're two completely different realms of thought. One is an artistic, emotional product and the other is a descriptive, categorizing way of dealing. It's not that either are necessarily evil, it's hard to talk about music. When I get together with musicians I focus in on playing because I've realised that the talking about it is problematic. Even figuring out how many of what part or how to think about the parts, because different musicians have different ways of thinking how the parts reference each other in an arrangement. One will think of one part as the main thing and the main theme and the other will think of another, they'll have referencing based on different ones. Where the different bits start and finish is different in the different musical minds that's within the people playing the music.
I read an interview with you from a while ago and someone was asking you about the making of the Meat Puppets record and about the way they go about making stuff. You commented that it's about the execution and the energy first and then the song form comes second.
CD: I think so. I think music that is about form first misses the mark. I feel it's very difficult to get to greatness there.
How did you originally get into music?
CD: I just wanted to listen to music and so I listened to music. I was very, very interested in more music and more music as a little kid. I would listen to the radio and I started buying records. As a player, fairly early into the record listening days, maybe even before the records when it was in the radio phase, I felt like I needed to play music also. It took me a while to be serious about that and to find my instrument. Eventually I went there.
What drew you to the bass?
CD: You know it was sort of accidental really. I always liked that part of music, that feel, although I listened to all the instruments. The first instrument I tried was drums, and I liked drums really but, I never learnt to get good at them. I never owned a full drum kit so I was hamstrung in really going there. I wasn't driven enough to go jump over all of the hurdles that were in front of me to doing that. When I picked up a bass a few years later, I did jump through all of the hurdles; I got an instrument and figured out amplification and then made bands. I'm in the rhythm section and thinking in those parts of it but, I get to have melody and harmony.
Are you self-taught?
CD: Yeah I am. When I was younger my mom paid a guitar player friend of mine to give me a one hour lesson. That's the extent of my schooling. He wrote down the strings, how it tuned and what the string names were, gave me some exercises and set me loose!
I understand that Black Sabbath was a really important band for you?
CD: Oh definitely. I think Black Sabbath, once I started listening to them, they became gradually but fairly quickly, one of my favourite groups and they continue to be.
What is it about them you like so much?
CD: I like the vocals, the guitar playing, the drumming and the bass playing and I like the ensemble sound. I think they're true innovators in music, in their time they're kind of taking a step forward from blues rock in bringing in a whole new realm of musical material and embracing the intrinsic sounds of electric amplified instruments to bring power and an orchestral feel to a small ensemble of music. Somewhere along the way they recognised that and did it. Who else did that at the same time? Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. You can really hear the difference moving from what went before like Cream and [Jimi] Hendrix. The first band I loved was Cream. I didn't get to hear Hendrix until I was already listening to Black Sabbath. I didn't really realise he was there, probably because he was a black guy playing rock and they didn't play him on the radio. Weirdly they did play Black Sabbath, not the first album but the second album got on the radio, and also the second Led Zeppelin record – I went and bought both of those. They seemed strange and different compared to the stuff that came before and also so big and powerful. To me I thought of that as metal before I even knew what metal was. I used to imagine…I had shop classes in school sometimes and when you get a big sheet of sheet metal and flop it around it makes this noise like a distorted bar chord, like that I was able to get with my bass playing it loud and distorted.
What's one of your favourite sounds?
CD: I like the sounds of guitars and drums but outside of that, I live near the ocean so I like that. I enjoy the sound of the waves on the rocks. I like natural and quieter sounds too. Although I have this constant ringing that gets in the way of subtler stuff. I don't care for the car sounds and motorcycle sounds so much. Some of the construction sounds can be interesting. I'm not as attracted to them as I once was. I used to run a factory floor and we worked with power tools all the time and I thought the sounds of the saw as they'd bite into the wood would slow down and speed up and the ring of the blade and all that had a thing. Now my favourite sounds are more naturalistic outside of music.
I can relate to that I live 15 minutes from the beach myself.
CD: Right! There's a jetty here in Venice that's by the skate park and it used to protect the Venice Amusement pier that burned down. The rocks are still there that were put there to keep the storm waves from damaging it. I like to go down there and hear the power of that. It's neat the different sounds that go with that when the waves hit. Even just when they're coming in on the sand it's neat.
Do you write daily?
CD: Yes, I play my bass and guitar every day and often it involves composing. Not always though, sometimes I just play. I like to just go ahead and get into a groove. I have sort of an ADD mental process where I like to bring a musical idea forward and evolve it right away. I'll state the melody and then I'll take it to another step, I might repeat each section once and then I'll keep going and just build on it. By the time I've gone on for a few minutes, I definitely don't know where I've started and I don't know what happened a couple of steps in from where I started because the process, if I stop to think about what I'm doing, I wouldn't keep going forward. When I stop if I think I want to repeat that and then I'll repeat it, the forward rushing of new musical content stops while I try to remember the thing I just played. The composing and the playing is interlinked but, the process of stopping, remembering and developing sort of stops the free flight…
Do you have a mission or philosophy in to what you're doing with CD6?
CD: I think with my life and our lives, as much as we are nice people and we enjoy what we are doing, I think it's super important to try and get on a better more productive path with humanity—I'm trying to represent for that—I think we all are and we need to get out from underneath the destructive patterns that dominate the world lately. Wars are a bad idea, we can't face the problems of the near future that face our species in the world in general, if we're fighting, or at least it will be a lot nastier confronting them that way and much, much, much more suffering. If we get together on things we can have a lot more people live a lot more productively and happily, more total also, by cooperating on resources and absolving political problems we can do a lot better of a job because there's a crud load of people out there and it's the old model that allowed current ruling elite to be where they are. It's really the 'Genghis Khan' model or the 'American' model of ride in and suck the resources out and move forward, which is also what your reigning peoples that ended up dominating the world did as well; they go into some place, suck the wealth and resources out, then move onto the next one. That's over now, there's no new place like that out in the world. The shakedown of political…who rules, who runs these different things in the world, has pretty much also happened. Every time these people argue over who gets to have us all work for them, everybody suffers. At some point people need to say, I don't want to fight for you anymore It doesn't do anything good for me or anyone else except maybe some shmoe will get to be the one who is at the top of the pyramid. Ultimately I feel that resolving things that way and the need for there to be such a concentration of wealth for some people is destructive for humanity and the planet. Dealing with the future allocation of resources in a violent way is going to destroy them and poison the planet. It's like the nukes, that stuff never goes away, you can't be messing with that—it's a bad idea, even for energy. Why are we messing around with it? It's only for some people to make money. Along with the wealth always comes power, destructive power that you can be used to threaten people with.
…we need to be better stewards of the resources and wealth…we need to work towards a more global way of thinking like maybe first, let's just start with some peace in general because in the conflict driven mind of our world, there's too many emergencies that provide too many excuses for too many assholes to screw everything up. It's important!
For more Chuck Dukowski Sextet.
The complete in-depth interview will appear in Conversations with Punx #9 Magick also featuring Keith Morris, Japanther's Ian Vanek, Blondie's Gary Lachman, Unwritten Law founder Wade Youman + more!
Nice & Friendly,
*Photo Credits: courtesy of Chuck's fb. 1 – Mira Gonzalez / 2 – Jonathan Weiner / 3 – Sam Bencivengo / My War live footage/video by Alec Singer
More Awesomeness:
Le Butcherettes' Teri Gender Bender: "Instinct is the core of inspiration in humanity." A Q&A with Telepathe: "It's really important to feel inspired rather than just churning out music like a factory." Juniore's Anna Jean: "We don't have a lot of money…but on the other hand we have all of the freedom, it's much more important…" NYC Artist Naomi Yasuda: "I did Madonna's nails for her Super Bowl performance…" The Adolescents' Steve Soto on: La Vendetta, Records, Sobriety, Songwriting & Family. Hip Hop Artists On Vegetarianism & Veganism: KRS-One, The Roots, Sage Francis, Chuck D, K-OS + more!
Convos with Punx, Interviews, Music Chats Ashton Slater, black flag, Black Sabbath, Chuck Dukowski, Chuck Dukowski Sextet, Dinosaur Jr, Hüsker Dü, Lora Norton, Meat Puppets, Milo Gonzalez, Minutemen, October Faction, Sonic Youth, SST Records, SWA, the descendents, Würm
Ian MacKaye: "Life doesn't make sense, and that it's ok."
Tom DeLonge of Angels & Airwaves: "I left my body. That was one of the strangest things I have ever experienced in my life."
Lola The Vamp: Business, Unicorns & Richard Branson
Previous Previous post: An Interview with Feminist Magazine Lip's Editor Zoya Patel
Next Next post: I LOVE Rookie!
1 thought on "Chuck Dukowski: "It's super important to try and get on a better more productive path with humanity…""
I just wanted to say it was a most humbling experience to meet Chuck at the " FLAG" show I at the Grog Shop in Cleveland , Ohio in June 2013..he's a down to earth dude wish I we could of rapped more but none the less I got to thank him for all the years of relation through their music…peace

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Jiang Qing and Fundamentalism
Posted on July 2, 2013 by Steve Angle
A couple of years ago, we had some discussion on this blog of the idea of Confucian "fundamentalism," sparked by comments of Peng Guoxiang, in response to criticism from some Confucians of plans for a large church in Qufu, near the ancestral home of the Kong family (Confucius's family). (See also the discussion of Ralph Weber's later post, as well.) At that time, some commentators on the blog said that they felt "fundamentalism" was inapt. Prompted by having to write a review of Jiang Qing's A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China's Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future (Princeton, 2013), I would like to revisit this general question, being more specific both about what "fundamentalism" means and about the target of my analysis: not the broad group of signers of earlier petitions, but specifically Jiang Qing as he represents himself in this new book.
First, "fundamentalism." One important source is The Fundamentalism Project, a large comparative study (see Almond et al 1995). According to Mårtensson et al (2011, 8), the main conclusion of this research is "that there is a 'family resemblance' between certain religious movements, which share most of the following nine characteristics:
a response to religion's social marginalisation;
the selective use of tradition and modernity;
moral dualism;
absolutism and inerrancy of essential texts;
millennialism;
elect membership;
sharp boundaries;
authoritarian organisation;
and strict behavioural requirements."
Although it is often observed that fundamentalism is a reaction against one or more features of modernity, Mårtensson et al (2011, 10) observe that "is not specifically linked to modernity, but to ideologically-grounded strategies and methodologies related to community, state and nation formation; hence, we see the impetus of 'formation' and 're-formation' as the force that explains the traits observed by the Fundamentalism Project, all of which are related to the drawing of boundaries." This idea is related to Malise Ruthven's observation that "fundamentalism may be defined as tradition made self-aware and consequently defensive" (2007, 11), although Ruthven's phrasing is too loose to be used as a strict definition.
Turn now to Jiang Qing. The term "fundamentalist" (yuanzhijiaozhe) is regularly attached to his name in current Chinese-language debates about his proposals. Is it appropriate? I begin by noting that readers of Jiang's work cannot help being struck by his authorial voice. Jiang is confident that he has grasped the way forward for Confucianism, and claims to speak for "China's Confucianism" as a whole (2013, 47-8; 161). His new book contains critical essays by several other contemporary scholars; despite several of these critics' deep sympathy for Confucianism, Jiang announces that their ideas "largely reflect the position of liberalism" (161). The key reason for this, I submit, is the critics' general acceptance of what Rawls dubs "the fact of pluralism." Acceptance of pluralism does not make one a Rawlsian, since that acceptance can take many forms, but Jiang insists that in order to avoid moral anarchy, "any human society must establish one comprehensive, systematic, leading, orthodox set of values for human and social betterment" (164). This central assumption helps to explain why both Bai Tongdong and Li Chenyang refer to Jiang as a "radical"; Bai perceptively suggests that Jiang's radicalism has remained consistent throughout his life, even though his commitment has shifted from Marxism to Confucianism (115).
Jiang's insistence that societies require a single, comprehensive set of values does not yet make him a fundamentalist; indeed, it does not distinguish him from most Chinese political thinkers, traditional or modern. [1] Jiang is a paradigmatic example of someone deeply immersed in what Thomas Metzger calls "Discourse #1," according to which "knowledge is available with which to arrive at a rational solution for all major political problems, and the moral-intellectual virtuosi sincerely trying to obtain this knowledge can be publically identified." Note that Metzger uses "rational" very broadly, consciously intending it to encompass Confucian epistemologies, though Jiang might still object. Metzger argues that Chinese political thinking of all political camps over the last century has exhibited striking continuity with basic orientations of earlier Chinese thinking, and that all join in rejecting what he calls the "Great Modern Western Epistemological Revolution," according to which there are deep limits to the kinds of knowledge available to us.
If Jiang's rejection of genuine pluralism does not make him a fundamentalist, it is time to turn to the various criteria outlined above and see whether they apply. After all, despite Jiang's claim to be developing a "traditionalism," his is a form of thought rendered intelligible only as the conscious response of a tradition deeply threatened by modernity (206-7). In other words, Jiang's Confucianism is a double-negative: a negation of modernity's negation (as he sees it) of Confucian tradition. Only in this way do terms critical to Jiang's project, such as "religion," "legitimacy," and "constitution" make their way into his language. In addition, both the explicit content of his writings and their tone tend to resist open engagement with other positions. In the volume's forty-seven page "Reply to Critics," Jiang makes no concessions and suggests no middleground. He argues that only "scholars" are able to access the true meaning of the Confucian textual canon; for others, the proper attitude to the tradition's teachings is "faith" (175-6; 190). This special ("mystical") access justifies confident, even dogmatic assertions. Although there is surely room for debate and further nuance, I tentatively conclude that Jiang is indeed a fundamentalist.
[1] Jiang says that Confucianism does embrace a healthy kind of pluralism (or at least tolerance), so long as the non-leading values each acknowledge their subsidiary and private role, vis-à-vis the leading, official role of Confucianism. He finds evidence for this in the general acceptance in contemporary China of the erection of statues of Confucius on university campuses: "the reason is because in China the non-Confucians are very clear in their minds that Confucianism is a public value with political significance" (170).
Almond, Gabriel A., Emmanuel Sivan and R. Scott Appleby (1995). "Fundamentalism: genus and species." In Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). Fundamentalisms Comprehended. Vol. 5 of The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 399– 424.
Jiang Qing (2013). A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China's Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future. Translated by Edmund Ryden. Edited by Daniel A. Bell and Ruiping Fan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mårtensson, Ulrika; Bailey, Jennifer; Ringrose, Priscilla; and Dyrendal, Asbørn (2011). "Introduction: Fundamentalism, Politics and History: The State, Globalistion, and Political Ideologies." In Mårtensson, Ulrika; Bailey, Jennifer; and Ringrose, Priscilla (eds.). International Library of Political Studies : Fundamentalism in the Modern World, Volume 1 : Fundamentalism, Politics and History : The State, Globalisation and Political Ideologies. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011, p 8.
Thomas Metzger (2005). A Cloud Across the Pacific. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Ruthven, Malise (2007). Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This entry was posted in Chinese philosophy - 中國哲學 - 中国哲学, Comparative Political Theory, Contemporary Confucianism, Jiang Qing, Politics by Steve Angle. Bookmark the permalink.
22 thoughts on "Jiang Qing and Fundamentalism"
Bill Haines on July 2, 2013 at 6:36 pm said:
I guess I think "__ian fundamentalism" is any view that latches on to some views or texts as axiomatic, not to be questioned, which have little semblance of any, er, objective claim to such status, and which are supposed to give broad guidance in life. So, Steve, your argument in the last half of the last paragraph seems to me to appeal to just the right criteria.
I'm not so sure about the argument in the first half of that paragraph – that begins "If Jiang's rejection…". I don't quite see how a rejection of modernity, or a rejection of the rejection of tradition, would be directly relevant to being a fundamentalist or not. When I ask myself – a priori, as usual – what it might be to be a "traditionalist" as opposed to being a "fundamentalist," what comes to mind is that it would involve (a) some plausible non-circular argument for the general authority of tradition (or for one's own tradition), and/or (b) a broad conception of what might be endorsed by tradition (or one's own tradition): not a definite list of tenets or texts. What traditions generally endorse is many values that are in some conflict with each other, and someone who recognizes this as she defends the general authority of tradition perhaps shouldn't be called a "fundamentalist."
As for letting the Fundamentalism Project's list inform what we should mean by "fundamentalist" – at first glance that whole approach to the use of such a term strikes me as being wrongheaded. Maybe later I'll try to figure out why.
Steve Angle on July 2, 2013 at 9:48 pm said:
Hi Bill, Thanks! It seems to me that the two worries you express, in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, have the same cause: seeing fundamentalism as a purely epistemic stance, rather than seeing it as a broader sociological phenomenon. You could be right that there is nothing to be learned from the comparative religionists' approach, if indeed the broader category that they have constructed has little or no explanatory value. I'm currently of the view that there *is* something to their concept of "fundamentalist," and that the fact that we see self-conscious embracing of (particular strands of) tradition in Jiang Qing and in Sayyid Qutb, for example, are to be explained in somewhat similar ways.
Amod Lele on July 3, 2013 at 7:40 am said:
I am skeptical of the Fundamentalism Project's kind of use of "fundamentalism". To me it smacks too much of "a fundamentalist is defined as anybody more theologically conservative than I am."
Most generally, I tend to expect that whenever someone trots out the idea of "family resemblances", it's because they are trying to defend an incoherent concept that obscures understanding more than it clarifies and hope that citing Wittgenstein will allow them to get away with doing so. And several of the particular "resemblances" identified here confirm that.
"A response to religion's social marginalisation" – well, surely that's something you pretty much need to do if you identify yourself as "religious". "The selective use of tradition and modernity": sorry, everybody does that in one way or another, with perhaps the arguable exception of those who attempt to reject all tradition at all. If "self-conscious embracing of tradition" is something that makes you a fundamentalist, the Dalai Lama and John Spong and Thich Nhat Hanh are all fundamentalists.
I think the term "fundamentalism" is far more useful when it's kept close to its original Christian meaning, which focused on scriptural inerrancy and literalism. That meaning fits the original Protestant context and also applies quite well to Islam. I'm the first to admit I don't know anything about Jiang, but I would be quite surprised to hear he takes the Confucian classics literally.
Matthew Cooper on July 3, 2013 at 8:23 am said:
I think the definition provided by the Fundamentalism Project leaves a great deal to be desired, in part because it ignores the specifically Christian, specifically Protestant and specifically American provenance and history of the term and in part because many of its criteria are, as mentioned by the other commenters here, are either far too vague or misleading. There is a substantial difference-in-kind between the projects of Lyman Stewart and Sayyid Qutb on the one hand, and Kang Youwei on the other, which I believe you are collapsing needlessly here. I also believe it is an error to conflate traditionalists with fundamentalists, so obviously the definition of each needs to be parsed with greater clarity.
Having read A Confucian Constitutional Order and The Renaissance of Confucianism in Contemporary China, a theme that kept cropping up was that Jiang does not argue for a single absolute and infallible interpretation of the texts he uses, but holds a 'lower-critical' view (to import the Protestantese theological term) that various hermeneutics and interpretive 'schools' for the same texts exist by necessity. (Obviously Jiang argues that some of these 'schools' are better-equipped and have more explanatory power than others, but that makes him no more a fundamentalist than me or you.)
In short, in Jiang's view, the Classics do not reference themselves and are not subject to a single infallible reading.
Given this, I don't see how the reading of Jiang-as-fundamentalist really holds water.
Bill Haines on July 3, 2013 at 8:33 am said:
I'm posting this before reading several other posts that have just appeared.
I didn't mean to suggest that "there is nothing to be learned from the comparative religionists' approach"! What I said was that letting the Fundamentalism Project's list inform what we should mean by the term seems to me wrongheaded. I said that that sort of approach to such terms seems to me wrongheaded. (Also I don't know whether the comparative religionists have taken that approach. It's a certain special use of their list.)
But why does it seem to me wrongheaded? I mean, we have learned to think that terms for phenomena carry promissory notes – they promise to refer to whatever natural kinds sort of match what we already think the terms refer to. So why not this term too?
I don't yet have a full reply. But suppose we found a strong correlation between having a certain view of the Bible and living in a trailer park. Should we thenceforth regard living in a trailer park as part of the cluster meaning of the term we had been using for that view of the Bible? I'll be that move strikes you as wrongheaded. Such a use of the FP's list seems to me, well, similar in kind.
I still haven't quite figured out what my reasons are. I think they have something to do with having a kind of respect for fundamentalism as a position – the kind of respect that goes with maintaining a willingness to talk with, not just about, fundamentalists.
Most of the items on the List could be thought of as positions – maybe all; I can't tell from here. Still, my gut sense is that many of these are not the kinds of things that a fundamentalist would typically avow as being inherent to fundamentalism: to the aspects of her position that she would mean to be naming by that term.
I don't know how broadly the FP cast its comparative net: whether, for example, they looked at religions that aren't Christianity, aren't Abrahamic, aren't theistic, don't believe in the overwhelming importance of life after our upcoming death. Some of their results could come from common features other than fundamentalism of the religions they looked at, such as the idea that an objective up/down moral fact about us is of the greatest causal importance, as it determines what happens to us after our upcoming death.
I think part of my feeling is that it's deeply intellectually important to respect and preserve whatever transparency there is in our language – in our phrases and words. Fundamentalism is about fundamentality and it's an ism. (The current use of the term 'comparative philosophy' should stick in one's mental craw. 'Pineapple' we can put up with; maybe because it couldn't mislead anybody – except people just learning the language.) I'm inclined to think that's how fundamentalists understand the term.
So yes, I suppose it is an "epistemic" position, so long as we understand that that doesn't mean it's just about theoretical rather than practical fundamentals.
Bill Haines on July 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm said:
Amod, I think your criticism of the FP list considered as a definition of fundamentalism looks like a pretty good criticism of my definition too. You wrote, "To me it smacks too much of 'a fundamentalist is defined as anybody more theologically conservative than I am.'"
I had suggested defining fundamentalism as "any view that latches on to some views or texts as axiomatic, not to be questioned, which have little semblance of any, er, objective claim to such status, and which are supposed to give broad guidance in life." – and I alleged that that was a respectful approach.
Maybe my proposal can be fixed by replacing "which have little semblance of any objective claim to such status" with "and not because they seem to be inherently reasonable."
Thanks everyone for these comments! These are just what I was hoping for to help me think about what one might be claiming in calling Jiang Qing a fundamentalist. As I mentioned above, many in China today, from Jiang himself to various supports and critics, refer to him as a 原指教者, a term that was coined as a translation of "fundamentalist," so one dimension of the issue I'm raising is thinking about what might be at stake in the deployment of this term in China.
Even if we set China aside, though, I'd be tempted to push back a bit at Matthew's desire to confine the category more narrowly to a Christian, Protestant, American origins of the term. After all, it sounds like Matthew is comfortable seeing both Lyman Stewart and Sayyid Qutb as sharing enough to talk about together, yet Qutb is obviously neither Christian, Protestant, nor American. So what is it that they have in common? A complicated question, to be sure, but I'm not sure we can find it in a precise epistemic stance, although I definitely agree that epistemology (broad, not just concerned with theoretical knowledge) is part of the picture. Matthew suggests that Kang Youwei is too different from Stewart and Qutb to count as whatever they are. I agree. (Though we could certainly talk about why.) My question is whether Jiang Qing is also too different to count; my tentative suggestion is that we actually learn important things about him and his views, and about his supporters, and about China and the potential roles of Confucianism in China (and perhaps the world) in the future, through this comparison.
I admire and agree with Bill's point about respecting and being willing to talk with "fundamentalists," however defined. I don't just want to talk and respect differences, though: I believe that there are some worrying aspects of Jiang Qing's approach to Confucianism, both in terms of method and contents, and I believe it's important to engage with these issues – both frankly and respectfully. It's a wide open question whether Confucianism, in some sense, will be able to play a positive role in China's and the world's future.
There's more to say, but if I don't post now it'll probably not be until tomorrow; happy Independence Day to everyone in the US!
Thanks for the reply, Steve! I'd just like to make a quick clarification here, which perhaps I should have done earlier: I do not believe fundamentalism to be solely Christian, solely Protestant or a solely American phenomenon. But I think ignoring the history of the word can lead to confusion about its use (as it seems to be doing here). Hence my willingness to describe Stewart and Qutb in the same terms. And absolutely my post was an invitation to talk about what these two thinkers may share which religious and traditionalist Confucians like Kang Youwei do not.
To be more explicit than my last post, I believe fundamentalists may reject certain modernist conclusions, but they operate on an ontological perspective which is pretty much lifted wholesale from modernism. The original fundamentalists following Lyman Stewart insisted that the Protestant Biblical canon should be intellectually assented to as factual in the scientific sense, reflecting a fear that if the Bible were interpreted in non-literal (read also as: non-modernist) ways, it would lose its claims to truth as constructed along Baconian lines.
On the other hand, traditionalists tend to argue that even this reductive ontological orientation cedes altogether too much to modernity – this is a school of traditional religious thinking whose secular American analogues are to be found in books like Ideas Have Consequences and The Closing of the American Mind.
Note that these traditionalists are as a consequence far less given to political violence, intimidation and power-plays to achieve their ends, and also tend to be far more critical of disparities in modern economic and political institutions, in ways which overlap with the concerns of the left, than fundamentalists are. You don't see the Salafis protesting against privatised oil industries or water services in the Arab world, for example – though certain other Islamic traditionalists (in Iran, in Syria and in Libya) have been known to participate in such movements.
I'll be blunt here and say that I simply do not see the same ontology at work in the work of Jiang Qing, which I think makes for a massive difference-in-kind from Lyman's fundamentalism. As I said before, he is willing to accept the existence and necessity of multiple different schools of interpretation of key Confucian texts, and even to accept the idea that more than one of them might be valid (though he obviously prefers his own political interpretation of the Chunqiu).
I agree that there are certain aspects of Jiang Qing's approach which are shaky at best and possibly dangerous in their consequences – in particular his readings of other religious teachings and traditions, which he views as monolithic in a way he clearly doesn't regard Confucianism. But he is willing to assert a Confucian doctrine which is critical of the structural inequities associated with modern Western capitalism (which it needs to be; Confucius and Mencius did not have many positive things to say about those whose primary motivation is profit), whilst remaining agnostic on the benefits of democratic rule.
James Bernard on July 5, 2013 at 2:13 am said:
I wonder if a fundamentalist movement as a social phenomenon is possible without a religious identity. Adherents of Christianity self-identify as Christians, adherents of Buddhism as Buddhists, and so forth. But a belief in Confucian virtues or rituals rarely translates into being Confucian. Confucianism has existed as a state ideology, a social class (in the form of the scholar-gentry), and an ethical code, but rarely as a label for self-identification.
A few exceptions come to mind, and Jiang Qing is one example, but self-identification still remains rare outside of academia. Can "fundamentalist" Confucians exist without a community of Confucians?
Manyul Im on July 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm said:
Interesting point, James, though I would put it more as a point about the nature of religious identity. In Western religions, it's often that religious self-identity involves both social and ethical code as well as a hearty commitment to "credo" to a set of doctrines — maybe even epistemological axioms — that define the identity. Religious identity in lay Buddhism and Confucianism seems less dependent on credo and epistemology and more on practices and ritual — explicit self-identification aside.
baitongdong on July 6, 2013 at 6:47 am said:
A small correction: JQ claimed himself to be a radical liberal (and perhaps "cultural Christian")–who probably believed, among other things, that liberal democracy can only be possible in a Christian soil, but now he is a traditionalist. But a central thesis of his hasn't changed: liberal democracy is rooted in Christianity. This is a rather common view among some Chinese liberals. By accepting Rawls's argument for political liberalism/pluralism, I find this view false.
Hi Baitongdong,
Thanks for this – I have never heard that view! I'm really curious to know what the line of thinking is.
Sorry, I mean the view that liberal democracy expresses a specifically Christian outlook. I find it astonishing.
Is the view mainly about liberties, or mainly about democracy, or both? For both liberty and democracy, it seems to me the defenses that should come to mind first have nothing to do with such core Christian ideas as God, Jesus, the afterlife, sin, salvation, or the Church; and I don't see offhand how those Christian ideas could help. I can see how they could hurt.
Sam on July 9, 2013 at 9:05 pm said:
I'm thinking Jiang is, at base, a nationalist. His rather obvious anxieties about "Western" cultural assault on China, and the necessity to reclaim "tradition" as a bulwark against cultural extinction, is a rather common trope among cultural nationalists everywhere. And, of course, there is an additional irony there: the very notion of "nation," and thus all nationalist projects, are themselves an effect of modernization(if we follow Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner, and not Liah Greenfeld here). So, Jiang's attempt to resuscitate "tradition" cannot escape the modernity he seems to despise.
Bill Haines on July 10, 2013 at 7:39 am said:
In arguing against a kind of communism, Mengzi is reported to have said: "I have heard of using our culture to transform the uncivilized, but I have not heard of being transformed by the uncivilized. … In the current case, some twittering southern uncivilized person opposes the Way of the former kings, and you turn your back on your teacher and learn from him." (吾聞用夏變夷者,未聞變於夷者也。… 今也南蠻鴃舌之人,非先王之道,子倍子之師而學之… 3A4, Van Norden). I take it that when Mengzi says he has heard of A but not of B, he is talking mainly about which of them is the received dictum, not about what has in fact happened.
A trope common among nationalists can also be common among others, and I wonder whether anxiety about alien influence has to be a sign of nationalism or modernity. The difference between Mengzi and Jiang here might be that Jiang takes Chinese culture to be one of several analogous cases: cultures on a par with each other in some sense. I wonder whether the long Confucian resistance to Buddhism also took such a view? I don't know.
Somewhere this year I read that someone argues that pre-Qin Chinese political thought was "modern" or "postmodern" (I forget which; I don't think with those terms). Can't find it now.
Matthew Cooper on July 10, 2013 at 9:47 am said:
I'm not quite sure that's a given, Sam.
First, merely asserting a Sittlich identity over-against the ravages of Western liberal modernity does not make one, by that fact alone, a nationalist. A good Western example of this is Metternich, who had all manner of criticism for political liberals and constitutionalists and yet remained fervently anti-nationalist, largely for the reasons you describe.
Second, it would be a bit disingenuous to deny that there has been (and it is arguable that there still is) an Anglo-American, at least, cultural (and economic, and political) assault on China going back to the Opium Wars, and that one of the ramifications of that cultural assault was the growth of the ideology of nationalism as represented by Sun Yat-sen (among many others, including some in the Self-Strengthening Movement and the FoRH).
Nationalism as an ideology in China, whether of the liberal-conservative variety typical of the KMT or the far-left Maoist variety typical of certain elements of the CCP, traces its roots definitively back to Sun Yat-sen, the 'founder' of the Chinese nation. By contrast, Jiang Qing says himself, and others who study Mainland China New Confucianism in depth (including Bell) say about him, that he is following directly in the footsteps of Sun Yat-sen's intellectual rival Kang Youwei – I think this can only make sense if he is doing so over-against the Three Principles of the People (popular rule, popular rights and the people's welfare) which form the basis for all Chinese nationalism worthy of the name.
(Indeed, his arguments against absolute political equality and against the very notion of popular sovereignty, for which you yourself have had occasion to critique him, seem to be aimed specifically at undermining the ideological basis for and promoting a sort of scepticism about the Three Principles.)
Yes, certainly I agree with you that he does care about preserving a Confucian culture – again, as did Kang Youwei – in the face of Westernisation. But to call him a 'cultural nationalist' based on that fact alone is to distort the right meaning of 'nationalist' beyond useful recognition, at least in the terms of modern Chinese politics. I think to make that case, you would have to argue from Jiang's writing that the Confucian religious norms he is prescribing for China's public sphere are specifically and inescapably oriented to the sole benefit of the Han ethnicity inside China, or of the speakers of Chinese language(s).
Sam on July 10, 2013 at 10:19 pm said:
I find your "right meaning of 'nationalist'" too restrictive. Clearly, Chinese nationalism has expressed itself in forms other than Sun's Three Principles. Indeed, the particular content of the "nation" is variable and fluid, or that is what I draw from Gellner and Anderson and others. Jiang is a nationalist because he is attempting to define, and defend, the "nation" – a term that did not exist in Chinese before the 19th century (see Zhao Suisheng on "zhonghua minzu") And he is doing so by creating a particular, and in some cases peculiar, content for the "nation." Indeed, he is a good example of the invention of tradition insofar as he seems just to be making up the whole tricameral legislative thing (I don't know where that is mentioned in the "tradition").
I guess my major issue with your argument here, again, Sam, is that you appear to be glossing over the content of Jiang's objections to placing the locus of political legitimacy precisely in the zhonghua minzu, but rather in a group of sacral scholars who can rightly interpret and exercise the wangdao (a political term to which he assigns far more weight than minzu). It is this distinction which makes me think that 'nationalist' is as much an inappropriate description as 'fundamentalist'.
It strikes me that you can't have it both ways, on the one hand writing Jiang off as undemocratic for arguing against the philosophical basis for the popular sovereignty of 'the nation', and on the other hand writing him off as a nationalist for trying to assert a rather unorthodox (to these Anglo-American eyes, anyway) notion of 'the nation' against liberal capitalist ideology.
And his proposals for a Confucian constitutional order don't strike me as particularly problematic from a traditionalist perspective, in part because all traditionalist institutions and loci of meaning and legitimacy have already been systematically compromised by the Cultural Revolution. If one wants to rebuild a political order based on Confucian mores, rites and music, one won't succeed without some level of reinterpretation. All tradition is reinterpretation to some degree (though in my view that doesn't render it either meaningless or superfluous): what the Roman Catholic Church ended up becoming was hardly what St Paul and St Peter had envisioned (from an institutional perspective), and yet it is unquestionably a body which can lay legitimate claim to a hermeneutic of continuity in Christian teaching going back to its founders.
I guess the most basic smell test is this. Would you consider Gandhi a 'cultural nationalist', to be described on the same grounds that you describe Jiang? Gandhi also clearly had 'anxieties' about British rule and cultural influence in India. He also tried to reclaim an Indian Sittlich identity and 'tradition', and even more dangerously tried to rearticulate it as economic self-sufficiency from Britain using handicrafts and small-scale technologies. He obviously didn't fully succeed in completely rejecting Western influence, either, given that he was inspired by the work of GK Chesterton and Lev Tolstoy, among others.
But it seems to me that dismissing Gandhi as a 'cultural nationalist' elides a great deal about his work and beliefs. It is also rendered analytically useless in the context of Indian politics by the fact that it places him in the same category as his assassin.
By extension, I think much more care needs to be taken in doing the same with Jiang.
Jiang is certainly a traditionalist, or at least fancies himself one; and he is certainly illiberal in the sense that he regards the project of Western modernity with suspicion.
But 'fundamentalist', to me, carries basic connotations of literal textual analysis, intellectual assent to textual infallibility and inerrancy, and a Baconian ontology which reduces all truth-value to a single dimension of sensory fact. I find no evidence of this in Jiang's writing, and indeed several places (particularly his discourse on the 'transcendent') where fundamentalist thinking is explicitly rejected.
Likewise with nationalism. Nationalism relies definitionally on the idea that a certain 'native right and might' (to use Brownson's phrase) is vested in a particular ethnic or linguistic group as a whole. Granted, the contents of this 'native might and right' can change, rendering nationalism more-or-less benign or psychotic and murderous. But I do not see Jiang arguing in these terms, and indeed I think there are certain elements of his argumentation which come down against them.
Sam on July 13, 2013 at 3:45 am said:
Gandhi is an interesting figure. He might be seen as anti-imperialist but not nationalist. It was pretty clear that his post-independence vision for India was not in keeping with nationalists in the Congress Party (who, like most nationalists, had a rather strong modernizing project). "Village Swaraj," Gandhi's aspiration, rejected most aspects of modernization (mass industrialization; urbanization; etc.). And there is really nothing in the logic of "village swaraj" that requires the "nation" as a political expression of a particular community. Gandhi certainly rejected Hindu nationalism; indeed, he was killed by a Hindu nationalist zealot. Thus, I do not see Gandhi as a "cultural nationalist." But we are wandering from this blog's main purpose….
Phil H on July 13, 2013 at 12:37 pm said:
I've gone and looked at the older posts, and one thing that strikes me about this whole discussion is that no-one has acknowledged explicitly the most important aspect of the word "fundamentalist": it is a derogatory term (in English). Obviously it's not just an empty insult; it has some content, related to the ideas that are listed in Steve's post. But any usage of the term must be understood first and foremost as a rhetorical denunciation, and only secondarily as a substantive comment on the nature of the group/thought to which it is applied.
So I find an analysis of "fundamentalist" groups a bit of an unhelpful starting point. It's not so much, "anyone more conservative than me"; it's "anyone whom I have chosen to denounce/insult as more conservative than me". It's fundamentally (sorry) a wrongheaded place to begin thinking.
All of these terms a pretty loaded, in fact. Conservative is an odd one to be using, given that one of the criteria listed is "selective use of tradition and modernity". Personally, most of these terms lead me to first take a long hard look at the person using them, and user's (perceived) position within the user's own ideological/religious/political framework, before I could even begin to try to assess what the words might or might not say about their target.
So the use of "fundamentalist" by Peng appears to have been a denunciation/distancing technique – and that's an interesting thing, though I don't know who Peng is. The use by Jiang of the Chinese term to describe himself is much more interesting: is he using it as a badge, or merely as an attempt to describe his approach to texts/tradition?
Bill Haines on July 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm said:
My concern about respect, which I didn't adequately present above, was not about whether Steve or others in fact think fundamentalists are to be spoken with or not; it was about trying to define fundamentalism by looking for a cluster of properties that has "explanatory value" in case the main kind of explanation contemplated is causal, e.g. sociological, explanation of events involving "fundamentalists." To define the term in that way would approach it from the point of view of talking about rather than with them.
The kind of respect I'm concerned with is of course consistent with having a low opinion of their view, of fundamentalism in general or of __ian fundamentalism. But I meant to be defining it in a way that fundamentalists could accept as a self-description. I think it's not so uncommon for fundamentalist Christians to accept the term.
Here's my definition again, with another layer of derogatoriness scrubbed away:
X-ian Fundamentalism is any view that takes as axiomatic, not to be questioned, some (approximately: the) standardly X-ian views or texts, and not because they seem to be inherently reasonable; supposing that they give broad guidance in life.
Fundamentalism is any view more conservative than Bill Haines' view.
Of course, views that fit account (B) need not fit (A) — nor vice versa (unless we're defining 'conservative' in a certain very abstract and purely epistemic way). Also, (A) makes fundamentalism ism-relative, while (B) doesn't.
Both accounts make the term derogatory in that to call someone a "fundamentalist" in that sense is to imply that she is in some way wrong. In particular:
To call someone a "fundamentalist(B)" is to say that one disagrees with her (though one may be correct in calling her a "fundamentalist(B)" even if her view is completely correct and reasonable).
And to call someone a "fundamentalist(A)" is to say that she is being unreasonable about what's basic (though it does not imply that any of her substantive views are false).
Sam: To call someone a "fundamentalist(A)" is not to say that she believes only what is actually included in her scripture: on the contrary, she reasons from the scripture to further conclusions. Also, of course, it is not to say that she reasons well from her scripture.
I want to raise a couple of problems for my account (A).
Suppose you think the Bible is all axiomatic because it's revealed by God, and suppose that (i) you accept God by faith, which you grant to be unreasonable, or alternatively (ii) you think that by your personal encounter with God you know that God is real (and gave us the Bible). In both of cases (i) and (ii), you do not take the Bible as axiomatic, strictly speaking. You derive the reliability of the whole thing from a few other premises. In case (ii), you don't even think your premises are unreasonable. And they may even be reasonable, depending on your experiences.
Still I think we want to say that in both cases (i) and (ii) the Bible is taken as pretty much axiomatic—even though its derivation from other things is crystal clear and salient. Why do we want to say that? I think it has to do with the otherworldliness ("transcendence" if you like) of the argument for the Bible.
What would be the parallel move in Confucianism? I mean, parallel to (i) or (ii). Something about a sage or sages endorsing the classics? (There's also a difficulty about what it would mean to take the Book of Odes as axiomatic.)
Let's give Confucianism a third move—(iii): We trust the classics because after decades of immersion in the classics (or something like that) we find them inherently reasonable.
Now: that view is no longer "fundamentalist" by my account (A), not even if we change "axiomatic" to "pretty much axiomatic." Indeed it brings out a problem with my term "inherently reasonable."
I wrote just above:
Note the difference between that view and (iv) the same move minus the word 'inherently'. Move (iv) would give Confucianism a view analogous to that of, say, the science of chemistry. After immersion in the data, one might find the principles of chemistry reasonable; but one doesn't, or anyway shouldn't, find them inherently reasonable. One might hope to explain, more or less, the reasonableness of accepting any particular principle on the basis of identifiable data and widely accepted canons of good thinking.
Here's a fifth move for Confucianism: (v): We trust the classics because after decades of immersion in the classics (or something like that), one simply trusts the classics.
That's fundamentalism, I think.
Leave a Reply to Amod Lele Cancel reply


text:
Home » Good Things in Small Packages
Good Things in Small Packages
by Lynn Petrak
The novelty hasn't worn off for those looking for treats that are rewarding, indulgent or better for them.
Maybe it's because it reminds people of the thrill they felt when the ice cream truck came down their street. Perhaps it's because it is a treat just for them. It could be the fun shape and size, or the fact that it is as convenient as it is enjoyable.
To be sure, the single-serving frozen dessert holds a special place in many Americans' hearts — and freezers. From bars to cones to tiny coated pieces, novelties are available in a broad range of formats and flavors these days to appeal to a customer base that extends from toddlers to seniors. "It's a treat for yourself — every time you have one, it is a reward. And if you think about it, no one ever complains about ice cream and novelties," says Suzanne Ginestro, brand manager for the new Dibs™ line from Oakland, Calif.-based Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings Inc.
Laura Hindulak, marketing director for Pierre's French Ice Cream Co., Cleveland, agrees that the appeal of novelties is basic. "Novelty treats are fun and exciting, and are equally popular among consumers of any age," she says. "They are a great avenue for providing delicious tasting, portion-controlled treats that are unique and satisfying."
Consumers spend more than $2.2 billion a year on novelties, according to data from Chicago-based Information Resources Inc, (IRI). The Washington, D.C.-based International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) reports that 62 percent of American households purchase novelties on a yearly basis.
That said, the latest market surveys indicate a slight melting of sales. Compared to last year's figures, sales of frozen novelties for the last 12 months dipped 2.9 percent, with six of the top 10 brands posting declines.
Even with overall sales in the negative territory for the first time in years, the category isn't in a total deep freeze, especially given the increasing diversity of product lines. The burgeoning youth market, for instance, is spurring all kinds of kid-friendly products. On opposite ends of the diet spectrum, the growth of better-for-you novelties and premium and superpremium novelties continues on parallel tracks (or, perhaps more appropriately, MooseTracks).
Top 10 Frozen Novelty
Brands*
$ Sales (in Millions) % Change vs. Year Ago Unit Sales (in Millions) % Change vs. Year Ago
Total Category $2,202.0 -2.9% 756.8 -3.2%
Private Label 330.1 -0.1 140.7 -0.3
Nestlé Drumstick 132.5 11.9 39.8 20.3
Klondike 126.1 -2.2 42.3 -4.5
Dreyer's/Edy's Whole Fruit 95.5 6.4 32.1 4.4
Popsicle 88.7 -4.5 34.2 -2.3
Weight Watchers Smart Ones 86.3 -23.4 21.2 -24.2
Silhouette 81.1 -29.7 18.2 -28.9
Häagen-Dazs 57.9 18.3 19.3 22.8
Klondike Carb Smart 56.7 70.2 15.1 67.9
Klondike Slim-a-Bear 49.5 -4.0 15.2 -2.4
*Total sales in supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers (excluding Wal-Mart) for the52-week period ending May 15, 2005.
SOURCE: Information Resources Inc.
Manufacturers, too, note the sheer growth of frozen novelties at the retail level bodes well for the category even as it ramps up competition. "Our novelty business is definitely trending up, and growth is attributed to line extensions and increased distribution of national brand novelties," reports Penny Baker, marketing manager for Smith Dairy Products Co., Orrville, Ohio, which markets a line of Ruggles™ novelties. "Look at the growth of the novelty section in the retail grocery store. Significant shelf space is dedicated to novelty products."
Form and Function
On the topic of trends, one of the most notable evolutions in the category has been the development of new forms of novelties. Representing the true shape of things to come, so to speak, is the new Dibs line from Dreyer's. Launched in May, Dibs are individual chocolate-coated pieces of ice cream sold in bright-red 60-count packages for retail and 26-count packages for convenience stores and concessions. "It basically breaks the mold of traditional ice cream," Ginestro says. "It's a great snack because everyone in the house will eat it and we have people grazing throughout the day as well as eating it at night for dessert."
Ginestro says the line represents an extensive —and expensive— investment by Dreyer's to carve out a new niche within the category. "Dibs is unlike anything we've ever done," she says, noting that the first concept test was done five years ago. "In terms of innovation required and capital investment, we spent more on Dibs than we did on our SlowChurned™ [light ice cream] product."
Now, several weeks after its quiet launch in store freezers, Dreyer's has rolled out an extensive marketing campaign to support the Dibs series, including advertising, public relations and sampling programs. "There has never been a launch this big in support with this many marketing dollars," Ginestro says.
According to Ginestro, the five Dibs varieties have already received positive buzz and repeat purchases. "Our initial research showed unbelievable test scores on purchase intent," she says. "And the line was out over a month without any awareness marketing tools, and people started picking it up right away."
Another example of the less-is-more approach to novelties is Nestlé Miniwiches, distributed by Dreyer's. The recently launched miniature ice cream sandwiches, available in 12-count packs, feature cookies and cream ice cream wrapped in chocolate cookie layers.
Beyond size, novelties are breaking out of the traditional mold in other ways. In the past year, more dessert-inspired novelties have hit the freezer. Häagen-Dazs, the upscale brand distributed by Dreyer's, recently developed a brownie bar, a chocolate brownie topped with vanilla ice cream and enrobed in Belgian milk chocolate and walnuts. The Blue Bunny line of novelties from LeMars, Iowa-based Wells' Dairy now includes a series of super-indulgent Ultimate Rewards™ dessert cups, with ice cream layered with mousses, sauces and candy toppings. And South Burlington, Vt.-based Ben & Jerry's has extended its popular Half Baked™ flavors from its hard-pack ice cream line, creating new Half Baked bars featuring chocolate and vanilla ice cream with fudge brownies and chocolate chip cookie dough.
Pierre's also has responded to consumer interest in indulgent, dessert-style products. Last spring the company introduced Premium Sundae Cones, with vanilla ice cream in chocolate lined waffle cones with fudge topping and roasted peanuts, and Moose Tracks® Sundae Cones with vanilla ice cream, fudge and peanut butter cups. "There will always be the need for full-fat, indulgent treats for those consumers who just want to splurge," Hindulak says.
Getting Better
Reflecting the American palate paradox, the other notable trend beyond indulgence has been the renewed focus on better-for-you novelties, from calcium-fortified ice cream desserts for kids to products with reduced sugar, fat and carbohydrates.
"You are seeing a plethora of frozen snacks going better-for- you," Ginestro says, citing new Skinny Cow and other better-for-you products distributed by Dreyer's parent Nestlé. "It's all about portion control —you don't have to worry about how much you are scooping." Dibs, too, she says, are appreciated by diet-conscious customers, because of the products' built-in portion control.
Several companies have recently beefed up their better-for-you novelty offerings. Pierre's has its Slender® No Sugar Added Reduced Fat Ice Cream products, including sundae cones, bars and sandwiches. Green Bay, Wis.-based Good Humor-Breyers, which has long pursued the better-for-you corner of the market, continues to offer new products, including CarbSmart™ Almond Bars, CalSmart™ Cups, Klondike® Slim-a-Bear Krunch Bars, and No Sugar Added SugarSmart™ Ice Cream Bars. Meanwhile, Blue Bunny has combined interest in both better-for-you and dessert-style treats with its new Sweet Freedom® Vanilla Sundae Cones.
Smith Dairy has heeded customer clamor for novelties without the guilt. The company now offers a no-sugar-added fudge pop and a sugar-free ice pop. According to Baker, the advent of better-for-you products reflects an ongoing category shift toward diversification. "One used to think of novelties as being marketed to kids only," she says. "But it seems that more items are being produced for an adult audience —sugar-free, low-carb, and no-sugar-added are geared more toward the health-conscious consumer."
Ginestro says if broad-based appeal is the key to the continued growth, success is a given. "I think kids love ice cream snacks because they are fun, but for adults it takes them back to when they were a kid," she says. "They have a feeling of nostalgia and fun."
Lynn Petrak is a freelance journalist based in the Chicago area.
$OMN_arttitle="Good Things in Small Packages";?>
Newsline: Heluva Good Hits the Small Screen
Dole shakes things up in this week's free-standing inserts
5 things to consider in dealing with changes to the Nutrition Facts label
The Public Role In The Dairy Economy: Why And How Governments Intervene In The Milk Business
Technological Interventions in Dairy Science: Innovative Approaches in Processing, Preservation, and Analysis of Milk Products
Impulse Ice Cream – Single Serve (Ice Cream) Market in the United States of America – Outlook to 2024...
Country Profile: Dairy & Soy Food Sector in the US
Unilever Canada Ltd./Good Humor-Breyers
Conagra Foods (Indianapolis, IN)
Dairy Farmers of America (Farmers, IN)


text:
Gospel and Christian Music
Joann Rosario and Cory Condrey Engaged!
Candace Walker
Cory "CoCo Brother" Condrey, my friend and the host of the Spirit which is based in Atlanta and gospel artist Joann Rosario known for her hit "More, More, More" are set to marry this December.
Condrey announced his pending nuptials on his radio show to all of his listeners recently. "I'm getting married Dec. 31," said Condrey. Condrey whose syndicated show "The Spirit" is designed to bridge the gap between the hip-hop and gospel worlds, went on to talk about his engagement to Rosario and how excited they are to be engaged.
Joann Rosario currently lives in Chicago and will be relocating to Atlanta to join her fiancé and future husband.
The two were familiar with each other due to the fact that Condry has played her music over the years and he even aired an interview of her that his producer conducted. However they did not meet until recently this year.
According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Rosario saw Condrey interviewing a mutual friend on a YouTube video and sent him an e-mail, thanking Condrey for his work in promoting good values and the gospel.
Condrey, who answers his e-mails personally, responded.
"He hit me back and said, 'I've heard a lot about you. We need to catch up,' said Rosario" states the article.
After that initial contact the two were joined together on a conference call by Rosario's friend and after weeks of phone calls and messages they met for dinner and viola now they are getting married!
So ladies and gentlemen these two individuals who I'm sure many people had their eye on, are officially off the market. The couple make a lovely pair and look beautiful together. They are both really warm and personable people. I have only interviewed Joann once at the Stellar Awards but she was so kind. I wish them both all the best that marriage has to offer.
The Spirit Website
Joann's Website
Cory and Joann's Wedding Site
Content copyright © 2021 by Candace Walker. All rights reserved.
This content was written by Candace Walker. If you wish to use this content in any manner, you need written permission. Contact Candace Walker for details.
A place to talk about the world of Gospel and Christian Music or anything you want to talk about!
Gospel and Christian Music Forum
My last article at Bellaonline
GLBC Dinner 2015
Love Beyond Walls Get on the Bus Project
New Venue for The Stellar Awards
Brittany Jester Single Impacts Radio
Subscribe for free weekly updates from this Gospel and Christian Music site.
Follow Gospel and Christian Music
Gospel and Christian Music Categories
Bella Music Sites
Christian Music Publications
Christian Sites & Music Sites @ Bella
Christian Sites @ Bella Online
Gospel/Christian Radio
Links For New Artist


As usual, Elephant gave us a wonderful and interactive story! There were a lot of collectibles: bird statues, morphing objects and puzzle pieces. You could customize your difficulty level, but no left-handed mode. The graphics were fantastic and the cut-scenes very realistic. All inventory was labeled and there were plus items to assemble. Loading was instantaneous between locations, and there was an excellent marked teleport map, if so customized. The HO scenes were varied, and I liked the puzzles and mini-games; it wasn't only boring rotational nonsense! There was no diary, but your objectives were regularly updated. The game flowed well and played flawlessly. It had an unusual bonus adventure, and there was a secret room.
Haunted Hotel Phoenix- flaming hot!
Elephant Games did a good job on this one. Patterned on the mystery trackers series, you investigate paranormal sightings but unlike MT, you don't get a cute helper like elf. Also I really wish there was a diary in this one. Has custom difficulty available and transporting indicated map, labeled inventory, plus items. No left handed mode no diary. Gameplay is smooth and logical, 21 morphing objects to find and collecting statues. Good game though. No vermin so far. Verdict: worth playing - UPDATE: I also deducted a star for shortness of the game. Although the end was definitely a plot twist it was rather abrupt. Still wish it had a diary.
Great point and click/hidden object game!
For the hidden object scenes you can zoom in. The "map" consists of pictures with flags letting you know what you need to do. You can tap a picture and go directly to the location. The story line is very intriguing and the music sets the mood. There are figurines to collect and of course morphing objects. The hint hourglass will point you in the right direction. No demons or aliens. Everything I like so far!


Matt Allen understands the paradox that accepting constraints can lead to increased freedom; it's odd, then, that he still looks back harshly on a priest's advice about the importance of Catholic Mass.
Why would Rhode Island Democrats insist on allowing bigotry to be a justification for killing an unborn child?
We recognize that this initiative requires ongoing effort, and we are committed to engaging with stakeholders to understand their perspectives and how to evolve our actions. We appreciate the continuous feedback and guidance from you and other experts and hope our combined efforts will continue to make a difference.
I replied, seeking to resolve my confusion. From the provided information, it appears that women are significantly over-represented in employment, restaurant management, and benefit from the company's scholarship program, at least in the United States. Shouldn't efforts at equity in our country therefore focus on men?
I received no reply, but I subsequently noticed that the online version emphasizes that, "30% of McDonald's Officer positions and 41% of staff positions at Director level and above are held by women globally," which seems like an indicator of the oddity of our time. I don't know whether the online release was changed in response to feedback like mine, but the possibility seems plausible. It isn't difficult to believe that a company, these days, would rather provide critics with evidence that it is currently an unequal workplace committed to change than to take credit for perhaps overdoing it in its zeal to comply with a fashionable ideology.
One consequence of our culture's adherence to this strange ideology is that a global company has incentive to introduce discrimination where there may be none to make up for opposite discrimination elsewhere. The way we're training ourselves to understand these issues thus leads us to combat injustice with injustice.


text:
We need truly impartial justices
On: September 28, 2018 October 21, 2018 By: Mark
Ugh! This is an appropriate word to describe yesterday's dueling testimonies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, first by Christine Blasey Ford then by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Yesterday will seem painfully familiar to those of us who remember Anita Hill's testimony during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings. Hill claimed that he sexually harassed her when he was in charge of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Yesterday's dueling testimonies though were a lot worse. While Anita Hill gave convincing testimony, Blasey Ford gave more convincing and far more damaging testimony. Later, Kavanaugh embarrassed himself by blaming Democrats and various other shadowy boogeymen, or maybe that was boogey-women, for what he said were wholly incorrect allegations. He even cried. He egregiously displayed the exact lack of judicial temperament, sobriety and impartiality that we should expect from a justice.
Of course that probably won't derail his confirmation, just as Anita Hill's merely postponed Clarence Thomas's. Trump sees Kavanaugh's fighting as a good thing. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee simply want to move his nomination forward, which they did today, when the obvious thing to do was to dig further. Later today, perhaps due to a heated encounter with two women, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake convinced the Senate to wait a week before voting on his final confirmation so the FBI can conduct a quick investigation on these many allegations. That's a small sign of progress, but one that probably won't keep him off the Supreme Court.
In Clarence Thomas's case, there was just one witness's testimony. While lurid, it was not exactly part of a pattern. That's not the case with Kavanaugh. Others have come forward and want to testify against him. One even signed a sworn affidavit that Kavanaugh was one of many men waiting outside a room where an inebriated and incapacitated woman was ravaged by many men when he was in college. Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge apparently liked those boozy times with Brett so much he wrote a book about it. For Kavanaugh to claim as he did yesterday that his drinking was never to excess is just laughable and arguably perjury, given so many people who were there who watched his behavior first hand and will testify otherwise.
You would think that no one would be nominated if they could not demonstrate not just sobriety, but a commitment to impartially interpreting the law. Impartiality would include finding for the defendant or plaintiff even if it contradicted your political leanings. There's little of this in Kavanaugh's record. He was picked because he demonstrated a sustained lack of impartiality, coming down repeatedly in a predictably conservative direction. Kavanaugh would not be the first; this tendency applies to nominees from both sides of the aisles. Arguably, Kavanaugh's nomination is the most egregious case we've seen in living memory, sans Robert Bork's nomination that was wisely rejected in 1987.
The Senate is more inclined to vote for impartial justices when the court's liberal or conservative balance is not an issue. Curiously, Obama's nominee Merrick Garland was precisely this sort of nominee, and he won bipartisan praise. Senate Republicans though simply refused to hold hearings. Given Justice Kennedy's tendency to straddle both sides of the court, more justices like him on the court are desperately needed. Ideally the entire court would be truly nonpartisan. No president should dare nominate someone who didn't have a history of balanced rulings.
Those days are thirty or more years in our past. It doesn't look like they will be coming back, which is tragic. Yet this is exactly what we need from a functional Supreme Court. Justices that fairly uphold the law, even if these laws are perceived as unfair, encourages Congress to update these laws. It's not the fault of those nominated to or serving on the bench, though. It's the fault of presidents who nominate people without these sorts of sterling qualifications.
President Obama did a fair job of providing nominees like this, and Garland was probably his best pick in this vein. Kavanaugh's nomination proves that Trump doesn't care about the Supreme Court's vital role to impartially render justice.
All we can do is hope that our next president will put the nation's need for fair and honest jurisprudence first. For a change, maybe we should vote for a candidate that pledges to do this, so we can have a meaningful and useful justice system again. It's quite clear that without it our nation is deeply disordered. Voters must do their part to restore a truly impartial judiciary.
A truly capital Fourth of July
It's a curious thing: I have lived in the Washington D.C. region since 1978 and…
How to truly value labor
Paul Ryan, former Republican vice presidential nominee and House Budget Committee chairman, has a new…
RIP Marion Barry, a man truly of the people
I was a bit surprised to read that former "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry passed…
Republicans are being politically stupid on the Kavanaugh nomination
It used to be that Republicans had something of a reputation for being politically astute.…
Can we skip 2017? And 2018-2020?
For the first time in my adult life, I won't be watching the inauguration tomorrow.…
Category: Politics 2018 Tagged Anita Hill, Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, Clarence Thomas, Merrick Garland, Partisanship, Republicans, Supreme Court


Spaceman Storage makes self storage in Whittier CA convenient and affordable. We have a nice variety of storage units available to help you store all the stuff you don't have room for at home.
We've been in the business of keeping your belongings safe and secure since 1986, so you know we have the experience and expertise needed to run a tight ship at our self storage in Whittier CA facility. You don't have to worry about unauthorized individuals accessing your storage unit and messing with your stuff. We have 24-hour video surveillance, plus a manager on-site to keep our facility secure and provide assistance when you need it.
Need Self Storage in Whittier CA?
At Spaceman Storage, we can accommodate almost any self storage needs you may have. If you're considering self storage in Whittier CA, be sure you pay us a visit. You'll be impressed by how much more stuff you can fit into our big, clean units than into our competitors' units. Our facility is secure enough to store your precious antiques and family heirlooms but also affordable enough to store your ordinary household stuff too.


REVAC 2016 – Southeast Asia's International Refrigeration, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning Show, the largest gathering point for the Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Industry's manufacturers, suppliers and vendors emerging, innovative and world-class technologies, products and services, offering unparalleled industry-targeted seminars and conferences to effectively introduce new offerings, increase brand awareness, promote products and connect with suppliers, customers and prospects.
The long awaited Southeast's Asia International Refrigeration, Ventilation & Air-Conditioning event, REVAC Show & Symposium 2016 has some of the HVACR BIGGEST BUSINESSES among the first committed to present in the show. Manufacturers, distributors have reserved their best location on the show floor, with many companies expecting to unveil all-new HVACR products and latest technology.
Thousands of industry professionals come to REVAC Show & Symposium to find everything from the basics to the latest innovations in Refrigeration, Ventilation & Air-Conditioning and also expanding to Air Quality Control, Filtration and Insulation. REVAC Show & Symposium 2016 brings the HVACR community together under one roof, providing opportunities to build successful business relationships. We hope to see you there!
In conjunction with ASEAN's Premier Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Show, REVAC Show & Symposium 2016 will be held at Kuala Lumpur Convention Center from 23 – 25 May 2016. Endorsed by Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) and supported by Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) and Malaysian Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Association (MACRA), the three-day event will see more than 350 exhibiting companies and expected 10,000 professionals trade visitors.


text:
Pere Cané i Barceló (Sant Martí de Provençals, 1 d'octubre de 1896 – Ciutat de Mèxic, 13 de novembre de 1973), també conegut com El Noi, va ser un obrer del ram del vidre i dirigent sindical de la Confederació Nacional del Treball. Entrà de ben jove en la lluita obrera de la mà de Joan Peiró, i va ocupar ben aviat càrrecs al sindicat. Més endavant va signar el Manifest dels Trenta, va participar als fets d'octubre de 1934 i durant la guerra civil va ser el darrer alcalde de Badalona del període entre 1938 i 1939.

Joventut
Va néixer l'1 d'octubre de 1896 al barri del Poblenou, però la infància i joventut la va passar a Badalona. Des de ben jove va ser un actiu lluitador del moviment obrer badaloní, d'ençà que va començar a treballar com a aprenent a la fàbrica de vidre Costa i Florit, on va mantenir una estreta relació amb el seu mestre d'ofici Joan Peiró, principal dirigent obrer del ram del vidre. Captivat per la personalitat de Peiró, en va ser deixeble i col·laborador. Ben aviat va ocupar responsabilitats sindicals, sempre a la Confederació Nacional del Treball. Va ser secretari de la Societat d'Obrers Vidriers i diverses vegades membre del Consell de la Federació Local, a més d'escriure diverses vegades al quinzenari La Colmena Obrera, òrgan de la federació, des de la seva edició el 1916.

El 1919 va marxar a Sevilla enviat per la Societat d'Obrers Vidriers per organitzar i potencia l'organització sindical de la ciutat. El desembre del mateix any va ser detingut i acusat de col·laborar en la col·locació d'una bomba a la fàbrica tèxtil La María. Va ser jutjat amb altres acusats com José Vicente Calero, Dolores Carmona, Eulalia Ordóñez o Carmen Fuentes, però finalment va ser absolut el 18 de gener de 1922. Acusat novament d'haver posat una bomba, aquesta vegada al domicili de José J. Lisen i d'haver-ne estat el cap, seguit de l'esmentat Calero, Luis Acedo i Joaquín Díaz Arias, va ser absolut de nou. De fet, se'l considerava cap d'un grup d'acció anomenat Los Charlots, format per diversos obrers locals.

Retorn a Badalona
El 1923 residia a Villaviciosa, però retornà a Badalona abans de la dictadura de Primo de Rivera. Entre els anys 1926 i 1927 entrà a formar part del Comitè Nacional Revolucionari de la CNT i dels grups anarquistes clandestins en contra de la dictadura. El maig de 1929 ha de fugir a França per complicitat en el complot organitzat per Fermín Galán. No obstant torna aviat, però és empresonat per la vaga de la metal·lurgia de la fàbrica Metalgraf.

El 1930, després de constituir-se de nou la CNT, presideix el Sindicat del Vidre de Badalona i el 1931 assisteix al Congrés Confederal Extraordinari de Madrid en representació dels sindicats de la pell, la fusta, l'alimentació i les arts gràfiques, a més de representar a Santa Coloma de Gramenet. El gener del mateix any és detingut amb Andrés García i Pablo Fortea, per celebrar una reunió clandestina; alliberats poc després.

Entrada la Segona República exerceix de secretari de la Federació de la CNT de Badalona, enquadrat en el sector moderat fou signant del Manifest dels Trenta. Això no obstant, fou expulsat de la CNT el desembre per ser contrari als acords regionals; el 1932 patia un atemptat i l'agost de 1933 esdevenia un dels fundadors dels Sindicats d'Oposició; mentrestant també fou funcionari de l'Ajuntament de Badalona.

L'octubre de 1934 és detingut, juntament amb Francesc Caballé i Pallàs i Joan Moreot i Peras, com a membre d'Aliança Obrera i com a cap de l'aixecament revolucionari; empresonat fins al març de 1935, l'agost tornava a la presó per complir condemna, sis mesos en total, acusat de desarmar els guàrdies municipals durant els fets revolucionaris.

Guerra civil
Durant la Guerra Civil fou secretari general de la Federació Nacional de la Indústria Vidriera i responsable de Sanitat i Assistència Social del Comitè de Salut Pública de Badalona. El 19 d'octubre de 1936, fruit de la renovació del consistori, era escollit regidor d'economia. Amb tot, quan Joan Peiró va ser nomenat ministre d'Indústria, aquest es va endur molts badalonins a treballar amb ell, entre els quals Cané, que va ocupar la subsecretaria d'Indústria, primer a Madrid i després traslladat a València, fins al maig de 1937. Finalment tornà a Badalona, on ocupà diversos càrrecs a l'Ajuntament; el 12 de maig de 1938 era nomenat alcalde de la localitat, però el gener de 1939 abandonà l'alcaldia i s'exilià a França, posteriorment a Mèxic.

Exili
En la postguerra col·laborà amb els antifeixistes i recolzà tesis circumstancialistes. A Mèxic feu costat a la plataforma de García Oliver, sent-ne sotssecretari en el ministeri Leiva del Govern de la República a l'Exili. Als anys seixanta passà a formar part de l'Agrupació de Militants de Mèxic i avalà les tesis del cincpuntisme; després col·lobarà en el butlletí de la dita agrupació.

En el seu exili, la seva companya fou Ramona Díaz Miravelles. Cané morí dos mesos després de jubilar-se, el 13 de novembre de 1973 a Ciutat de Mèxic.

Referències

Alcaldes de Badalona
Militants catalans de la CNT
Morts a Ciutat de Mèxic
Anarquistes barcelonins
Sindicalistes badalonins
Sindicalistes barcelonins
Exiliats del franquisme a Mèxic

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Ictidorhinus es un género extinto de terápsido biarmosuquio. Sus fósiles se han encontrado en la Zona faunística de Dicynodon en el Grupo Beaufort en la cuenca del Karoo, en Sudáfrica y datan del Pérmico Superior. Tenía un hocico corto y órbitas oculares proporcionalmente grandes. Estas características pueden indicar a un animal juvenil, posiblemente de Lycaenodon. Sin embargo, hasta donde se sabe estos dos géneros no fueron contemporáneos, lo que hace improbable que el material de Ictidorhinus sea una forma inmadura de Lycaenodon.

Ictidorhinus es el representante mejor conocido de la familia Ictidorhinidae, nombrada por el paleontólogo sudafricano Robert Broom en 1932. Muchos biarmosuquios habían sido identificados como ictidorrínidos desde que se nombró a esta familia, mayormente basándose en su pequeño tamaño. Varios biarmosuquios de Rusia fueron clasificados como ictidorrínidos basándose solo en huesos parciales de la mandíbula. Recientes análisis filogenéticos de los biarmosuquios han encontrado que Ictidorhinidae es una colección parafilética de especies que están por fuera del más derivado clado Burnetiamorpha.

Referencias

 Grupos de sinápsidos no mamíferos en Mikko's Phylogeny Archive

Enlaces externos
Ictidorhinus en Paleobiology Database

Véase también
 Anexo:Lista de sinápsidos

Biarmosuchia
Sinápsidos del Pérmico
Sinápsidos de África