Plain Meaning Nemesis. Manipulators Prefer Optics.

Is Man the Objective. Whose? Skip theology. Read texts.

2012-02-21T05:07:00.000-08:00

Vetting Santorum-like thought patterns.
When religion is overtly political, vet the texts.
Vet because there is information there.
.

Even the maker(s) of heaven and earth may surprise you.

In the beginning, what?

Peer into old theologies.*

.
* What do ruins tell us? Go back to original sources. In the beginning Elohim .... Here, Pompeii.
.

Theology's webs

Now in politics. Where thought?

Try a research route.

Religious question in political context:
Mankind, or gender?
Which "man" is "the" objective.
Certainty is sand.
.
What research shows
Plain meaning in texts.
Compare to theologies.
Disconnect. Tilt. Fraud.
.
Male: sent out to till.
Female: guide in front of him.
Beyond that, say not.
.
Dominion: leading.
Use Creation for food. Guide.
Reread "Creation"
.
Breath of life nephesh
Same word, for all breathing life.
No humans supreme.
.
FN 1
......................................
.
FN 1
.
1. What happened "in the beginning"?

1.1 Example, try your own analysis -- here are tools for starting.
.
Q. In the beginning, who? God.
A. No. Elohim. Gen.1:1, Scripture4all.
.
1.2 "God", as the commonly used translation for Elohim, is Strong's lexicon number 430, see Polyglot Bible (multiple languages) at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen001.htm
.
1.3 Word H430, for Hebrew 430, is "Elohiym" and that is a multiple, a plural noun, not singular. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV. And despite the cultural certainty of "masculine noun," it is not a masculine noun, but, as the definitions themselves show, "goddess" is included. Tilt! Disconnect! Fraud!
.
Plural, people. Plural. See Blue Letter:
Elohim:
.
Plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (H433)
.
So what is H433? Look that up.

Find a new angle. Choices. God or false god, see http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H433&t=KJV.

.
So: gods and false gods or god-like ones or angels good and bad both created heavens and the earth. Mystery of the origin of evil solved. That explains evil, after all the ages of worrying about it. Creation was not all "good" in the beginning.  And the good ones could not even control their borders against the bad ones -- NChsh got in anyway.
.
2. Therefore: in the beginning, it was the many, the divine ones, angels, godlike or goddesslike, ones created, etc. Or, in the alternative, it was a combination of good ones and evil ones. That makes more sense. All plural.
.
2.1 Yet look how the translation from Hebrew to Latin by Jerome, pushing the church's ideology and not the text, millennia ago have shaped all the rest. Deus, deus, deus instead of Elohim.
.
See Gen.1:1 at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm.
.
'aLHYM
.
Alhym, as a rough identifier, in Hebrew is translated as Deus in Latin -- masculine singular. Jerome, Jerome, what hath thou wrought! A culture, not theology.
,
Look at the Hebrew, compared at scripture4all and hebrewoldtestament:
אלהים
aleim
.
The word is recognizable even to those who do not know Hebrew -- scripture4all lays it all out.
.
3. Apply the same analysis to any word, verse. Find the "Bible" is whoever translated it, and we still want that Paleo-Hebrew to Hebrew.
.
4. Next: It gets worse. Go back to Blue Letter and scroll down at the entry for H430, Elohim: it is translated "God" thousands of times: and all of them singular, thus wrong and cultural, not the text.
.
"Strong's Number H430 matches the Hebrew אֱלֹהִים ('elohiym), which occurs 2606 times in 2249 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV"
.
5. And suddenly, Gen 2:4, the Elohim becomes something new -- JHWH, Jahweh Elohim. But still the plural Elohim. See the patriarchy enter in, tilt to "Lord" as in Lord God -- oh, the maleness of it all.
YHVH 'aLHYM
.
Lord God. See http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V5
.
JAHWEH -- that is Strong's Lexicon 3068. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen002.htm
.
JHWH is very different from just Elohim. Look up H3068. Jehovah. That is the proper name of the one true god, see http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3068&t=KJV.
.
Singular now. So did Jahweh get rid of the others? Read the Gesenius commentary at that blueletter site. Very complicated.
.
Read these sites carefully. The reference to "Lord" and the number 6510 refers to the number of times the word is used, not the lexicon number. The lexicon number for 6510 is cow, and it is hard to believe that that reference would go for thousands of years unnoticed. So, 6510 is the number of appearances, not an identification.
.
Look up the words, and find clues and references that gender does not matter here, gender is glossed over in the texts. And references to the plural, were altered to fit later patriarchal culture, not theology.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen002.htm.   Texts not dogma.
.
I prefer the original: both good and evil beings doing the creating. Rather makes the heretics look good. And the roles for the male and the female when they were divided out -- which was first, the adm human? Blender.
.
Yet we get the translation, the double whammy Lord 3068 God 430 all the time.  Not supported by the texts. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Lord&t=KJV. Find it also at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/h3068.htm
.
Obviously, I am not interested in theology or dogma, but in what the sources say. And the sources turn the theology upside down, Mr. Santorum and whoever else thinks there are clear answers and you have them.
.
6. Vetting religious positions. Try a sample tracking of an assumed idea:
.
Q. What happened in the beginning.
A. In the beginning Elohim.
.
Elohim. Elohim is plural, not a single. It is plural just as seraphim is plural for seraph, and cherubim is plural for cherub. Many beings, entities did the creating. Start with that. That is what the text says.
.
7. If a candidate believes, it, we should know it. Elected officials do not represent their god. They represent us, the voters, multi-ethnic and wonderful as we are in our diversity. They are not there to proselytize and who can spell that anyway.

What are the dangers of researching "religion."Does vetting destroy religion? Not at all. Theology is fine so long as we remember it is based on a figurative look, not a literal account. Noone recorded at the time.

8. Does vetting then support science? Not necessarily because each has its own realm. Science is not concerned with the figurative, the interpretation.

Whether there was nothing or something in the beginning, see cosmologists at work at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?scp=1&sq=more%20to%20nothing&st=cse, science lets theology offer interpretation.
But where interpretation goes too far afield from basis in texts, it morphs into the secular, the power-driven.

9. Santorum alert. Generic Santori.
.
He said, in referring to Creation (he did not address the plural Elohim) Man is the objective, not the environment. Find his comments referring to The Bible, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/politics/santorum-defends-remarks-on-obama-and-public-schools.html?scp=1&sq=santorum%20man%20is%20the%20objective&st=cse. Wrong. We lead creation as a god would lead, dominus, for our food. Beyond the affiant sayeth not.
.
The game Santorum: That is generic here. It is for any who have not vetted their beliefs against texts. The name can be updated as theologial speakers come and go.
.
Mr. Santorum could do with some research. No, Mr. Santorum, there is no "The" Bible.

There are only groups claiming the inside track on interpretation of ambiguous texts.
The only "the" Bible would be the original Paleo Hebrew, and we cannot find a transliteration of that into the Hebrew, for which online are several translations, transliterations.

.
10. So: What is man's role? Is humankind superior in life form?
.
No sanctity there. I can make my house in the image of the Eiffel Tower and it does not make my house the Eiffel Tower. Should all men now go back and till the ground, as that was the purpose of creation, see http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm, Gen 2:5 for literalists. See also Gen 3:23 there -- love the Hebrew. It just might help. Skip the trumped up narrative we all grew up with.
.
Look at the woman's role: also clear - guide, in front. KNGDV.

Skip theology. It will not tell you what you need to know about where culture takes over religion. Go to the texts. Then check the theology. And you decide.

Plain Meaning of Hutaree - Etymology Harnessed. Parse It Out

2012-02-14T15:56:00.000-08:00

Hutaree - the Militia Group in Michigan.

What results when the name-chooser failed to research it.
Do it now.

Ersatz Christians. Or Hutaree as Social Club?

Parse it Out

Nobody here but us social club

..
2012 Update:

Michigan's Hutaree Militia is again in the news. Is it now just a social club, see NYT, Hutaree asserts social club defense Was discussion of a plan to attack police, with Hutaree's supply of guns and other weapons, just social chat, protected by the First Amendment. See its clubhouse at NYT photo of Hutaree clubhouse In 2010, it was described as a Michigan based Christian militia group, see NYT Hutaree overview 2010
............................................................................
.

Explore the name, Hutaree.

An Exercise in Parse

.
Hu - universal name for God. To be sung, like an Ommmmm. See http://www.eckankar.org/hu.html/ Better yet, listen to a large group doing it - near the beginning of the site, click on the audio.
.
Ta - a letter of the Arabic alphabet, see http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm/ Watch and hear children learning the Arabic alphabet at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9kq0UMDdY
.
Ree - "to sift: to separate, to throw off" - see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ree
.
Hutaree. Hutaree means, post-parse, Throw off God. God, School, Throw off.

......................................................................
Other entries: FN 1

God speaks Arabic. Throws off nonspeakers.
Read right to left: HUTAREE becomes phonics, EERATUH, or in modern spelling, ERRATA.

................................................................

FN 1 Original scriptural messages inspiring the group were perhaps in Paleo Hebrew, see Old at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/; or New at http://www.greeknewtestament.com/. Which?

Other entries: ______________. Submit by midnight next Monday.

Dependency is Humiliating. Role of Perpetuated Dependency

2012-01-08T17:57:00.000-08:00

Role of Perpetuated Dependency:
Ban Some by Category from Full Participation.
Culture makes certain, to serve power, what "theology" leaves open.

Satisfy the superiority needs of others.

Dependency is humiliating. Keeps 'em down.
.

Poor bearing the burden. Verona, Italy. St. Anastasia?

This one's dependency satisfies the superiority needs of others. Is that so? Do away with dependency, provide access to opportunity without discriminating or dogmatic roles, what would happen to the superiority needs? No place to go? Even self-extinguish, leaving later people to ask, what was that all about?

Weight on powerless shoulders. Verona, Italy. St. Anastasia? Would any saint approve?

Status enforcements. Discriminations.
Cultural, interpreted role rules.
Ambiguity in the source?
Fabricate certainty in dogma.
Dependency on one "higher" with the "power."
Race, gender, bullying, abuse, supremacism.
Deep needs in flawed mindsets fed.
Institutions foster.
Ambiguity? Construct a dogma.
Enforce it.
.
Dependency is humiliating.
Humiliation is debilitating.
Debilitation means more dependency.
Culture unproductive.
.
Break the cycle.
All adults who want to work
And can
Eight hours a day
Forty hours a week
Get paid enough
For a room, a car, health, sustenance.
.
Those at home, compensation,
Choice.

Home. A haven on its ear.

In sum, minimum wage
Plus what is needed for the area
That brings that individual
Half again past the poverty level
For one. Finances for anyone
To enable defense, escape.
Cheaper than emergency rooms,
Shelters.
.
Others? Sustenance anyway.
Just sustenance.
Cheaper than humiliating programs
And most will want to rise above.
Why sustenance anyway?
.
Because poverty is dependency.
Dependency is humiliating.
Debilitating means more dependency.
Dependency breeds injustice
Perpetuated
To children, and against those
Who are on the receiving end of
Dependency.
From the housewife with no
Independent life and a bully
Demanding in the bed,
To all kept down
And out.
All colors, all ethnicities
All marital stati
All orientations
All financial levels
Where someone else controls.
The West? Culture of the West?

US: Less mobility than Europe

Not exceptional
Not superior.

Self-deluding.
Dependent on Wall or Dow
And machinations.
Let us out from under.
No supremacism forced
Is real. Only merit lasts.
Get your ticket and go.

Confucius and the Ginkgo: Opposites Unified, Recipe; Ponder.

2012-01-01T09:55:00.000-08:00

Ginkgo in summer

The gingko is a symbol of opposites unified, the changeless, bringing powers of love and hope. See http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/usage.htm/. How can we not plant one, each of us.

The word itself, ginkgo, apparently is a misreading into the Chinese from the Japanese, that should say "silver apricot." See http://www.zompist.com/chinawords.html. We have three ginkgos, two were purchased as "male" and no fruit; the third is a bird-dropping gift perhaps, a self-rooter by the birdbath, and perhaps to bear fruit. See its uses at http://localecology.org/blogs/index.php/2008/07/11/ginkgo-s-smelly-fruit-is-edible-and-the-?blog=2. Bruised fruit has a strong odor, so the idea is to harvest the fruit at it falls. We plan on regular pitchings into the woods behind. Nature's stink bomb, says this site, at http://www.gourmet.com/food/2008/11/gingko-nuts; but delicious. How so?

Recipe: Gourmet tried all sorts of preparations and ended with this one: separate out the nuts; do an egg wash; then roll them in flour, salt and pepper, and fry them in hot oil. Apparently they turn a lovely jade color and are quite good.

Confucius, it is said, loved the ginkgo and sat and taught beneath it. Ponder a while. See the kwanten site, above.

Shakespeare and Occupy. Occupy's Funeral Oration. Vision. Antony Common Mantony. Corp Man Brutus, Ad Man Cassius.

2011-12-31T12:00:00.000-08:00

.
OCCUPY'S FUNERAL ORATION by COMMON MANTONY

SCENERY II.

The Forum.

Vision

The Setting: Think Caesar, a ruler, who also loved the people; Shakespeare; Brutus, who stabbed Caesar; Cassius, who also stabbed; Marc Antony, who swayed the crowd. Eloquence. Spin and Truth.
.
Voter looks at Caesar: Lessons from antiquity. Shakespeare update with Common Mantony Photo: Castle Bruck, Austria

Update. Add policy; and lesser known facts not part of the Play. Find the play at http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/index.html. Find new information about Marc Antony seeking compromise afterwards, see Antony, Lepidus and Octavius jockeying at
http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html).

Here, Caesar, who loved the people, becomes a conceptual leader of Occupy; Brutus becomes Corp Man, driven to assassinate. Co-conspirator Cassius joins in and becomes Ad Man. Both under threat by Occupy's focus on the people.

As in They first justify their acts to the voters on grounds of the then Big Lie: That Occupy (Caesar, a leader who loved the people) was merely Ambitious, and deserved to die.

The voters initially agree and support them, believing the Big Lie. Enter Common Mantony (Marcus Antonius; Marc Antony):

Mantony

Common Mantony (Marc Antony, Marcus Antonius, Occupy's Funeral Oration)

After hearing Mantony, as in the Play, Voters see the light. Follow Mantony! Compel Accountability for Big Lie! They cast out Corp Man Brutus and Ad Man Cassius. Then research beyond the Play and find issues.

Common Mantony seeks -- would you believe -- amnesty, compassion, compromise with his other two power-sharers, Octavius and Lepidus as the Triumvirs. This approach is disregarded by Octavius, and so Mantony figures out what to do, and so....

Antony championing amnesty, compassion, compromise? See
http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html). But what happened then? The people had been educated, they knew what they were to receive.

Octavius would not be so conciliatory; and some legions came to his side.
Mantony responded from strength: In the original, Marc Antony would not then release Caesar's assets and documents; so Octavius, faced eduated citizens who knew what they were to get, had to pay from his own pocket. Ironically, that also worked.

....................................................................................

THE SCENE

Enter CORP MAN and AD MAN, and a throng of Voters, those 'Murricans qualified to vote by age and residence, FN 1

Corp Man.

Corp Man. Brutus. Occupy's Funeral Oration

Voters

We will be satisfied; let us be satisfied.

CORP MAN

Then follow me, and give me audience, friends.

AD MAN, go you into the other street,

And part the numbers.

Those that will hear me speak, let 'em stay here;

Those that will follow AD MAN, go with him;

And public reasons shall be rendered

Of Occupy's death.

First Voter

I will hear Corp Man speak.

Second Voter

I will hear Ad Man; and compare their reasons,

When severally we hear them rendered.

Ad Man. Cassius. Occupy's Funeral Oration

Exit AD MAN, with some of the Voters. CORP MAN goes into the pulpit

Third Voter

The noble Corp Man is ascended: silence!

CORP MAN
Be patient till the last.
'Murricans, countrymen, and lovers! (sic) hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour,
.
and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe:
.
censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Occupy: to him I say, that Corp Man's love to Occupy
was no less than his.
.
If then that friend demand why Corp Man rose
against Occupy and its workers, this is my answer:
.
--Not that I loved Occupy less, but that I loved
my hold on the Free Market more.
.
Had you rather Occupy were living and die all slaves,
than that Occupy were dead, to live all "free" men
under my Free Market?
.
As Occupy's workers indeed loved me, as my Free Market seemed ok in earlier times, I weep for it;
.
as Occupy was fortunate in some benefiting from increases in their own wealth in an earlier time, I rejoice at it;
.
as Occupy was valiant, I honour it:
.
but, as Occupy was ambitious, impacting upon my Bottom Line, I slew it.
.
There is tears for Occupy's love; joy for Occupy's fortune;
honour for Occupy's valour; and death for Occupy's ambition.
.
Who is here so base that would be a bondman?
"Who is here so base, that would be a bondman?" Asks Brutus, as Corp Man, here arguing for his version of a "free market" Photo: St. Peter's Cathedral, Geneva; choir stall

.
If any, speak; for him have I offended.
.
Who is here so rude that would not be a 'Murrican?
If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so vile that will not love 'Murrica's Free Market?
If any, speak; for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.
.
.
All
None, Corp Man, none.
.
.
CORP MAN
Then none have I offended. I have done no more to
Occupy than you shall do to Corp Man.
.
The question of Occupy's death is enrolled in the Capitol; Occupy's glory not extenuated, wherein Occupy was worthy, nor Occupy's offences
against Free Market enforced, for which Occupy suffered death.
.
.
Enter COMMON MANTONY and others, with OCCUPY'S body
.
CORP MAN CONTINUES:
.
Here comes his body, mourned by Common Mantony:
who, though Common Mantony had no hand in his death,
shall receive the benefit of Occupy's dying,
a place in the commonwealth; as which of you shall not?
.
With this I depart,--that, as I slew my best lover (sic) [!] (where is the Roman Defense of Marriage Act? The Forum Pledges!)
for the good of my view of Democracy's Free Market,
I have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country to need my death.
.
.
All
Live, Corp Man! live, live!
.
.
First Voter
Bring Corp Man with triumph home unto his house.
.

Occupy's Funeral Oration. Corp Man's House Photo: Peles Castle, Romania

.
.
Second Voter
Give Corp Man a statue with his ancestors.
.
.
Third Voter
Let him be Ruler Over All.
.
.
Fourth Voter
Occupy's better parts
Shall be crown'd in Corp Man,
He of the Eternal Flip Flop.
First he says he will, and then he won't.
Then he says he do, and then he don't.
.
.
First Voter
We'll bring Corp Man to his house
With shouts and clamours.
.
.
CORP MAN
My countrymen,--
.
.
Second Voter
Peace, silence! Corp Man speaks.
.
.
First Voter
Peace, ho!
.
.
CORP MAN
Good countrymen, let me depart alone,
And, for my sake, stay here with Common Mantony:
.
Do grace to Occupy's corpse, and grace Common Mantony's speech
Tending to Occupy's glories; which Common Mantony,
By our permission, is allow'd to make.
I do entreat you, not a man depart,
Save I alone, till Common Mantony have spoke.
.
.
Exit
.
.
First Voter
Stay, ho! and let us hear Common Mantony.
.
Third Voter
Let Common Mantony go up into the public chair;
We'll hear him. Noble Common Mantony, go up.

COMMON MANTONY
For Corp Man's sake, I am beholding to you.
.
Common Mantony goes into the pulpit
.
.
Fourth Voter
What does Common Mantony say of Corp Man?
.
.
Third Voter
He says, for Corp Man's sake,
He finds himself beholding to us all.
.
.
Fourth Voter
'Twere best he speak no harm of Corp Man here.
.
.
First Voter
This Occupy was a tyrant. Ad Man said so.
.
.
Third Voter
Nay, that's certain:
We are blest that Democracy is rid of Occupy.
.
.
Second Voter
Peace! let us hear what Common Mantony can say.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
You gentle 'Murricans --
.
.
Voters
Peace, ho! let us hear him.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Friends, voters, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Occupy, not to praise it.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
.
So let it be with Occupy. The noble Corp Man
Hath told you Occupy was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Occupy answer'd it.
.
Here, under leave of Corp Man and the rest--
For Corp Man is an honourable man;
.
So are they all, all honourable men--
.
Come I to speak in Occupy's funeral.
Occupy was my friend, faithful and just to me:
.
But Corp Man says Occupy was ambitious;
And Corp Man is an honourable man.
.
Occupy, and its workers, hath brought prosperity to Democracy
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
.
Did this in Occupy seem ambitious?
.
When that the poor have cried, Occupy hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
.
Yet Corp Man says Occupy was ambitious;
And Corp Man is an honourable man.
.
You all did see that on the Lupercal,
That grotto sacred to our founding,
Whereat the Wolf nursed,
I thrice presented Occupy a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
.
Yet Corp Man says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
.
I speak not to disprove what Corp Man spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
.
You all did love Occupy once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for Occupy?
.
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Occupy,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
.
.
First Voter
Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.
.
.
Second Voter
If thou consider rightly of the matter,
Occupy has had great wrong.
.
.
Third Voter
Has he, masters?
I fear there will a worse come in his place.
.
.
Fourth Voter
Mark'd ye his words? Occupy would not take the crown;
Therefore 'tis certain he was not ambitious.
.
.
First Voter
If it be found so, some will dear abide it.
This is the Age of Fox; what will they say?
.
Second Voter
Poor soul! his eyes are red as fire with weeping.
Common Mantony! Common Mantony!
.
.
Third Voter
There's not a nobler man in Democracy than Common Mantony.
.
.
Fourth Voter
Now mark him, Common Mantony begins again to speak.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
But yesterday the word of Occupy might
Have stood against the world; now lies Occupy there.
And none so poor to do it reverence.
.
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Corp Man wrong, and Ad Man wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men:
.
I will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.
.
But here's a parchment with the seal of Occupy;
I found it in its closet, 'tis its will:
Let but the commons hear this testament--
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read--
.
And they would go and kiss dead Occupy's wounds
And dip their napkins in its sacred blood,
Yea, beg a hair of it for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich legacy
Unto their issue.
.
.
Fourth Voter
We'll hear the will: read it, Common Mantony.
.
.
All
The will, the will! we will hear Occupy's will.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It is not meet you know how Occupy loved you.
.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And, being men, bearing the will of Occupy,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad:
.
'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
.
.
Fourth Voter
Read the will; we'll hear it, Common Mantony;
You shall read us the will, Occupy's will.

COMMON MANTONY
Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it:
I fear I wrong the honourable men
Whose daggers have stabb'd Occupy; I do fear it.
.
.
Fourth Voter
They were traitors: honourable men!
.
.
All
The will! the testament!
.
.
Second Voter
The Big Lie! They were villains, murderers: the will! read the will.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
You will compel me, then, to read the will?
Then make a ring about the corpse of Occupy,
And let me show you Occupy that made the will.
Shall I descend? and will you give me leave?
.
.
Several Voters
Come down.
.
Second Voter
Descend.
.
Third Voter
You shall have leave.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY comes down

Fourth Voter
A ring; stand round.
.
First Voter
Stand from the hearse, stand from the body.
.
Second Voter
Room for Common Mantony, most noble Common Mantony.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Nay, press not so upon me; stand far off.
.
.
Several Voters
Stand back; room; bear back.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever Occupy put it on;
.
'Twas on a summer's evening, in his tent,
That day he overcame the Nervii,
That formidable Celtic-Belgic tribe:
.
Look, in this place ran Ad Man's dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Publius Servilius Casca made,
Treacherous sycophant-accountant, he of the double books:
.
Through this the well-beloved Corp Man stabb'd;
And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Occupy follow'd it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved
If Corp Man so unkindly knock'd, or no;
.
For Corp Man, as you know, was Occupy's angel:
Once building schools, roads, hiring well, treating
those in need who for Corp Man had bled sweat.
.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Occupy loved Corp Man!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Occupy saw Corp Man stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd him: then burst his mighty heart;
.
And, in his mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of Pompey's statua,
Pompey of great military triumphs,
Which all the while ran blood, great Occupy fell.
.
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us.
.
O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Occupy's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is himself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors.
.
.
First Voter
O piteous spectacle!
.
Second Voter
O noble Occupy!
.
Third Voter
O woful day!
.
Fourth Voter
O traitors, villains!
Big Liars!
First Voter
O most bloody sight!
.
Second Voter
We will be revenged.
.
All
Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!
Let not a traitor live!
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Stay, countrymen.
.
.
First Voter
Peace there! hear the noble Common Mantony.
.
Second Voter
We'll hear him, we'll follow him, we'll die with him.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
.
They that have done this deed are honourable:
,
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
.
I am no orator, as Corp Man is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend Occupy; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of Occupy:
.
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
.
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweetOccupy's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Corp Man,
And Corp Man were Common Mantony, there were a Mantony
Would ruffle up your spirits and put a tongue
In every wound of Occupy that should move
The stones of Democracy to rise and mutiny.
.
I speak to yOu who gave toil to those who now would keep
Your fruit, your share from you.
.
.
All
We'll mutiny.
Global Spring!
.
First Voter
We'll burn the house of Corp Man.
.
Third Voter
Away, then! come, seek the conspirators
Those who force the toil, and keep the fruits.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Yet hear me, countrymen; yet hear me speak.
.
.
All
Peace, ho! Hear Common Mantony. Most noble Mantony!
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Why, friends, you go to do you know not what:
Wherein hath Occupy thus deserved your loves?
.
Alas, you know not: I must tell you then:
You have forgot the will I told you of.
.
.
All
Most true. The will! Let's stay and hear the will.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Here is the will, and under Occupy's seal.

To every eligible voter in the Democracy,
Such Voter counting as naught such false-intentioned requirements for photo ID unless such are provided free of charge, fast, and in every neighborhood, and penalize none for change in abode; he gives,
To every several voter, seventy-five drachmas.
And this is so.
.
.
Second Voter
A bail-out!
Most noble Occupy! We'll revenge its death.
.
Third Voter
O royal Occupy!
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Hear me with patience.
.
.
All
Peace, ho!
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Moreover,Occupy hath left you all his walks,
His private arbours and new-planted orchards,
On this side Tiber River; he hath left them you,
And to your heirs for ever, common pleasures,
To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves.
Here was an Occupy! when comes such another?
Public works!
And this is so.
.
.
First Voter
Never, never. Come, away, away!
We'll burn Occupy's body in the holy place,
And with the brands fire the traitors' houses.
Take up the body.
.
Second Voter
Go fetch fire.
.
Third Voter
Pluck down benches.
.
Fourth Voter
Pluck down forms, windows, any thing.
For the burning of the body.
.
.
Exeunt Voters with the body
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou wilt!
.
I will yet exert to avert mayhem,
But in this Spring of the Common Man,
Where Corp Man and Ad Man have taken the role of gods,
A venting is yet needed.
How else to stem tides of betrayal, The Great Lies Unmasked.
To my chambers, to tweet
Of compromise and amnesty,
Those virtues that, e'en though eclipsed,
Remain honor's pathway, and to peace,
All history bears witness, in time.
.
.
Enter a Servant
How now, fellow!
.
.
Servant
Sir, Octavius is already come to Rome.
He that served under Occupy,
.
.
ANTONY
Where is he?
.
.
Servant
He and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus are at Occupy's house,
Lepidus, Triumvir.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
And thither will I straight to visit him:
He comes upon a wish. Fortune is merry,
And in this mood will give us any thing.
.
.
Servant
I heard him say, Corp Man and Ad Man
Are rid like madmen through the gates of Democracy.
.
.
COMMON MANTONY
Belike they had some notice of the people,
How I had moved them. Bring me to Octavius.
.
.
Exeunt
Shakespeare homepage | Julius Caeser | Act 3, Scene 2
.........................................................................

FN 1 Voters, entitled to vote. Constitutionally; and without poll-tax or literacy test in guise of State ID (unless the State provides such ID itself, and at no cost and otherwise well-conveniently)
.

Revenue Sources. Rome Taps the 200 richest. Tap the top 1percent? Rome chose the 200.

2011-12-21T17:05:00.000-08:00

The Glory That Was Rome

How did they do it?
They Tapped the Richest.

Romana del Casale, Bikin Girls mosaic room, Sicily

Many Romans at home and abroad lived in luxury. Yet, when Rome needed arms, munitions (other purposes being researched), Rome tapped its richest 200 citizens. The result was the needed influx of cash to outfit the fleet then confronting Carthage, off the west coast of Sicily; and victory.
.
Was Rome right; or should this have been avoided at all costs as class warfare, ancient style. Rome tapped the top 200 richest for its needs, to defeat Carthage. Rome enjoyed Sicily, see its bikini girls mosaic there a few years after the victory, at Romana de Casale, see http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/456_Villa_Romana_del_Casale.html
.
Rome had pressing military and other needs. As to military, specifically against Carthage, see http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/birth/4/FC29A. At the time, Rome tapped the top 200 richest citizens for materiel, and Rome won. Look at their solution against our tentative one for taxes on the top 1 percent to get needed societal jobs done. See http://rnanuntius.blogspot.com/2011/12/trapani-roman-naval-victory-over.html. The site quotes Sicily Road Ways, http://www.sicilyroadways.blogspot.com/#!/2011/12/trapani-roman-naval-victory-over.html. That site, in turn, cites archeological and historical evidence.

How does the revenue fsrom the top 200 richest citizens compare to a concept of the top `1 percent? Republicans and Democrats, rev your calculators. This research is beyond us, drowning in huswifery as we (I() are (am).

Rome had a societal need: To defeat Carthage, Rome needed metal ramming fixings for its galleys, specifically the rams affixed to war galleys, just under water level. To get that, Rome tapped its 200 richest citizens to pay for the needs, naval in that case, also applicable as concept to any governmental need. As a result of tapping the richest 200 citizens, Rome got its need met, and defeated Carthage in a pivotal naval battle off Trapani, Sicily;

Provided that the archeological and other evidence of the tapping of Rome's top 200 citizens in order to accomplish societal goals worked is accurate (who is an archeologist, formal historian for sources?), how does Rome's hitting the top 200 citizens compare monetarily to our idea of tapping the top 1 percent.

This takes actuaries. Actuaries require cross the index fingers, extent arms outward and duck. Ancient empire taps the richest: it survived well. Shall we turn to history, teach our children, and learn ourselves?

When Joining Groups Leads to Disaster. Groupthink. Groupthink Blocks Problem-Solving.

2011-11-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

The Joining Phenomenon.
The Continuum of Groups.
From survival assistance and support; to polarization and obstruction of problem-solving.

Types: Member-mentor joiners v. Pop-Off's.
Paradox: to get something done, Pop-Offs must form Groups
Like Occupy.
Occupy CPL?

Who Joins What and Why, for How Long. What Disasters or Benefits flow in Problem-Solving
.

1. Joining a Group

Joining a group is useful at the beginning or survival level in supporting an identity. But whether religious or political or other, the group obstructs creative thinking later. The Group itself takes over the thought process, requiring conformity. Conformity prevents creative problem-solving.

Enter Groupthink. The individual with the good idea gets blocked by the operation of the Group in perpetuating Itself. If positions form in a hard way in the abstract, they prevent creative, fact-specific thinking about it later.
.
.

Self-imposed roadblock. Somebody wants that solution put out of comission.

2. Groups in Disasters.

Groups are useful in disasters only if they are ready to go when the need arises. For example,we may think that our local group, the utility complex (service plus us as customers), is ready for us. We pay our bills, they are supposed to have backup service like surrounding areas do. That group can (as with CPL in Connecticut) fall apart without advance regulation to check on what that backup really is. .

Disaster: What role for big government?

,
CPL has other ideas. Other folks with different companies get restored but, say they, we just didn't have a plan in place and life is tough. The issue is current in Connecticut. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/nyregion/connecticut-light-and-power-unprepared-for-northeaster-report-says.html).

This leads to the role of personal or corporate responsibility in disasters: Some had generators, others like us put snow in the coolers outside, some built homes near big trees, or near rivers, but where to draw the line on assistance. At what point, if development is permitted in location A, or wires at location B, are we assured that there will be backups when we rely on them?

dSome would say, there is no obligation beyond the owner of the house. There is no regulation for corporation, the planners building on the flood plain, no government assistance. See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/179981-reid-to-move-stand-alone-disaster-package-dares-republicans-to-vote-against-it. Oppose disaster relief, say they! The people who need it are to be blamed for the decisions that led them to experience the disaster, despite the profits of those who paved the way. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0594e.asp.
On the other hand, we are fingers on the same hand.

2. Groupthink Epidemic. Sounds good, but only so long as the member of the group is not adversely affected by the group position. Groupthink. Facilitates decisions by those not impacted (yet), wars, bad decisions, failure to consider, even pregnancy. Reproductive autonomy? Never, say some groups! What would we do with the competition of women able to make those decisions and get out there and do things.

Groupthink. See http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2008/10/war-promotion-fraud-and-deception-in.html#!/2008/10/war-promotion-fraud-and-deception-in.html.

Identifying with a group can mean hamstringing one's own brain. Back to disasters, not personal values: Fail to provide facilities for shelters? What would we have done without ours, set up fast in the high school. Individuals could not have done that.
..

Shelter at the high school. Full parking lot

Shelter: Food, showers, a cot if you want.

Shelter provided medical access

Shelter welcome. Showers this way

.
So do you vote for those in Washington who want no disaster relief?
.

If we vote this way, will we get disaster relief? From them who may well be the ultimate disaster for disaster relief?

Of course, some people were almost unscathed. They would still, probably, identify with the no disaster relief group. Is that so? We did not ask this family.
.

Some folks' houses did fine

But even if your particular house was okay, and the snow melted, you still had no power. That is a matter of corporate regulation and responsibility, accountability to customers. Where does that stand without regulation? And enforcement. We are left with the government.
.

Up the road, down the road

Still no power. Vote how??
.

No way through

Our disaster was minor compared to others in the world. But the issues presented are in common. Again, this is a Republican town, well-to-do, but in its byways are the truly needy and any of us can be in the needy group at some point in our lives. Set up the systems now. Does that fit the ideology?

Is the mindset of a mentor-member really the issue. Many people seek mentors first, memberships first, then let the positions come to them through the membership. Others are pop-off's. Vet the position, and only join a group to the extent that it furthers an idea in a compatible way.

Joiners, beyond the original organization phase. Loss of identity as an individual. The group distorts, bloats.

The group can take over the individual

D. PO's: Pop-Offs (situational decisions, but with care). Not joiners. And not necessarily more attractive. Just more flexible in which way they point.
.

PO. Pop-off Tomato decides which direction to go, situationally. Sometimes this way.

This day, Occupy. Another day, not.
.
PO. Pop-off tomato decides situationally. No boxes, no pledges. Prove your point.
.

Who can defend against the Big Lie? HushHitler found that the greatest propaganda error of Germany in WWI was saying that the British were fools as soldiers.

The British were not, and the Big Lie backfired. The people no longer trusted the machine. Propaganda in any era runs that risk: will the Big Lie be revealed. Corporations: the Big Lie is that they benefit us. The truth is that they are set up to benefit their shareholders, and if anything trickles down to us, fine. Originally the idea to limit personal liability through the corporate framework made sense: it encouraged innovation, implementation. But that has gone beyond its usefulness. Extend some liability and enforce it.

.
Myers-Briggs psychological type testing shows differences in how people approach issues, see http://www.myersbriggs.org/ So use that information to help counter those who would remake us in their image. Myers-Briggs, still worth reviewing. INFP, for example. The profile of this writer. I for introvert, N for intuitive, F for feeling, P for perceptive, give or take here and there. This is a non-fit for an enforcer, judging culture. Analysis of polarization:

Freedom. Bless it. Freedom allows other freedoms to exist.
Force is anti-freedom.
To the extent that groups force loyalty oaths, they are dictatorships.
Norquist is free to garner pledge support; I am free to point out its dysfunction: and who should not be re-elected as representing Norquist, not constituents.
Institutional religious are free to advocate for their dogma. I am free to point out that crusades and inquisitions, and killing unbelievers because they disagree, are medieval; and object to their desire to force me into their group.

Personhood. The Occupy Womb Movement. Varsity Fanaticism.

2011-10-28T17:01:00.000-07:00

Occupy Womb Movement

Varsity Fanaticism at Work

1. The Occupy Womb movement gathers momentum with yet more human-spawned dogma, attached like a Rube Goldberg invention to original teachings of a Founder. A person, a child, is a fertilized egg, say some. Push for Personhood, NYT Is it enough to apply child support to that entity in the Womb, in hopes of at least generating reciprocity, a pay for use. See FN 1. Finger to chin, tilting head, others think, if a zygote is a person, then child support is in order.
.

If the unborn are persons, a child, then child support triggers

Is that a valid assessment? First, define dogma, because a definition of "human life" that is other than the strictly Biblical, the breath, is a far reach: an exercise in Varsity Fanaticism.

2. Issues of dogma. What is true, what is false, in terms of verifiable religious precepts as to when "human life" begins, and what should happen to third parties because of it. Are all stages of "human life", even the incipient, on an equal footing with the actualized, breathing.

Dogma is false, serving human goals at the expense of the original "divine" (if that is your bent) where it adds to direct teachings and

subjectively interprets founders' words
in ways that foster institutional constructs and power structures,
that project force against others, rather than containing the self,
in ways that produce violence against breathing human beings

The experiential test: Dogma that in fact produces violence against anyone is false "dogma". Is that so?

Violence as proof of false dogma. Violence in the name of Christianity in history is worth putting under a microscope, a big microscope. See the Pope's quasi-apology, while continuing to reap the unjust enrichment from it, Church violence in history -- at http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/10/28/pope-benedict-expresses-shame-for-christian-violence-in-history/. Heresy wars: can never be redeemed. Cathars were right in many ways. See Heresy Wars Timeline, Cathars. Western Ethnic Violence Timeline -- what dogma fostered all that, and still does. See http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2010/11/westerm-ethnic-violence-timeline-put.html
.
3. Amos Oz and Fanaticism.

Does Amos Oz speak to religious violence and the Occupy Womb Movement. Yes.

Try the UTNE Reader, The Best of the Alternative Press, current issue at http://www.utne.com/. Cover: "The New Extremists. Understanding and Combating Fanaticism," by author-philosopher Amos Oz, see biography at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/oz.html.

The article is a quiet assessment, a series of observations, about why extremists are extreme, what need it serves, and why others are not so much in that area.

Watch roles of "Dogma" in fostering fanaticism and extremists in any religion or culture: Suddenly the advocate is more interested in those opposing him, than in himself and vetting his own views and actions. Who shall be killed and who shall live. The Varsity Fanatic has no quesiton. The Pharisee role gives so-called authority for one person to define a moral principle as criminal and enforce something against another. And is always with us, so how to cope. Not witih further fanaticism.

No anti-fanatic fanaticism, please, suggests the article. Promote democracy, watch those who would liberate you from your terrible values of pluralism and self-responsibility, and above all, apply a sense of humor and perspective. Imagination. Imagine, you may ask the extremist, just how the extremist himself would do the specific acts advocated. For example, once you have killed the offending foreign or unbelieving family in their apartment, and you turn to leave, and hear a baby crying, would you go back and kill the baby? Imagine it. A worthwhile exercise in moral decisionmaking. UTNE. Well done. Amoz Oz. Always worth a close read.

and by whose hands. And dogma is human. Dogma is cultural and institutional, not theological except by someone's subjective extrapolation.
.
Wheat and tares, together. Is that so? Cain kills, but the deity decides. Enforcement is not for us. Self-defense, yes, but not to judge others. Not other people. Shall we reconsider who is theologically interested, and who is cultural-power interested?

Lost cause. Entitlements of a morula. Surpasses the life of a breathing human. There is a point where that morula becomes near-breathing: fine. Why is one gender or group more capable than another as to determining what is right?

...................................................

FN 1 Child Support for Zygotes, see http://posejuxta.blogspot.com/2010/05/child-support-for-zygotes-morulas-and.html. Review the Biblical exclusions of areas best left unregulated. See http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/old-testament-abortion-culpable-killing.html. See http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-testament-abortion-simple-paul.html

Capital Revenge. Big Government's Wrong Road

2011-09-22T07:24:00.000-07:00

Capital Revenge. Big Government's Wrong Road

Troy Davis Case.
Any Execution, of Guilty or Innocent.
.
Killing as Punishment, or Thinking it is Deterrence, is Misguided
for Modern Governments and Citizens.
.
We cannot keep our own polluting agendas at bay in the process,
and planned killing kills the humanity of the killers, us.
.
Our societal health, safety, opportunity, fairness needs, can be met without murder.
.
We are no longer nomads.

.........................................................................................
.
Government's role: Preserve and provide as needed for common Health, Safety, Opportunity, Fair Dealing.
.

Execution is wrongful where those issues are no longer at stake.

I. Overview; Troy Davis is an easy case for addressing executions. He was convicted of a capital crime by a flawed process; and killed by another flawed process. The "beyond reasonable doubt" established at a trial was illusory. Neither defense nor prosecution digged deep enough. He was likely, innocent in fact. The lethal injection process was flawed. The State took an off-label short-cut, using a veterinary drug, just like for a dog. But with your dog, you can hold it as it dies.

Those issues aside, focus here on the role of government in the first place.
.
A. Proper role of government in a modern age, non-nomadic seetting: Government's role is to a) preserve our health, safety and opportunity, b) provide it where other effective means do not or cannot step forward; c) foster fair dealing in a civil setting to make wrongfully injured persons whole again; and d) identify and impose calibrated penalties on offenders identified beyond a reasonable doubt, in ways not cruel or unusual, including for deterrence purposes.
.
B. Executions of perpetrators. Is that government form of killing needed beyond a reasonable doubt to preserve our health, safety and opportunity. make the injured whole again, or deter bad behavior of others. Can government carry out a judicial and implementation process that will not kill the innocent. No.
.
Can government do its role by other means. Yes.

Here: government is big government when it goes beyond what is needed to serve agreed ends. Health, safety, opportunity. Those can be met in punishment for crime by incarceration. Does that meet people's need for revenge? No. But government filling a revenge function is nomadic in origin, inappropriate for modern life and setting.

.
.
..............................................
.
II. Discussion:
.
A. There is reasonable doubt as to whether the prosecution proved its case against Troy Davis according to the legal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that issue growing over time. That is not the main topic here.
.
B. That issue aside for now, focus on how system failures, administrative and criminal justice decisions, and systemic inadequate representation, made the verdict questionable, and the manner of killing cruel and unusual.
.
C. Then ask about the broader picture:

Have we improved on past eras in the processes "justifying" and inflicting any ritual death, whether for punishment, political retribution, or to appease powers? No. See Silkeborg Tollund Man. Possibly a religious death, not clear. Or see political death, retribution, in WWII, Cetinje Montenegro, below.

Tollund Man, Bog Find. Ritual death by strangulation. Silkeborg, DK. Have we improved?

.
...................................................................

A. If there was reasonable doubt at any stage of this process, Troy Davis' case should be adjudicated "not proven." And he should have been released. Has his family any recourse?
.
1. Methodology: Government indulged in an off-label use for its own speed and convenience. Untested use. Lethal injection of an unauthorized drug for that purpose. Culpable. Inexcusable. Possible inquiries:

Options for the family, and for us. Press the issue. Can Georgia be sued for using nembutal to kill Troy Davis. Discuss.
See background at this site, in Italian. Click the Translate button. Who has standing? The family, where their loved one is killed with an untested drug, off-label, for convenience of the State. http://lepersoneeladignita.corriere.it/2011/09/04/stati-uniti-niente-farmaci-per-le-esecuzioni/
What is the testing history of nembutal to kill humans? If off-label, is that legal? See http://www.ajc.com/opinion/drugs-off-label-use-1027755.html
Who has jurisdiction? FDA? Justice Department? A tort? But what is the injury. The man indeed died! The issue is not new, see http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/Reprieve, but remains unclear.
Does use of an untested off-label drug constitute cruel and unusual punishment even to Roberts' Un-Popular Supreme Court?

2. Failure of checks and balances.
.
What pressures were put on officials on the parole board to conform to enforcement's wishes; did that taint their decision, where parole is to be independent and a balance, an offset to enforcement.
.
3. Did the Appeal to the Supreme Court refer to the pending use of nembutal?
.
B. Executions of perpetrators

Foreign policy not affected: war and the nation's safety must remain with the commander in chief. But personal crime capital punishment.No means of killing for punishment or social role control, as in religious values, but not limited to that, is justified. Stop it. We are flawed, so it will be flawed.

Mr. President. Take a firm stand to abolish capital punishment. Right away. Barring death by the State as a punishment for personal crime need not and could not bar death in the context of the State protecting itself, national survival. Words, words. Where are the lawyers. Don't ask.

The agendas are skewed. One person's religion is another person's anathema. Civilly, and criminally, the processes of investigation and implementation, and agendas are skewed; can be arbitrary. There is no neutral adjudication. Execute more blacks as a way of social role control? Discuss.

Death in war or for personal or national survival needs, or even as a Commander in Chief may order exterminations (under a heavy, heavy moral burden and accountable for processes) for the clear and convincing need for protection of a nation, those can be acceptable in religious terms, see Meanings of Murder, at http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/vigilante-bible-murder-fine-if-you.html. Death by Drone? Discuss.

Is there an alternative to killing those who would kill us? Imprisonment. Is that feasible? Is it better to dispose of a dead body in the deep, than leave it for a site for martyrdom? No answers here.

But once a person is apprehended, incapacitated from killing further, to kill that person as a prisoner is as much murder as a) Charlemagne's slaughter in 782, Sachsenhain, Verden, Germany, of 4500 Saxon prisoners who refused to convert. Or b) papal crusades in Northern and the East of Europe, Middle East, to kill those who did not accept papal supremacy in Christianity (many already Orthodox Christians), or would not convert at all. Gregorian Reforms of the contemplative: institutionalization. See http://irelandroadways.blogspot.com/2006/05/ruins-and-headstones-in-golf-courses.html Turf and power in the guise of "religion". See Western Ethnic Violence Timeline

So, is it so that our religions cannot claim a higher moral ground than the rest of us.

World War II. Firing squads. Murder.

Jovan Simenon Plamenac, political murder, WWII, Montenegro

Nations still get away with murder, in the guise of warfare; but should not where survival is not at stake by this person, or social role control is the goal, or mere revenge and retribution, see Jovan Plamenac, Cetinje, Montenegro . Identity we believe confirmed.

Plain Meaning : Secret of Pork Crunch. Danish Fast Food Wagon Unwapped?

2011-09-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

Secret of Crunch in the Roast Pork Department

Pork. How often really memorable? Especially in the fast food department?

Go beyond Superbowl, barbecue, glop sauces. Try the Danish pork sandich fast food, right from the trailer, see http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2010/09/roskilde-best-fast-food.html. Now add what we think is the secret of its fabulosity.

Q. How does Denmark get that crunch on the crust. It is more than crisp. It is a back molar demolition.

A. It must be pork belly.

Bon Appetit magazine featured pork belly recently, see September 2011 at http://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/2011/09/porchetta, and the photo of the roast pork, with the pork belly tightly all around it. As I recall, the roast in Denmark was on the bone, but this still looked like the one in Roskilde Denmark. Apparently one roasts the pork belly after it papooses a pork loin.

So the next step is for Bon Appetit to go to Roskilde and feature the nice Danish food lady and get her secrets.

Having Enough. What Sustenance Will Do. Environment Attracts Productive Citizens.

2011-08-11T10:26:00.000-07:00

Having Enough.
Does it hurt the "rich" if the "poor" have enough?
Or do all benefit.
.
What Sustenance Will Do.
Shapes of Choices.

Yard Habitat as Teaching Tool

Proportions for thriving.

If an opportunity environment is provided, access to survival and even thriving, will occupants arrive who then sustain themselves.

I. The Shape of Sustenance

Basics for Sustenance, Opportunity to Get There, Security Once There

Garden Neighborhood Renewal.

Desirable Funding Produces Productive Results

Outside our front door we laid out a silly birdbath, made of a pot saucer. We added a little lower pot saucer for chipmunks. then we asked: What happens if we just watch. Who else can benefit, and thrive. Here is the big pot saucer, up higher, for birds; and one in the dirt, for whoever.

Yard Habitat. Birdbath, with chipmunk guesthouse

So we set it up, and watched, early in the morning with our coffee and (as long as we can afford it) a home delivery of the NYT.

Waiting for what? Just a ground level saucer with water?

What? Just that? Wait! Who has arrived out of nowhere?

Frog! Frog?

There are no ponds around here! Wetlands dry down there, just a swampy old thing called Wiggins Creek on the old maps. Just a bog now.

Frog! Hey! she likes it!

From where?

Once the frog has arrived, how to see she (he?) stays. Build a shelter. Half-bury a pot in the ground, put in some dirt and there is housing.

Habitat. Affordable. Bury flower pot halfway; on side. Wait. Ha! Froghouse.

Today, Frog's back.

Sustenance, opportunity to get there, security once there. Three legged stool for productivity. Small scale, big scale in slums.

2. Build it, they will come.

Job and Opportunity Creation Moral: Implement the rental program, foreclosed properties: Put people to work renovating, making vacant properties available to renters. They will come.

Step back.

What does this teach a child or an adult about economic policy.

3. Definition of stable policy. Shapes of choices.

What is a basic framework for balance in policy at home or in government. Framework for balance comes in threes and fours. You need to provide at least three stable "legs" for any policy to thrive.

A 'two-legged" policy is unstable, like a two legged stool, and will fall.

A three legged-stool, if the legs are about equal, can support a weight well. For garden or governing: Sustenance, Access to tools of opportunity, Autonomy.

4. Details on a the three-legged stool policy. The model is strong. Go ahead. Sit on one.

Leg 1 ---- Sustenance.

Enough so that food and shelter and clothing are basically adequate, without worry. Regulation: Keep matters transparent.

Leg 2 ---- Access.

Access to tools for opportunity. Within reach are ways of improving one's lot. Health, education, mobility, for example. The birdbath is low, or high, enough for the desired bathers. Regulation: No cats allowed.

Leg 3 ---- Security once there.

Autonomy. The right and ability to make one's own choices, define how to do work. For some, that is not possible in employment: the boss directs, measures, hires, fires. At least, for those, there is the possibility of a union, by which the powerless can have a say. Regulation: as little interference with autonomy as is consistent with the rights of others

How does this work in your own yard, especially if you have kids who need to learn about incentive, opportunity, what drives growth,

Add another leg for more stability, even with a managed "rocking"?

II. The four-sided pyramid policy model is even stronger.

1. Think of the shape of your bird feeder,

A base of a pyramid.

Think of that. Add a fourth side. More feeding area than a mere triangular base.

A feeder can be simple: a primitive square screen, a primitive wooden frame holding it, and four wee chains at the corners, meeting at the apex, where they are joined, and the feeder can then be hung in the tree. It makes a humble but illustrative pyramid.

Sides: Chirp.

Suspension string
1. Capitalism. Sustenance is welcome to become accumulation, superiority and hoarding for those so inclined. Fine so long as they do not get out of proportion. Capitalism. Extroverts.

Suspension string

2. Democracy. Regardless of the accumulation, each has a vote,

Suspension string

3. Infrastructure. The first two need the bridges, the dams, the whatever, the healthcare, the access to opportunity that education and mobility provide.

Suspension string 4.

This is the big one.

Add Arts, Innovation, Introverts

Now: in the garden: What happens when sustenance, access and autonomy are offered.

And, in government, what happens when capitalism, accumulation, take over. The ones taking riches for themselves continue to do so, and won't leave, and the rest are indeed left. Tilt.

III How Does this apply to our government?

Congressional Renewal.
Out of proportion funding produces excess.

Try the Congressional Reform Act of 2011
It will never pass.

Undesirable Funding Produces What We Have

D.C. Frogs just won't go. See the Congressional Reform Act of 2011, now in your email. FN 1

Time to move out the dead wood

Make it too comfortable and they will never leave. This from a no-name email, no attribution, so consider this another form of email communication. What changes would you require in order to pass it on? All ideas welcome.

Congress. Time to go home. Stay there.

Let any suspension string get out of proportion, and the whole feeder tilts. See pyramids. Homebodies like the simple feeder idea.

............................................

FN 1

Proposed Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits. 12 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension

Members of Congress receive a salary while in office, that salary ends when they leave office.

3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.
All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with all Americans.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%, or the amount of social security adjustment upwards. If social security reduces, Congressional pay will reduce by a corresponding amount.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts of any kind between and among past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy, Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

9. All position pledges made by anyone in Congress to other than vote-eligible constituents null and void. Effectuating such a pledge on grounds that it is a pledge constitutes conclusive reason for suspension until pledge is disavowed publicly.

Wrong Forum for That Fight: Debt Ceiling, like Cheese, Should Stand Alone

2011-08-01T10:20:00.000-07:00

The Particular Tea's Party May Soon be Over;

What Republican Leaders, Who Chose the Fatal Forum, Remain after the Mutual Tarring?

1. Erroneous forum-shopping.

Lost in the punditry so far is the Republicans' original and fatal error in forum-shopping. As with Iraq, Republicans have demonstrated an inability to look long term, in deciding where to pick a fight. They chose Iraq instead of Afghanistan, for a president's personal reasons. Wrong.

Here, they picked a fight in the debt ceiling arena, but raised national policy and future spending issues unrelated to the merits of the act of payment for past contracts (do we have to pay our mortgage or don't we, and risk losing the house). This is a choice to pick a fight where the stakes are too high and the time to short to address by force. Wrong.

That is like Iraq. Bringing an unnecessary war to a foreign country, when the issues could well, and better, be addressed in a different setting.

2. Judgment and capacity to govern depend on application of Time. Place. Manner.

Those do not relate to the merit of the issue. The topic may well be worthy.

Those relate to judgment in governing. Those relate to the when and where of sound and productive strategy: seeking to litigate or address in a way that maximizes productivity, and minimizes harm. Republicans have shown themselves inadequate and dangerous in their destructive choice of forum, time, place, and manner. They are unworthy of the title "leadership."

The logistics of tying in national interest to a foreign locale are complex; and the risks in carrying it on, and of unanticipated consequences, outweigh the gratuitous, cavalier fun of going there.

Blame on Obama for outcome that includes cuts prejudicial to Democratic traditional interests, is misplaced, for his keeping his eye on the main event, the payment. Blame on the Democrats for seeking at least some revenues out of the Republicans' debacle once they started the fight there, is also misplaced. The issue should never have been raised in the context of a mortgage-type obligation. Consumers understand that concept.

3. So: The Republican's choice of field, yet again and with devastating consequences nationally, was wrong.

The timing was wrong. Think of the Tea Party and its invitees. Mitch accepted and was Wrong.

Weeping John accepted and was wrong.

Eric Who Doesn't Care accepted and was more wrong because he ducked behind the others.

They pushed and pushed the wrong issue in the wrong place. Like the traditionally lampooned Hatter, Hare and Dormouse, each talked in circles, changing places, getting nowhere good with only words to show for it.

Anything done in that mad party context could and should have been done more efficiently, with more support, in a focused and not forced context. Needless carnage for long-term national productivity interests results.

4. No resolution in this toxic, unncessarily lethal time, place, and manner context, could satisfy anyone, because the original setting was wrong for it.

Original setting matters. Pick your forum with care.

Leverage of a majority somewhere is always a legitimate weapon; but this was misfire, misaim, misdirected, and misimplemented by those who gratuitously risked, and continue to risk so much, because of it.

They have diminished themselves and any remaining trust voters might have had in the issue, had it been raised sensibly.

5. In time, this reviewer from the armchair believes that the Republicans, who again fertilized a war of choice, not necessity, in an arena where the entire national interest is put at risk, are culpable. The tort of setting in motion matters that they then care not to control, or could. They pushed the cannon down the hill.

There need have been no cannon at all, at this time, this place, this manner.

Republicans who promoted tying the debt ceiling ministerial act to national ideological policy coercion, this voter finds the choice irresponsible. Dissolve yourselves.

Abrupt Diet Laws. Sudden Change Does Not Sustain. Financial or Caloric Diet

2011-07-19T16:22:00.000-07:00

Sudden Change Does Not Sustain.

Financial or caloric diets require gradual change.

.
Plan your Federal budget reduction as you would your diet* Modify your meal plate, but over time. Immediate drastic change will not be sustained. Diet gurus know that. Update NYTFOB: New York Times Finally on Board

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/us/politics/29plans.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper Fair use: Robert Pear, Rival Plans Avoid Tough Decisions --.

"In a weak economy, many economists and Obama administration officials say,
Congress should not make sharp, immediate cuts in federal spending.
The leading deficit-reduction plans defer major decisions about exactly how and where to cut."

Calories: dollars. Calorie-dollar diet.

Calorie dollars. Same thing. Different bodies.

Either measure: Counting calories or counting dollars is good for some analyses of problems of "too much," but not for others.

Enforcement issues. Debt-Ceiling, Budget-Deficit, Calorie-Dollar Laws: Get facts. Disobey at your Peril.

I. Diet Studies. Ask your wife.

Is that sexist? Ask your overweight spouse.

Studies show that drastic, fast reduction in calories leads to weight swing, not long-term weight loss.

Repubs, take heed.

II. Discretion in dieting as in having babies requires choice, not abstinence.

Just say no? Will and does not work

Q. Do absolutes work for sex, food, financial policy.

Examine the buffet, choose what works best for the overall goal. Do we want fat rich, or a healthy overall population. Maybe fat rich because they die sooner (is that so?) but then they just leave their trusts to their kids, so zero progress in common good.

What works long term.
Some food and dollars, with protections against harm from the ingestion (arsenic in the corn?), include ingesting the least processed, the more direct from the field, the less cooked by special interests items.

A. Direct source as to ingested matter is more satisfying and effective. Selection rather than prohibition.

Selection. Substantial intake here, not ingesting there.

Budgets and diets. Donkeys, llamas, goats, healthy choices, all may safely graze.

Permitting selectivity, in family budgets as well as national, meets important body politick and body-physical needs that do -- do -- do change over time.

Impose no advance limit on anything, as you would not in your own family. Let people get informed in an objective way, and see informed selectivity allowings the liberty of substantial intake here, but not ingesting there. Can that work?

Funding for states. In some cases where the common good is served, and not ideology, fine. Funding for choice for people.. People can take care of their own salvation. Not your concern.

III. The New Multi-Cultural Federal Diet

A. Do we eat Lots of peas! Make them affordable. Advertise objective health benefits. Some will need that. Encourage ingestion as a prudent matter, but no force.

Heat just enough to be digestible. Some dollars should be siphoned to groups, not individuals, of course. Others will want and get Oranges! Have all you want. In wedgies, not the juice in the boxes.

B. Beer? Individual specific pleasures? Fine. Just add a health risk tax. Sodas? Killing our kids. Personally, clamp down by price and accessibility on those, label the sugar risk for abdominal obesity, and you may help us save my son's life.

IV. So: Washington. Take heed.

Dan Widing in the Rotunda has a plan for the budget, and dieting

The People's Federal Diet on Calories and Spending

The Diet Laws

a. Modest reductions
b. Over time
c. In total dollar or caloric intake
d. Combined with modifications

with an eye to reducing to what is really needed or desirable
for personal and societal goals,
in what is spent or eaten,
to be sure it is NUTRITIOUS,
and not just expanding the bellies of the special interests,

Gang of Six.

Good balance. Sally forth.

The Gang of Six shows all the elements to meet rational people's needs: patriotic in fostering pursuits of opportunity for all(happiness), religiously correct in preserving all creation in the long term (special interests cannot buy creation's fruits for themselves), philosophically sound in making rational sense, and smart.

Do it. Get off the calorie, Repubs. We have taken T, we have seen its results, time now for US. Small blogs key Truths. Pass the word.

................................................

* NYTFOB. New York Times Finally On Board. See article, Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May be Outdated, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?src=me&ref=general

Pledge Control. Congressional Improper Conduct. Purity Tests. Is there no end to "pledges". Who will Bell the Cat

2011-06-20T12:44:00.000-07:00

Purity Tests and Pledge Control.
.

Oaths of Conformity
Pledges Backed with Sticks

Is there no end to pledges. Here is another: http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/06/romney-sign-debt-limit-pledge/8Z6EZc7OokdMNJnvECVunO/index.html Purity oaths betray constituents.

Analysis remains: As to federal representatives and senators, signing an advance pledge to do something, with enforcement, is Congressional Improper Conduct, Congressional Disorderly Conduct, Fraud on the People who did not vote in a robot (or did they, one who cannot see that circumstances affect the conclusion?). Is it Extortion?

Who Will Bell the Cat? Or Should the Cat Stay Unbelled, And the consequences simply follow.

Pledges. Worship the Great Crutch. Third party groups, not individual voters, force enforceable rigid Pledges on candidates, legislators, as a substitute for Thinking.

I. Issue.

The Pledge to America. Other loyalty or position oaths, tests, taken in advance of specific legislation proposed and many backed with penalties for non-signing.

Is it either proper or orderly * for a member of either house of congress to sign away the independent ability and right to assess specific legislation, or candidacies or appointments, on their merits, and instead to assign such decision-making power to a non-voting political third party, an organization not a constituent?

* [or evidence of improper influence, or unfair discrimination by dispensing votes for special favors for a favored outside group, or dereliction of duty by not deciding on the merits, but for personal gain in keeping funding from political parties, etc]

Does this step, to pass over obligations of representation, disenfranchise the voter constituents. Is it even bribery: giving something of value, funding, support in government positions, in exchange for the recipient acting or omitting to act politically as demanded. Update. Attention, Melanie Sloan. Are you interested. The new Vitter-gate issue. Large scale. Crimes against democracy by an entire political party organization?

Power to enter into contracts about future dispositions of matters as to dependents. This is common in "best interests" custody tests in divorce. Is a voter a dependent once the election is over?
Can a parent-elected official decide, at Time A, in advance of the facts at the time, what will happen automatically as to matters about the dependent, the voter, whose fate he or she holds, at Time B.
No. The facts at the time are determinative of best interests.
So, too, as to elected officials. They are custodians of our system, our constituency; we are the dependents.
They cannot decide our best interests, in advance of facts on the ground at the time, how they will decide any legislative issue as to their dependents, and they cannot badminton the birdie to some third party political group to decide in their place.
For this issue of "best interests", you need to check your own jurisdiction, because child dependency issues are not a federal matter. But the concept is similar. Can a parent decide, for example, that the son will move in with the father X years from now; regardless of what are the conditions of the father at the time.
Can an elected official commit by contract to vote in such a way X years from now, regardless of what are the conditions of the constituents at the time.

The issue arises in the context of political party loyalty or purity oaths: Pledge as crutch.

Purity tests and loyalty oaths require a legislator to take positions set in advance, regardless of particular merit to the constituency, for particular legislation provisions. The best interests of that constituency are not determinable in advance, are they? So does an advance fixed position meet the best interests of the constituency. See http://joyofequivocating.blogspot.com/2011/06/legal-limits-on-party-discipline.html

Such a position with negative consequences for noncompliance, as set by Pledge to America, loyalty tests, purity oaths, all that:

a) must be taken by the member,
b) in advance of any specific legislation on the topic or candidacy, and
c) without the member being able to assess the legislation independently and stake out a position to benefit the constituents; a position that is
d) based on an ideology, ideology signaled by dogma, buzz-words, in-group doctrine and generalizations, without definitions and implementation examples to illustrate testable factual grounds for the conclusions pushed,
e) framed by an outside political group
f) where the group itself has no direct right to vote, but has power to threaten and punish the member for refusal to comply with the demands of the group (stop funding, remove the member from prestigious party assignments)
g) for purposes that may well serve the interests of the political group in avoiding individual analysis of the legislation or candidate, rather than the interest of the voting constituents, and
h) the funding and ad power of the group can set up a firewall against the constituents deciding to oust the member for representing the group and not the constituents.
i) Is that it?

Is it extortion, for the Party to force voting behavior of a member in this way, on pain of losing funding and committee and other political position.

Is controlling a member's vote a property matter, so as to be the subject of extortion. Has it value? Can it be bought and sold?

" *** [P]roperty is extorted in violation of the Hobbs Act only when an official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking." See McCormick v. United States, 500 US 257, 272 (1991). Find it at http://supreme.justia.com/us/500/257/case.htm, at 500 U. S. 271-274.

McCormick deals with improper political contributions; here we may find improper political sanctions.

II. Rules

A. The House of Representatives

The House is governed by its own ethics rules, currently http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf. Those rules lay out the role of the member.

The House Ethics Manual notes as to that role as serving constituents:

"As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[s]erving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of the legislator."

Footnote 5 is designated, and that is to McCormick v. United States, 500 US 257, 272 (1991). Find it the site above, or at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1918.ZS.html Serving constituents. That is the everyday business of the legislator. Serving legislation that will benefit who?

the district
and individuals and groups therein

Serving constituents. The constituent, then, is the client. See http://posejuxta.blogspot.com/2011/06/voter-as-client-of-legislative.html

B. The Senate

The Senate also is governed by its own ethics rules, currently http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf We are looking for the kind of role reference as in McCormick v. United States, or obligation to constituents (the day to day business is to support legislation that will benefit the district and those individuals and groups in that district) as exists in the House Ethics.

Is there none?? Still looking. The specific reference may or may not be there, but the language of the Supreme Court is as to "legislator" and that, we believe, covers both houses. The obligation of the Senator, then, is as much to serve constituent voters as is the obligation of the Representative. Third parties cannot by advance contract contract away the voters' right to their representative or senator acting on the voters' behalf. This does not preclude the legislator from exercising independent judgment. It does preclude some third party setting in advance that the legislator shall not be independent of that third party.

C. The Oath of Office

The oath of office for both senators and representatives is as follows, found at http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_4.htm

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nothing there about acting for constituents. But bring on the penumbra. How can voters vote if their representative or senator are obligated by advance contract to a blank prohibition or requirement to do this or that, regardless of merit or constituent interest.

D. The Constitution

Find it at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

Reading, skimming, reading, skimming.

Where is anything about obligations of those voted into office, to the constituents who voted them there.

We do see great power acknowledged to the Vote: that we are a Republic, see http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC, with a president instead of a monarch, for example, and that "supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law."

For Justice Scalia, in passing: How, then, do corporations that cannot vote, and are therefore inferior to citizens entitled to vote, have the same first amendment rights as voters?
The Constitution appears to hold otherwise. Those entitled to vote are superior to those who are not so entitled.

E. Powers of the Committees

The House and Senate each can receive complaints, and investigate, and discipline or not, in various ways. Obvious acts of wrongdoing are received with more attention, thus this issue should be at the top. Does a legislator forfeit the right to serve his term, if he gives away his reason for being. Shall we hold broad special elections in each constituency where a legislator signed away his independence.

Signing away the reason a legislator was elected, to decide on the merits for his or her constituency first, while retaining independent judgment where that is appropriate, is not met by advance threat extortionate purity oaths.

Accepting the favor of funding from a political party, and the blessing that they do not remove you from prestigious posts in government if you disagree with them, offends both the spirit and the letter of the obligation.

Is that so?

III. Application

A legislator may not convey his independent judgment to a third party. A legislator must serve the individual constituents and those groups within that constituency. Although a legislator may exercise independent judgment in positions taken, he may not pass over his elected responsibility to any third parties. Any group demanding such vote in exchange for group favors or to avoid group punishment is extortionate.

So far, this appears on point.

Now: Consider Piers Plowman. Who will Bell the Cat. Who will make the Cats behind the loyalty tests accountable?

Find the surprise ending.

IV. Conclusion

Perhaps the cat should not be belled. See http://migratorypatterns.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-will-bell-cat-piers-plowman-and.html. Perhaps the cat cannot be belled. Information and transparency are the keys. Who is threatening what to whom, who is benefiting whom, all emails to be published (public business), all votes in which the extortion is found to be voided and the legislator suspended? Whatever. Let the voters get the information they need about the oaths (a computer in every home?), check where their interest lies (do not rely on one source), and vote.

Immigration. Cost-Benefit Gnosis.

2011-05-08T05:19:00.000-07:00

Evening News for Nous
Immigration by Cost-Benefit
.
A. Topic Outline

1. Statistics, Information on Should They Stay or Should They Go

2. Financial Analysis - A start. One view: Deportation is financial disaster; irrational, and stems from Xenophobia and Scapegoating, see 3.3, 3.4. Another: None of that matters. What matters is that Punishment must be inflicted.

3. Roots of the Debate:

3.1 Is Immigration Frenzy Rational, or Emotional-Religious-Moral; and What Next. Cue: Religious-Moral-Emotional. Religious perspective informs action. Would religious Quakers ordering mass deportations? Religious views that require punishment of others has a strong role, we think. Rules. Enforce. Punish.

3.2 What recourse?

a. Tame the stampede with proximity. Would that work over time? Increase contacts. Mix moderates with the extremists, both ends. Mix ethnicities. Get to know you. Sappy, but effective.

b. Anamnesis. Allow what we once knew as a people, to re-emerge. Role of compassion, need of everyone for security, opportunity in order for the whole to progress. Gnosis. Live and let live. Dualism is also textual, and part of our thinking: good and evil, oust the evil, say the sages.

3.3 Counterforces

a. Counter-force. Xenophobia. Fear of the stranger. Will that stop us in our tracks? No, it feeds the stampede

b. Counter-force. Scapegoating. What we did isn't working. So blame them.

Conclusion

.....................................................................

B. IMMIGRATION OVERVIEW

The hot-button issue of immigration has boiled to two simplistic approaches disagreed, and one agreed. No proper papers?

Find, fix location, and discuss each case on the merits. Rational, but does not placate those in areas where an adverse impact is seen, even if not replicated elsewhere
Find, corral by search and seizure, and deport all without discussion or situation. Irrational, financially destructive for the economy and individuals, but satisfying for many who see others at Fault.
Firm up borders to stabilize situation.

Needed is social and financial analysis: and setting long-term goals over the immediate gratification for some of seeing Punishment for those who came in the doors we left open.

..............................................................

C. Immigration Discussion

1. Immigration Statistics, Information.

1.1 Ten point eight million persons in the US in 2009 without proper papers.

See CBS at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/national/main6197466.shtml . Numbers were dropping at that point. Of that number, 63% arrived before 2000.

1.2 Employment. A large majority (this NPR site estimates 12 million illegal immigrants here) are in low pay, low skill jobs. Half of the employed are in these fields mostly: leisure and hospitality (hotels), restaurants, some areas of agriculture, construction, manufacturing.

See NPR at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900. This site comes to broad conclusions that the positives outweigh the negatives.

See also Debatepedia for listings of arguments in parallel, without coming to one conclusion, at http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Deporting_illegal_immigrants_in_the_US

2. Immigration Impact: Financial - NPR

2.1 undocumented workers depress the job market for Americans? Not necessarily so

a. Some illegals do take jobs otherwise going to Americans, of course, as to specific jobs.
b. But the immigrant also, by earning, creates demand for goods and services that otherwise would not be there, and so increase jobs for others in other sectors. See NPR. No net impact on unemployment.
c. If Americans do move to the vacated areas that had most immigrants (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York), with the competition down, they may get higher wages for a while. Then other competition for those jobs moves in, and wages go back down. NPR site.
d. Meanwhile, the higher wages mean higher prices for the dinner, the beef packed at the slaughterhouse by Americans at the higher wage, etc.
e. Most Americans don't compete in areas where the undocumented persons work, so deportation would more likely leave those jobs open.
f. High school dropouts could benefit from vacancies left by deported illegals, and move into those sectors and perhaps at a higher wage. Undocumented workers in an unskilled field may depress wages 3-8%, see NPR, or some $25 per week more for a high school dropout.
g. But if the illegal persons left, however, and Americans move in and get higher wages, then others would move in to take advantage of the wages and then wages go back down.

2.3 undocumented workers, if documented, would cost the US more than the US would benefit from having them here, in education, healthcare. More people, more children, more public services. Not necessarily so.

a. documented workers would pay taxes, and so help support the schools and other facilities now used by them
now, but without their employment taxes supporting. See NPR
b. documented workers, in this view (George Borjas, Harvard, cited in the NPR site), result in a small increase in national productivity, not a loss -- perhaps 1% without contributing to the tax base. That would increase once people are documented workers, paying taxes. Average out the large adverse impact in some areas of the country, with other areas of positive result, or not so adverse, and come to the Borjas conclusion.

See also the Annenberg Foundation FactCheck, at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
High costs claimed by some politicians are highly bogus. Highly, highly. Go read.

With these ideas in mind, now go back to the Review -- Pro and con arguments on if they stay or if they go. For an overview of many arguments both ways, go to Debatepedia: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Deporting_illegal_immigrants_in_the_US

2.2 What would each alternative cost, just for processing

a. Find, fix in place and discuss - most stay, some go

Have not found estimates for locating, fixing in place (no need for facilities for human storage), hearings. What can be absorbed in existing systems, what would have to be new, beyond the scope here.

b. Find, corral and deport - search and seizure, build holding pens, transport, etc.,

135 Bill. Estimate here: $135,000,000,000 (135 billion), see http://blog.chron.com/immigration/2010/12/estimate-to-deport-all-illegal-immigrants-now-135b/

2.6 Trill over ten years. $2,600,000,000,000 (2.6 trillion), see http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrants-Cost-26-trillion-over-ten-years-Immigration-Reform-Solution.html

3. Immigration: Roots of the Debate

3.1 Is Immigration Frenzy Rational or Emotional-Religious-Moral?

If, as seems to be so, the impact of illegal immigrants here is not an adverse economically, over the country; or not a big adverse; why the fuss? Why not just start where we are and resolve what we have and move forward to correct open borders so it doesn't increase?

a. Rational reasons. Start the clock from here.

Are there rational bases any that hold up against a weighing overall of fact and finances? Not many, if any. We see regional differences, but overall, a better result by the stay and absorb approach for most.

b. Religious-moral reasons. Turn back the clock.

Are there emotional, belief issues based in engrained worldviews and upbringing and entitlements that withstand fact and finances. Yes. But those religious views are the product of centuries of institutional self-preservation and expansion of power and turf. Is it worth it to look back at rejected approaches: the live-and-let-live gnosticism of "heretics" (think Cathars, wiped out in the European crusades that took 300 years in France to complete). What if our religious punishment-conformist approach has run its course?

3.2 Recourse.

Can traditional, founder-oriented, ethnic white west religious-moral beliefs be reconciled with reason, persuasion, that others are a positive.

Not without opening some closed doors, and many profit from keeping those doors closed. Some people in any group probably will always want to resolve and move on, and others will want to see a line somewhere and to Punish with Pain those who ever crossed that particular line, regardless of condonation, circumstances, consistency.

Steps to reconciliation of ideas. Make them less scary.

Tame the stampede with proximity. Even a stampede can be tamed, steered, turned. Mix moderates with the extremes.

Ensure that there are some oxen kept in the run. Mix moderates and extremes as much as possible, on any issue, for extremes on both ends. Oxen are calming, may keep the barreling group on a path of least destruction.

Pamplona in real time. Oxen run with the bulls, for calming

Perspective, perspective. One person's racehorse of an idea is another's rump For example, the 1235 billion needed for mass deportation is said to be a bargain, but the site fails to look at the totality -- workers finally having papers, and paying taxes so that the cost of services goes down, or is paid for like for anyone else, a real rump of an analysis at this glitzy site, .http://borderalert.usbc.org/illegal-immigration/the-cost-of-illegal-immigration/dhs-study-proves-deportation-of-illegals-is-a-great-bargain

Great horse! But can it see its own flaws?

Anamnesis. Broadly set the stage for recalling what perhaps once was known. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123748. This dates back to Plato, with the idea that there are some innate knowings in every human being, that are wiped out in stress, even the stress of birth, so that learning is really recollection, anamnesis. Nobody seeks to learn. Perhaps you think you know it, and don't look further; or you don't know what to look for in the first place, or are enabled to "recall" what you really knew all along, as through myth, for example. The task is to allow the anamnesis to work, to emerge. Teaching does not come from the outside, it results in the learner nurturing what was already known. Is that why there is guilt connected to immigration discussions? That we reject for others what benefited us in the past, without obstruction. Does that work with immigration, to recall, recall, what did we once know as a nation, that now has been lost. When and how did an orthodoxy in politics and religion force out -- even extinguish -- alternate worldviews that threatened its supremacy. And did so although those Others had merit, and justification in old texts just as the Orthodox had. The only difference was the might and militarism of the Orthodox in compelling conformity, is that so? See also http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anamnesis
Anamnesis is also a religious concept, and more, see http://peenef2.republika.pl/angielski/hasla/a/anamnesis.html but the philosophical interests us here.

What ideas has our culture thrown out, in the militarism of one group prevailing over another. How about, as an example, the philosophical and textual truths of Gnosis, long cast out as (gasp) heretic. Were they fought so hard because they had more than kernels of truth? Because they were a challenge to existing power structures, not because they were "wrong." Gnostic views: dualistic, the deity not all powerful at all, evil out there, considered heresy by the early church needing a firm identity, even though the texts lead to various conclusions, and not necessarily the Orthodox one adopted. Define the Other, who is the Heretic, western orthodox supremacy and the need for territory, and it worked.Bring on the Anamnesis. What did we once know, that was beaten out, and now may yet serve?

Rethink the contribution of the immigrant, the place of the wayfarer. Why the threat.

Must we stay with the enforcement idea, that believers are entitled to punish and kill The Other, that somehow the deity needs us to do Punishment to Others in order to be a true believer?

3.3 Counterforces

Counter-force -- Xenophobia. Stuck in N for Nomad. Religious precepts may be dysfunctional, especially as interpreted by those more interested in perpetuating the Group which they rule, rather than the wellbeing of group members. Fear of nonconformity.

Xenophobia. Anybody not a goat need not apply.

Xenophobia. That may be more insurmountable than the religious tradition of include this group, exclude that as evildoers, unbelievers and heretics, and then you can kill them. Fear of the foreign. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/xenophobia

Who was Xeno? The phobia, the "fear", we get. Word coined in 1912, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=xenophobic. Xeno is old Greek for guest, foreigner, stranger, see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=xeno&searchmode=none

Counter-force -- The Scapegoat process

What we did has not worked out so well, so blame them. See http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/06/scapegoat-and-azazel.html. Then note that the scapegoat was free to return.

Immigration Conclusion:

Deporting puts us behind square one, with the clock set back against us. Recourse to the past moves noone forward. Is that so? DC al fine, as in the music on the piano. Repeat. Where reason is not the reason, and emotion is, all we can do is tame the herd and wait. And vote.

D.C. as in Washington, not all fine.

.......................................................................

* Old worldviews to the fore once more. Explore? Revisit old "heresies" and see if the babe was cast out with the bathwater. Go ahead. You're allowed. Gnosis dot org/

See also the Cathars, a group that would not bow, with beliefs that did not go away despite the Albigensian Crusade, see http://www.cathar.info/

Anamnesis in politics theatrics, religion. A good thing. A way centripetal. How else to diagnose, re-steer a foundering vessel in either realm. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anamnesis

On wisdom, knowledge, ignorance, see Benjamin Franklin at godaddy at http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/1202674/benjamin-franklin/the-doorstep-to-the-temple-of-wisdom-is-a-knowledge/ Evening nous? See http://www.plotinus.com/who_was_plotinus1_copy.htm

Abd al-Nashiri. Injustice in Limiting Facts Revealed. Will There Be Justice. Unified Media Ownership. Defense. Lockstep Partial Reporting, and Injustice Pending?

2011-04-21T10:23:00.000-07:00

Injustice in Limiting the Facts Revealed.
Media Exclusions; Equities in the Case, possibly.
Update 2012

Role of Unified Media Ownership, Cross Media Ownership,
and Injustice for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

.
Abd al Rahim al Nashiri Defense. Fact Search
Accused planner of Yr 2000 bombing, ship Cole, Yemen

People from the Guantanamo Files. FN 1
.
Injustice: Our system labels the guilty as a conclusion before the legal and equitable facts are in.
..............................................................................
.

I. Summary - Treatment of Mr. Al Nashiri, Evidence destroyed, equities disregarded

II. Why look - Every person's trial is our own trial

III. How did this happen? Contribution of unified media ownership: news feeding from same tainted troughs

IV. Choices now. None easy, we made it worse, but release.

V. Examining the case of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri:

A. Acts

B. Clues to justice, equities, from his name if Yemeni town referenced. Arab naming customs, our ignorance.

C. Role of media in highjacking public opinion

D. Larger issues of unified media ownership

VI. How does selling the public ahead of time impact on the issues

VII. The role of leaks. It took leaks to get al Nashiri's situation out there

APPENDIX - Filing cabinet of source material, thoughts, war crime issues and definitions.

FN 1 Guantanamo files, sites

.................................................................................

I. Summary:

Abd al Nashiri was captured 2002 in Dubai, accused of planning the bombing of the goodship USS Cole while in harbor in Yemen. His name references a Yemeni town, possibly showing his own Yemeni connections even though born in Mecca. He was flown to Afghanistan to a CIA prison known as the "Salt Pit". He was moved to a secret CIA "facility" in Thailand where he was twice waterboarded (torture). He was moved again in December 2002 to a secret CIA "facility" in Poland where he was subjected to techniques unauthorized by Justice Department Guidelines (what were those techniques? more torture?) (see YouTube and Al Jazeera video on US Black Sites, and Al Nashiri).

CIA evidence, the interrogation tapes, were destroyed. Those would have supported, possibly, claims of torture, adding to the legal and equitable argumemnts against the United States at trial. Destruction of evidence also destroys a possibly substantial defense.

Trial activities go on nonetheless. We did not find this issue in the NYT at the time, but -- wonderful Wiki -- provides (go there if other sources are missing, and look for corroboration, issue ongoing) claims of waterboardings, faking executions with drill and pistol, etc., erased. See -- Everyman's Starting Source -- Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_destruction/ This is 2011 update: What does Wiki say? Go look. Add the Wikipedia direct link: 2005 Interrogation Tapes Destruction.

So, what tactics did the US directly use against al Nashiri: The Times should report on that in the same article as it reports on a pending trial. See CIA Interrogation Report (power drill and pistol used in mock execution).

The destruction of evidence issue has been avoided. See CIA Director Skirts Questions on Destruction of Tapes (2007) This destruction of evidence issue does ring a bell. This whole thing is like the Gong Show anyway.

Legalities Pending: Military tribunal now set for Guantanamo, failing Administration efforts to bring Guantanamo inmates to the territorial United States for civilian trials (Congress: NIMBY).
Does this qualify as a war crime? Need to look up the definition. Journalism: rise to the cause of information. We went back to this so far after the NYT article, see Accountability, war crimes, International Criminal Court issues.
Al Nashiri. We have a Mecca-born person with other "extremists" (how to define?) in the family, with a name suggesting a Yemeni town, in Al Queda attacking a US Ship anchored off the shore of Yemen.
If convicted, he could be executed.
Where are the equities? He already has been quasi-convicted, by the move to a military tribunal forced by the obstructors) do events since the bombing weigh in on the sentence.
Where does torture fit in? Has he served enough and have we made it worse? Have we ever considered seriously the merits of the views of those whose lands we invade, injustice and tyranny seen by others as to us, see The Guardian UK, Al Quaida, bin Laden re September 11
Examination of the name of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri suggests that he himself has Yemeni connections, with a town there. If so, his act in planning (if he did) the bombing of our goodship Cole in harbor at Yemen was nationalism, not terrorism. And we were well warned to stay out. How do we define those terms.

Look at equity: reasons for someone doing what he did. Clean hands of the accuser, all that. The act? If our presence was unwanted, has he some justification in trying to get us out. Do we as a nation and a culture with an unwelcome presence in other lands, have clean hands. What is the role of our colonial-type corporate interests in running foreign shows at the expense of the people there. Is that been our history. Jockeying ensued. Look at al Nashiri from equity as well as law.

Ask: When does a nationalist become a "terrorist." And in a land where his name suggests roots. He has been waterboarded and kept in Guantanamo for over five years.

II. Why look?

Every citizen has a stake in the legal and effective functioning of our prisons, status and conditions of our inmates, veracity of our information. Are we all, and our interest in transparency, held hostage by collusions of big media and salesmen. Abd al-Nashiri. Some leave out the hyphens. Al Nashiri. By way of update, he has been kept at Guantanamo for five years now, as of December 31, 2011. He is among the waterboarded, along with Abu Zubaydah, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Research is complex because spellings vary in putting the phonetics of one language into another. See http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/10015-abd-al-rahim-al-nashiri Are we kept 'Catfish in the Muddy Dark' -- Loren Eiseley's apt description. At least there are some updates: see the chronology at http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/n/abd_alrahim_al_nashiri/index.html

III. How did this happen? Is this so?

Big Media highjacks public opinion. We get limited and skewed news through unified media ownership, and/or cross media ownership. Persuasion, public opinion, before analysis. Deprive us of our right to assess for ourselves. Cross and unified ownership serve revenue and power control issues, at the expense of a fiduciary, thorough and informative journalism
.
The debate takes many turns. Big Media deserves the hot seat. Update: New York Times Finally On Board. NYTFOB: courtesy of Murdoch Scandal, see Scandal Stirs U.S. Debate on Big Media, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/business/media/murdoch-scandal-stirs-us-debate-on-big-media.html

IV. Choices now? None easy, but one is right.

If our own acts in turning people even more against us, by our treatment/abuses at our prisons and others elsewhere to whom we send people, can we use that as justification for refusing to let them out now. If we caused the horror show of the mindsets of our prisoners now, we take the consequences. But let them out, after trial, and if the trial cannot be had fairly, let them out also.
.

V. Examining the Case in Point Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri -
.
A. Acts.

He engaged in terrorist acts, say the documents. See sites at caption. Ask, does the US have clean hands. What provocations, corporate and military, over time, led to the spread of terrorism against the west. Fast update on provocation issue, upon learning of the killing of Osama bin Laden. What triggered the attacks? "In 1991, Bin Laden bitterly opposed the introduction of U.S. troops onto bases in Saudi Arabia during the run-up to the first Persian Gulf War, which ousted Saddam Hussein's Iraqi troops from Kuwait." LA Times on Death of Osama bin Laden.
.

B. Clues to justice in the name al Nashiri.

Explore Naming Customs, Components of Names, Arab Culture: Nashiri looks Yemeni. Is the name Yemeni? Vet it. It weighs in on the case. Does that affect the equities, if a Yemeni connects with a bombing of our ship anchored, and not welcome, off Yemen.

We found that the "Nashiri" is the same as a town in Yemen. If Mr. al-Nashiri, as the NYT calls him, is Yemeni in background although born in Saudi Arabia, would that not add to his defense as a human being, weighing in his favor in his efforts to oust interlopers (Cole anchored off Yemen). If this is a war (is it? as of when?), and he is a prisoner of war, wasn't he just doing his job. Have to find out more about the charges. The updates 2011 suggest he could be executed for his acts, http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/n/abd_alrahim_al_nashiri/index.html

.
The Name of the Man. Arab naming customs. Culture interest.
.
Naming customs.
.
In the West, a name can echo a family ethnic past, be changed rather easily, and even become a source of entertainment. See Musings on Donald Trump. The Donald's Name.
.
In the Middle East, it appears as though the name is functional, aspirational and informative as to roots. Not to be toyed with, with our tasteless puns. A name is serious and to be treated with respect.
.
However, we don't even look into it, through mainstream press. Who is Al Nashiri. Is he properly called that. Where is he from. Our own research in the abdication of the Times: Conclusions as set forth here -- He is from Saudi Arabia, but of Yemeni descent, see Probe of US Cole Unravels (2008)

Start with the name as given in the NYT here, a truncated version but a starting point. Go to this informal Arab Culture, Arab Names, A Start. Find that there are patterns in naming, components with functions:

Components of a name

1. The ism, or personal proper name. It is not used in usual discourse (see site for discussion)
.
2. The kunya, an honorific, as mother or father of another individual. Where a full name is laid out, the kunya comes before the ism. For westerners, easy kunya designations are um for mother of, bint for daughter of, or abu meaning father of.
.
3. The nasab, or pedigree. This comes after the ism in speaking.
.
A common nasab is ibn, which means son of. In some cases, ibn becomes ibi, and sometimes bin replaces ibn, as in Osama bin Laden, see site.
.
4. The laqab, for aspirational qualities. This follows the ism, and is shown in al-Rashid, for the Rightly Guided, see site for more. The laqab can be another person to be emulated, or show a relationship: abd for a man as servant of, or amat for a woman as servant of; or the laqab can be another name of Allah
.
5. The nisbah, for occupation or tribe. This can be al- and then a geographic name, for example where someone was born, or a lineage, see site for placement. If there is a nasab, it comes after the nisbah. Some people are known by the nisbah.

Carol bint Howard Unquenchable al Blogger al Immigrants?
.
Context here:
.
Does the naming custom tell us more about Al-Nashiri? We will need all the information we can get for a credible conclusion either way, because we have made a mess of this so far. See Probe of US Cole Does this naming help us with the Abd in the Times nomenclature Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? The Abd looks like short for Abdullah, or Abdul. But we see above that it as a laqab means a man who is servant of.

Look up the next: the al-Rahim. .
Go to Google maps, search Saudi Arabia and Rahim. Find Ibn Abdul Rahim and other names. Ibn Abdul Rahim. Son of Abdul Rahim. And many other names in differing combinations. That was a first click. Go to other countries and put in names, and see what comes up. We did not because we found in other sources that he is from Saudi Arabia, born in Mecca, see below. Saudi Arabia it is.
.
Add the al-Nashiri.
.
Nashiri does not come up on that Google map so far. Go to the same search on the Web. No luck. But we do find that, contrary to the limited information in the Times, there are other names.

Muhammad and Hussayn. Only on our own search do we find the man's full name, including the aspirational names, the Muhammad and the Hussayn (familiar) and the as well as his home country-- Abd al Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al Nashiri of Saudi Arabia
Abd - laqab - man who is a servant of; need to find out more.
Al Rahim -- we did find a Rahim in the Google map search for Saudi Arabia Nashiri

AP as copped by the Times could not even tell us the country of origin, or the aspirational names.

Find the aspirational names and look them up: Hussayn, means doer of good deeds, beautiful, descended from the prophet, see Arabic Masculine Names: Hussayn
Muhammad: Praised, praiseworthy. This is the name of the Prophet. See Arabic Masculine Names, Muhammad
Hussayn - doer of good deeds
Muhammad - aspirational, name for the Prophet

.
We learn elsewhere that Al-Nashiri (what else to call him? someone please ask) he is of Yemeni descent, see Maars Net: Capital Charges brought Against Abd Al Nashiri.
.
So keep looking for Nashiri and turn to Yemen.

al Nashiri

There it is. The place is Aslam an Nashiri, Hajjah, Yemen -- so, there is a place with that name in Yemen, see Google maps. Do a search for Nashiri Yemen.
.

Back to names. They inform in some cultures, not just identify. Do your own research. From labels defining a person, go to names and naming. Do names matter in the culture, the story. Who is Abd al-Nashiri: Roots from Nashiri? Where is Nashiri. Turns out to be a relevant point where the Cole was anchored off Yemen The name, Arab culture naming customs, look on your own for biographical details that humanize, not demonize. Then ask, what is a war crime? Did he do one? Start at BBC on War Crimes Does he fit? Do we have clean hands.

C. Role of media in highjacking public opinion

Media pretrial in public opinion:
And he might be executed?? .
He was arraigned in November 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/abd-al-rahim-al-nashiri-arraigned-in-uss-cole-bombing.html; but something here is very wrong. What has been our provocation of "terrorist" acts -- when our presence in Arab lands is itself anathema to many of them. Do peoples have a right to their own resources, free of foreign corporations.
.
Ask an ordinary amateur question that the media has not addressed, that we can find. If this is a war, a war against terrorism, and we have a prisoner of that war, on what ground do we prosecute the prisoner for doing his war job?
Is he guilty of a "war crime" or a crime against humanity a la Nuremberg, or The Hague?
And, for us, what is the case against the United States and its corporations and commercial activities in asking for it in the first place. This is not "not supporting the troops" -- and there are meritorious humanitarian activities also going on. But is a Yemeni-connected Arab at all justified in acting against military and economic exploitation in his countries?
We have fewer news sources and outlets, despite computer news and other technical devices. Who has those devices? Those who can afford them. That the better off have them is not justification for the unified and cross ownership -- until and unless all households have a computer and printer and money to keep them up. Even news reporting is not by the paper or service's own people -- too many mystery bylines, or just "Reuters". How many moles are in there, with their agendas. We have seen headlines in the paper paper changed in the online version. Who got in there? The issue there was citing references to old texts (Biblical) that challenge current dogma. Online, the challenging interpretation header was reframed as a nutcase; and it was not. Will find it. Who da mole? Who da censor?.
The Times through early use of the AP as the source this time is complicit: It tells us some totally inadequate things about the pending trial of alleged Cole bombing planner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. See New Charges Filed Against Suspect in USS Cole Bombing.
See how The Times has come to depend on the AP and other sources for even basic stories. Who is the AP? Inquiring minds go to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press . By way of update, the Times is now using more bylines, but that gives no more confidence in the objectivity of the source. They need ads, revenue. That impacts on what is reported. Conglomerate reporting delegation-mutual back-scratching.

So the name of al Nashiri never gets examined. It might undermine the case against him, is that so? AP at that time and Tribune papers and Sam Zell? He's already pulled down the Hartford Courant to an entertainment special. We check: The Tribune Co. canceled with AP. Ok. No wonder less news, even if it had been from the AP.
.
D. Larger issue of unified media ownership, even though issue now seems to be lost. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/01535815006/appeals-court-tosses-fccs-media-ownership-rules.shtml

Nonetheless, time, place and manner restrictions on First Amendment are fully justified where unified media ownership, and cross media ownership, limit and skew news available to Americans. Revenue and power control issues usurp journalistic function: 1) threatens neutral information, and 2) loss of the sense of the fiduciary in the profession of journalism, and promotion of news substitutes for 3) entertainment and profits, see Unified Media Newspaper TV Ownership; http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/41/4/articles/41-4_Candeub.pdf

The threat to the public's access to information grows because we do not necessarily have all the facts from "elsewhere" when we read any paper and many are indeed limited to pulp. We need references in the article to sources to find where to look further. AP seems to be the most egregious unreliable source for detail apart from agenda. The conglomerate approach does not work to inform the reader. Reuters, Bloomberg, more reliable on details for a balanced issue; but how did that help al Nashiri? Did they do their job for him?

VI. How does selling the public, ahead of time, impact on the issues.

We see agenda rather than information in journalism in mainstream media. We see predisposition for a guilt finding, and so search for information on our own. Do they think we are stupid, as a famous person once said.

For example: What is he charged with? A war crime? How?
Needed: journalism to lay out what is a war crime; how is an attack on a US ship anchored off Yemen, carried out by a Yemen-descended person born in Mecca; from a family deep into extremism (given the foreigners around their yards), is that so; affiliated with Al Qaeda

Peacetime terrorism. Is he justified in trying to oust, as no lesser measure worked during a long colonial period and exploitation era ongoing
If he is Al Quada, as he apparently verifiably is, is attacking our ship a war crime; whose war; is it merely retaliation particularly where the US is probably at the lookin' post without invitation; and later guilty of real war crimes against Mr. Al Nashiri at least in waterboarding, we now know.

VII. The role of leaks

It took leaks to get al Nashiri's information out. Did all that was kept secret have to be secret? See JTF-GTMO ASSESSMENT, NYT 4/15/2011 Guantanamo Detainees, publication Dept of Defense Assessment, waterboarding (herein JTF-GTMO).

Note that pages 9-15 are blank -- is that where the CIA or someone then destroyed the evidence, oops, tapes destroyed. Is there any assessment why we were and are in the Arab back yard anyway? Just for oil?
.
GUANTANAMO FILES PUBLICATION
.
Update: That NYT publishing of the Department of Defense secret paperwork includes the fighting history since 1992 and history of his detention, and an additional name in the formal name of this individual we call "Al Nashiri" --
.
The information in JTF-GTMO stops at page 9ff, through all the blank pages at 15.
.
VIII. Looking deeper into possible connections with Yemen

We see no mention of Mr. al-Nashiri having immediate family connections to Yemen (see below), and he was born in Saudi Arabia. If the Nashiri that we think is a Yemeni town, is his family's connection -- that is a tie to the past, similar to many of us with ties to town names in countries of origin of immigrant ancestors. Still, a tie.

If so, he has an additional commitment to his "old country" and that should be noted, as perhaps it is in the blank 6 pages. Why would that be redacted, if it is there?Is that too harsh against us? Still looking. Don't let that gloom-filled overview stop you.
.
We may change our minds as we get more information. Meanwhile, find out something about Arab names, and context.
.
If the Al-Nashiri part really means "of Nashhiri, Yemen", are we correct in addressing him as "Mr. From Nashiri?"
.
Then call me "Ms. From New England."
.
Did anyone ask a person of Arabic culture how they would address him? Is he really Mr. From Nashiri? Shouldn't we know?
.
Conclusion

Details, times, places, and accused of acting as "mastermind" in the 2000 bombing of the US warship Cole resulting in deaths. He is accused of war crimes and a military tribunal is set to try him in Guantanamo. What justice will he get? This is important for ordinary people, because if our public opinion is already skewed, he will be tarred instead of tried. That is already happening. He is already an evildoer in reporting tactics. See the mechanisms, largely political. Regardless of merit, one side is determined to obstruct any initiative of the one currently in the White House; and unified media ownership slants how that tactic is perceived.
.
................................................
.
Appendix. Miscellaneous log, concerns. A filing cabinet.
.
America executes foreign nationalist organizers for activities against us who maintain presence in their lands, and in the foreign nation. Is that so? Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri is accused of terrorist activities against the United States, see JTF-GTMO at page 7.
.
All we learned from the NYT in its article New Charges Filed Against Suspect in USS Cole Bombing was this: that Mr. al-Nashiri is an accused organizer of bombing of USS Cole, Al Queda connections, trial pending now in military tribunal. See extensive biographical information about his activities in the CIA files, see caption. News about him all sounds alike, AP usually lacking in detail. Reuters, Bloomberg, keep their depth. TV, internet, radio, cross media. Same same. Owners' tentacles. AP and individual bylines, or independent services? The difference between hot dog and hash.

Can you see the components? Spin. AP disturbingly regresses to labeling - terms evoking western tradition of the evildoer -- find one and you have license to kill. Mastermind. Is that so? True since the Crusades at least? What is the difference: insurgent, terrorist, patriot, revolutionary, other. How does the label set the stage. AP differentiates not. Which of the AP execs is in charge of spin? There are good and varied organizations on AP's board. The end result when they neutralize each other is disappointing. Revenues down means the need to economize, but not when spin remains.
.
Rant on unified news continues -- Article: New Charges Filed Against Suspect in USS Cole Bombing.
.
Why rely on AP? This is the Times. The Times gives individual bylines so we can check who is reporting. Not with the AP. This sounds like Murdoch's people. We know that Michael Golden of the Times is on the Board, but that should not reduce the quality of reporting in the Times as it is responsible for its selections if it can't provide its own reporting. See AP Board. See also the Wall Street Journal there, Gannet, they are all fast asleep in there together. A stable for their own profit, not the public interest, is that so?
.
UPDATE WITH THE NEWEST INFORMATION, NYT ARTICLES IN CAPTION
NYT JTF-GTMO ASSESSMENT, NYT 4/15/2011;
and NYT Topics: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri 4/28/2011
.
As of the time of this writing: photos stressing foreign-ness; not just a mug shot. Journalism using highly colored words "mastermind", not just organizer or planner

Who: An Arab-heritage individual named Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, shown in heritage-clothing to stress the point, the checkered-houndstooth head covering with circlet holding it on the head, mustache, beard.

Descriptions: Suspected "mastermind". Oooh! Evildoer already. He was an organizer. Even use of that term suggests evildoer. Only the evil are masterminds. Evildoers can be killed with impunity, in our traditional thought. Add "Mastermind" to the synonyms for Evildoer, see Many Words for Evildoer; See also Rage against the Evildoer. Now we turn the supposedly neutral designation of defendant into evildoer. NYT falls into the pattern, ye Marplot Newspaper. An evildoer can be killed because he is not human, it used to be said. Nobody not a believer our way was human. The unsaved are expendable. Etc Explore at .Crusades. Evildoers. License to Kill

What are his organizational affiliations, background? No information from the NYT. But Wikipedia has some, see and vet for yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahim_al-Nashiri/ Until someone edits that differently, we see the man joining al Qaeda after several years' reluctance, see reasons and activities, Afghanistan against the Russians, and as to the Cole, planning it and getting bin Laden's approval, see site. Read further, find the forced confessions, redactions of matters because of that, what is left, etc.

What is his biography? No information. Go to Wikipedia (must we? yes) and find only that he was born in Saudi Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahim_al-Nashiri. Found out later he is of Yemeni descent (of interest because the Cole was anchored off Yemen). What does his name mean? ABD AL-RAHIM AL-NASHIRI . Who is he? See section B below for what we found

When: Year 2000 originates issue for this individual, but other sources give a detailed context, see Jihad in Saudi Arabia
.What: A bombing of an American destroyer, the Cole, and "involvement" in planning and preparing for attcking a French civilian oil tanker in the Gulf of Aden in 2002, one death of a crew-member, and released 90,000 barrels of oil (how much was spilled by BP in our Gulf? 4.4 million, see Oil Leak into Gulf of Mexico, BP (The Telegraph, UK))

PROVOCATION AREA -- DO WE DELUDE OURSELVES?

Why did he act? Why does al-Qaeda act against us? Was there provocation? Somebody present, please, the antagonistic Arab viewpoint. No information in the NYT AP article. So, leaving the NYT, we find a biography at Abd al Rahim Al Nashiri biography.

He was born in Mecca, and relatives and uncles and father had been "extremists". A family dedicated to a cause. Are they justified? See other versions of his name there also. The NYT Topics: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri 4/28/2011 does lay out now some areas of possible defense or mitigation: was there a state of war going on, or is it peacetime terrorism (still, under what provation? over what period of time?), role of hearsay -- allowed in tribunals, says the Times, but would the Supreme Court uphold a conviction based on that. Etc.

Provocation seems to be presence of the West intervening in Lebanon, with Israel, against Palestine. Is that so? Need details here. This from the Guardian site below. Americans need information.

://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11/

crime

.
Who will write about why the Jihad movement is so focused against the United States at this time? Prepare a defense for the Guantanamo file people. Research if we did anything to provoke its precepts. This is a line of inquiry to pursue for education and policy reasons. Muslims and Christians have lived together in many places in the world without big incident. Why not in the Middle East now? Look at colonialism, exploitation of resources, history. Are we faultless. Maybe. Go look. If you were al-Nashiri, what would you have done? Who dares to prepare a defense for al-Nashiri and others. Who defines war crimes. This by way of update after publication in the Times of further names in the Guantanamo file 4/25/2011.
.
Prosecution of the US for war crimes.
.
WAR CRIMES AND THE US
.
We look forward to seeing reports on related coming Attractions for the US, perhaps: The International Criminal Court and this case of al-Nashiri.

Who is in charge now: Convening Authority for Military Commissions, the body that presides over "war crimes" tribunals. War Crimes? Can those guilty of war crimes themselves now try those who were the targets of those crimes? See Accountability and War Crimes
Who will prosecute the United States? See site. Spain could. Is that still an open issue? Have to check.

Tentative conclusion.

Where do these lead us: the look at biography, an individual with ties to Yemen even though born in Mecca, whose family has been fighting foreigners for at least one generation back, attacking a foreign ship that is acting against Yemen interests and in the Yemen coast; in the context of Western invasions by corporation and army to get resources of the middle east; the spin of the news exploiting our cultural predilection to find "evildoers" and once labeled, can kill them; and our torture of the "evildoer" we caught.

Is he a war criminal? What war? Who is where they should not be?

Bottom line so far:

War Crime for this man? Define it carefully. That takes more expertise than we have, International Criminal Courts and all the rest.

But torture is a war crime, admissions made under torture should not be admissible, our war crime is worse than the act of someone acting against foreign ships in his back yard, where those ships are acting against his interest, roughly is an argument. Somebody research that. Time's running out. And the facts are obstructed, still. Public opinion. Public opinion is meaningless without facts. As Loren Eisely wrote, see this overview at Loren Eiseley, Educator, Philosopher, Author, Naturalist - and Loren Eiseley, Remembrance, in a fine phrase from "All the Strange Hours" that fits here: we are catfish in the muddy dark. Loren Eiseley. Man of peace, complexity, observation. We can all aspire, and keep our labels to ourselves, is that so?

.....................................................................
FN 1
Topic here to be updated with newly available facts and procedures:
publication of CIA materials, that are referenced herein but not yet fully incorporated

NYT JTF-GTMO ASSESSMENT, NYT 4/15/2011;
and
NYT Topics: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri 4/28/2011

2011 Peasants Revolts. Unions against Billionaires. Are Royalty-Funded Peasants Tools or Peasants? Peasants Revolts Then and Now.

2011-04-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

1400's to 2011 Peasants Revolts against Lords

Workers against Owners

Individuals against Korporations
Unions against Billionaires
Everyman at Struggle

Peasants against Lords
Same board, same players.

Cyclical. Wheel of Fortune. But the rich and the korporate have the resources to jimmy themselves on top most of the time. We look here at history. What is a peasant to do? The picture is not pretty. What is different now?

Lords Infiltrate the Peasants and Steer from within.

Do the Peasants realize who is pulling their strings?
Do they expect to be better off after the Lords get what they want from them?

Is that so?

Situation Chamber. The Koch brothers pile it on Wisconsin to defeat the peasants. Dick Armey and whatever other groups each spawns pile it on and mingle with the peasants, convincing the peasants that these big funding sources are interested in the peasants. Peasants revolt -- but some groups of peasants think they are rebelling against power, when power is steering them all the time. Other peasants, without the resources, do they have a chance in this democracy? Our topic. Lords and peasants have not changed much over time. The same old conflict. But the new tactic of infiltration -- look at Donald Trump getting the far right birthers on his side -- does he really care about them or is he delivering votes to the Lords and laughing his way to the bank.

Here, see a memorial to a 1515 Peasants Revolt, with castle in background, at Ljubljana, Slovenia. See 1515 Peasant Uprising, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Peasants Revolt 1515, Memorial, Ljubljana, Slovenia

I. History of Peasants Revolts

Europe saw sequential peasants uprisings, in areas now Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Germany. No wonder. Lords are lords and an improvement in the lot of the peasant cut into the enjoyment of the lords; and threatened the Holy Roman Empire. There was a Carinthian revolt in Slovania in 1478; Slovenes' revolt was also called the Austrian Peasants War because the area was then controlled by the Austrian Habsburgs, see ://www.kosmix.com/topic/slovenian_peasant_revolt_of_1515/ ; and ://www.kosmix.com/topic/croatian_and_slovenian_peasant_revolt/. See also ://www.answers.com/topic/peasants-war/. The Holy Roman Empire put down the Austrian revolt, but local lords' involvement on their own is another research topic. Issues were complex because of some theologians' interpretation of scripture that stratified persons, see site. The Reformation did not necessarily draw everyone into removing class distinctions. The elements of slavery that peasants opposed were not necessarily scriptural.

There was another revolt, Croatian-Slovenian, in 1573. See ://www.kosmix.com/topic/croatian_and_slovenian_peasant_revolt/ North of Zagreb, in Gornja Stubica, is another monument to a Peasants Revolt

II. Britain's Peasants Revolt in particular

In England the Peasants Revolt hit in 1381. But go back further. That was some time after a devastating epidemic, the recurrent Black Death in 1348-1350.

1350. That Black Death bout reduced the work force available to the lords and their lands; so peasants for the first time were allowed, even encouraged, to leave their villages of origin and go work for the lords. Once there, however, the lords reinstituted prohibitions and refused to let the peasants return home. But the peasants realized they had leverage: if another lord offered a higher wage, they could move off and settle elsewhere anyway -- the lord couldn't catch them all. Off they would go. Of course. A better living.

This assertion of rights to seek a better living upset the feudal system that formerly benefited the lords, but remained dependent upon peasants basically staying put, out of fear or force, staying tied to the land, not free to leave.

Then the peasants learned they had clout if they acted together. Again, the lord couldn't catch everybody. So the lords, in a panic, passed statutes to prevent the peasants from improving their lot by moving about. See ://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-peasants-revolt.htm/
.

III. Lords enact Laws to Benefit Them

In 1351, the lords passed these laws, to tie peasants formally to the land and prevent rises in wages: The Statute of Labourers --

Wages for peasants were fixed at the 1346 level, before the Black Death reduced worker ranks. Nobody could even offer more than that, thus keeping the peasants' incentive to move elsewhere at bay. And no peasant could leave his or her home village. Did that mean returning to that village now, and then staying? Or was the adopted village in 1351 the new one? Not sure.

By 1380, additional burdens had been imposed on peasants in the form of multiple rent increases, or poll taxes.

1381 -- Peasants boil over. Peasants Revolt. Find a time-line and bibliography at ://paws.wcu.edu/bgastle/420/present/PeasantsRevolt.html/.

Here are some heroes: Jack Straw and Wat Tyler. A priest, John Ball, also carried the message.

IV. Peasants Demonstrate

In England, some 60,000 peasants marched on London in 1381 with demands -- abolish the status of serfdom, whereby the person was tied to the land; abolish tithes and game laws preventing peasants from hunting freely; and establish rights to use the forests. Shall we think Robin Hood, poachers, evil sheriffs?

King Richard II was only 14, and tempers were flaring, with much violence ensuing. Richard promised reforms. See site, ://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-peasants-revolt.htm/.
.

V. Fleeting Peasant Victories, followed by the Great Quash (again)

There was ultimate counter-violence, however, leading to the gruesome killing of the rebel leaders, including John Ball and Wat Tyler, and Jack Straw. And King Richard withdrew his promises, except for the "poll tax" which was removed.

Then: Peasants Revolts 15th-17th Centuries.
.

VI. Now: Peasants Revolts 2011-2012. What is different?

A. Infiltration of peasant ranks by the lords

Donald Trump, wooing them, "one of them" in birther nonsense. Koch brothers, spinning Wisconsin, or trying to. Who knew.

Traditionally, peasants were peasants and rulers were rulers. Peasants rebelled, and lords put them down. Those were the days. Have we changed in the last half-millennium? Not much, despite our democratic form of government. The gap between rich and poor enlarges with time.

B. Infiltrating lords set the agenda for efforts of obedient follower peasants

Say: The peasants benefit when the lords increase the income gap, deprive them of affordable, good health care.

Can great wealth coexist with democracy? No, says Justice Louis Brandeis, who is quoted as saying, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." See ://harvardmagazine.com/2011/03/quotable-harvard/

So, the lords who want the wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, theirs; fight democracy by undermining it, and get assistance by lord-friendly supreme courts. Is that so?

C. Confusion of interests.

Infiltrated peasants undercut efforts of non-infiltrated peasants when the non-infiltrated peasants stand up to the lords

Thanks to all that, today, peasants are divided and funded so that as to one set of peasants, they are stimulated and minded by people and corporations and groups that the peasants can't even identify or track (or couldn't until others investigated and reported). And nobody knows how much is in their funding, but richly funded peasants are indeed revolting. Take Tea and see. Another set of peasants peasants are funded largely through their own unions (largely) and they are also conducting revolts, including against positions of the other set of peasants, against efforts to prevent the second set from funding themselves and improving their lot.

Peasants A and Peasants B, rebelling for different reasons, funded by different interest groups. Peasants A, however, may not be part of the interest group funding them. Is that so? Who really will benefit directly from the rebellions so stoutly engaged in. Will the funders of Peasants A, supplying buses, placards, slogans and spin, show any interest in the poor old bags of Tea once they have voted as the corporate funders stimulate.

D. Lords own the media, the means of spin.

Inflitrated peasants: Where's access to full information? Spin, megaphones digital and texted, fear, enlist masses before facts are our or understood, hide funding and goals of the funders, scapegoating, razz everybody up, demonize humanitarian goals, then -- watch the nice demonstrating compliant peasants go down the drain when the Unknown Funders have had their way. They have the Korporate financial interests in mind, not the peasants', is that so?

Lords infiltrate peasants; peasants go down the drain

Conclusion

Lords v Peasants. Old days. Lords want to restrict movement of workers so the lord has a dependable work force; and resist rises in wages. Peasants want a better life, more freedom.

Now. Has the board changed?

Not much, but today there is that additional question: who is a peasant, using his own resources or that of others like him to improve his lot; and who is a tool of hidden lords, a peasant funded in activities that may end up not in his own interest at all.

That is not so clear.

Both groups look like peasants, act like peasants, demonstrate like peasants, but one set is a tool for others' goals, unbeknownst to him, possibly. Infiltration of the peasant ranks by the nobility, steering, steering. Access to guns and slogans, and the peasant is infiltrated already.

Today:

Billionaires against Unions, unknown donors and minions steer peasants who perhaps do not know who is steering them, or where, but are revved up anyway. How is anyone to know anything, where media is not objective in information provided. Is that so? No aspersions on any particular peasant group: we all are in that category, compared.

Parse Obama for Empathy and Opportunity; or Rancor and Hoarding. Polestars for a Policy in a Time of Libya

2011-03-21T13:19:00.000-07:00

Parse an Obama Speech

Looking for Polestars for Policy in a Time of Libya

Parse Obama: in a series of Leaders' Language, for Content.

1. Here: Parse Obama.
The President's Speech Holocaust Memorial as an example.

2. There: You find your own comparison with another politico.
Perhaps Gingrich at Parse Gingrich

3. Everywhere. Separate out the components of sentences
to get past staged persuasion techniques to content.

What content is there.
Information and contribution, or reaction.
.

Parse for empathy and opportunity. Or do you see rancor and hoarding. Prep for 2012. Look at the politics around us. What content do we get from our people. What mindsets best guide national policy in a time of Libya. What is democracy about: empathy and opportunity for people; or enabling rancor and hoarding by the wealthy over the rest, by whatever rationale is propagandized forward.

A. Prep for 2012.

Listen for content, not attitude, in speeches, interviews.
.

Is there content in what you hear. Listen carefully. Get transcripts. Work with them. What person and fact, perspective, information emerges from the role, the theater. We have a choice emerging with increasing clarity, if we will but listen, read. See, for example, Mr. Gingrich Speaks. What? Note actual words, concepts used. Get away from thinking in terms of parties. Consider tone, who demeans, who leads by shaping, framing, not dictating, and who informs. Does it matter? The words. Do they matter in our assessment of the stature of the speaker.
.

B. Start with an actual speech.
.

Here is President Obama's speech on the occasion of the Holocaust Memorial. This is an occasion that defined the 20th Century, and reverberates now -- are elements of it happening again. For us today: Did the means of the great success that the Holocaust was before it was defeated, the great propaganda theories in action, stay in the consciousness of power-seekers so that they are using those tools for their own ends now. And with great success.
.

So: As an alternate scenario to the media, get off the rancor bus, and read, not necessarily listen to, the speech of President Obama at the Holocaust Memorial event. Find your own speech of the politico of your choice, lay it out, and parse it. What do you find. President Obama leadership style is restrained, watches, acts in a measured way. How better? Vet.

The Occasion: Holocaust Memorial, speech by President Obama. Here: Focus on the topics, the adjectives, verbs, nouns, concepts in fine rhetoric. What elements apply to any analysis of Libyan policy, domestic policy, how we treat each other, how we prioritize. Who benefits. Who should.

Reference ://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamaholocaustdaysofremembrance.htm/ See FN 1. Public domain, so the speech is reproduced there.

C. BARACK OBAMA HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL SPEECH

(emphases added, our own)

1. Introduction: Purpose, Recognition. Tone.

outstanding work
wisdom and witness
our good friend
survivors and rescuers and their families
mourn the loss of so many lives
celebrate those who saved them;
honor those who survived,

2. Task. contemplate the obligations of the living.

3. Grim ironies:

savage, barbaric acts of evil occurred in modern societies
markers of human progress became tools of human depravity
science that can heal was used to kill
education that can enlighten was used to rationalize away basic moral impulses
the bureaucracy that sustains modern life was used as the machinery of mass death

4. Components

a ruthless, chillingly efficient system
where many were responsible for the killing,
but few got actual blood on their hands

Bergen Belsen, Germany. Mound of dead.

5. Holocaust: unique in scope and method but driven by familiar forces:

scapegoating -- leads to hatred
scapegoating -- blinds us to our common humanity. See When roots of belief are propaganda
justifications -- replace conscience and allow cruelty to spread;
willingness of those who are not direct inflictors or victims, to be bystanders.
willingness of bystanders to believe a lie:
it is a lie that the good are 1) powerless, 2) alone, 3) have no choice.

6. Competing forces:

the human capacity to destroy lives
the human impulse to save lives.
Numbers

6,000,000 died
7,200 -- Danish Jews ferried to safety, many whose neighbors tended their property while they were away

Sonaendenesk Church, Gilleleje, Denmark. Jews were hidden here waiting for fishing boats to smuggle them to Sweden.

5 - persons present from Poland, who acted with courage and conscience in saving others
5000 -- Jews rescued by villagers in Le Chambon, France. None turned away.
"How could you call us 'good'?" they said. "We were doing what had to be done."

7. Learned; and Legacy.

Some will take extraordinary risk, not for their own interest, but because "it is what must be done." - the "righteous".

One can choose to save or to murder.

Noone is a bystander, except by that person's own consent.

Heed that "still small voice" as some have done and that person is not alone. A minyan * for righteousness -- can span a village, a nation. We inherit that legacy.

* Minyan: a quorum for a congregation, see ://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ritual/Prayer/Prayer_Music_and_Liturgy/Minyan.shtml

8. What next steps with that legacy: How to honor and preserve?

"Never again" is a call to action
Bear witness by fighting silence -- "evil's greatest co-conspirator"
Record. As at Buchenwald, after liberation, do not enable denial. Bystanders: sent at Eisenhower's directive to go see what was done in their name. Other allied Troops: also go to the camp. See directly. And journalists.
'Eisenhower said that he wanted "to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda." '

9. Never underestimate the power of silence. That atrocity "would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph."
.

10. Our abuses in our time:

Denial, perpetuating intolerance in form of "racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and more -- hatred that degrades its victim and diminishes us all."
.

11. False comforts: "others' sufferings are not our own"

Instead we have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur. That is my commitment as President. I hope that is yours, as well."

12. Causes for hope:

Moving from oppression to survival. Cites religious co-schooling, tribal groups living as neighbors, Holocaust, Darfur, Northern Ireland, thousands coming to study, learn. From witness to resistance. And, "ultimately to reconciliation."

That is what we mean when we say "never again."

Celebrate

liberation,
resurrection, and the
possibility of redemption.
renew resolve to do what must be done. Individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous, who do what must be done.

D. Where from here?

On the one hand, we at this little idea store find rancor, pushing, and hoarding, justified in all sorts of ways. The less successful they are at keeping rigid ideas at the forefront, the louder it becomes On the other,we find empathy and opportunity, and self-restraint. Success is measured in outcome, but not touted. Is that a flaw? Each competes for the same airwaves. Rancor and hoarding are loud, get the media time. Empathy and opportunity are quieter, not glitzy. Lives are literally at stake, but which side can move the other to act. Jokey entries may spoof some as to the results of their rhetorical pretzels, but a basic truth remains, see Strength and sound mind from a bystander.

Nonetheless, your conclusion may be different. Take time to hear how each sounds, who is talking.
.

Watch the news tonight, and some opinionators of your choosing. Vet their knowledge base. What concrete alternative do they offer.

Deficit. Why is a deficit suddenly an issue, with interests on borrowing so low, people in need, hoarders over-hoarded already, and a decade to get where we are. It's like someone at 300 pounds going on an 800 a day diet immediately -- that person may not survive.

Our national discussions on each side treat finances as Prequel to the Bible. Suddenly a deficit that was a badge of honor for 10 years, becomes Evil. Now, erasing the deficit in one year is a Holy Grail. Amazing. We hear: Thee must get thy finances in order, believer, and thee must secure as large an amount as possible in thine own accounts; before thee ever has to do things for other people. And then thee may elect or not to do those things; but if thee does elect to do something for somebody else, do so with as much sighing and resentment and rancor as the airwaves will convey.

........................................................................

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL

Read it at American Rhetoric, Bacack Obama, Holocaust Memorial Days of Remembrance

Text and audio there are in the public domain. So, read it here:

"Thank you very much. To Sara Bloomfield, for the wonderful introduction and the outstanding work she's doing; to Fred Zeidman; Joel Geiderman; Mr. Wiesel -- thank you for your wisdom and your witness; Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Dick Durbin; members of Congress; our good friend the Ambassador of Israel; members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council; and most importantly, the survivors and rescuers and their families who are here today. It is a great honor for me to be here, and I'm grateful that I have the opportunity to address you briefly.
We gather today to mourn the loss of so many lives, and celebrate those who saved them; honor those who survived, and contemplate the obligations of the living.
It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal used to kill; education that can enlighten used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life used as the machinery of mass death -- a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.
While the uniqueness of the Holocaust in scope and in method is truly astounding, the Holocaust was driven by many of the same forces that have fueled atrocities throughout history: the scapegoating that leads to hatred and blinds us to our common humanity; the justifications that replace conscience and allow cruelty to spread; the willingness of those who are neither perpetrators nor victims to accept the assigned role of bystander, believing the lie that good people are ever powerless or alone, the fiction that we do not have a choice.
But while we are here today to bear witness to the human capacity to destroy, we are also here to pay tribute to the human impulse to save. In the moral accounting of the Holocaust, as we reckon with numbers like 6 million, as we recall the horror of numbers etched into arms, we also factor in numbers like these: 7,200 -- the number of Danish Jews ferried to safety, many of whom later returned home to find the neighbors who rescued them had also faithfully tended their homes and businesses and belongings while they were gone.
We remember the number five -- the five righteous men and women who join us today from Poland. We are awed by your acts of courage and conscience. And your presence today compels each of us to ask ourselves whether we would have done what you did. We can only hope that the answer is yes.
We also remember the number 5,000 -- the number of Jews rescued by the villagers of Le Chambon, France -- one life saved for each of its 5,000 residents. Not a single Jew who came there was turned away, or turned in. But it was not until decades later that the villagers spoke of what they had done -- and even then, only reluctantly. The author of a book on the rescue found that those he interviewed were baffled by his interest. "How could you call us 'good'?" they said. "We were doing what had to be done."
That is the question of the righteous -- those who would do extraordinary good at extraordinary risk not for affirmation or acclaim or to advance their own interests, but because it is what must be done. They remind us that no one is born a savior or a murderer -- these are choices we each have the power to make. They teach us that no one can make us into bystanders without our consent, and that we are never truly alone -- that if we have the courage to heed that "still, small voice" within us, we can form a minyan for righteousness that can span a village, even a nation.
Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that "never again" isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?
I believe we start by doing what we are doing today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator.
In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators -- someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence -- all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division -- the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.
The story goes that when the Americans marched in, they discovered the starving survivors and the piles of dead bodies. And General Eisenhower made a decision. He ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what had been done in their name. And he ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. Then he invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Some of us have seen those same images, whether in the Holocaust Museum or when I visited Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. Eisenhower said that he wanted "to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."
Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity -- and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph.
What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence.
But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation -- it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war. To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened; who perpetrate every form of intolerance -- racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and more -- hatred that degrades its victim and diminishes us all.
Today, and every day, we have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges -- to fight the impulse to turn the channel when we see images that disturb us, or wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own. Instead we have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur. That is my commitment as President. I hope that is yours, as well.
It will not be easy. At times, fulfilling these obligations require self-reflection. But in the final analysis, I believe history gives us cause for hope rather than despair -- the hope of a chosen people who have overcome oppression since the days of Exodus; of the nation of Israel rising from the destruction of the Holocaust; of the strong and enduring bonds between our nations.
It is the hope, too, of those who not only survived, but chose to live, teaching us the meaning of courage and resilience and dignity. I'm thinking today of a study conducted after the war that found that Holocaust survivors living in America actually had a higher birthrate than American Jews. What a stunning act of faith -- to bring a child in a world that has shown you so much cruelty; to believe that no matter what you have endured, or how much you have lost, in the end, you have a duty to life.
We find cause for hope as well in Protestant and Catholic children attending school together in Northern Ireland; in Hutus and Tutsis living side by side, forgiving neighbors who have done the unforgivable; in a movement to save Darfur that has thousands of high school and college chapters in 25 countries, and brought 70,000 people to the Washington Mall -- people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world.
Those numbers can be our future -- our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance, and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say "never again."
So today, during this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."

Alternate worldviews: Parse Pawlenty, the Counter Speech Concept; Parse Gingrich

The Grand Private Sector Tries Its Takeover. Privatizer Alert in Legislation.

2011-03-02T12:15:00.000-08:00

Can the Grand Private Sector meet our Democracy's requirement of common good --empathy and opportunity for all. Will we always need the Common Good Public Sector to do that. Will the Grand Private Sector ever put common good over profit, unless forced to do so by statute or regulation or other change in corporate law.

Until the Private Sector Will Provide Opportunity without Profit;

And Empathy without Resentment,

the Common Good Public Sector is needed to counter it.

The Public Sector is Reasonable and Necessary.

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin is emerging from recent turmoil where the representatives of the private sector pulled the rug out from under those in the public sector. Ultimately omitted from the new legislation was the attempt to give away public utilities -- no appraised value, no highest bidder -- but included apparently was awarding private school vouchers without regard to the income of the family, so that rich children could move out of the public schools and probably be a preferred applicant, compared to an inner city l'il dude. Predictable. Status?

Review the original bill to get an idea of the scope of the pulling out of the rug:

Text site: Governor Walker, Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill. Find Stealth Privatization.

Stealth Privatizer Alert.
Stealth Privatization.

The Governor speaks:

Why not let the Private take over the Public.
A wonderful no-bid public asset sale.
Look who wins! Look who loses!
The Private Sector's so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair. *
Who, when you win, will always give you your profits.
No Public Sector will let you do that.

Why not let the Private take over what Public ones do?

The Privatizer. Trust me.

For private corporations are divinely like Moguls.
Are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.
One Exec in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large Private Sector thinks it is a marvelous
Modus Operandi!
Even the Ponzis give us a chuckle.
Stealth profits, stealth warfare
Stealth class warfare, such fun.
But the Public Sector is so, so, so -- wimpy!
So womanish.So easy to control.
This isn't even sport.

Why can't the Public Sector be more like a Mogul?
'Cause Moguls like I would like to be
They are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
Make a distraction - deficit as distraction.
Then get what you want.
Go ahead. Undermine public education.
A better companion you never will find.

Waltz me around again, Walker.

Moguls are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. *

And the Private Sector already does fuel production

And transport. Expand! Privatize!
The Private Sector is so pleasant, so easy to please.
And never influenced by politics. FN 2
Direct administration by taxation money? FN 2.
Who needs it.
Outsourcing.
Good idea if it makes money.

Mogul's Privatization Song

The Privatizer continues:

Blackwater can do Defense!
Nobody accountable!
We'll find urban planners,
Take the Kelo approach.
Social security. FN 2
We will leave it all to the market. That we manipulate.
Worry about bad investments in the Public, over-investments? FN 2
As though that never happens in the Private Sector!

Partial outsourcing? Happens here as well.

Denationalize. Disinvest.
And let them discriminate - believe me, they will.
The Private Sector is so friendly, good-natured and kind.

Mogul-Hill, a Gated Community

If I don't get it this way, I'll get it another.
Stealth wins.
Distract the masses.
Heh heh.
Red herring, a common tack -- ://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
Stalking horse: collective bargaining.
Smoke screen: deficit.
We can live with the numbers for quite a while.
They'll never figure it out.

............................................................
* Fair use ://www.reelclassics.com/Musicals/Fairlady/lyrics/fairlady-whycantawoman.htm

...........................................

FN 1

Proposed Wisconsin legislation includes incendiary removal of Collective Bargaining, but that is a Red Herring, Smoke Screen, Stalking Horse. Moguls don't care about labor. Only smaller businesses do, and those are not moguls. Moguls talk to governors, promise them things. The bigger prize being purchased here is moguls owning public utilities. See background regarding the issue at ://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html, with the likely conclusion that the measure is geared to fostering political contributions to the governor, given his opposition to no-bids last year. Collective bargaining is vital to middle and lower income workers, who have seen incomes drop virtually parallel to reduction in union membership, but gets plenty of attention. See ://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x547604Sale of assets no-bid, and no public interest requirement, does not.

Top two percent. Ownership of media and corporate interests condensed to the few. The real national problem is Big Ownership, not Big Government. We can pay off the deficit in time, while retaining human values.

While media focuses on the easily filmed protestors on the union issue (worthy issue) the sale of assets slides by. Red herring for the moguls. Diversion while real issue for the top two percent slides under the radar. Is the real goal of the Wisconsin Budget Repair bill to secure no-bid, no public-interest stealth sales of public utilities to the private sector. The deficit: A red herring. Collective bargaining. A red herring. Smoke screen. Stalking horse. Horse trained to conceal the hunter, decoy. Sham issue used to disguise the real issue. Corruption. See://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking-horse

Wisconsin Proposed Budget Repair Bill

Section 44. 16.896 of the statutes is created to read: 16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

1. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker proposes a Wisconsin bill that would enable bid-free sale or contracting away of operations of State-owned utilities to the Private Sector.

In line to buy the power plant

Utilities for sale! Appetizing, lucrative utilities for sale! And no obligation to public interest.

It mi-i-ight ...

As we-e--ll ...

Be You-u-u-u-u.

2. Privatizing is not all bad. How much of this particular one is? Of interest: The bid-free, no public interest need be served provisions. Wisconsin's Governor Walker and the Budget Repair Bill, with this section hidden deep away from comment, mostly.

3. Would public services continue, with obligation to meet public interest and not profit? See Accenture Institute for Health and Public Service Value at ://www.accenture.com/us-en/industry/health/institute-health-public-service-value/Pages/index.aspx

4. Why is this privatization of corporations that serve the public's sustenance, education, and health needs such a bad idea? Asks the voter, perplexed, disinformed, uninformed, misled, spun.

Voters ask for objective information on privatization

5. Arguments against privatization: There is less money in serving the poor than in serving the rich, so ways will be found to make profits where that was not the motive before; and the ethical loyalty of the private sector in its commercial corporations is to its shareholders, the profit. Ethical loyalty of the public sector in its operations to serve the public is to the public, the service; and the legislature can govern it.

6. Neither has guarantees of sainthood in practice, but at least there is public interest recourse in the Public Sector ownership. It would take amending corporation law to give the same even flawed protections to consumers in private industry the degree that they get in the public sector, is that so?. The legislature of the state governs the public sector. The shareholders from anywhere control the private corporation; and the Boards, and the executives. No obligation to the common good.

FN 2 Public service listings and discusison, See ://www.blurtit.com/q750946.html
FN 3 Further public service listings and discussion, See ://www.blurtit.com/q180223.html

Propaganda InRoad, Persuasion from the 1920's. Speaks Today. Belief systems. Trustworthy roots or not. Who is the exploitative free-rider. Who the deserving aspiring.

2011-02-20T17:53:00.000-08:00

What was in the water in the 1920's?
1920's Pivotal People and Big Issues of Persuasion.

Bertrand Russell
Charlie Chaplin

Charlie Chaplin shore memorial, Lake Geneva, Montreux, Switzerland (culinary school promotion in the lake)

Adolf Hitler
Edward Bernays
Herbert Hoover
.
The HIT List.

From Hysteria Hitleria; and the Propaganda Regimen;
to Reasoned Public Interest.

Propaganda InRoad. A Clear Path.
.
What mix of elements speak to today, if any.

CADRES OF MINIONS: HOW THEY GROW

Words: See how they spin, force, scam. Media and public interest. See how obligations were viewed in the 1920's. Look at the variety and depth of thinking then.

Their approaches are relevant now. Same rules apply: Spin, force and anxiety produce minions, then and now.

How do people, in danger of becoming no more than minions, discern what are trustworthy roots, what are untrustworthy. How to know. Is the subjective pull a Political or Religious Awakening enough? Why not look further. Who is Behind the ad? Ask before you commit: Did Paul have a vision, or an epileptic fit, looking at a longer ago.

The process of targeting. Relevant today. How does the mindset of generic rejection set in, so entire groups are stereotyped. Who is a terrorist. Update to 7/2011. See the blond blue-eyed shooter in Oslo. Why do we keep on with our stereotypes?

Prisoners of wars. Red Cross HQ, Geneva, Switzerland

Regular people and nuance.

Why is nuance so frightening that people flock to the black and white. . Immigration, another example. Who is "worthy" to live in "your" country. How to identify an Exploitative Free-Rider? Is that situational, or endemic? A Sinner? A Threat? Exclude, punish, suppress. Or perhaps that is a Sincere Aspirant. Welcome.

Who teaches you?

How can our laws meet the safety and financial needs of the country, while preserving human dignity, opportunity and stability goals of democracy. It depends: Will people continue to choose to be minions.
If so, then the behind-the-scenes autocrats decide.

................................................................

.

I. PIVOTAL PEOPLE FROM THE 1920'S, and WHAT THEY THOUGHT;
LEST ANYONE FORGET.

Edward Bernays. The seller. Edward Bernays born 1891; development of marketing and political "propaganda" -- he could sell anything, so they said. Read his comprehensive view of propaganda, see ://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html/

Adolf Hitler. The forceful propagandist. Adolf Hitler born 1889, Mein Kampf, "My Struggle" and particularly chapter VI on propaganda methods aimed at the masses, who needs the intelligentsia. Read it at ://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/; see the progress report on one of his specific propaganda techniques, obliterating compassion. See Attack on Humanitarianism. See Chapter VI, Propaganda, Mein Kampf, Unser Kampf, Our Struggle.

Bertrand Russell. The analyst. Bertrand Russell born 1872, ://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html/ and at ://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm/ -- on figuring out trustworthy beliefs from untrustworthy beliefs; explore kinds of data methods of inference. Download it.

Charlie Chaplin. The observer. Charlie Chaplin born 1889, ://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/charlie-chaplin/about-the-actor/77/ -- the indefatigable chronicler, creator of meticulously detailed scenes where natural things could happen; watch with renewed interest.

Herbert Hoover. The perspectivist. Herbert Hoover (surprise!) born 1874, www://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/jmdempsey/.../Hoover_publicservice_revised.doc/ -- who gets too little credit for his view that broadcasting is more than profit-opportunity, it must also serve the public interest, convenience, necessity; avoid monopoly, and stopping short of setting programming, as government censorship. Hoover? A champion of broadcasters' obligation to the public interest. Quick. Download.

II. Contemporaries dealing with persuasion issues. Response [a work in progress, start here].

A Minion. Follower. Reactor supporting ideas of others, with varying degrees of vetting.

Minions can be individuals organizing others; or the organized ones in the aggregate. See a group of minions in the contemporary Tea Party, T is for Tsunami. Tea Anti-Intellectualism.

An individual Minion, our focus here, is a community organizer, but even that is inaccurate because real community organizers find out from the community what they want, and help them do it their way. Is that what happens with her group?

Meet one Adriana Inman, Fairfield Tea Party, Southwest Ohio.
She speaks here about her group's understandings and reasons for demonstrating in favor of the Wisconsin governor's proposed bill against certain bargained-for rights and benefits of state employees through their union work (demonstrations were proceeding against the bill).

Says Ms. Minion, explaining her grasp of the situation she sees and whom she follows -- Ms. Adriana Inman, as reported:

" 'We weren’t well-versed in everything about the bill and why they’re doing what they’re doing except that we’re broke as a state,' said Adriana Inman, an organizer with the Fairfield Tea Party in Southwest Ohio, who attended the rally (Wisconsin, to bust unions). She said that her group had many union members."

Fair use, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/politics/19states.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Says Ms. Minion, as reported, opposing a particular sales tax increase:

" 'I am not for the tax," said Adriana Inman, a member of the Fairfield Township Tea Party. 'I believe the people have spoken,' she said, referring to the recent election when voters elected many fiscally conservative candidates."

Fair use, http://www.123people.com/ext/frm?ti=person%20finder&search_term=adriana%20inman&search_country=US&st=person%20finder&target_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmassdiscussion.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F11%2Fbutler-county-sales-tax-sheriff.html&section=blog&wrt_id=262/

Teach a population the mindset of generic rejection. Glittering generalities. No nuance. Are there taxes that make more money than they take? Perhaps, but not for the Minion, see NYT Feb.20, 2011, taxes that do double duty by Robert Frank.

Says Ms. Minion, as reported, about her enjoying American life until her "awakening"

"Adriana Inman, a co-leader of the Fairfield group, saw the Tea Party as an awakening. A mother and courts interpreter of Colombian parentage, she had never been involved in politics before. 'We have been silent for too long, enjoying the American life and giving our kids what we can,' she said."

Fair use http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8010919/Tea-Party-insurgents-prepare-to-seize-power-in-2012.html/

Enjoying life? What changed, except persuaders.

Awakenings. These follow a pattern once emotions are hooked, facts are merely scratchings from the other side of the wall. See the Psychology of Awakening at http://books.google.com/books?id=8StGLzHPG3QC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=awakening+mental+phenomenon&source=bl&ots=JDwiYW0h03&sig=KfWErpRa60DCye9w2bcgS0DWhrQ&hl=en&ei=StNiTaO_C5S5twensqyuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false/

Group Persuasion and Medical-psychological orientation.

Mass hysteria: Medical people have looked at this for years, see http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mass+hysteria. Mass hysteria is "[t]he transmission of anxiety among a group of individuals."

It can be a group event, spontaneous, where the individuals display the same physical or emotional symptoms. "A socially contagious frenzy of irrational behavior in a group of people as a reaction to an event." See the freedictionary site, aimed at basic definitions.

III. PIVOTAL PEOPLE FROM THE 1920'S LOOK AT THE MINION:
REGARDING PERSUASION ISSUES.

HOW DOES SHE KNOW, WHAT SHE THINKS SHE KNOWS?
We all need to ask that of what we think we know these days.

1. Edward Bernays looks at the Minion.

"Well done, whoever created the campaign to get that FreedomWorks group going. Look at the enthusiasm, the dedication to the cause as it was framed for them: the state is broke, so this is the answer. This Minion, identifying with the Tea Party it says, part of the effort of FreedomWorks I bet, asks no further questions but responds to the handler's call to produce people to go and demonstrate.

The show window. Let me buy! Here, Croatia.

"From what she says, the people going to rally (I looked up what that was) don't have the foggiest about whether there are issues involved that work against their own interest. Sounds instead like one big party, a social event from an address list. Even union people are going along to demonstrate against unions. Excellent. You don't get that kind of loyalty without somebody really smart setting that stage and calling the shots.
.

"I always approached any kind of sales, whether selling an image for some public figure, or changing the image of a product, like cigarettes, so women would join in and the industry would sell more.

"See my museum site at The Museum of Public Relations at http://www.prmuseum.com/bernays/bernays_1915.html/ Click on the top categories -- I could even sell people on cold old Calvin Coolidge. Nothing malevolent as far as I am concerned, in this selling business. I am constantly amused at what people will swallow, and do enjoy pushing the envelope. Hey - mass hysteria? Mass hysteria is just good old enthusiasm. If it sells, use it."

Bernays also was Freud's nephew. See more at NPR (and give it back its funding, thank you) at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4612464

2. Adolf Hitler looks at the Minion.

"First, I disagree with that Bernays fellow. There is nothing fun about this. It is not sport, seeing what you can sell to whom. These are deadly serious. We are talking politics and national honor and it is live or die for us, for Germany. For our Germany as it is destined to be. We are chosen. We are not like those others, the exploitative free-riders

[that phrase about exploitative free riders, is not Hitler's, but it fits the concept. It stems from dominance theory of leadership, the drive to punish and suppress free-riders, threats to a society, see An Evolutionary Psychology of Leader-Follower Relations, google book at http://books.google.com/books?id=aIXqOQNRSIcC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=psyche+of+a+follower&source=bl&ots=mffnv8colU&sig=1UrVZwM836IFw3XICHdEuPE46mw&hl=en&ei=GmxgTc7eGsPogAfgp6CjAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false] FN 1

and Jews and other undesirables, including the intelligentsia who are spoiled brats. We rally our masses because our cause is just. We decide. All we need to do is drum into the masses these three things, no details at all, just the conclusion and wind them up and watch them go:

The fact is clear (whatever fact you are using at the time),
The method is necessary (whatever means you want to use to get what you want),
The necessity is correct. (what we choose to do is the correct one, no other choices)

"Here: I have a little card you can put in your wallet on how to persuade the masses. Just keep it simple, a slogan to drive the idea into their feelings, and repeat. That's it. Where is that thing? Oh, yes, here it is. My Propaganda Regimen. And, of course, mass hysteria as you call it now, is the starting point for serious persuasion.

Adolf Hitler Post-Putsch
The HIT List

Propaganda Regimen
for Persuasion Success With the Masses

No debate, no facts, repeat.
No debate, no facts, repeat.
No debate, no facts, re.......

As seen on TV: Eine Kleine Mein Nein

1.    Induce. Create threat, fear of survival, loss of identity, ideology, valued position.

2.    Spin. Ridicule, select information

3.    Scapegoat. Ideas and entire groups. Persecute, identify undesirables, accuse perceived exploitative free-riders

4.    Slogans. Sound-bites to compel feeling-level commitment before facts are out.

5.    Focus. On the masses. Skip analytical thinkers.

6.    Obstruct. The fact is clear, the method necessary, the necessity correct.

7. Obliterate. Humanitarianism and aesthetics. This is Struggle.

8. Display. Stage certainty, consistency, uniformity, regardless of truth.

9. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Watch people flock.

"You like that? ISSSFOODR is 4U. Nine rhymes with Mein as Mein Kampf. Nine. Nein. Get it?

Induce,
Spin
Scapegoat,
Sloganeer,
Focus,
Obstruct,
Obliterate,
Repeat.

"I thought you would. Pretty clever. Catchy. And it works. Just turn on that TV of yours. Now, you ask about the Putsch * thing? That was not long ago. The Putsch was a great jumping-off point for me because I learned that plots for attempted revolts, guns and revolution, have too many variables: get the take-over you want by using the constitution.

"The constitution! Use that! Whoever you are. Referring to it works for getting revolutions going. That works! Especially for getting guns in everybody's hands. Public health and safety nuts can't argue with the constitution, can they, unless they show it means something different and that won't happen with this crowd on the court. I read the papers. People like guns, including me (I had one at the Putsch) and we had lots of guns to use in that effort at revolution, but don't let it out that that didn't matter. The government wouldn't follow me that time we even though we had the guns, the jerks.

"What failed? This is what happened. In 1923. In Munich. I hatched a revolution plot with other Nazis to overthrow the Berlin Government because they were toadying, absolutely toadying to the French and paying those staggering reparations from WWI, and it was time to get our German honor back. It got botched, so I got jailed.

"But the joke's on them. People don't come out of jail reformed. They come out with a smarter plan to do what they planned to do in the first place. I just used my time behind bars wisely: to collect my thoughts. I wrote Mein Kampf, My Struggle. Let's see, I have a copy of that here somewhere, too.

"And the best part is, I learned that overt revolution may well not work. Too many variables. So I decided to use the constitution to get what I wanted. The constitution! Who can argue against that! [see See the BBC schools-oriented outline, very easy to read, just for us rabble, at://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/munichputschrev_print.shtml/

"Adolf, Adolf, sometimes I astound myself. Don't do overt rebellion. Just use the constitution and you get home free, pretty much. People let their guard down.

Bernays: (interrupts) "But that turned out to be a disaster! The Putsch may have been a mere failure of strategy, but the idea for propagandizing the people was a disaster. It not only failed when they woke up, millions of people had died, a nation in ruins, Jews and others slaughtered, slaughtered. And you dead, too. You had a regular house to grow up in, I see, reasonably regular family, we think -- it was in Austria and not bombed, yet look ye gods what happened everywhere else!"

The Hitler family house, Leonding, Austria. Just folks.

Hitler: (muses, nonplussed) "I did like that house. Nice.

"But the point is not that I came from folks like you. The idea I had, was that with correct information control, I could bring back Germany's greatness, its superior destiny, and that Idea did not fail.

"I won because the idea lives on:., that controlling information and reaction is not that difficult, and any fool who wants to control a nation or sell a product or an idea can use the techniques to do it.

"The implementation I tried failed for correctable reasons next time.

"I miscalculated one element: the psychological correctness of the propaganda. I bit off more than I could chew, so to speak, and went about it too drastically, like that Wisconsin (where the heck is that??). Big ideas are better implemented with gradualism, so people can get used to the idea, like the frog in the warm water. That may be a fake story, that the frog will sit there as the water gets hotter, but you get the idea. I couldn't resist grandstanding and tanking into Poland and then too fast elsewhere. That's all. (admires his nails)

"But this Minion we have here.

"Whoever got the message to her got it right. She's right in there, a full-throttle believer who has the slogans at the tip of her tongue no matter the question -- sloganeering -- that's vital. She's good at it. She follows where her handler says it leads: that the state is broke. So go and whack unions, not the parts that may make a difference and stop there, but cut out the whole concept of collective bargaining. I looked that up, by the way. Wonderful idea but it won't work. Too much to bite off at once. . Lots of ways to define that, see how it happened, how other people should be accountable for it, all that silly nuance.

"But the certainty of her handlers may make up the difference. Just see what her handlers tell her: the state's broke, bring your people, don't bother looking into whether the governor's step is fair, timely, balanced, could be parsed out a little. And look at this. She doesn't even want to know! Trust! Trust! Beautiful

"Now, for her to get into that state of absolute followership, somebody had to create a survival crisis -- get anxiety up, paint a bad picture going on about lifestyle, ideology, threat to privilege, such as she may have. Who did that? That takes media, just spinning what they want and in turn using my steps. That has to have happened before she would buy into it.

"Congratulations, you survival struggle creators. Great job. Once hooked, anxious people will follow until they feel safe, and you can keep holding off the safe feeling until you have all the money and power you want. Brilliant."

"Does the Minion even know who set up her group? We all know now Koch Koch b'Gosh, see NYT 2/22/2011 at A16, for example; but during election season, that was even off the talk shows as I recall (I do watch), that she now is a community organizer for? What are their financial interests in this. Are they really interested in her? They have it right on how to get people on board -- billionaires raking it in off working and middle people and retirees, brilliant:

"Get this. Propaganda is a method of persuasion that sucks in support, by deceiving supporters as to the identity and motives and financial stake of their persuaders. Look how it works here: I've been watching. People are led to think Plan A is in their interest, so support it; but another Plan may well be more in their particular interest. Too late. Sorry. Election's over. Or as to products, this pill will do that, when it won't, but look at the money the pill-makers made in the meantime.

"Look again at my Beer Hall Putsch, The Failure that Changed the West.

Putsch: Attempt to overthrow a government, plotted in secret, and sudden. A fast hit. See://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/putsch . Beer Hall Putsch: Putsch hatched in a particular pub basement, Munich 1923. See ://europeanhistory.about.com/od/referenceencyclopedia/g/blbeerhallp.htm

"It sure did. Propaganda is going strong. Thank you, thank you. And let it be sinister. Let the puppeteers pull the strings any way they want. Don't water this stuff down. In particular as to that humanitarian drivel. No place for humanitarianism, or aesthetics, in a survival struggle. And if we're not in one, we'll make one. And be certain Certain. Certain. In every communication. No room for doubt."
.

"And in case this goes by the wayside, don't forget - Punishment produces people who exit smarter, in what they wanted to do. That's a problem, as I found out -- we had all those undesirables and just couldn't get rid of them fast enough...."

He continues at FN 1, but Bertrand Russell is getting impatient.
.

3. Bertrand Russell looks at the Minion.

"That took long enough, Adolf, for one who believes in pithy emotional slogans and not a lot of nuance. You really blew it. Look at what you did.

Mauthausen Concentration Camp, Austria. Mother Germany Grieves

"Persuading people. I know all about that, believe you me. You and I, we lived at the same time. But if you want to get beyond the masses as you say, in a lasting way, it is going to take nuance and not absolutes because if the masses get disillusioned and if the intelligentsia is not backing you up and go against you also, you are toast.

"Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are right and the masses are really incapable of walking and chewing gum. Just lead them along.

"But I don't think so. I wrote my paper on trustworthy beliefs and untrustworthy beliefs, how people can tell the difference, in the hope that regular people may use that to rethink what they think they think.

"I think they want to know when they are being used, and are capable of analysis if given neutral information before they have to commit.

"The problem for the masses is that you hit them with the conclusions; and demand that they believe before they have all the facts; and then they may well get disillusioned when they find out you are just after their money, or for your own power.

"Those Koch folks -- koching whose goose.

"Mass hysteria? Hysteria Hitleria should be the academic term. But that makes light of how lethal it can be to induce it.

"Hers is a typical problem. Here is nice Citizen Adriana who trusts, perhaps is getting a little tired of her life, looking for a more deserving identity, a "place". But she may well not know at all what she is demonstrating for. She just trusts whoever said everything is rotten, because she was restless at the time, felt disjointed, put upon by Life, and they offer her a 'place"\'.

"Everybody wants a place in the sun, and maybe the life you chose isn't giving it to you. You're ripe for some untrustworthy beliefs, if you think they are the ticket. Some even change their names from the origins, to be more 'American' and still feel had.

"Dear Adriana. Think carefully. How to tell trustworthy beliefs from untrustworthy ones.

"Go to my paper on that, on how people have to analyze the kind of deductions they are making, and from what evidence. What do the induce, conclude, what is the role of kinds of data. Are you really on solid ground, or is this all "feeling" as they say, and new friends, and new energy that you really needed at this point in your life.

"An Awakening?? America is full of religious awakenings and this political one is right on the coattails.

"Ask before you buy into the tent: Who said what to get that idea in there. What was their interest?

"I say this to the Minion: From your ignorance, your eagerness to accept a slogan and rally people as the handler wants, watch out. Your belief may well be based on mere propaganda, but it was so effectively presented, that you believe it to be grounded. No wonder Hitler here was so derisive in speaking of the intelligentsia. Yes, we get tangled in our words and concepts, and may not act at all because all is so nuanced; but who is the greater danger to humanity. Leadership: driven by prestige, dominance. How to counter that.... hmmmm"

4. Charlie Chaplin looks at the Minion.

Charlie Chaplin looks at the Minion. Really, Montreux, Switzerland

.
"This lady is at a fork. Doesn't know what she is here for. Neither does anybody else. Still, let things happen naturally. Set the stage for a natural response, and you have the world. No force, no deception. Just make it possible, is what I say.

"I'm a detail man myself. I want everything covered. I take nothing from anyone. I'd make people do the scene over and over until we got it right. And even then, I might change my mind and want to add this or that. But that led to insights for people watching -- it all appeared so natural. And the sympathies I engendered! It didn't take propaganda. Pay attention to what is natural, and use that. You don't need fakery, or coasting on other people's ideas so you just hop on board ding ding.

"Learn something here, Minion. I saw you on an interview at ://qik.com/video/15123510/ You are not a fact-analysis person, but that's ok. You are awakened, you want to awaken people, but you had a nice life before, so I understand, and thought America was ok as you raised your own family, and you got a nice start even though you like everybody else had forbears from somewhere else, I think yours was Colombia. Wonderful. You're about 45 -- and you talk about an awakening? Who and huh? The point is, who persuaded you that the nation is in such trouble? Who made that up? Go check.

"I bet if you look back, you'll find people just making money off all of you. America is doing fine as a nation, except for the exploitative free-riders, and I see them on the talk shows on the right. My own viewpoint. Make up your own mind, as I guess you have, and if your feelings are the basis of it, nobody can touch it. They win. You might lose, but they win.

"Talkies. Never had much use for them"

And he duck-foots off.

5. Herbert Hoover looks at the Minion.

"High time. I've been so misunderstood and stereotyped -- like the rest of you, history takes one or two sides of us and runs with it. I worked hard for the public interest, but all that gets shoved under the rug because it is not as glitzy as hunting commies or personal life.

"I'd have seen to it that the radio serves the public interest by putting on the programs that do that. This is not just a money-maker out there. This belongs to the people. Beware monopoly, beware for the democratic system if the radio and TV -- I've been keeping up and like the one where somebody said TV is just a toaster with a screen on it.

"But airwaves can't be used just for money. Too dangerous. I'm not saying I'm for censorship, but I've even been quoted favorably by John McCain -- see that site at the beginning. Download that, I dare you, and maybe you will see me in a fuller, more accurate light."

Adriana, the media let you down, lady. You've had your emotions high-jacked before anybody in the broad public had access to full facts. That's a travesty. Mass hysteria: radio has the means to get all sorts of people on a hysteria track. Who knows what will be invented next. Someday somebody will do a War of the Worlds on the radio, that HG Wells was born in 1898 -- a contemporary of ours -- maybe he'll do it, see://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/warworlds/warw.html/ and people will believe, and then watch real hysteria."

"Beliefs need a sorting hat. Trustworthy here, untrustworthy there. But will people pay attention? No. They believe whpever says they will give them what they, in their heart of hearts, want. Get those emotions going. That's the key."

..............................................

MS INMAN SPEAKS;

AND IS RESPONDED TO.

6. The Minion (which? does it matter? fungible?). "This is not fair. I am just doing my job, as a good community organizer, even if I am not really a community organizer because I go against what community organizers really do, about. I just take orders and tell the people on my lists what to do, and not look beyond to be sure that what I am selling is really in their interest, or mine, and look what thanks I get.

"They jusgt call me on the phone, the Koches the Armeys the whatever; and they say they need people, I got the people lists and I get them out.

"It is not my business, and not yours, if I or they have a clue what is really going on. I get nice trips and perks and I feel important pushing the ideas they tell me to push, so back off.

The Minion? Or from a mural at the Pan Earth Restaurant, Bonaparte Docks, Antwerp. (Antwerp!)

"Yes, there are videos of me on the net, and sites, and I can't help it if I am getting attention. But I've had this Awakening, -as the videos say, to what is going on, and that is my message.

"Join us and you also can feel awakened. New friends, places to go. People to inform you. Fall in love again! With political ideas! Sign right up! And I'm going to do my part to stop the takeover of America and take back America. And it says here that it is insulting that you would question whether I have checked out what I have been told.

"That is also -- what is that (looks at the back of her hand) -- oh, yes, Patronizing. I feel patronized. I am insulted. I am fully aware that this is a down-from-the-top fact-avoidant merry dictatorship - we'll tell you in a fun way what to think, you get the people out. But that is fine with me. I am busy and don't have time. There goes the phone! Hello? Yes, just be there by 10 and we'll have the placards. Dress warm! Bye! "

Merrily exits.

THE HANDLER MUSES:

Handler.

7. Handler-Persuader (A Koch, Rove, Limby, Armey, whoever) (strokes his chin, as he gazes out the window at a little moth, a touch of white, just there, on the apple, low-right bough, moving just a little). "What we must learn," he thinks aloud, "is that the propaganda process is good for getting people on board. But we must use propaganda better than the Meister did. Learn from his mistakes.

(The persuader swings his foot under the table as he gets more excited.)

"Certainty. That is still the key.

"Say almost anything, but be certain about it. Never even refer to the other side or the merits of their arguments. Don't argue. State.

"We will draw the same clear lines between clearly this and clearly that, but then we will go the extra step. We will tie our clear statements of fact in with just a soupcon of reality, just enough that people can possibly look to their own experience and find just something to support it. Get them to relax about what we are saying, nodding just so, offer a bus perhaps, a little time away, a bit of excitement in a retired life, or a dull kitchen, enough to get their guard down, let us get into their feeling level, that they deserve more than they have in their lives, they deserve it and we offer how to get it from the undeserving ones, and if we can do that, they will believe, they will believe if we don't go too far at once .... hmmmm.

"Get the constitution in there fast. And be sure, as the Meister did, to say we are just following the constitution. That worked for him, until it didn't."

The 1920's. Propaganda and Persuasion. Both got a running start. Human nature and vulnerabilities do not change, but manipulation of them hones. See FN 2.

.................................................................

* The Beer Hall Putsch

Adolf Hitler and his fellows in the Nazi party in 1923 loathed the democratic government in Berlin that had resumed ruinous reparations payments to the Allies, after losing World War I. Hitler and the Nazis plotted to kidnap leaders of one of the state governments, in Bavaria. The leaders were to be guests of honor at a nice dinner at a beer hall in Munich. Hitler would force them to support him (he had a gun), they would gain support of the army, and lead a revolt against Berlin. But it all fell apart, see ://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/putsch2.htm/.

Dan Widing at the Hofbrauhaus, Munich, Germany (yes, both are of age). No Putsch going on, but history once did.

...........................................

FN 1 Reference to the catchy phrase, exploitative free-rider, is not an endorsement of the thesis at this point of the book, that dominance leadership qualities are honed in battle, therefore war shapes leadership gene tranmission because the stupid ones get killed off. One Cassus is cited, we think that is Crassus (see ://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-carrhae.php) stated to be particularly stupid as a general in Roman times, whose army got killed off, as was Cassus. Our view: a general may be dim, but his soldiers are not necessarily so at all. Perhaps his soldiers were brilliant, and the winner soldiers were dim but had a smarter general, etc.

........................................................

FN 2. Persuasion in the 1920's. What was in the water? Do a search for persuasion in the 1920's. See the google books come up. Then do propaganda and the 1920's. For a website and not a book, see ://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Propaganda-Total-war-1917-1945.html

Reason and Critical Thinking. Countering the Castle Persuaders. CPAC Says, What?

2011-02-09T14:47:00.000-08:00

Rational Analysis and Change.
The Role of Critical Thinking.
Do Reason and Fact have any Leverage once Emotions are Hooked.

No.

Persuasion. How to foster reasoning and analysis so people can determine their own interest. Is this possible when the counter-persuaders are out there with communications consultants, research on how to persuade masses of people: fast glamor and buses and freebies, promises, fancy words and allusions, skills in communication, motivating the feeling level. I offer thee a castle. Follow me. Don't ask questions, trust. And media is complicit, either because they want the persuaders to succeed; or because they fail to research and unmask the techniques. Broadcast and Cable Complicit. Missing the Propaganda Boat.

Is this true: That there is no way to counter feelings, desire, as a motivator. The side that gets the feelings wins the war of persuasion. The castle-persuaders. The only way to counter the castlers, feeling-level persuasion, is by education -- and that takes time, motivation, and meanwhile the rest of the castle-persuaders are out there.

How does it work.

Budapest. The tunnel is but one way to the other side.

Step one is to make the goal look so great to the people that they will want to get there. A castle! The more attractive the goal is represented to be, the faster people will want to get there. Yes. Just the thing. A castle! How to get the people up there? Just as an inclined rail car gets to the top faster than climbing, or using a tunnel and trying to find a road on the other side, some means of persuasion are faster than others. So the people take the inclined rail car, all excited.

The problem for the people arises when the zippy inclined rail car takes people to the top, to the castle where they believed they wanted to be, they may realize that they are not let in after all. The choice to take the rail car had no merit for the people after all. Many find that their interest really was in remaining near the river below. Also prettier, and you can swim there. Perhaps. There they could also mess around in boats.

Oh, no! I coulda had a better way. Too late. What could the other side have said or done, to counter the castle-persuaders' persuasiveness. David Brooks suggests rational thought combined with emotion as the new humanism, see ://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=opinion/ The theory is nice, but fails to address the effect of dedicated propaganda techniques of disinformation and limiting information. Rational thought is truncated when it is prevented from seeing reasonably all the fodder needed for the debate.

The hurdle is blocking persuasion by emotion before the facts are out and analyzed. The playbook of propaganda.

1. Limits of Rational Thought. Expansion into Application.

What other disciplines try to harness rational thought, promote self-determination, open doors, motivate.

a. The main limit: Rational analysis can be blocked. Control the message, control the messengers.

See Chapter VI, Mein Kampf, My Struggle, Propaganda. See the thought process of supremacism, see Permanent Underclass Game.

How did the propaganda master do it. It failed only because it overreached -- its subject matter and social effects were devastating, grisly, contrary to many people's experience once they looked closely. But until those became clear, the propaganda worked. The masses moved in the direction they were told. By what techniques? Create a clear and concise message, stick to it, no dilution, no answering questions, ignore the "intelligentsia" as unnecessary to winning (you just need the uneducated masses, was the idea, and that worked -- the thinkers sputtered on and nobody paid attention). Our Struggle: Paraphrase of My Struggle, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI, Propaganda

a. If you can't block rational analysis, can existing disciplines help educate the masses, and re-educate the rulers in the direction of a common good.

Doubtful. The theories are all fine, but those were the same kinds of theories that were used to advantage in My Struggle, Mein Kampf, but without the fancy words.

(1) Social Work as an approach.

The profession of Social Work (not my field) is waking up to the limits of a focus mostly on clinical research and applications. That kind of rational thought is too abstract. The School at the University of Pennsylvania has broadened its offerings, into areas like philosophy and political theory, to become the Penn School of Social Policy and Practice. See ://www.sp2.upenn.edu/. Train people to take the theories, and apply them to policy and practice.

This is good training. It is debatable whether either social work or teaching are "professions," since the practitioners do not have autonomy over what they do each day, with all the imposed protocols, reporting hierarchies and the like., required curricula and so on. But to the degree that any occupation promotes a client's use of reason, analysis, critical thinking, in our view that is "professional." The training for the occupation is moving other people to a self-determination they did not have before. The occupation offers an alternative to the emotional latching-on.

Social work broadly aims to empower individuals and communities to determine and seek their own interest against the rulers, without being paternalistic and doing the deciding and goals for them. Can its researched approaches be used to coax instead (or in addition) the rulers to give up some of that power they hold against the weak. What wakes people up from a for-granted acceptance of a status quo, to see visions of their own sugarplums as rulers in a different direction from merely retaining and using power.

Shortcoming of idea. No clout. Power wants none of it. Can't even get them to the table. Common good? Sounds too goody-goody. A real man doesn't compromise, or change positions when circumstances change. And public good doesn't make as much money. The Wall Street Journal fights this idea. Persuasion for them, aimed at changing mindsets of rulers, does not sway them, because they are the dug in and cannot see over their own commentary.

How do we think we know? Here is our rational thought process. We were mis-delivered one of those Wall Street Journals (WSJ), instead of receiving our customary New York Times (NYT).We dare you to find articles in the WSJ that support environmental protection, for example, a matter that serves the common good, but not the pocketbook of the rulers. Can you find articles that support fostering a productive, educated, healthy population, not a restive, angry one. Probably few. Instead, blast off the mountaintops, because it is fast; and pass on the whole sterile bag to the next generation. The NYT, to us at least, regularly cites arguments put forth by others, such as opponents of providing health care to more people because of the cost; or opponents of taxing the top 2% -- the top twopers, or top twopies. You do see both sides. So, what if we sent a social worker to the WSJ.

(2) Social Work Theories for moving minds

See ://www.buzzle.com/articles/social-work-theories.html:

social cognitive theory (individual psychology base, essentially);
conflict theory (unity gets the marginalized people farther than individuals can get themselves, like in unions, or minority R's in congress some time ago);
social constructivist theory (how norms affect individuals and groups, and how to move norms along); and
feminist groups, theories there probably applicable to other identifiable groups as well.
Systems theory. This has been a big one affecting how a situation can or cannot be affected:

The system shapes the individual so the system's needs are met for survival of the system, even if it sacrifices individuals, is that roughly it?
Try to change a system, and find the resistance.
The family's identified trouble-maker, for example, will be subjected to all sorts of pressures to keep him there, see http://www.ehow.com/about_5422804_general-systems-theory-social-work.html/
Remove that troublemaker, and another will be identified because that system needs one. Etc.

With a theory in mind, a social worker can promote or counter a situation. Have several theories in mind. Select the handle of choice. Affecting outcomes is not random.

what is happening,
why is it happening,
what is likely next, see ://ezinearticles.com/?Social-Work-Theory-and-Practice---Making-the-Links&id=1956566/

This is just what Hitler looked at in developing his 1925 theory of propaganda. How to control what is happening, why, what is likely next, and how to control it.

b. Examine the process of Critical Thinking, Rational Analysis

Description

Rational analysis and social work, people working to enable others to function more effectively in their own interest. See ://www.wright.edu/cola/Dept/social_work/sw_definition.htm/

Facts. This way of affecting change (or resisting it) means a) gathering facts, b) assessing, then c) looking at how those stack up to "universal" values like "clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, depth, breadth and fairness." See ://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm/.

Values. This way of affecting change is difficult if the rulers are highly resistant -- why should they change when they cannot be forced. Still, the disempowered may be motivated highly by values, and stay with the debate, even if the ones in their way could care less. See more on critical thinking at ://www.csuchico.edu/phil/ct/ct_assess.htm/

Critical Thinking can be fostered. But its precepts take the same kind of repetition and broad exposure, all the time, as is used by the controlling persuaders.

Compare. The Rachel Maddow Show Critical Thinking. Measure the incidence of opinion or conclusion statements against actual facts presented and documented. High marks. You may not like the conclusion, but it is supported. It is up to you to find contrary facts. Not bad for TV. Compare to Chris Matthews: he puts up again and again the point he is criticizing -- with the result that the audience is exposed a dozen times to the same sound-bite with its fact-free base, and it is the sound bite that will be remembered, not the Matthews criticism of it. Update to 3/7/2011. Michelle Bachman repeating some insupportable idea. And refusing to answer questions about it on the Sunday shows. Of course she won't answer. None of them will. To answer a question legitimizes the question, dilutes the message. Must stick with the message, and it works, flail Chris Matthews as you will. Flail on. She is winning. They are winning the mind game.
.
TV is usually a desert, but see how commentator Rachel Maddow explored rational analysis and policy the other night.

Maddow techniques to foster critical thinking: Juxtapositions. Maddow often puts side by side two policies separately stated, but that turn out to be mutually exclusive. This is seldom seen on Fox or broadcast.

Example: She had a visual, with conservative across the top, then two sub-table headings: conservatives who like big government (Bush era, added to government payroll big-time and other facts); and conservatives who do not (tea folk, small government) and the game of chicken going on. She juxtaposed the verbalized value of "small government" against the clear "big government" impact of government taking over moral decisions of citizens and sitting in on (this extrapolates) on the monitoring of every pregnancy in the land to see that no cluster was disturbed.

Where else does Juxtaposition point out the need for critical thinking?

We think also of this juxtaposition: traditional Christian values from the Teachings (give two coats if your neighbor asks for one), and help your neighbor and your neighbor is everybody, etc; with the gated-community, punitive, judgmental exclusions of the needy from their happily ensconced radar after 10 years of hoarding. "Institutional" systems Christianity takes over from the teachings and makes it its own. God wants you rich. So go ahead, stomp.

3. Religion. Can that help? Not much. Religion is taught to benefit the teachers, the institutions that clump like coral to original ideas, if we can even . The ideology may have little to do with the Founder.

4. Give up and make up some sound bites of your own.

Get them on the air. Resistance to change of mindset? Get sporting.

a. Cheers -- for Non-rational belief. Juxtapose. Juxtapose the outcome of the political view with the religious justification for greed. Jesus wants you to be rich. Sample cheers heard or suggested:

(unison and Sassy)

Go, Chris-tians

Beat Poor Ones

(sway, wave)

Wooo!

(jump, bend knees, heads sideways, arms out)

Budget Reduction. Cheer: Go, Christians. Beat poor ones.

b. Cheers for the logical extension of the political view.

Versicle and Response, to promote one side making moral decisions for another: show the logical consequence, the absurdity. Have they thought of that?

Cheerleaders do a little dance, bouncing,

forefingers waggling; then, for second part,

wiggle a slightly different little dance, acting it out

A girl's, A woman's bod-y? You want to De-cide? Go! In-trude! Take it fur-ther. Real time ex-ams.

Each bel-ly In your dis-trict. You show up. Check probes. It's your Big Gov-ernment Dictating.

So en-force it. Daddy Tax-waster, Voy-eur Sham.

(unison)

Is that so? (clap clap)

CHOREOGRAPHY:

Cheerleaders in Unison sing-song

They say they fight big government. Then put it in the bed. And now in O-B-G-Y-N rooms.
They've lost moral cred.

Women's Cage, Inquisition, Levoca, Slovakia

And no Viagra!

Cheers.

Write your own. See ://www.ultimatecampresource.com/site/camp-activities/chants-cheers.page-1.html/ Remember, campers. It's the obligation of each legislator to monitor each district pregnancy personally. Without pay. No taxes for voyeurs.

Query: If each legislator planning to vote to compel child-bearing had to watch the process month by month for two years after, while the gent goes free, would they still vote for it. Perhaps. Worth a try. Research needed. The Legislator Moccasin Law.

Meanwhile, in the examining room:

You mean Big Government is coming in here? Is that my Legislator?

Focus on Neuro Ads. Psy Ops in Politics. Political Military Industrial Complex.

2011-01-17T11:24:00.000-08:00

Psy Ops in Politics
Neuro Ads. Neuro Marketing and Deep Persuasion

Focus on How to Polarize, Propagandize, and Demonize based on Technique, not Merit

I. Situation room.

Ike had his warning. Military and Industry together and in league are trouble. Note to Ike: Military and Industrial are not complex enough. Now add the Political, with Marketing by Neuro Research hiding in its pockets.

The Tax Pie Group, organized to focus voters on what really really persuades them, brings this warning: The nation's neuro-researched commercial and CIA persuasion machines, see NeuroFocus and their "buying room" http://www.neurofocus.com/ now feed the politics you think you "choose". See also ://neuromarketingresearch.com/. Continue your search into the night.

Choice? Hie thee hence, pea-brained consumer, intone neuro-mappers. Politics now joins the military and industrial machines to create a new Trinity, a religion-like institution -- The Political Military Industrial Complex, and like its cousin, the Venus Flytrap, you are next, thanks to the research the taxpayer paid for for the military, or politics now buys from the marketing gurus, or that they offer in exchange for pretties, and that now is used against us, is that so?

Tax Pie has recovered the secret logo of the PMI, shown below, the Circle of Friends in this new trinity. The lone wolves and other "unaffiliated" are right at the center.

Logo, Trinity of the Political-Military-Industrial Complex. Blackwater-Saracen International Types, Militias, Guerrillas and Lone Wolves in the center

Looks just like a helicopter, doesn't it. Good for wolf hunting while warm and the wolf hasn't a chance. Very brave. Whumpa-whumpa.
.
II. Fraud on the Taxpayer. Conversion.

The PMI Complex uses persuasion techniques developed by not only private industry marketers (Edward Bernays and progeny are now not in issue).

Neuro marketing, neuro research, all bring new dimensions and virtually invisible force to, as the NeuroFocus site lists tremulously

brand! (You doubt?) Even the Wicked Witch of the North wants to trademark her name, and so does her Offspringa.
product!
packaging!
instore sound-bite seductioins!
advertising!
entertainment!

And all these selling angles take place at the preconscious level, the precognitive level -- that is, the blessed buyer does not even know he or she is being sold. Use neurology to get at your very own consumer along the purchaser's own unique neuronetworks of what he or she wants to see, wants to hear. Sell it. After all 95% if people's decisions come from that under-the-conscious level, so tap in to that. Read "The Buying Brain". Deep persuasion.

If you qualify, and this is only for the elite, you can get access to a private website that will tell you more MORE MORE. Marketing! for your politics and your image.

And there is more. The private industry marketers are using CIA and other military-governmental research and practices to polarize and demonize, as well as whatever they research on their own. It is old hat that selling is not a matter of merits; it is a matter or persuasion regardless of merit.

Look again at the ramifications. This manipulation of public opinion has broad social consequences, with some acting as though overthrow of something is part of the Trinity's great revolving door's legitimate effort. See Route to Mauthausen, Polarize, Propagandize and Demonize. Then ask if this is so.

To the extent that taxpayer money funds the military-CIA-government operations and research, that then arrives handily at the open doors of politicians' and industrialists' and NRA (representing Miscellaneous Society Components Selling Ideology), that tax money should be rebated to the taxpayers as an illegal and asocial conversion.

The Political-Military-Industrial complex, or PMI, finds this arrangement to be more than a moneymaker. It is unassailable as presently constructed, jeopardizing the democratic process that depends on fully informed voters. Consumer protection needed. To Everyman, this new Trinity is virtually unassailable, seeping into every house with TV or other media. Watch in dismay as big interests, including the NRA, banks (these should be categorized as utilities) and roving mischief-makers sell you the latest Brooklyn Bridge. See George C. Parker who did that about 1901, at ://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Brooklyn_Bridge_Scams/

Deniable feeder arrangement. Is this so: That the NRA indoctrinates little and bigger children, in condensed focus firearms camps like a little feeder for its later marketing, and also by happenstance, extending that marketing to paramilitary or lone wolf types and shadow guerrillas -- or is that just paranoia striking back.
Read the CIA manual, site here. Inseparable from political tactics now in the open, and not. The revolving doors among military, industry and politics have enabled the sharing of guerrilla techniques to take over elections by high tech persuasion on targeted groups, using tactics developed with taxpayer money, military and intelligence services, etc. See psy ops at ://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html and the Mauthausen site.

To get started in this persuasion ammunition field of the Trinity of Friends, find a dictionary of tactical terms and social management concepts at Tactical Realities Dictionary at ://world-information.org/trd?trdid=M/ See FN 1 for overview of Situation. Expect new names in the bully-swagger genre, Blackwater Here There and Everywhere. Tax Pie understands that the Prince of military tactics now big business, Blackwater International to begin with, is morphing into perhaps hiring more mercenaries for whatever abroad. NYT 1/21/2011 at A4. Update slice of the pie.

Click on M, and go to Manipulation Patterns. Then get more background, suggests Taxpayer Pie, because this site can be startling. Refer to Studying Wars, Wars for the Mind. Be prepared for some unusual author's commentary and hypotheticals to make a point, and recall that getting attention with extremes can spur someone on to creative new ideas. Then skip down in the M's to Mind Patterns.

Apply to Psy Ops in Politics. How are those techniques being used to shape our society, using willing and well-persuaded people.

This material, these approaches are effective) many who think what they do is really their own idea. Perhaps. Sincerity is not in issue here, as to them. The issue is getting compliance with a thought-world by means used by the military to do what they do: accomplish an objective set by the brass, no fiddling around. Part of the technique complex, however, is to get people into a state of reflex action so they don't have to think -- the symbol or the situation triggers the reaction. Think Orwell. Seriously. Is that so?
Does the NRA act as a deniable feeder for the violent. Do firearms become addictive, foster hallucinations, act like a drug? If Sudafed is behind the counter, why not guns. See ://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2006/marapr/features/froman.html/ She's gonna blow his brains out.

II. History.

How did Psy Ops get going? It is part of ordinary human dealings - how to get people to do what you want, including your kids, The concept is not the problem in itself. The time, place and manner of use, and against whom, is the problem in a democracy, when it undermines the free choice of people in that democracy.

Psychological Operations. Psy Ops was once the domain of

a) The military.

It got taxpayer money to develop its psychological warfare, how to mold brains and behavior including in our own enlistees so they would become Soldiers and Take Orders; and taxpayers paid for decades of research, application, and simple leafleting from low-fliers telling people to defect, that their cause was lost, or that north was south. From simple leafleting to how subjects operate under stress, how to elicit, imprint upon, or prevent the giving of information if captured. Sometimes that worked. The techniques were known, anyway.

Now dear Cheney is out doing the leafleting again. Like winter's brittle leaves they come, down, down, down every chimney, tainting the airwaves. Doom! Doom! Believe. Go home. Leave this turf to us, they say. Cheney rasps, We know what you need.

b) The industrial, its application and own research to enhance persuasion. Buy. Years of war-stimulated techniques. It got and gets taxpayer money in the form of deductions, perks, offshore treasure chests unexplored. What caused your electrodes to jump at the word there. Would it jump more if we used that. The psychological techniques of the military used as principles in commercial sales and persuasion. Are those being used against us as consumers. Does that give us standing to object to techniques under our radar to make us conform? buy? rely?

Now Psy Ops are applied to politics and in the open: and not just as whispers, finds Taxpayer Pie. FN 1

Politicians and political-related groups use those same taxpayer-funded techniques against their perceived opposition. Mercenaries for political tactics. Fruit of the poisonous tree .... Label laws with propaganda titles, job-killing, for example. The soundbite in sales. The hissy one, having to call Beck to learn how to respond with many think she is one of the contributors to the climate fostering violent acting out. How dare you, you blood libelers. Think she thought that one up? Think Beck came up with that on his own? What is the think tank there, whose connections, what with mixing military psyops, commercial big persuasion, and politics.

Corporations. Look up a guerrilla warfare CIA manual that looks as though it is a corporate manual now for the NRA. See the NRA doing the theorizing, mercenaries and lone wolves (not always the stodgy joiner NRA group) pushing the terror tactic of open-carry everywhere. Push it. Then see the analysis of the effectiveness of the tactic corresponding tactic at Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, CIA Textbook, (herein Handbook) see ://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html/ Open carry. Connect the dots. Find in the manual there the concept of "Armed Propaganda." Persuasion without using the physical force clearly showing, but using its own kind of symbol-force. Conditioning to the force that is there, knowing it can be used. Mingle with the peasants. Go ahead. The CIA comes up with the need for "Constant combat to dominate the area of political mentality that is inherent to all human beings." The NRA picks it up, the political think tanks pick it up. Guerrilla warfare: that is political warfare, with the good guys, define as you will; the bad guys; and the population. Move to politics. Win the population's minds and you win the war. Psychological operations: decide the results. Go, NRA. Define those who disagree with you as the bad guys so you become the good guys, and intimidate all of us. Is that how psy ops work now?

Fair use quote: The CIA Psy Ops Handbook ://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.htmlOps_Handbook.html

"Implicit terror always accompanies weapons, since the people are internally "aware" that they can be used against them, but as long as explicit coercion is avoided, positive attitudes can be achieved with respect to the presence of armed guerrillas within the population."

Tax Pie Group sees Deep Psy Ops in the concept of The Enlightened: that Some people know the "deep reality" served by the propagandists' view of the world. How are the people who are the enlightened ones (our term; the handbook talks of those aware of the deep reality), the ones who accept the deep reality supported? This gets to sound like a religion -- crusades.

" *** ... through the exploitation of the social and political weaknesses of the target society, with propagandist-combatant guerrillas, armed propaganda teams, cover organizations and mass meetings."

Politics. Sly Psy Ops on the T-buses. In the town halls. Mass meetings with armed propagandists. See handbook. Clean up your camp after you go. Oh, we forgot: "It is not recommendable to speak of military tactical plans with civilians." Handbook.

So: Is this what Tax Pie Group sees -- Then come the armed propaganda teams, the "front" organizations, how to control meetings and mass assemblies (think town halls?). Infiltration. Internal social control. Instilling favorable views of one group by convincing the population that the other group is illegal, foreign, imperialistic, etc. And where was he born?

The point is that these tactics in guerrilla warfare, are taught to so many especially in the military to varying degrees, and those tactics can and are then being used here -- what else are those folks to do. How many disaffected, unemployed, status-free lone wolves seek a military type structure, an identification -- sounds like what the military is against "over there" is fostering it by its devotees not able to get past it to a regular life again over here. Need the Rush. They were taught to act by fast reflex, take orders, and they do and now give them, is that so, asks Tax Pie Group.

Is that an issue? We raise the issue. We paid for the knowledge. Is there a ground for citizens to ask for transparency ha ha ha in the background.

III. NRA and politics.

Tax Pie Group is concerned. As the Quakers say, when getting up to make a comment that just might be critical in nature, "I have a concern."

Guerrilla tactics using the products they sell and the intimidation they foster are already in the town halls, the disruptions. Gaming environments use that as a way to see that the message reaches gun owners and in such a fun way. See Joy of Equivocating: Sabotage a Government. Nate Rudy Asclater.

The organization began as a group offering training for people going into the American military at a time when troops walked into line from the fields, at the time of the Civil War. Look up the NRA website for its history. A fine beginning. Too many deaths and little if any training. See Natural Pragmatism: History of the NRA by another NRA

After all these decades, which industry now trains anybody who pays, and it is affordable for everyone. Join up, and it is only the equipment that will add up as an extra expense for the member (just pay your dues), or other perks, but those are voluntary expenditures. Anybody can be a card-carrying member, anybody buy. Fine for an industry's bottom line, not fine for public health and safety.

We are looking at use of guerrilla tactics in our political life and which industries foster them. Prime possibility of course is the gun lobby.

Tax Pie Group asks a natural question: in the civilian world, who else, other than the private contractor military-like people also out there, has the financial and ideological motivation, the opportunity, money, the means, and access to people already trained by the military to do this: to use guerrilla tactics on demand, some even for hire to see that the job the politician or political operative wants gets done. Any ex-serviceman, or intelligence person, or psy ops specialist, or etc, has a place to call Home. No place like it.

The NRA has just the solution to a politician's dream when it comes to personnel ready willing and able to use or show force, and who have been once shaped into a reflex being; and now that they are out of the military, may wel be more comfortable if some other reflex ideology takes over. Training facilities at the ready. Get the kids in it, too. and means to do it. As a corporation, it also is interested in seeing other corporations benefit, and it is difficult to believe that admen from different corporations and political groups do not cross-pollinate.

Unemployed people? A focus, a job right here. What are the ex-military, ex-private contractor, ex-CIA, whatever, supposed to do now. Go on a production line? What is with this bald meme. Reaping a whirlwind from training all those people who did a fine job over there, and now how do they function here except as trained. NRA-ready. Depressed? Come to us. Or in some form, to a group using those tactics. Is that what we are seeing, with the proliferation of those tactics in politics. Proliferation. Elements have always been there. Not this tsunami of guerrilla tactics, propaganda, against us in our own nation. And we paid for it for the military's use. Did they spread the stuff around? Did they have the right to? You decide.

IV. Action Central Command

Hopeless. But no chance of passage does not stop a True Believer in this new trinity setup from taking the time and effort and expending the funds anyway, for show, and such shall not daunt us either..There is a point to be made somehow.

1. Sue/ File a lawsuit for the unconstitutionality of using our money against us. This is the democracy speaking. Someone do that, shape it up. Where in the constitution is there the power for congress to give money to the military, and to industry (deduction time) and then just let it be deflected to private use.

2. Rebates. Request a Presidential Commission [where else to start? you think something up] to gather all information of all contacts among the following re psy ops tactics, training, implementation:

the military psy ops folks, including retirees; and the military or other entity's (examples CIA, FBI) independent contractors for psy ops or social control activities;
contacts with lone wolves and others unaffiliated except by guerrilla interest, see, for example, among all that is available to your kids when they are at the screen and you are chasing Fido ://www.filedownloadfull.com/forums/f7/unconventional-combative-techniques-pdf-mf-rs-r3bel-814742/ and ://www.4shared.com/u/pAj8YLyC/Franke_Schein_-_The_LoneWolf_R.html/
anyone in the industrial arena with interests in commercial persuasion and behavior control (rent a bigger hall); and
any and all politicians, parties, consultants to politicians and parties and their groups with military personnel with access to psy ops information and training, and industrial consultants in marketing, similar techniques. Both sides. Include the M's.

Objective of the rebate idea:

As a start, pending whatever else can be done legislatively, Taxpayer Pie proposes a rebate to individual taxpayers (not corporate or LLC or some such) for all abuse by the PMI Complex in having used taxpayer money for techniques now being used against taxpayers, to shape their behavior in the interest of the PMI Complex. A corporate taxpayer that contributed shall be out of luck, for example. Rebates only to individual taxpayers. Married filing jointly? Or whatever household unit may be in effect? Each taxpayer counts as a full 1. Even a taxpayer who affiliates with a party receiving the taxpayer funded expertise, shall be entitled to the rebate so long as he or she did not directly benefit with receipts of funds or services; because otherwise it gets too complicated.

So: If there has indeed been collusion, contact, greasing tank tracks in directions of using taxpayer money that went to the military psy ops departments, to promote private industrial and political interests, calculate and count and get your money back and legislate against further abuse; so you can muster your own psy ops, ye taxpayers without Clout, against the etc. etc. This is not perfectly worked out, obviously, and that is why we have Commissions. The president shall be empowered to set this up without Congressional approval, since those folks are alleged to be in cahoots.

Source of the rebates:

The military budget shall remain as though this did not go on. Tax Pie Group will not disrupt that arena. Rebates, however, shall be from those earning over $250,000 per year, in the form of a tax surcharge over three years, whatever amount is needed from each such taxpayer (married joint or other joint, each taxpayer counts as a full 1). If any such individual has been any part of the PMI Complex collusion on or purchase and sale of psy ops tactics, if such is found, such individual shall be counted as a 10 for purposes of contributing to the rebate pool.

The Bar.

Any individual or entity who had any connection at all with the activities being researched herein, including sneezing in the same room, or receiving information verbally or by any media re, shall be barred from receiving or benefiting from a rebate . Why were you in the same room anyway while this was going on?

The point here is not just that it is happening in politics. It is that the military's research into Psy Ops is being used by them to attack the population's free decision-making. Using our tax dollars, that enabled the research to begin with, against the taxpayer, and without the taxpayer's consent. How to consent to techniques designed to pass under an individual's radar? It is under the persons radar, d'oh.

And the military has passed its information on to the industrial interests, and both are now passing it on to the politicos who pay them the most. Is that so?

Tax Pie Group suggests: Try a Rhetorical Beckism. If that were not so, why is noone denying it? Thus it must be true that taxpayer money funded all the military psy ops research, and the results of that research and experimentation and implementation is now released by PartiLeaks to chosen industrial and political interests.

Why aren't they denying it?

We hear no denials. Then it must be true.

Thanks for listening.

(Signed) Tax Pie Do Something Group

The Tax Pie Group

............................................................

* Command Propaganda and Conditioning: See Propaganda, PR and PsyOps, section entitled Context and Definitions, at ://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/propaganda.html; from a lecture series presented by Kenneth Warren and John Guscott in 2000, concepts also laid out at Tactical Reality Dictionary, ://world-information.org/trd/ Memes are at the M's.

History of the NRA, chronology of assassinations and mass murders, can be found courtesy of the Natural Resource Auxiliary at NRA History and Comment, by another NRA

.........................................................................

FN 1

Identified propaganda techniques

Attacks on logic, see Paul Krugman's op-ed today, NYT, at ://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/when-logic-and-proportion-have-fallen/?scp=1&sq=logic&st=cse/ Look at the measured steps to gut logic. Ignore facts, death panels, etc. His, however, is a case of premature columnation. He should have waited. He should have included the dark side, the uses of psy ops side, because his column as written stops short at "logic defiance".

Climate of permission. Look at the process of desensitization, conditioning over time to accept violence; limit "causation" to tit for tat, rather than the long-term series of smaller acts suggesting, sure, you can do it. They won't even notice you have a gun. It is culpable in its own way, to promote the aggregate acceptance where murder and death are the publicized means. And if a person chooses to use firearms against a politician, just say that that person is nuts and it is not the fault of those who conditioning of people over time worked: to accept, to become desensitized to decency and community and common sense.

Tactics.

From the simple, to the group dynamic of focus buses. First, look at simple tactics like internet leafleting, like the war planes telling people behind lines that their cause was lost; when in reality they may well be winning. Where to start. Look at the Tactical Reality Dictionary, click on the Dictionary menu, hit the M's, and start there or anywhere. Look at "Command Propaganda and Conditioning", a source at Propaganda, PR and PsyOps, section entitled Context and Definitions, at ://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/propaganda.html.

The equivalent is email bombs, the sudden bombs of identical (almost) articles from planted columnists or other interested individuals. Frame public opinion on something before the facts can come out.

And always the ambiguity, the undefeatable indefatigable charge that objection to a tactic is out of spite or jealousy: one person's propagandizing is merely a sales technique; is that the same as another person's educating, just another sales technique?

Edward Bernays saw the similarity. But it falls away when access to facts first is considered. The propagandist hides facts, gets the emotional commitment first, tells the conclusion to be reached. The educator puts out the facts, steers based on logic (ideally), but allows folks to come out on either end of the conclusion. the traditional concept researched in and used by the military, with tax dollars; and not just the industrial-commerce-sales areas, using what the military and other persuasion experts developed.

Then the ads, the focus groups and the marketing. Too much for here, but how much of that as used in the partisan think tanks headed by those with full access to the military and the industrial interests, stemmed from the military psy ops? Fertilized by? And if private industry's own marketing research came up with all that, why should taxpayers in any way fund them with deductions, goodies that enable them all the more to victimize consumers and voters by taking away Choice with tactics.

.................................................

FN 1

Notice the similarity in tactics of Big Persuasion now implemented among politicians and political groups to convince voters, and the military in its psychological operations, and industry in its sophisticated ad and other sales campaigns. Tactics of Psy Ops in motion. This suggests a sharing of information and training in the field of mass persuasion, Deep Persuasion, a body of knowledge that has stemmed from years of Madison Avenue pressure and subliminal (both) sales tactics, and that body of knowledge itself spurred by tax-funded psychological operations in the military. Thank you, Woodrow Wilson, see Joy of Equivocating, Edward Bernays, Manipulating People.

Why the concern? Isn't a sharing of psy ops to be expected in an era of advertising?

Expected, yes, with lucrative revolving doors among the operatives in all three.

Fair use? No.

Taxpayers fund the military, Taxpayers pay for creating and effectuating a tax code that benefits industry in substantial ways, and the fact of fostering business may be fine. But for military and industry then to collude with politicians; and use that taxpayer-funded psychological attack knowledge against taxpayers (including those who are not beneficiaries of the Trinity of Friends) is -- cannibalistic might be an attention-getting word, in Madison Avenue style.

There is no solution, of course. But the "sharing" of guerrilla sabotage information has reached beyond the big power folks; to the lone wolves, the otherwise unaffiliated, see sites at Fodder Site. Mauthausen KZ. Process: Polarize, then Demonize

And who financially benefits from the unrest, the application of persuasion techniques and guerrilla tactics that undercut a society -- while remaining una$$ailable.

Look back at politics and events of the past 10 years or so. What elements of people acting to persuade other people seem militaristic, what uses of ads are -- sinister. Open carry. Has the NRA increased its presence among people at public gatherings with the open carry idea who may well not want them around at all, but what do you do when someone carries -- what, an Uzi? That just came to mind. Use a better example, any assault weapon, for example. Now look at the methodologies taught to the military and intelligence services. Start with Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, CIA Textbook, (herein Handbook) see ://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html/ Open carry. Implicit terror in mingling with the peasants with your weapons. Then set them down, be nice, gain their trust; but they know what you can do.
Then ask about collusion for coercion of the unawares, in the form of both non-violent (the person doesn't fire the gun, just swaggers it around among the peasants; and the violent (somebody fires a gun and people, the peasants, at an otherwise peaceful gathering get killed, etc)
How to use force to get people to conform to what you want does not take direct contact with any organization, hearing any speech, seeing any visual. It is in the ether -- that climate fostering acceptance of it and a national shrug of the shoulder. Culpability in the aggregate, manifest in individual events that may be remote from any particular acting out elsewhere. Individual spurrings make up the aggregate culture setting.

The PMI Complex runs psy-ops techniques for persuasion, psy ops in politics, and for resulting social control, implementing the military techniques researched through taxpayer dollars,

Look up the methods: infiltrate, wearing the weapon but not firing it, called "implicit terror" in the handbook. Guerrilla tactics. Right out of the manual. Disrupt public gatherings. Swagger the heat, but be nice to peasants and don't fire, so they will come to trust you. Etc. NRA heaven.

Tactics of guerrilla people, developed by taxpayer-funded research and development, used

a) against the nation's People who may disagree --with secrecy in funding and disposition of funds of the PMI Complex; and

b) against weighting funding against opportunity and care.

Here, review the field; write a report; and suggest a start-- even if pie-in-sky -- to bring the issue more in the open. Taxpayers like rebates. We paid for what is now being used against us, and often without our knowledge because the techniques are cleverly under our sadly human radar. Many taxpayers are totally convinced nothing is going on that persuades them without their awareness. Good work, guys. It works.

Literalized "Wishful"? Thinking. Language Pulls Triggers. Murder Hyperbole in Political Speech

2011-01-09T11:17:00.000-08:00

Murder Hyperbole in Political Speech;
Murder Rhetoric.
Exaggeration with a killer-death-take 'em out theme;
to an audience including the Vulnerable
who may be looking for an Occasion to do just that.

Fostering a climate of permission.
Who is culpable in long-term conditioning of a population to violence,
where the effect of one specific person on the specific behavior of another cannot be specifically proven.

An idea may start its run, without a specific actor recalling actually hearing anybody. Memes. Or is it the operation of that climate of permission?

So, the speakers of murder rhetoric are also culpable.
The suggestible hear; or Memes Emerge

The speakers' role does not mitigate the responsibility of the actors, but is a separate matter: continuing to set known likely-incendiary actions in motion; or at least to foster a climate of permission to violence, murder. Theirs may be the duty to prevent further harm, even though they did not initiate the beginning of the pattern of violence in the country. They knew it was boiling there, knew the pattern, could have moderated their language to prevent further harm, to others, but stoked it anyway.

What really pulls the trigger, pulls the bomb-pin, unsheathes the knife. There is shared but different culpability among the speakers, and the hearers who act upon it. Sometimes a meme gets going, like a cultural element in the wind, without a particular actor even hearing specifically one speaker, see Memes Benign and Malignant, Spread Without Contact, Like Gene Changes. Speaker, actor, each bears culpability in different ways, including fostering deniable memes; but each requires attention in the interest of preventing further harm. The speaker of the murder rhetoric; the doer.

Language: The Meme, The Murder Rhetoric, the exaggeration, and the Power. History has see it before: Will Noone Rid Me of this Meddlesome Priest? And someone does. Thoughts of Gabrielle Giffords, Thomas a Becket, George Tiller, Other Targets.

Who are the victims, the targets: Not all saintly. But that is not the issue. Ask: Are the shooters, where public figures exaggerate in ways that fulfill their fantasies, also targets of the death speech?

Are the attackers themselves, the vulnerable (still fully deserving of whatever punishment the system ultimately delivers), somehow set in motion by the hyperbolic idea directed at them, also victims, in a way. Of course. And that puts culpability more squarely also on the speakers.

Education. What is rhetoric. Ways to communicate. Teach yourself. Go to Aristotle, ancient Greece. Good orators know how to use it responsibly, descriptively. Rhetoric is an effective tool to get do comparisons, stress points, convey feeling, resolve. But once the rhetoric urges people to murder, as when manipulative orators use it as veiled directives, and then deny the suggestibility, the concept of rhetoric becomes mere salesmanship, persuasion, unrelated to merit, just getting a dirty deal done. An election. It is deadly when known to be likely to set vulnerable people in motion to murder. See Aristotle's Rhetoric, at ://www2.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/ Click on I and II and III. Read it all. Without perspective on the field, discussions are hollow and themselves manipulative. Separate description of feeling and resolve from directives to do what the visual, the words suggest.

Internet Game!

So who did "it"? For the Giffords sweepstakes, already on the internet, go ahead and make your lists. Lay out all the people in political life whose words propose murder, a targeting of individuals, including on the basis of their beliefs, language attached to what they believe in that suggests they are "killers" and thus suggesting these individuals are worthy to be killed. Lay them out - by name, full quotation or visual in context, not just a soundbite. Ask: Which merely describe readiness to stand up for something, and lay out a description of strong resolve. Which suggest what individuals could just do, against specific targeted people.
Apply Aristotle, to see which are using figures of speech (do a search), likely to be understood as such; and which are using veiled directives, likely to understood as figures of speech by the reasoning population, but as permission to act by the vulnerable.
NRA. Not Reasonable At all. Is that so? Do they want to solve a problem they have exacerbated in the culture; or assert Rights to carry, do, aim, fire at will, refuse to protect, prevent; regardless of predictable harm to others.

The speaker's culpability.

Abuse of the Power of Persuasion.

Use of murder hyperbole in speech to groups that include people vulnerable to violence in the audience, and is not just directed to equals in education, mental balance and experience in persuasion tactics, is an abuse of power to persuade.

It is an abuse of trust as to the political system: that its appropriate functioning is on a higher level than techniques of mere sales. Referring to some people as being more vulnerable to persuasion is not a matter of patronizing. Power imbalances, knowledge imbalances, analytical skill imbalances, are part of any large, heterogeneous group.

People in public life know about power and perception differentials. You get elected by using them. But murder hyperbole goes too far. Death talk uses people as tools for the politician's or empire-builder's ends, knowing some out there may take them up on it. That has been our history: people acting out death. Modern "secret knowledge" is how to persuade, using methodology developed for years, but barely spoken about (thank you, Edward Bernays, for your jump start)/ The result: people do not know how they are being used. Sales. We are good at it. Put the pretty girl draped over the car. Fast flash the message. It gets through. Lobbyists and ads run us.

Abuse of the obligation to mitigate, act to prevent further harm, if that is reasonably possible, even if one did not cause the initial situation (here looking at a known pattern of assassinations in the culture). See Lester A. Hunt article, at ://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/duty2res.htm, fair use excerpt below.

....................................................................

II

1. Hyperbole - a tool of Rhetoric

Hyperbole is exaggerated speech, to make a point. Political speech, rhetoric, is full of it. When it becomes hyperbole with a murder theme, however, knowing that vulnerable persons are out there; the act-out violence-prone, murder hyperbole becomes culpable, Job-killing bill. Hyperbole in visuals, to persuade. Cross-hairs. Kill the target. Death panels. Baby-killers, thank you Fox. So what happened next.

It then follows, for the vulnerable: It is ok to Kill the one who set up the death panels. Second amendment remedies. Bang. Murder hyperbole is a form of lethal Swiftboating, taking one issue to an extreme and not letting go of one interpretation regardless of all other context or choices; and using a killer theme as a supposedly dramatic way to show how much you hate it. Loose the vulnerable. Tiller, others, dead, attacked. They took you up on it. FN 1

2. Multiple victims, targets, each with own responsibility.

The attacker, the one attacked. Both are targets of murder hyperbole, murder rhetoric, other exaggerations on a harm theme? Is the target only the one attacked.

The attacker's tinderbox vulnerability was set in motion by people who knew he was out there.

The speakers' duty: in the context of our times and the pattern of assassination:

THE DUTY TO PREVENT FURTHER HARM, TO MITIGATE.

The actor is still responsible, but look further: the duty to mitigate harm, to prevent further harm on the part of a speaker, where a pattern of assassination is known in the culture. Baby-killer, says Fox. Somebody thinks and does, kill Tiller. Job-killing. Kill the one who kills the jobs. Etc. Look at the visuals, the posters, the words.

Known sequential acting out, our culture with its pattern of assassination, threats, kill.

With that known pattern of harm, is there not a duty to prevent further harm on the part of anyone who is a position to do so reasonably, even where no given bad act was not of his or her technical doing. See Natural Pragmatism, Third Party Legal Duties of Rescue, Prevention

See how that works: take a usual example, used in the Lester A. Hunt article here; a highway accident. Road blocked, neither of them at fault, apparently (have to look back at it) but nobody put out flares to warn the next guys coming down the road. Culpable.

That one Event and an immediate aftermath is different from a pattern of assassination, separate violent events, separate in time; but the duty is analogous in that the pattern is known, that vulnerable people are likely to act out what sets the off. That is the ongoing situation calling for prevention of further harm. Is that so?

See this fine article by Lester A. Hunt, addressing situations where action to benefit another is indeed required, despite a usual no-duty-to-benefit-another, found in An Argument Against a Legal Duty to Rescue, at http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/duty2res.htm/. Fair use quote--

"Even though the drivers were not at fault for the original act that caused the hazard, they were to blame for the injuries that eventually resulted, for they voluntarily omitted a precaution that would have prevented it. At the time that the original hazard was created, it was still not too late to avoid causing the injuries, but by omitting the precaution this is precisely what they failed to do. This means, when the double negatives are canceled out, that by their voluntary actions they have become the causes of injuries to others. The duties that are violated in such cases are simply applications of the deepest and most pervasive duty in the common law of tort: the duty to avoid causing physical harm to others. Of course, what the "no duty to rescue" rule allows is the failure to save people from harm, not the failure to avoid causing it ."

Not exactly on point, but worth exploring. The vulnerable person a) hears extreme language b) as a veiled directive, and/or c) where that language may even be spoken in veiled hopes (not even aware, perhaps, but why else use that language, that visual) that a vulnerable person will indeed ride. and execute the veiled order; and d) the speaker can then deny. Or is the target indeed only the one attacked. Exploitation of the vulnerable for political ends. Will no one rid me?

Two victims. Each responsible, neither can pass off responsibility on the other.

3. Whose right to hold views should be protected.

This is not a matter of saintliness or the "value" of the victim's point of view. Even asking who "deserves" what is part of the problem: people think they are judge and executioner because their way is the chosen way. Is that so? Even lone wolves not part of formal groups. The meme is out there. Do it. You can do it.

4. The attraction of murder hyperbole

It is an attention-getter. The fast sound-bite, catchy phrase, that can be followed up with grisly posters of drooly bloody other politicians, sinister, and clearly deserving of death. The meme runs. It is used by those who want to, on some level, spur on the vulnerable. Otherwise they would not bother using it. It is a reasonably foreseeable result - when someone out there acts it out. The speaker can then deny the effect of their chosen words.

5. The vulnerable may not be obvious, or affiliated. All the more reason for circumspect speech.

The vulnerable hearer hears only that The Power is Displeased. Or, that an aspect of the Absorbed Ideology is Offended. It does not take membership in a party, affiliation with a group. Even a vulnerable isolate with no group association can hear: Who will rid this Power, that I agree with, of the Undesirable One, or Thing.

Using ideology or an aspect of it to justify violence, the behavior that the person wants to do, does not require joining a party to do it. Isolated individuals can absorb a concept and act on their own. That requires more care in the Powerful to watch what they stir. The vulnerable are not always obvious. Watch the denial. What? Me worry about my words? Not my problem. Deny deny, deny.

6. History - Murder hyperbole is a recurrent theme.

This is not a new problem.

Will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest? Asked Henry II, the King in the 1100's, with his minions present, and referring to Thomas a Becket, whom he himself as King had installed as Archbishop at Canterbury, and who then refused to do the King's bidding. Minions heard that as a veiled directive to rid the King of the priest, and acted upon it. The rest is history. Murder in the Cathedral.Do a search.

Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest, asked Henry II, perhaps in hyperbole. Nonetheless, minions answered.

Our nation, where the solution of taking people out is stimulating. See FN 2.

7. So, who is responsible?

The Speaker of the murder hyperbole, the maker of murder theme or murder inspiring posters and other visuals, in the political context where it is known that vulnerable people are in the audience. The attacker also, of course. Separate culpabilities. The attacker is still (as may or may not be proven) responsible for his actions, knew right from wrong, etc. Think tanks in charge, candidates revved up to win, propaganda techniques works faster and more predictably than merit. FN 3.

8. The solution is not less speech, but more.

More speech to fill in gaps, fill in facts, correct, consider other angles, get people thinking and not just buying. Politics and religion. These are too central to be reduced so mere salesmanship, buy this idea, buy that one, like the supermarket, persuasion techniques.

Murder hyperbole, other violence-oriented extreme language, is only manageable when it is used among rough equals and that means only that the hearers indeed know it is not to be taken literally.

Otherwise, the vulnerable to violence are exploited by the powerful language of the powerful that they hear as a directive. It gives an Occasion to Do It. Unleash persuasion without controls as to the accuracy, completeness, objective results of the claims, and the literalists will march to the tune prescribed. Is that so? Use the assault rifle in the campaign ad. Use the bullet solution. The second amendment solution. Target these people. Shoot from the helicopter. Fine.

Memes. These do not require a specific hearing in order to spread.

Spooky, but it works. See ://thedailymeme.com/what-is-a-meme/. See how merely asking certaim questions in public ways get desired answers going. A speaker, or set of pollsters, talk show people, are not off the hook as to responsibility if the steered the idea, fostered it. Culpable. No defense to say that this person who did the bad act never saw your show, specifically heard you.

Literalism. Another propaganda technique. Suggest that the literal be followed, as a way to get a potential buyer of the idea to move in the direction the seller wants. Literalism can be countered by education, analytical skills, among the willing to do that; but it may be too late for that if the emotions are fully engaged first in another direction. Computers in every home, wireless everywhere, access to tools for productivity -- all these can help keep the literalists from acting literally because a chosen Power, name your own ideologue, or system, told them to.

................................................

FN 1. Murder hyperbole in Politics.

1. Murder Hyperbole is a weapon, the ultimate in deniability as to causation. Killer this. Killer that. Tiller the Killer. Fox's take. Death Language. But I didn't mean it that way, says Fox and other Users. Oh? Knowing the vulnerable were out there, listening? Death Panels, Cross-hairs, Second Amendment Remedies, Take 'em out, Etc.

Hyperbole. A technique of rhetoric. Oratory. See ://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hyperbole Sometimes an echo of an old English class is useful Hyperbole. The use of exaggeration to make a point, and not to be taken literally. Beware the hyperbole. It is safe to use hyperbole sometimes. It is safe to use hyperbole only among those who are roughly communications-skills equals. They know we are exaggerating for effect.

Murder hyperbole is a danger when it and other harm-concepts are used by the Skilled and Powerful, to communicate with the less skilled, less powerful. Where there are vulnerable people without the analytical skills and other wherewithal to vet and verify the talk, the Powerful can, and do, use hyperbole -- exaggeration - to rev up the vulnerable. Wind up the minions to do the otherwise inexpressible. Just knowing that vulnerable people may literalize a hyperbole and actualize it, should be enough to rein in the speech-making, or the drawing of targets on people's chests.

Some people are so vulnerable to the persuasion of the Power they have adopted as their Guide, even if it is an idea rather than a group affiliation; it hooks. They may hear the hyperbole as wishful thinking, what the Power really really wants, or the Idea requires. Sometimes it is a religious being that they think they hear, sometimes it is a political ideologue, sometimes it is just a celebrity. Beware that you might be believed, literally. Are you sure yourself that you do not want that to happen? See Waiting for Deus, Waiting for the Meme to Work.

Example: The Power says, by word or deed: This person, or thing, or legislation offends me. In effect, will no one rid me of it. Yes, says someone loyal who believes he is asked to act literally to please the Power. I will attack the one, the thing, that offends you, my Chosen Power. And does.

...............................................

FN 2. History. What did the Speaker really really want. What is the reasonably foreseeable result of the speech to a broad, unfiltered audience, including the vulnerable actors-out, looking for a context in which to do it. Wishful thinking (joke joke deniable) is actualized. The power of wishful thinking memes unleashed

Gabrielle Giffords: A Palin-inflicted Target across her. With a gun, meme actualized. Hyperbole can controls the vulnerable, who says, This is unconstitutional! I can act against it!? Or, I think the Power thinks so, and wants me to act on it, and attack those who displease the Power that says it is unconstitutional, says someone And does.

Thomas a Becket: Henry the King's words said in the presence of obedient minions. Will No-One Rid Me of this Meddlesome Priest? With a stabbing, meme actualized. See Murder in the Cathedral, notes at http://www.enotes.com/murder-cathedral; Henry II, conflict with Thomas Becket, at ://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-44783

.....................................

FN 3. Political positions sold like Madison Avenue avoid merit; just persuade and sell.

The Think-tanks come up with the ad campaign, sound bites. Hide these important facts, push those other ones, the object is to Win, not by merit but by the joy of persuasion.

Labeling, Swiftboating. Call legislation "the job-killing" legislation in formal documents. The second amendment solution of of the Angled. Talkin' don't work. Shootin' do. Wishful thinking as a meme then crops up in many places, seemingly spontaneous, unrelated, but that is how memes work. See Meme, Wishful Thinking

Job-killing? Killing in language or used as hyperbole unleashes memes. The killer meme. The fifth horseman.

Mr. Boehner: Change the name of your legislation. The misguided adjective reflects a cultural virus, a bad one. I don't think you can. I don't think you can stop unleashing killer memes. You name your "bills" with the murder theme. The Job-Killing Health Care bill Legislation. That is an intentional act, whose consequences are on you, friend. That is a meme, a violence-implied description that communications-equals understand, but that the vulnerable will absorb. And you know it and do it.

Political Targets. R's. Go ahead. Put a target on people. See what happens. Deny, deny.

Target by murder hyperbole, addressed to those less skilled in rhetoric, ability to critique, directs the vulnerable. Then are you surprised that fellow public servants are attacked by the literalists. You knew they were there. You knew some would think they are merely doing what their chosen Powers demand. And is that what you wanted, really. Not that way, of course of course of course. But you would like to be rid of the so you could get your way.

Murder Hyperbole of the Powered Hear the directives not there at all to most people, but perceived by enough by followers, or loners, who think they are the Chosen to do it. Target language. Here is the target, who will shoot. Beware language. Think of examples of how the death hyperbole of the powerful, taken literally, actualizes.

A human failing. Anything to persuade. The Careless (or intentionally veiled) Speaker, the Loyalist Literalist, the Misguided Puller of the Trigger, and the Power behind it denies, denies, denies.

.......................................................................

FN 4. The solution: Not less political speech, but more.

Robust debate is vital to a democracy. But robust debate can take place in a context of reasonable constraint that acknowledges the reality of a gun-obsessed culture. Time, place and manner constraints can meet the broad, heterogeneous audience vulnerabilities we know are out there; transparent; fact-based, not killer emotion based. Time, place, manner. Those can be used to address murder tendencies while allowing broad content.

Language. A weapon. A shaper. Literalists latch on to defined literal meanings. Are literalists more likely to act? Or is a violent actor, murder, just crazy. Is there a climate of permission that underlies a decision to act out? what long term conditioning preceded the particular act.. The speaker lets out a wishful thought, a hyperbole not meant consciously to be taken seriously, just an exaggeration to make a point. But it does more.

In the aggregate, with the climate to receive it, it unleashes cultural ideas, call them Memes or just permissions and ways, others' wishful thinking, and that may be fast actualized.

More research needed, less rant. We know our kids react to permissions, just s they react to over-restriction. One person's acts do indeed influence others. Arizona may not be a case of a loyalist or wannabe insider, seeking approval, thinking he is following a veiled directive from the Ideological Power, does. But the climate of permission was there for thh individual to choose violence without pointing to a specific thing he heard.

Language memes. Language indirectly but effectively pulls triggers, unsheath knives, pull bomb pins as surely as a clear directive would. Rhetorical Beckisms, asserting a connection, an association that is baseless or at least no facts are alleged to support it; challenge the accused one to prove it is not so. When he can't, claim the association is true. Agency in starting false rumor is denied. It was just a question.

Hyperbole, used to control the vulnerable, direct them. It works. Deny, deny. The vulnerable as agents of the powerful. Clever.

R is for RipTide. Words and Phrases of Party Expressive Culture.

2011-01-05T06:16:00.000-08:00

R is for RipTide 2012 update.
The Hunt for R-Word Expressive Culture.

New R-Words and Phrases Added.
Crest and Wing Markings to Identify Birds.

What new R-words and phrases emerge with the caucuses and an election year. What is the message? Keep score. How many R-words do you find in media, that round out the R-group expressive culture offered for voters. From transportation, to ideological issues. R, R, R.

R is for Romneybus. Romnibus?. All positions espoused at one stop.

New R-Word. Concept already abroad, Geneva. Facetious, of course.

.
Add, with identical-sounding candidates, Robotic. Women, deprived of autonomy as to decisions about their own identifies and bodies. More R words? Results rammed? You decide. Perhaps reset responses.

RipTide! Robotics, Religious Orientation and Practice Upgrades.
.

Robo-speech, Ad Men in religion and politics, revise the position to fit the need for sales. Score your favorite R candidate by counting the R's in play. WikiDC moves nationwide. Learn the players: Original BoehneR, CantoR, PuRselips, and now the Upgrades. Apps will cost. GingRich, R-ick, R-omnibus. Romnibus! Who memoRizes Rubrics best?

Here:

I. Riptide R-Words, the R-Group Suggested Starter List

II. Rules of the Game. What words do you find in the media?

III. R-Tribe Game Theory: Expressive Culture. Words shape the attitude.

...................................................
.

I. Riptide R Words Suggested Starter List
.

The R's:
.

R VeRbs and PhRases

(for victims of education cuts for parts of speech and other parts to come, verbs are action words)

.
Return Repeal Rail
Reduction Ripcord Riddler
Ridicule Ratchet
.
Ricochet Remove
Rumble RipOff (Koch buses)
Rot Restrict Redline
.

Reproduction Under Health and Human Services Budget Restrictions

.
Reign Rattle Revenge
Reproduce Required (4U)
Run Rob Ruin aaRgh
.
Reward Rape. Rubrics.
Rex Religiosity.
Ratify Repress.
.
Rake Rant Revert Risk
Roll-back Rub-out Rid Ruddy
Rule Red Rulemake Rust
.
Repeat Regression
Repeat Rerun Repeat Re
Repeat Red Rove-r
.
Ram results. Reduce
Rafts reserved. Richest
Rich Recline. Repaid.
.
R Nouns and Adjectives: Upgraded PeRsonplacethings and DescRibers
.
Romnibus. Ging-Rich.
Robocalls? Revise Results.
Refabricate. Riff.

Robo-candidate
Regulate Reproduction.
Robo-speech. Runny.
.
Rear-view Rifle Race
Religious Rut (non-Ruach)
Recoil Rumpus Rude
.
Retrograde RipTide
anti-Relajarse Rigid
Rip Rat Recorders
.
..........................................................
.
II. Rules for RipTide
.

A. Amusements for the Appalled. Count the R's in your Day.

You have your starter list. Add to it. Listen, watch, tweet: Results! Washington and the nation. The more R's you find for a particular party in a day, the fewer the people who can realistically find the rungs to the ladder of opportunity. Over 10 gets you a RipTide -- a rip-off for real people. FN 1. And now, in this election year, count the Robots, the Robo-speeches, the Robo-changes in position. Learn the Robot Dance . Robo-candidates respond to own Ratpacks in Caucus Race.

R-Words. Reflecting on ramifications. Expressive Cuulture.

B. Take your free scorecard. Every day, put a little line tick beside the R you find.

1. Sources: news media, techie charing devices. Tick your scorecard for each Find. After four ticks, put a slanty tick through top left to bottom right. At the end of each day, Review your media source, be sure your tickies are countable and are spelled Right, and text them in, boys and girls.

Start counting: Want the new improved version of Washington R's Riptide; upgrade version includes Robot, Robotics, Robo-candidates in the glossary of R Verbs and Nouns of Renown.

2. Winner!

Be your own Tallyman. The most RipTides gets a banana.

No. The winner gets something that has not gone up in price since 1993. Find it in the list and it's yours. R's will pay for it..

...................................................

III. R-Tribe Game Theory:

Expressive Culture

How does frequency of use of words sell ideas. Does language itself reveal a group's collective culture qualities. DC R-Tribe. What fears drive it. What behavioral clusters mass against perceived outsiders possibly sharing in rewards of work. What are the crest and wing markings, dance patterns, and ideology of the R-Tribe as reflected in repetitive parts of speech.

Subcategorize. With your little list, apply the R words to the separate expressive culture components in which they appeared. Find R words in Randomized Reporting by promoting awareness of R words. What R words are represented in bus insignias, art distributed at rallies, text messages, genre repetition, performance techniques (interruptions, noise), visibles -- vampires, jokers, subliminal fear ideas.
.

See Eight Words for the Study of Expressive Culture, a series of essays anchored by Burt Feintuch 2003,
see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_2_117/ai_n16676596/ and
http://www.amazon.com/Eight-Words-Study-Expressive-Culture/dp/0252028066

Post-Script, Proof that the Game Never Ends
.

R's Reject Rabble,

Rastafarians, Rumpus,

Real Regulation.

.
Razzmatazz Reports.
Responsibility Rots?
Robots Ridicule.

Is that so? T or F?

Dems to Follow