Sociology Talk :: View topic - American Malaise

Sociology Talk
Sociology Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

American Malaise
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Sociology Talk Forum Index -> Sociology Talk

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

strabo
Guest

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

Day Brown wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 29, 6:37 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Dems aren't offering you even a single alternative. Not a single one.
I agree that the Dem alternatives, whatever they are, are not
adequate.

That is frightening, as well. That you don't even notice that they're
offering no alternatives is more frightening still.
And yes, its frightening.

And I hope we survive unscathed anyway. But I'm an optimist.

Hope is for the religious. Many wait for Jesus. Wallace, in his Anthro
classic, "Culture & Personality", noted that when a system is on the
skids, and people's coping skills dont work so well anymore, they
engage in "magical thinking". A term he coined. Thus the rise of
"Wicca" and Fundies awaiting "The Rapture", and the leaders on Wall
Street and DC trying to get as much as they can off the ship of state
while the going is good.

Which is why the Dems dont have any viable alternatives. Since no
democractically derived political mandate can be had to reduce
consumption to a sustainable level, we'll prolly do it the old
fashioned way, with economic crisis and revolution. There is some
encouraging news about a new solar panel process to cut the cost by
90%, but even if that pans out, ramping up production would require
more rational leadership than I see likely to get elected.

There aint no free lunch, and the cheapness of agribusiness food
production has had some unintended hidden costs in less than maximal
mental development from in utero on thru puberty. Which has gone on
for a couple generations now. Moreover, ever since the pill came out,
the smart women have used it to reduce their fecundity with the idea
they could teach the craft to the welfare queens. Unfortunately, they
were wrong about that, and now the case loads have gone thru the
roof.

You cant run a modern technological economy with the progeny of stupid
bitches. And giving them the vote at age 18 has only encouraged the
election of demagogues pandering to the religion and ethnicity from
both the Left and Right wings.

There are some few glimmers of hope. I saw the left wing media you
refer to report on the *fact* that young criminals tend to have
fathers that are, or have already been, in jail. And ever since the
birth control pill, monogamy has only made it worse. Lotsa honorable
men stayed faithful to wives who bore no sons to follow them, while
the charming philanderers have left bastards on welfare all over the
county. Dr. Laura says "Well, you picked him honey." But- who did the
young women have to pick *from*?

Alt.psychology and the other social theory lists have been
conspicously quiet. They dont want to think about the meaning of the
human genome data, inherited hormone profiles, and neurological
structural differences that explain why Head Start is way too late and
their other programs have been so ineffective. Right wing draconian
law is not going to work either. The fundamentalist idea of "free
will" is asinine given the general level of psychological pathology.

Wise leadership would help, but the power elites are nuts as well.

That cannot be overemphasized. As well-documented Imperial Rome sounded
it's death knell the society reflected the moral corruption of the
Senate while insane rulers followed the sane until physical support
for the empire disappeared and the city of Rome itself was deserted.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Neolibertarian
Guest

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

In article <1178047596.464588.29390@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 30, 7:26 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hope is for the religious.

I know you're merely having a conversation with yourself, and I hesitate
to interrupt you, but I take exception to this baseless generalization.
Dont worry about it, I'm just a Turing machine programmed to make
those who lack scholarship look bad.
Hope is not exclusively for the religious.

Humanists and atheists also cling to hope. It's all that man has.

The Stoics recommended realism. I wont try to define the terms, but
see that many who call themselves humanist or atheist are nevertheless
religious. A truth atheist or humanist would not *care* whether others
believed in god.

That's not the point.

Perhaps you /should/ bother to define the terms.

Quote:

Many wait for Jesus.

If you're referring to Christians, I submit that you haven't looked into
it at all. They're prepared for the resurrection, yes, but they aren't
"waiting" for Yeshua.

As you define the term. There have been many posters who claim to be
Christian who say they are waiting for Jesus.

Yeshua is already with them. They speak to him every day.

And yes, since you were thinking of asking--I'm a Christian.

Maybe you're talking about the Mahdi?

Quote:

Wallace,

I didn't know George Wallace was an anthropologist. Sure he THOUGHT he
was--and a geneticist as well...but...

Your lack of education is showing, and not hidden by lame humor.

Heh. The humor was lame, sure, but on topic. While my lack of education
has long been painfully obvious to everyone at this group, and it grows
everyday, I take exception to your implication.

"An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found
out. "
---Will Rogers

You're x-posting to a politics group, which is where I'm reading you.
Had I been discussing anthropology, I'd take it as an insult. But since
this is your thread, the burden of making yourself understood is all
yours.

Quote:

You
could at least have surfed.

You gave me absolutely no reason to do so. I wasn't curious, and I'm
still not.

If I could read everything worth reading, I'd have already done so.

Quote:

There's lotsa links, and Anthony
Wallace's classic anthropology work is still in print and on the
curricula in academia.

So?

Quote:

in his Anthro
classic, "Culture & Personality", noted that when a system is on the
skids, and people's coping skills dont work so well anymore, they
engage in "magical thinking".

Define system. Define "on the skids."
Yes Wallace spends some time on the issue, but several indicative
phenomena come to mind. As Machiavelli said, when a republic is on the
skids, honorable men no longer seek high office in it. Wallace would
understand. Systemic corruption increases as the power elites try to
extract as much as they can for as long as it lasts to store up
resources for after the collapse.

Yes? You've jumped way ahead of whatever it is you're attempting to say
here.

Let's name a system-time-society where there wasn't corruption of the
nature you've just described.

Parmenides said "That which is, is."

And, I'm inserting here that Man is Man.

I'm here to tell you: Man has larceny in his heart. It's who he is.

Do some (societal) systems work better than others?

Well, first you need a valid definition of "works."

Which you haven't provided.

Quote:

Wallace would also understand how
Diamond outlines power elites that *increase* exploitation as
resources get tight rather than rationally cutting back on their
consumption to buy time to look for solutions. Its a phenomena of
group think that the increase in perks reassures the power elites that
things will go on a while yet.

The proletariat don't control resources, even with they make up laws on

pieces of paper which say they do.

For example, the United States is the only nation in the world which
classifies oil resources as private property.

Did the Apache have a superior notion of private property?

Again, we're still waiting for definitions so that we can discuss
whatever you're attempting to discuss.

Quote:

Please show cause for "magical thinking."
Wallace says expressely, but you see it in Diamond as well. For
instance at Easter Island, somebody cut down the very last trees to
make rollers to move the giant statues they were creating as magical
guardians for an external threat that didnt exist. From then on, they
could not make boats anymore and lost access to most of their fishing
resources. It is psychological denial. Like nobody now really thinks
about the economic effect of the coming retirement of the boomers, and
how there's no way in hell that the more psychologically pathological
younger generation will not be able to economically support the
entitlements. Like Frued says, denial sets in. when you raise a
pertent issue, here or anywhere else, someone will only respond by
picking at some rather trivial point rather than the nub of the issue
at hand.

Psychological denial of...what? You seem to be assuming that the present
system is unsustainable, and inevitably so.

Scarcity of resources is a mirage.

Resources are far more dynamic than a "denier" can clearly see. Maybe a
static-ist who's chained to the concrete won't ever have heard of the
Simon-Ehrlich wager.

Resources are worthless to man...until?

One of the problems I have with sociology is that is has nothing to do
with me.

There is, in fact, more to man than the concrete (and I'm not even
referring to religion here).

Quote:

Policy is not upta the oppressed lower & middle classes, so they await
"The Rapture", or take up astrology, tarot, wicca, or whatever native
or European spiritual tradition exists in their ancestry. They also
buy lottery tickets.

Its a way to distract the mind from unpleasant realiities.

Maybe a course in logic would be helpful?

Your generalities and juxtapositions don't even make sense prima facie.

Quote:

HINT: correlation isn't cause.
so?

I'm interested in cause.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

_invertebrate_
Guest

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:j8q9339humv4ufctltduolfi31etjj0te2@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:45:11 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

Actually, I'm describing the mainstream media. It's just the big dumb dog
on the leash of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Blink blink....now let me get this straight..you are claiming Mainstream
Media is rightwing?

Blink blink....

Glad you asked. I'm not exactly claiming that. lorad474 originally made
reference to the remarkable propaganda machine at work, and Neolibertarian
suggested some speculative example of leftwing bias in the media as a
counter-example. I pointed out a bunch of stuff that a real leftwing media
would focus on. Leftwing media and foreign media do in fact focus on this
stuff. American mainstream media ignores it.

An "ignored story" may get some small mention in the newspapers. But
television shapes the debate, and the newspapers focus mainly on reporting
relevant to the debate. Plenty of people in newspapers and TV may be
liberal, but that doesn't shape their content. A vigorous propaganda
machine can do that, especially in combination with real political power,
since those in the media are cowards who will not attack the powerful until
they are already tipping over. Republican power is waning at the moment, so
the debate in the media will shift a bit to the left, and even more so if
the Dems and liberals can organize a propaganda machine as focused as that
of the right-wing. The mainstream media won't push harder for the left
unless they think it is safe to do so. When propaganda is loud enough, the
mainstream media has to treat it as relevant in order to protect its own
relevance. If a major story has no political advocates, it fades away.

_invertebrate_

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Day Brown
Guest

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise

On May 1, 8:11 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Let's name a system-time-society where there wasn't corruption of the
nature you've just described.
Machiavelli praises the German City states, noting how each man would

appear at the courthouse and announce what he owed in taxes and then
pay it. Ie, what you pay is public knowledge. i can see how it'd work.
Everyone would know who the cheapskates were, and act accordingly in
all the business they do with them.

It was a freemarket in government, since each city state was small
enough that competent men could, and did, vote with their feet. Some
were monarchies run like a family business, some republics, some
oligarchies, but whatever, they were all in competition with each
other. Likewise, we see the same thing on the Silk Road towns between
the hegemony of the Chinese and Persian empires.

Quote:

From the Jade Gate to Tashkent, there were three main routes. A summer
route around the north rim of the Tien Shen across southern Siberia, a

spring/fall central route along the south rim of those mountains, and
a southern route along the North rim of the Himalayas. With inter-
connecting routes between the three, and shunt also running down to
Samarkand.

China garrisonned it briefly all the way to the Tamir pass, but
somewhat agreeably in a mutual effort to put down banditry and
disempower the warlords that still plague the region to stop the blood
feuds. But whatever the trouble was, violence, banditry, or
governmental greed, the camel trains had alternate routes, so that
kept a lid on the corruption.

Many, if not all, of these towns were established by "Amazons". There
was a period early on, when the horses were still too small to carry
male warriors. This is most clearly documented at Niya & Kucha. Niya
was on an interconnecting route, but 1500 years ago, the river dried
up, and everyone left abruptly. Leaving furniture, spinning wheels,
and personal letters in the houses. In them, we see *women* running
the shiipping offices while men did the leg work on the camel trains.

Then, there's Kucha. Arguably, it had the wealthiest middle class in
the world for centuries. The reason the Silk Road ends at the *JADE*
Gate, is that's where the Jade came into China, and the finest green
jade came from Kuchan mines. But the place was matriarchic, like the
Mosou, run by a n ancient series of Gautamid queens. And since the
queen didnt need a harem, she didnt need a palace to keep them in, nor
a castle to protect the palace, and didnt need to tax the schitt out
of everyone to pay for it. Which is why the Kuchan mummies are all so
well dressed.

Kucha was like a college town, with monks and clerics and sages from
all religions. They've found the shrines of 22 religions. No matter
where a merchant came from, they had a place for him to pray.
Christianity, BTW, didnt hold up so good in all the competition from
Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Manichean.... They
even had some Jews, but since they didnt have Christian monarchs, they
didnt have Jews running the banking or government. So, unlike the
governments you are familiar with, corruption wasnt a problem.

They have not found any slums at Kucha. Unlike breeding the welfare
queens, they drafted the airheads into the brothels that were owned by
the city. The Queen was also, basically, a madam. Kept the students
happy and out of trouble. Since they didnt have Christian family
values, nobody was pretending virtues they didnt have. which is an
apparently increasing symptom of the American malaise.

*IF* the proverbial SHTF, we can expect some city states to emerge out
of the chaos. We wont see many run by Christians. Or Liberals. Or
Conservatives, or ideologues of any kind. If there is economic crisis,
then the religions that were associated with the power elites, even
tho they may have all been hypocrites, will be smeared with that
association.

I have a copy of a 5th century text found near Kucha; the
"Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A'. which is a conversation between
the Gautamid Queen of Kucha and the living Buddha. Its quite different
from the usual scripture. Nobody is laying down the law, telling
others how to live. Rather, it is a dialogue discussing the
appropriate way for her to perform traditional, I daresay, 'pagan'
rituals. They agree to take the issue to the monks at Sibushi (the
monestary is 12 miles north of town) for further consultation. What we
see here is an effort to reach consensus. Nobody is claming the moral
authority to tell others how to live.

City states are already emerging in the global market with a very
similar attitude. They all know that the kind of competent technicians
they want do not want 'moral guidance'. Cosmologies tend to reflect
power structures; tyranny was justified on the basis of an Almighty
God. Technicians see a global web of peer to peer consensus, and out
of that will come a new cosmology.

I expect the re-emergence of the same concept that appeared in the
world's first free market economy 6000-10000 years ago along the
rivers that empty into the West end of the Black Sea. Same deal,
hundreds of villages and scores of trading towns, but no capital city.
The Great Earth Mother was not a tryant, but like animal mothers, gave
birth to people to fulfill their own destiny rather than some 'divine
plan'. Its too disorganized for there to be a 'divine plan'. The free
market is an organic fractle with a large chaotic factor.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Day Brown
Guest

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise

On May 1, 10:24 pm, "_invertebrate_" <_invertebra...@wormhole.va>
wrote:

Quote:

An "ignored story" may get some small mention in the newspapers. But
television shapes the debate, and the newspapers focus mainly on reporting
relevant to the debate. Plenty of people in newspapers and TV may be
liberal, but that doesn't shape their content. A vigorous propaganda
machine can do that, especially in combination with real political power,
since those in the media are cowards who will not attack the powerful until
they are already tipping over. Republican power is waning at the moment, so
the debate in the media will shift a bit to the left, and even more so if
the Dems and liberals can organize a propaganda machine as focused as that
of the right-wing. The mainstream media won't push harder for the left
unless they think it is safe to do so. When propaganda is loud enough, the
mainstream media has to treat it as relevant in order to protect its own
relevance. If a major story has no political advocates, it fades away.

I can see that, but that will only go on as long as the economics
support it. If you add the drag from higher oil prices to the looming
costs of boomer retirement benefits, you can see it cant go on
indefinately. At some point, investors will see the risk too high and
the payout too little.

The newspapers and media survive on ad revenue. if the middle class
looses income, they quit buying, the ads dont work, and the propaganda
you refer to looses its economic support.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

_invertebrate_
Guest

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-91CF27.18360929042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

Quote:

In article <HQ4Zh.610$kg1.453@trndny04>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-2911FC.02172728042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1177744005.823233.215770@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
lorad474@cs.com wrote:
Stupifaction within the educational system is another factor.
And then, of course, there is the new orchestrated propaganda machine
in operation - which an american public has never been subjected to

You mean the one where they're attempting to discredit conservatism by
calling it "neoconservatism?"

The one that ignores the unprecedented secrecy policy of this White
House,

You need to define "unprecedented."

Perhaps. They certainly increased secrecy from what it had been. Maybe
it's best to just describe what this administration has done.

Quote:

No administration operates transparently. It is a necessary precondition
to the office.

Of course.

Quote:

If you are indeed expressing the notion that you believe an
administration should operate in complete transparency, I'd contend that
you've never given the exigencies much thought.

Did you see me express such a notion? No, you didn't.

Waxman has reported on this administration's increased secrecy. Ashcroft in
2001 instructed government agencies to use technicalities to resist any
Freedom of Information Act requests. In 2003 Bush expanded the use of
national security classification. We are well aware of how the
administration has resisted judicial oversight of surveillance activities.
The House Government Reform Committee has had to go to court to get
information to which it was entitled from the executive branch.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=692

Quote:

Even James E. Carter had his dark machinations, some of which have only
come to light recently.

that ignores questions of legality regarding our tactics in Iraq (like
our
attack on Fallujah),

There was no legal obstacle to attacking Fallujah. If you're referring
to the use of incendiaries, you're sadly mistaken if you think these
were "illegal."

You are entitled to believe it is legal to violate UN conventions, but
violations are a valid subject for media scrutiny.

Quote:

And their use was not "Republican." Or even "conservative."

Metaphysically? You're probably right. But just you raise the question of
the use of those weapons in this instance, and see which side of the aisle
supports or objects to their use.

Quote:

that fails to scrutinize problems with the elections of
2000 and 2004 even as people go to prison for their efforts to help
Republicans, says nothing about the corruption that is wasting US tax
money
in Iraq and is partly responsible for getting our troops killed, and lets
Republicans grandstand about UN Oil for Food corruption without
commenting
on the primary role the US itself played in that corruption.

None of this is specifically "Republican." Corruption has been painted
as a Republican Problem recently, mostly because they held
majorities--and the opposition party had been working overtime
attempting to wrest the reigns of power away from them.

It's frightening that you believe it to be "Republican" in nature.

It's irrelevant whether this stuff is inherently Republican. It is
Republican when Republicans do it. Hypothetically speaking, the failure to
cover Democratic corruption would be a favor to the Democrats. In fact, not
covering this stuff has been a favor to Republicans.

Quote:

"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I
normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they
are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. . But before we get
deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has
to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a
civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian
reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. . Was it worth it to stay
in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely
nothing."
Tom Delay (R-TX), 4/28/99

Quote:

But, as we all know too well, they are all hungry for power--and given
the circumstances, they're all alike. Or at least most of them are.

Politics is politics. The Democratic congress' challenge to the War in
Iraq is misplaced. It is also dangerously short sighted. Extremely
dangerously short sighted.

Actually, I'm describing the mainstream media. It's just the big dumb
dog
on the leash of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Wow. I know you believe that, and I've often seen it expressed here at
Usenet and at the radical Dem websites (Democratic Underground,
Antiwar.com, and Media Matters).

Sometimes I wonder how anyone could be convinced of that, especially
these days.

In the balance of the media, there definitely is no right leaning bias,
and there is even more definitely no bias towards this administration.
FoxNews, Newmax, and a handful of others hardly match the opposite
leaning bias.

Every scrap of information that has come out of the White House has been
subjected to extraordinary skepticism, perhaps far beyond what might be
considered healthy.

You can say that if you like. I've cited my examples of media showing a
bias toward the right. I don't claim at all that the media consistently
leans to the right, but nor does it do so to the left.

Quote:

The Democrats and other
left-wingers need to get a better leash. Partisan tug-of-war doesn't
necessarily benefit the American people, but it's better than
single-party
dominance over the debate.

There's never been such, silly. The Gops aren't nearly as disciplined as
the Dems, and the Dems ain't perfect--even today.

The GOP has a good media machine. Read stuff by David Brock.

_invertebrate_

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Day Brown
Guest

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise

I appreciate the thotful polite discourse. Agreed that the Bush administration has tried to increase secrecy, but in many ways, because of digital communications, has failed, and earlier failures it has had will continue to be exposed all the way back to its involvement in 911. Its a testimony to the neurotic susceptability of group think that so many issues have been hidden by self delusion. There have been developments in science that show the irrationality of abortion, torture, and 911 debates. Archaeology studied the pot residues of Transylvanian witches and the lab reports show a number of highly effective herbal abortificants. The abortion debate is over. It dont matter what the court thinks. i post that to an abortion thread and the silence is just stunning. FRMI Brain scans, EEGs, and even Dr. Paul Ekman's work shows that torture is obsolete. There highly effective ways to determine deception with no pain applied at all. That news stops the debates over Abu Gharib dead in their tracks. If you look at the video of the twin towers, you can see debris blowing out the windows. The gov report says this is a bellows action as the floors above collapse. As may be. But- if it was controlled demolition with thermite/thermate and explosives, the explosions would have blown tiny droplets, 1000 down to 50 microns, of molten steel out the windows like buckshot. And some would have landed on the window sills and crannies in facades of other buildings and the cracks in the sidewalks. And if it was controlled demolition, its still there. All you need is a video camera with a good close up of some of the debris picked out and put near a magnet. If there are tiny balls of steel stuck to the magnet, then 911 was an inside job. If not, then not. AGAIN, the silence is deafening. People would rather have an excuse to rant than to actually look at the data to resolve the issues. This is one of the neurotic symptoms of the American malaise. Another symptom is the narcissisim which prevents leaders from otherstanding others, such as the peoples in Iraq, or the terrorists. If you want to deter terrorism, you dont threaten a chance at infamy with capital punishment or long prison terms. You charge them with being insane and in need of better case management and enough meds for a chemical prefrontal lobotomy. Their names dont appear in the media, much less their faces, and by the time the system gets dont, they dont even know what their own names are. THAT is a fate worse than death to this kind of ego maniac. But the leadership of the system is too neurotic to understand it, suffering in some ways from the same dementia.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Neolibertarian
Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

In article <3fc_h.5960$YW4.8@trndny06>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

Quote:

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-91CF27.18360929042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <HQ4Zh.610$kg1.453@trndny04>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-2911FC.02172728042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1177744005.823233.215770@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
lorad474@cs.com wrote:
Stupifaction within the educational system is another factor.
And then, of course, there is the new orchestrated propaganda machine
in operation - which an american public has never been subjected to

You mean the one where they're attempting to discredit conservatism by
calling it "neoconservatism?"

The one that ignores the unprecedented secrecy policy of this White
House,

You need to define "unprecedented."

Perhaps. They certainly increased secrecy from what it had been. Maybe
it's best to just describe what this administration has done.

No, it's best to first describe what previous administrations have done,
in order to avoid the Fallacy of the Biased Sample.

Quote:

No administration operates transparently. It is a necessary precondition
to the office.

Of course.

If you are indeed expressing the notion that you believe an
administration should operate in complete transparency, I'd contend that
you've never given the exigencies much thought.

Did you see me express such a notion? No, you didn't.

I said "if."

Quote:

Waxman has reported on this administration's increased secrecy. Ashcroft in
2001 instructed government agencies to use technicalities to resist any
Freedom of Information Act requests. In 2003 Bush expanded the use of
national security classification. We are well aware of how the
administration has resisted judicial oversight of surveillance activities.

Congress was informed at every step--which is how/where the story of the
warrantless wiretaps was cracked in the first place.

==begin quote==

HATCH: And the Clinton administration also authorized the warrantless
search of the Mississippi home of a suspected terrorist financier. Is
that correct?

GONZALES: I think that is correct, sir.

HATCH: The Clinton Justice Department authorized these searches because
it was the judgment of Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, somebody
I have great admiration for, that -- and let me quote her. It has been
quoted before, but I think it's worth quoting it again. This is the
deputy attorney general of the United States in the Clinton
administration.

The president, quote, she said, "The president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes." Now this is against the domestic people.

"And the rules and methodologies for criminal searches are inconsistent
with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate
the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

You're aware of that quote.

GONZALES: I am aware of it, yes, sir.

HATCH: But if the president has inherent ability to surveil American
citizens in national security cases during peacetime, I guess what's
bothering me, how can it be that President Bush is precluded, as some
have argued, from surveilling Al Qaida sources by intercepting foreign
calls into this country to people who may be Al Qaida or affiliated with
Al Qaida or affiliated with somebody who is affiliated with Al Qaida?

How can that be?

GONZALES: Senator, I think that the president's authority as commander
in chief obviously is stronger during a time of war.

==end quote==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020
601359.html

What politics is all about is that Waxman can pretend Congress wasn't
informed all along.

"I am shocked, shocked I say to discover that gambling is going on at
this establishment!"

The evil or nefarious intent is merely a mirage. FOIA is not to be
allowed to subvert a war effort.

The denial of a state of war is what makes this a crisis.

Really and truly, it all hinges on this one concept. Are we at war, or
not?

No president who'd tasked himself to fight this underground, foreign
based revolutionary movement would have avoided these tools.

Quote:

The House Government Reform Committee has had to go to court to get
information to which it was entitled from the executive branch.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=692

Urp.

Fallacy of the Biased Sample, thy name is Waxman.

Quote:

Even James E. Carter had his dark machinations, some of which have only
come to light recently.

Let's take a look at the secrecy of the Carter administration for a
moment. His was a particularly "open and honest" administration, or so
he and many have claimed.

There's many examples that would work, but this one is particularly
shocking:

==Begin Quote==

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period
you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You
therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote
a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.

==End Quote==

---Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

The difference between Carter and Bush is that secrets such as this,
which completely undermine administration policy positions, is that
Carter's secrets were kept until long past a time they mattered.

Quote:

that ignores questions of legality regarding our tactics in Iraq (like
our
attack on Fallujah),

There was no legal obstacle to attacking Fallujah. If you're referring
to the use of incendiaries, you're sadly mistaken if you think these
were "illegal."

You are entitled to believe it is legal to violate UN conventions, but
violations are a valid subject for media scrutiny.

No ratified UN conventions were violated. Period.

Quote:

And their use was not "Republican." Or even "conservative."

Metaphysically? You're probably right. But just you raise the question of
the use of those weapons in this instance, and see which side of the aisle
supports or objects to their use.

Immaterial, of course.

The Gops are defending the prosecution of the war, the Dems are visibly
afraid what a successful war effort might mean to their political
prospects. Those 90% approvals haunt them to this day.

And the Dem party as a whole does not have (what I consider) a realistic
fear of the Global Jihad. They seem to believe that, were America to
leave Iraq to the Iranians and Syrians, that this would yield no
irreversible consequences to the United States. And they seem to believe
that 6 years of no attacks here is proof that the enemy has been
rendered harmless.

Quote:

But it is relevant. It's how voters vote out the bad guy and get a worse
one.

Quote:

It is
Republican when Republicans do it. Hypothetically speaking, the failure to
cover Democratic corruption would be a favor to the Democrats. In fact, not
covering this stuff has been a favor to Republicans.

This stuff has ALWAYS been covered. Both camps are as corrupt as the
other. Which is to say, not particularly--but more than most realize.

Quote:

And the one
that lets the Democratic Congress get excoriated for challenges to
Pelosi's
leadership and questionable items in their military spending bill,
without
pointing out that such things were well-precedented in the Republican
Congress.

The Gops refused to debate Operation: Allied Force after it had begun.

"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I
normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they
are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. . But before we get
deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has
to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a
civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian
reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. . Was it worth it to stay
in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely
nothing."
Tom Delay (R-TX), 4/28/99

I'm not a shill for the Gops. If you'll notice, I said above that given
the right circumstances, the Gops are just like the Dems. And they are.

But it turns out the Gops gave Clinton more funding than he was asking
for to prosecute Operation: Allied Force. He asked for $6 billion and
they gave him $11 billion.

4/29/99:

==begin quote==

MARGARET WARNER: So Congressman, how should we read these votes? What do
they mean?

REP. J. C. WATTS, R-OK: Margaret, there were several votes. One, I think
there was a vote to declare war. No one thought that should be done.
There was a vote to pull the troops out within 30 days. I think we do
have a humanitarian mission there. I didn't think that was the rights
thing to do. Many members didn't. That passed. The third vote was to the
Goodling-Fowler legislation, was a piece of legislation that said "the
president should consult Congress prior to committing ground troops."
And so we had a visit with the president yesterday in the White House,
and he committed that he would consult Congress. So that legislation
just kind of spelled out what the president committed to doing yesterday.

MARGARET WARNER: But then how about this vote, 213-213 not to support
the air strikes, even for members such as yourself who didn't vote to
pull the troops out. What are you really saying?

REP. J. C. WATTS: Well, there was a lot -- I think you can probably --
many members I think had many different thoughts on that legislation --
on that resolution. But what I was voting to say was -- is I did not
think that we should retroactively approve what the president was doing.
A lot of us had problems with the policy to go in to start with. I think
that vote, the best way to read that vote, Margaret, is members were
saying to the president, "Had you asked us to do this prior to
committing an air campaign, these are the results you would have gotten.
213-213, No."

==end quote==

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/votes_4-29.html

If the Dems would say "we don't think the mission in Iraq is going like
it should, here's double the money you're asking for--now win it!" Well,
you might be able to make a point or two in their favor.

That's their strategy for education and the war on poverty, is it not?

Quote:

Yes, it very much leans to the left. By every measure imaginable. From
polls of journalists about their political leanings, to their admitted
party affiliations.

The New York Times carried the Abu Ghraib story on its front page for 32
days in a row. Later it was documented to be 43 front page stories in 47
days.

LA times carried it front page for 28 days in a row, and the Chicago
Tribune, 27.

The Times and the Boston Globe used the stories to call for the
resignation of Rumsfeld.

Hersh was the yardage guy for this one. Seymour Hersh began life as the
head speech writer and spokesman for Democratic Senator Eugene
McCarthy's presidential campaign in 1968.

Think Karl Rove or James Carville later on becoming "independent
investigative journalists" here.

The story, as Hersh pushed it, attempted to tie what went on at Abu
Ghraib with official USDoD policy. Even though the USDoD already had
begun an investigation into the matter.

It turns out that Graner was a thoughtless brute and a disgrace to his
uniform. (Big surprise.) He not only wasn't following policy, he was
grossly malfeasant, and had allowed several several prisoners to escape
and had conspired to keep this information from his superiors.

In a rational, evenly balanced environment, Abu Ghraib would have been
worth a few front page stories at most (the USDoD was certainly set to
severely punish Graner and his idiot compatriots, Seymour Hersh or not).
But, with the DEMOCRAT media machine, it filled all the newspapers and
became nightly news stories (covered on FoxNews as well) while, all the
time, Seymour Hersh knew he was making connections that just weren't
there.

He's done so many. many times in the past...Except during Dem
administrations.

Yes, the Shrub's numbers took a dive here, as did support for the war.
It's pretty obvious when looking at the graphs what this saturation
media blitz did to public opinion.

Something seen as mere collateral damage is this street scene in Tehran:

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/TehranMurals.jpg

But mostly unimportant, since there really isn't a threat, and there is
no war.

Quote:

David Brock? You're not kidding, are you?

--
NeoLibertarian

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Neolibertarian
Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

In article <1178090392.175433.141220@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

Quote:

On May 1, 8:11 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's name a system-time-society where there wasn't corruption of the
nature you've just described.

Machiavelli praises the German City states, noting how each man would
appear at the courthouse and announce what he owed in taxes and then
pay it. Ie, what you pay is public knowledge. i can see how it'd work.
Everyone would know who the cheapskates were, and act accordingly in
all the business they do with them.

Tax evasion isn't corruption.

Quote:

It was a freemarket in government, since each city state was small
enough that competent men could, and did, vote with their feet. Some
were monarchies run like a family business, some republics, some
oligarchies, but whatever, they were all in competition with each
other. Likewise, we see the same thing on the Silk Road towns between
the hegemony of the Chinese and Persian empires.

From the Jade Gate to Tashkent, there were three main routes. A summer
route around the north rim of the Tien Shen across southern Siberia, a
spring/fall central route along the south rim of those mountains, and
a southern route along the North rim of the Himalayas. With inter-
connecting routes between the three, and shunt also running down to
Samarkand.

China garrisonned it briefly all the way to the Tamir pass, but
somewhat agreeably in a mutual effort to put down banditry and
disempower the warlords that still plague the region to stop the blood
feuds. But whatever the trouble was, violence, banditry, or
governmental greed, the camel trains had alternate routes, so that
kept a lid on the corruption.

Many, if not all, of these towns were established by "Amazons". There
was a period early on, when the horses were still too small to carry
male warriors. This is most clearly documented at Niya & Kucha. Niya
was on an interconnecting route, but 1500 years ago, the river dried
up, and everyone left abruptly. Leaving furniture, spinning wheels,
and personal letters in the houses. In them, we see *women* running
the shiipping offices while men did the leg work on the camel trains.

Then, there's Kucha. Arguably, it had the wealthiest middle class in
the world for centuries. The reason the Silk Road ends at the *JADE*
Gate, is that's where the Jade came into China, and the finest green
jade came from Kuchan mines. But the place was matriarchic, like the
Mosou, run by a n ancient series of Gautamid queens. And since the
queen didnt need a harem, she didnt need a palace to keep them in, nor
a castle to protect the palace, and didnt need to tax the schitt out
of everyone to pay for it. Which is why the Kuchan mummies are all so
well dressed.

Kucha was like a college town, with monks and clerics and sages from
all religions. They've found the shrines of 22 religions. No matter
where a merchant came from, they had a place for him to pray.
Christianity, BTW, didnt hold up so good in all the competition from
Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Manichean.... They
even had some Jews, but since they didnt have Christian monarchs, they
didnt have Jews running the banking or government. So, unlike the
governments you are familiar with, corruption wasnt a problem.

Competition among the federated states helped bring about the Civil War
here.

Quote:

They have not found any slums at Kucha. Unlike breeding the welfare
queens, they drafted the airheads into the brothels that were owned by
the city. The Queen was also, basically, a madam. Kept the students
happy and out of trouble. Since they didnt have Christian family
values, nobody was pretending virtues they didnt have. which is an
apparently increasing symptom of the American malaise.

You're a statist. Which I'd already suspected.

Quote:

*IF* the proverbial SHTF, we can expect some city states to emerge out
of the chaos. We wont see many run by Christians. Or Liberals. Or
Conservatives, or ideologues of any kind. If there is economic crisis,
then the religions that were associated with the power elites, even
tho they may have all been hypocrites, will be smeared with that
association.

I have a copy of a 5th century text found near Kucha; the
"Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A'. which is a conversation between
the Gautamid Queen of Kucha and the living Buddha. Its quite different
from the usual scripture. Nobody is laying down the law, telling
others how to live. Rather, it is a dialogue discussing the
appropriate way for her to perform traditional, I daresay, 'pagan'
rituals. They agree to take the issue to the monks at Sibushi (the
monestary is 12 miles north of town) for further consultation. What we
see here is an effort to reach consensus. Nobody is claming the moral
authority to tell others how to live.

City states are already emerging in the global market with a very
similar attitude. They all know that the kind of competent technicians
they want do not want 'moral guidance'.

City states aren't emerging.

And, for the record, City States don't know anything. They are
associations, not persons.

Quote:

Cosmologies tend to reflect
power structures; tyranny was justified on the basis of an Almighty
God.

That's not even correct prima facie.

Quote:

Technicians see a global web of peer to peer consensus, and out
of that will come a new cosmology.

Or not.

Quote:

I expect the re-emergence of the same concept that appeared in the
world's first free market economy 6000-10000 years ago along the
rivers that empty into the West end of the Black Sea. Same deal,
hundreds of villages and scores of trading towns, but no capital city.
The Great Earth Mother was not a tryant, but like animal mothers, gave
birth to people to fulfill their own destiny rather than some 'divine
plan'. Its too disorganized for there to be a 'divine plan'. The free
market is an organic fractle with a large chaotic factor.

You haven't defined anything here. And, in these observations, you seem
to have ignored anything that's inconvenient to your ability to nurse
your illusions.

Which we all do, whenever we can get away with it, of course.

All these words and what I glean from them is that you favor, generally,
decentralization.

I think you may have not understood the question.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Neolibertarian
Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

In article <1178215371.039497.206810@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

Quote:

I appreciate the thotful polite discourse.
Agreed that the Bush administration has tried to increase secrecy, but
in many ways, because of digital communications, has failed, and
earlier failures it has had will continue to be exposed all the way
back to its involvement in 911.

It wasn't digital communications that have "failed" to keep these state
secrets.

Quote:

Its a testimony to the neurotic susceptability of group think that so
many issues have been hidden by self delusion. There have been
developments in science that show the irrationality of abortion,
torture, and 911 debates. Archaeology studied the pot residues of
Transylvanian witches and the lab reports show a number of highly
effective *herbal abortificants*. The abortion debate is over. It dont
*matter* what the court thinks.

i post that to an abortion thread and the silence is just stunning.

The silence may not be stemming from what you imagine.

The abortion debate was over when geneticists began claiming all that we
are or will be is found in the DNA sequences.

If true, then abortion, even if it occurs just after the first cell
division, is murder.

By definition.

After all, in those first two cells is a complete human individual. The
phenotypes may not all be expressed at that time (well, they still
aren't all expressed when the fetus is 16 years old, either), but the
genotype, the whole individual human genotype complex, is already there.

Compete.

Herbal induced abortions don't add or detract from the "debate" at all.

Quote:

FRMI Brain scans, EEGs, and even Dr. Paul Ekman's work shows that
torture is obsolete. There highly effective ways to determine
deception with no pain applied at all. That news stops the debates
over Abu Gharib dead in their tracks.

Hiding emotions are what POW's do.

They also hide information.

Truth detectors can't extract that information. Torture can fail to
extract that information--or give you incorrect data. Scopolamine and
Sodium Pentathol can extract so much, you can't sift through it all.

Quote:

If you look at the video of the twin towers, you can see debris
blowing out the windows. The gov report says this is a bellows action
as the floors above collapse. As may be. But- if it was controlled
demolition with thermite/thermate and explosives, the explosions would
have blown tiny droplets, 1000 down to 50 microns, of molten steel out
the windows like buckshot. And some would have landed on the window
sills and crannies in facades of other buildings and the cracks in the
sidewalks. And if it was controlled demolition, its still there.

All you need is a video camera with a good close up of some of the
debris picked out and put near a magnet. If there are tiny balls of
steel stuck to the magnet, then 911 was an inside job. If not, then
not. *AGAIN*, the silence is deafening. People would rather have an
excuse to rant than to actually look at the data to resolve the
issues. This is one of the neurotic symptoms of the American malaise.

Here's something a little easier: How could anyone be expected to know
ahead of time which floor to plant the explosives? Furthermore, how
could anyone be so good as to plant them exactly two floors below where
the planes were to hit?

I'd think you'd need VOR, too. At least. You might even have to have a
few trial runs.

And about a thousand accomplices.

Ergo, Occam exclaims:

Mr. Oswald, in the Depository, with the Carcano!

Quote:

Another symptom is the narcissisim which prevents leaders from
otherstanding others, such as the peoples in Iraq, or the terrorists.
If you want to deter terrorism, you dont threaten a chance at infamy
with capital punishment or long prison terms. You charge them with
being insane and in need of better case management and enough meds for
a chemical prefrontal lobotomy. Their names dont appear in the media,
much less their faces, and by the time the system gets dont, they dont
even know what their own names are. *THAT* is a fate worse than death
to this kind of ego maniac. But the leadership of the system is too
neurotic to understand it, suffering in some ways from the same
dementia.

America's malaise isn't.

America's problem is that she's drowning in wealth and ease.

Franklin once warned the Republic may not survive its own successes.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:51:42 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

The president, quote, she said, "The president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes." Now this is against the domestic people.

"And the rules and methodologies for criminal searches are inconsistent
with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate
the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

You're aware of that quote.

Except of course if you read FISa it doesn't apply to the agents of
foreign countries. Warrantless searches are okay for foreign agents on
the plain text of the law.
-----
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:51:42 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

HATCH: But if the president has inherent ability to surveil American
citizens in national security cases during peacetime,

Flag on the play. That's not what Gorelick was saying. This is a
critique of Gonzales poor (read unconstitutional) legal opinion.
-----
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Neolibertarian
Guest

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise

In article <gfel33hrsnumcs7oo9482nhvn0q5b6g5jo@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:51:42 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com
wrote:

The president, quote, she said, "The president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes." Now this is against the domestic people.

"And the rules and methodologies for criminal searches are inconsistent
with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate
the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

You're aware of that quote.

Except of course if you read FISa it doesn't apply to the agents of
foreign countries. Warrantless searches are okay for foreign agents on
the plain text of the law.

Well, that might be relevant...in some other conversation.

"HATCH: And the Clinton administration also authorized the warrantless
search of the Mississippi home of a suspected terrorist financier. Is
that correct? "

FISA was bypassed in a warrantless search and seizure of a US residence
in the former administration.

The Goerlick quote is not out of context.

After further review, the play stands as called.

Sooner or later, the Dems should prolly realize there needs to be a
breach of the law, or an actual crime, before they start shooting out
the subpoenas.

They just convicted a guy for not leaking the identity of a CIA employee
who wasn't undercover. They keep that kind of thing up and it will
surely backfire.

Even the hayseeds will start to realize what this is all really about,
eventually.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers