Conservatism Vs Liberal Socialism? No Contest

Open Thread | Crooks And Liars

Conservatism Vs Liberal Socialism? No Contest

What drive me nuts about the ongoing debate over the relative merits of conservatism Vs liberals, is why there's any debate on the subject... at all! Because when we look at the sociological sciences for some insight into who is who and which personality traits are hurting the culture and country, we see this from a study that the Oklahoma justice department set up to determine the same thing: "It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier,1983). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993)in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional conservative personality than non-traditional persons.

And if that wasn't enough, they add "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent".

Well!.... That about covers everything that one could possibly say positive about conservatives, no? What about the conservative desire to fight terrorism? Let's skip over to Maryland U (College Park) where DHS has empaneled a group of sociologists to determine where the next terrorist attack is likely to come from based on a populations political/ideological views. From their reports it becomes immediately obvious that conservatives are the focal point of their research as well. "Basic social, cognitive, and motivational differences may also explain why extreme right-wing movements are typically obsessed with purity, cleanliness, hygiene, structure, and order( ) and why religious fundamentalism is so attractive to right-wing parties and followers in just about every nation stretching from North America to the Middle East."

And speaking of American conservatives specifically, we get this: "We now take it for granted that political conservatives tend to be for law and order but not gun control, against welfare but generous to corporations, protective of cultural traditions but antagonistic toward contemporary art and music, and wary of government but eager to weaken the separation of church and state. They are committed to freedom and individualism but perennially opposed to extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities and others who blur traditional boundaries. There is no obvious political thread that runs through these diverse positions and no logical principle that renders them all consistent."

So...what are we supposed to be arguing anymore? Apparently everyone from the penal system to Homeland Security is aware of the shortcoming (to put it mildly) of conservatism. It's not an ideology. It's not just a different way of looking at things...no better, no worse than all the others. It is in fact a strong indication of an aggressive, simple-minded lout who means to make the rest of the world behave as stupidly as they.

That's not an opinion. That's the fact of the matter.

So that argument is over. Now all we have to do is make the journalism crowd get up to speed with the intellectual crowd so that we can start marginalizing these people where-ever they are found. That we still elect these misfits should be a strong signal that mankind is still in puberty and has a lot of growing up to do if we are ever to think of ourselves as a wise and noble species.

Cosmic Bull Session

Richard Cohen Reveals Himself

"And I thought, No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us." Richard Cohen: American journalist

Which brings me to note that work done by DHS scientists who are currently looking into which mindset gives rise to terrorism. Not surprisingly, they have focused nearly all their attention on one specific group. It is notable by the curious way they behave as do others when thoughts of death (mortality salience) are present. They often behave as though they are somehow being rushed to make a quick decision and thereby take shortcuts or follow leads that may actually do more harm than good. This group seems as though it's members are in a chronic anxiety state, much as one would expect from people who must always struggle to reduce a steady, low level "fight or flight" impulse.
So which group am I talking about? Right-wing conservatives of course. Or more specifically, right-wing authoritarians and the 'social dominance-oriented' who lead them. (the infamous "RWA-SDO embrace" as it's sometimes called in sociological circles) .

And now it appears we have a journo here who openly admits that his decisions are influenced by his own fears or anger, including an editor who both seem clueless over how damaging these reactionary impulses are to one's ability to think clearly and rationally. And this is despite GWB's entire presidency being a showcase of nearly every single aspect of this debilitating disorder. Such people are a primary cause of the mess we are in today, as well as historically.

Now the big question then is, why would he, or anyone else, find this trait so admirable they'd openly admit to it in their column? Not a very good journalist I'm (not) afraid to say!

Mycos

The Program of the First Zionist Congress

The Program of the First Zionist Congress

The Basle Zionist Program

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Palestine of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.

2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.

3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism

The handwritten copy of the program also states:

4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.

It seems apparent to me that this is not the complete document. And that there exists somewhere in fact a more complete list of statements that one can only presume, given the wording here, of what these "preparatory steps" should consist of.
It seems highly unlikely that this meeting would have ended with nothing more substantial than the 3 (or 4 ) statements above. It makes all kinds of sense if we are to suppose that the document is incomplete and is missing a more detailed narrative of just exactly what those steps are to be.

Gaza To Moros: Massacre (by Mark Twain)

Comments On Moro Massacre

by Mark Twain (March 12, 1906)

This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows: A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves in the bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying for eight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred, counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, and very difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see the order carried out. Our troops climbed the heights by devious and difficult trails, and even took some artillery with them. The kind of artillery is not specified, but in one place it was hoisted up a sharp acclivity by tackle a distance of some three hundred feet. Arrived at the rim of the crater, the battle began.

Our soldiers numbered five hundred and forty. They were assisted by auxiliaries consisting of a detachment of native constabulary in our pay -- their numbers not given -- and by a naval detachment, whose numbers are not stated. But apparently the contending parties were about equal as to number -- six hundred men on our side, on the edge of the bowl; six hundred men, women and children in the bottom of the bowl. Depth of the bowl, 50 feet. Gen. Wood's order was, "Kill or capture the six hundred."

The battle began-it is officially called by that name-our forces firing down into the crater with their artillery and their deadly small arms of precision; the savages furiously returning the fire, probably with brickbats-though this is merely a surmise of mine, as the weapons used by the savages are not nominated in the cablegram. Heretofore the Moros have used knives and clubs mainly; also ineffectual trade-muskets when they had any.

The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both
sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred Moros not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.

General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been. "Kill or capture those savages." Apparently our little army considered that the or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there - the taste of Christian butchers.

The official report quite properly extolled and magnified the "heroism" and "gallantry" of our troops; lamented the loss of the fifteen who perished, and elaborated the wounds of thirty-two of our men who suffered injury, and even minutely and faithfully described the nature of the wounds, in the interest of future historians of the United States. It mentioned that a private had one of his elbows scraped by a missile, and the private's name was mentioned. Another private had the end of his nose scraped by a missile. His name was also mentioned - by cable, at one dollar and fifty cents a word.

Next day's news confirmed the previous day's report and named our fifteen killed and
thirty-two wounded again, and once more described the wounds and gilded them with the right adjectives.

Let us now consider two or three details of our military history. In one of the great battles of the Civil War ten per cent. Of the forces engaged on the two sides were killed and wounded. At Waterloo, where four hundred thousand men were present on the two sides, fifty thousand fell, killed and wounded in five hours, leaving three hundred and fifty thousand men sound and all right for further adventures. Eight years ago, when the pathetic comedy called the Cuban War was played, we summoned two hundred and fifty thousand men. We fought a number of showy battles, and when the war was over we had lost two hundred and sixty-eight men out of our two hundred and fifty thousand killed and wounded in the field, and fourteen times as many by the gallantry of the army doctors in the hospitals and camps. We did not exterminate the Spaniards -- far from it. In each engagement we left an average of only two per cent of the enemy killed or crippled on the field.

Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

Now then, how has it been received? The splendid news appeared with splendid display-heads in every newspaper in this city of four million and thirteen thousand inhabitants, on Friday morning. But there was not a single reference to it in the editorial columns of any one of those newspapers. The news appeared again in all the evening papers of Friday, and again those papers were editorially silent upon our vast achievement. Next day's additional statistics and particulars appeared in all the morning papers, and still without a line of editorial rejoicing or a mention of the matter in any way. These additions appeared in the evening papers of that same day (Saturday) and again without a word of comment. In the columns devoted to correspondence, in the morning and evening papers of Friday and Saturday, nobody said a word about the "battle." Ordinarily those columns are teeming with the passions of the citizen; he lets no incident go by, whether it be large or small, without pouring out his praise or blame, his joy or his indignation about the matter in the correspondence column. But, as I have said, during those two days he was as silent as the editors themselves.

So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion -- that was the President of the United States.All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, so he took his pen and performed that duty. If I know President Roosevelt -- and I am sure I do -- this utterance cost him more pain and shame than any other that ever issued from his pen or his mouth. I am far from blaming him. If I had been in his place my official duty would have compelled me to say what he said. It was a convention, an old tradition, and he had to be loyal to it. There was no help for it. This is what he said:

Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag. (Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

His whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms - and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule instead of bullets. He knew perfectly well that our uniformed assassins had not flag, but had done as they have been doing continuously for eight years in the Philippines - that is to say, they had dishonored it.

The next day, Sunday, -- which was yesterday -- the cable brought us additional news - still more splendid news -- still more honor for the flag. The first display-head shouts this information at us in the stentorian capitals: "WOMEN SLAIN DURING MORO SLAUGHTER." "Slaughter" is a good word. Certainly there is not a better one in the Unabridged Dictionary for this occasion.

The next display line says:"With Children They Mixed in Mob in Crater, and All Died Together."

They were mere naked savages, and yet there is a sort of pathos about it when that word children falls under your eye, for it always brings before us our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness; and by help of its deathless eloquence color, creed and nationality vanish away and we see only that they are children -- merely children. And if they are frightened and crying and in trouble, our pity goes out to them by natural impulse. We see a picture. We see the small forms. We see the terrified faces. We see the tears. We see the small hands clinging in supplication to the mother; but we do not see those children that we are speaking about. We see in their places the little creatures whom we know and love.

The next heading blazes with American and Christian glory like to the sun in the zenith: "Death List is Now 900."

I was never so enthusiastically proud of the flag till now!

Conservative/Liberal Paradox

My apologies for running out on you right at the moment when it seemed likely we were building to a point wherein some kind of rational discourse could, or was about to take place. The election and subsequent appointments to an Obama Administration have kept me busy elsewhere.

What I had in mind Alan, was to try and agree upon on a neutral third-party source of information to test the accuracy of the claims we both base our respective cosmologies upon. I realize that right away we would run into the question of whether a God does indeed exist. But to that end I was going to concede the point to you, but NOT your interpretation of who what He is or what He wants out of mankind....if anything.

So we'd have to agree on info from some place like Harvard Divinity School or perhaps even the Vatican. I'm an atheist so for me to offer up these two ...site(s) unseen by me as yet!...is a heckuva risk for me too take, but one I'm willing to take if you'll agree that degrees granted by places like Bob Jones or Oral Roberts U, especially on hard science subjects like biology or geology...or really on anything that is outside the realm of their own particular beliefs...aren't to be considered as authoritative on anything other than the present state of the conservative Christian ideology now popular in America. Okay?

I'm not so naive as to belive that HDS or the Vatican doesn't have an agenda they would prefer to promote, but I also believe they have sufficient contrainsts against outright lying imposed on them that they would be reasonably safe from the effects of deliberate falsification or purges of factual data where once there was much that was known. I just can't say that about many of websites managed by active evangelicals, creatiomists, athiests....Satanist,.Muslim jihadi sites, etc. etc.

You see, I've been fascinated now for years about conservative beliefs. Prior to the internet, I guess I had either assumed that they held many of their beliefs either because they didn't know what the facts were on a particular topic...and so were honestly mistaken in those beliefs and wqould change them once they knew....or perhaps knew they were "probably" wrong but continued saying them to meet another, hidden agenda. These could be such as they were just "going along to get along" or, as I was absolutely certain had to be the case with many of the TV evangelists, they were willfully lying to their flock for either money, power, or out of pure psychopathy. It always seemed to me that there was no way they could be both lying and doing so thinking it would be fine with Jesus...that there was some secret Gospel somewhere that stated lying --- to bring souls to Christ of course! --- was an end that justified the means.
But then the internet came along and allowed me to lurk on conservative websites. Now I could could watch what they said to each other based on the assumption that they were saying it among "friends" only and as such had no real reason to lie. For the first time it was now possible to see what they honestly believed without having to go to all the trouble of actively spying on them. After all, what they said in books was all very carefully weighed out and assessed for it's ability to promote one of the previous goals I spoke of. How was I to know which book was written by a magnificent liar, and which was written in all honesty?

And what I found..and to my utter amazement...was that a great many, the vast majority even, actually believed what they were saying as being true!!? They really had no idea what a huge and devastatingly hurtful hypocrisy it is --- to pick one out of many --- to continue sending kids (or anyone for that matter) off to to jail because they chose to smoke a plant whose use has repeatedly been shown to have very few negative consequences for it's smokers. Well, except of course now the very real risk that they'll be busted and have their lives turned upside down by some conservative wearing a cop uniform and "just doing his job!" enforcing a law that was originally a wholly conservative agenda to dictate what good conservative morality must be for all of us! And do it with not only a clear conscience, but do it thinking that they are doing right for everyone involved....even the kid now being bum-raped was sent there "for his own good!". It simply stuns me that anyone can be so wrong, about so many things, and have no idea or hint that they are.

And that's why I want to set up an agreed upon set of reference texts so that we can investigate these apparent inconsistencies over who is right ... who is dealing with facts when shaping their worldview... and who is dealing with a set of comforting beliefs ONLY. It's my contention that we both can't be right about subjects wherein the facts of the matter(s) are well enough known that their is little controversy among those who actually study the subjects.

You strike me as an educated, intelligent man, so you're aware what the "rules" are for a fact's admission into the "true" column. But, to make it clear for our purposes here at least let's just say that the current state of knowledge on the matter isn't controversial among those who actually study the subjects at x, y, or z schools. And just as being an atheist doesn't make me an expert on the history and beliefs of atheism, nor does you re: Christianity, me biology, or you evolution.

You seem genuinely interested in getting to the crux of whatever this exceedingly strange, mirror-like cognitive paradox it is that we seem to viewing the other's very existence through.

Waddya say?

Palin's Lot

Todd Palin says contacts with his wife's administration were proper - Juneau Empire

What needs to be taken into account by political wonks and citizens concerned about the future, is that the term "conservative" doesn't apply to a description of a political ideolog.... or at least not in the sense that "fascism", "communism", "liberalism" are. It's actually a description of a personality profile.

To illustrate, take the following: You will never find a left-wing, liberal, religious fundamentalist.

The significance of this is that other, "non-conservative" ideologies have a logical basis upon which it's learners can reason out their relative merits, benefits or drawbacks...see what each one offers the most hope for someone of their particular tastes and background.

OTOH, conservatism serves no purpose outside the comfort it offers those so afflicted with what I believe is a disfunctional behavioural trait left us from our pre-Neolithic ancestors. But that is a whole other area of inguiry I cannot hope to cover here.

So. Back to our anti-vice, anti-change crusaders.

The conservativism "movement" works in much the same way as the drugs that others use to escape the harsh realities of their lives. But a drug's deadening or euphoriant effects change our moods or minds in ways that are far too scary for conservatives, who are ironically probably the one group whose minds could most benefit from a change of mood.

As it is however, they are in perpetual fear of the gay "agenda" (?), a plot I have been lucky enough to actually have a conservative outline for me. This experience alone would have sufficed as convincing evidence that I was in the presence of a strong contender for placement in the next DSM, but my curiousity was now firmly captured by this presence among us. I found they also see other economically deprived ethnic groups as the people responsible for their own crappy jobs, see academics as the cause of their own failure to achieve any real education; and see journalists as the reason they themselves are uninformed about the world. Amazing.

And anywhere in the world one goes, their 'devils' follow...merely changing names and faces depending on the culture the conservative mindset appears in while the same basic pattern of denial and blame-placement are identical across cultures, languages, religions or ideologies.

If you watch who they choose as persons whom they'll trust to let guide their thoughts, it'll be persons with a charismatic or authoritarian presence that seem best able to re-frame their discomfort by blaming it away on the people who oppose their existence (intellectuals eg.).

Given that the majority of them do indeed live a miserable life,
it's a lucrative career opportunity for someone willing to come up with enough enemies for them to place all that blame. As such, right-wing authoritarians have long been the default fill-in for a role that is far too important to our survival as a species to continue allowing such an incestuous relationship to continue.

Thankfully, they are a minority of the population. And with the advent of the internet it's now possible for us to educate ourselves at least to the basic facts about subjects that have long been the domain of the highly educated or well traveled only.

And because their antics "over there" scare our ones "over here", they are a threat to the peace wherever they appear. Ours will mobilize and threaten war, impose sanctions, and any other antics they can think of to ensure nobody is any happier than they. And no-one, ever, was beset by more devils than the typical conservative. The 'traditional' RWA-SDO alliance creates a cycle of violence that is far too dangerous in these nuclear, and now climatically fragile, times. But the psychologists are fascinated. Group Centrism Syndrome is the phrase psychologists use when referring to their specific disorder.

Now you are aware. Tell your neighbors, teach your children.

Mankind needs to change course NOW!

What's Wrong With the Drug War?

What's Wrong With the Drug War?

What's Wrong With the Drug War?

Everyone has a stake in ending the war on drugs. Whether you’re a parent concerned about protecting children from drug-related harm, a social justice advocate worried about racially disproportionate incarceration rates, an environmentalist seeking to protect the Amazon rainforest or a fiscally conservative taxpayer you have a stake in ending the drug war. U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America “drug-free.” Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights.

Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called “drug-related” crime is a direct result of drug prohibition's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse.

Few public policies have compromised public health and undermined our fundamental civil liberties for so long and to such a degree as the war on drugs. The United States is now the world's largest jailer, imprisoning nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone. That's more people than Western Europe, with a bigger population, incarcerates for all offenses. Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession. People suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana. We can do better. Join us.

Visit these pages to see how the drug war affects all aspects of our lives:

Drug War Funding
Pain Underprescribing
Terrorism
Informants
Environmental Consequences
Economics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Voter Disenfranchisement
Public Health Crisis
Access to Treatment
Higher Education Act
Public Benefits
Forced Evictions
Alternatives to Prohibition