Goodbye Revolution, Hello Evolution

Just Thick If You Try
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 1:01am.
Submitted by dr on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 12:06am.
...Course, maybe I'm just thick 'n not unnerstandin' what you means...
-----------------
Good luck. You are dealing with a jargon-slingin' zealot who specializes in vague and undefined generalities. You can't dig deeper because there is no deeper to be dug to.

She challenged me for saying that violent revolution in the U.S. isn't the brilliant solution that tough talkers make it out to be, and now she is (zowie!) convinced that violent revolution in the U.S. isn't the brilliant solution that tough talkers make it out to be.

The difference between now and nine hours ago? A radio personality gave his imprimatur to the idea.

===================================

Crank, you made this statement (shown in blog above):

>>If you don't like "corporatism" or "fascism," imagine how quickly agents of commerce would join with agents of governance to crush guerrilla violence and personal rights to privacy.<<

I challenged it, Crank, because you allow yourself to point out opportunities for skullduggery (even conspiracy [gasp!]), but attack others when they recognize the same situations.

BY THE WAY, I said nothing about revolution. I didn't stick up for violent revolution. I don't espouse violent revolution. HOWEVER, a reader of your slur of me ("jargon-slingin' zealot") might gather from your post that 'nora espouses violent revolution'-- but that would be a result of the way YOU speak in "generalities".

And since so many now state they don't read my posts anyway, how can they be expected to judge the falseness of your aspersions? Do they take YOUR word for the content of my posts? Hmmmm. (If your slurs and word juxtapositions aren't a method for sowing seeds of disrepute, they almost seem like a method that could come from some major treatise on ostracization.)

But back to the 'conspiracy' thang. You said, "...imagine how quickly the agents of commerce would join with the agents of governance to crush...." SO, what does that mean in Crankworld -- where only crazed 'conspiracy theorists' say such things as this -- what are YOU proposing?

I doubt it, but I'll ask anyway, are you acknowledging the possibly repressive character of an institution like Infragard because it is right out there in the open (to some extent) and so cannot be considered secretive?

http://www.infragard.net/

(Although, didn't today's insurance reform Summit at Blair House on C-Span have the flavor of anti-climax to what was already decided, to what parameters were already drawn in meetings between government officials and corporations months and months ago?)

What are your limits on discussing conspiracy (such as, one person or several persons, or one political party, or even two political parties, or moles in one intelligence agency with members of an administration), or different methods of conspiracy (such as, maybe within the law, or definitely outside the law), or degrees of audacity in conducting conspiracies (such as, with taxpayers' money, or in full view on C-Span)?

Your 'agents' get your Crank seal of approval, do they? Does any other mention of 'conspiracy'?

is the revolution going to be televised?

This is a local Time Warner cable station. they wave been running a story that the city will have to start limiting the amount of people that can attend parades?

they show pictures of St. Patricks day with inebriated party goers ,But my natural paranoia reflex is telling me this has to do with WTP finally getting out in the streets and the authorities are positioning to limit the protesters.

---------
Bloomberg in the meantime keeps saying "limiting bonuses to the corporate thieves " is Soviet like behavior and is a bigger threat to democracy.
--------
I heard on WWRL 1600 Am Errol Lewis morning show that The city will have to pay money in a civil court for the " Killing of Sean Bell". The case can't be turned over to the Fed's because there is not enough evidence to prove it was racially motivated.

the ones of well crafted sentences, and appreciate the work that goes into them.

~`ordinary's just not good enough today - olp`~
Jamesbenet

Blue Roots Radio

Two Open Mics are open now JUST in response to your attacks, CRANK. Come on, you don't have to wait to build up steam and explode. Prove you've got a leg to stand on and start showing your stuff.

You had this to say not long ago:

For cent The Sarcastic
Submitted by Crank Bait on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 11:24am.
life is unfair, nora...so just shut up and take it...
Submitted by cent on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 1:24am.
bend over and just let life cram itself right up your strada chocolata....don't object, just be quiet, and hope they will be kind enough to grease you up first...
----------
cent,
Either you do not understand or (more likely) prefer to pretend that you do not understand this: nora will bitch about the math in quantum physics. She doesn't know squat about it, but she will readily form an opinion about the conspiracy, the morality, the social inequalities or the "corporatist" domination of the mathematics of theoretical physics.
You, cent, will defend her idiocy simply because she bitches continuously. Anyone who posts from a cynical and anti-establishment angle is A-O-K with cent. You like to think of nora's fulminations as railing against the machine or speaking truth to power.
What you ignore, either willfully or otherwise, is that merely sitting atop a bandwagon does not instantly bestow musical credibility. There ARE cynics who are chock-a-block full of shit, who repeat jingoisms and jargon, and who rely on people like you, cent, to keep them in business.
I am arguing that morons like nora taint the legitimate cynics with the pallor of hyperventilating and hysterical hallucinations. She is my enemy. She gives credence to the other side's argument; anti-establishment cynics are crazy. If you want to know why 'Conspiracy Theorist' has a derogatory connotation, you need look no further than people like nora. And you, cent, defend her, so you are also working in direct opposition to the causes of legitimate dissenting voices.
You play the same pretending game defending the NRA as you do with defending nora. The NRA is the quintessential lobbying organization. It embodies everything that is wrong with monied (and corporatist!) influence in governance. Its topic is as unrelated to current policy necessities and real human suffering as the anti-abortion movement is.
Yet you defend the NRA as the devil you know and, while you believe that other lobbying powerhouses should be crushed, you fervently argue that THIS one is the only thing standing between unarmed, defenseless citizens and a jackbooted junta.
So yeah, cent, I got your number and I got nora's number. Every time nora ventures into a subject area in which I am knowledgeable, she reveals that she is forming an opinion bereft of foundational information. You might have noticed that I don't challenge her when she is spouting her opinions in areas of which I am ignorant?
That's because (wait for it) I don't have enough knowledge in those areas to puke out an opinion or regurgitate a tirade about oligarchs and corporatism.
That never stops nora. Everything she knows about sailing and the America's Cup has been read in a couple of thousand words in the past 48 hours. She wouldn't know a ketch from a moonraker in a silhouetted multiple choice quiz.
And you, cent, speak of morality and defending the weak (from my bullying) while you carry a fucking NRA card in your wallet. Welcome to the gun lobby. Do you get a birthday card from Smith and Wesson, or are you shilling for the corporation for free?
You are a chump for defending nora and you are a chump for carrying that NRA card. If you had a scintilla of objective awareness, you would know that nora makes the rest of us look like lunatics and your pro-gun cause would have true anti-establishment legitimacy if you rejected the NRA and stood on the issue with your own, two, moral feet.
You can pull out your "Bait is a bully" feint again but be advised of this: nora is my enemy. She poisons the well that we all share. I will not back down on this, cent. You can hold your breath until you turn blue and call me nasty names. Do whatever you need to do.
This is MY moral cause and I will not hesitate to shove it up your card-carrying NRA ass if you continue to butt heads with me.
» [end CrankBait post]
==========

WOW, I was surprised when my little post about the America Cup yacht race not being much of a sportsman's event when dominated by bullying billionaires got THIS reaction from you -- especially considering it was just a post on what was occurring that day. I did not direct it to you personally in anyway.

Yet, here I am with another Open Mic posted specifically for engaging you in debate -- and WHERE are you?

Show you've got what it takes to have a sustained debate.

Those who poo-poo (or worse) the consideration of new facts and evidence, including concerns about possible conspiracies, are not really helping to keep things factual, but are actively censoring the fact-gathering process, imo. I find corroboration in the following article by two professors:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/state-crimes-against-democracy/

[excerpt]

State Crimes Against Democracy
by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff / March 3rd, 2010

New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve highlevel government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power. Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism (fabrication of evidence of a communist infiltration), Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (President Johnson and Robert McNamara falsely claimed North Vietnam attacked a US ship), burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on WMDs to justify the Iraq War.1

Other suspected SCADs include the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the shooting of George Wallace, the October Surprise near the end of the Carter presidency, military grade anthrax mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Martin Luther King’s assassination, and the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. The proven SCADs have a long trail of congressional hearings, public records, and academic research establishing the truth of the activities. The suspected SCADs listed above have substantial evidence of covert actions with countervailing deniability that tend to leave the facts in dispute.1

The term “conspiracy theory” is often used to denigrate and discredit inquiry into the veracity of suspected SCADs. Labeling SCAD research as “conspiracy theory” is an effective method of preventing ongoing investigations from being reported in the corporate media and keep them outside of broader public scrutiny. Psychologist Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph, addresses the psychological advantage that SCAD actors hold in the public sphere. Manwell, writing in American Behavioral Scientist (Sage 2010) states, “research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs … pre-existing beliefs can interfere with SCADs inquiry, especially in regards to September 11, 2001.”2

Professor Steven Hoffman, visiting scholar at the University of Buffalo, recently acknowledged this phenomenon in a study “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification.” Hoffman concluded, “Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.”3

Sometimes even new academic research goes largely unreported when the work contradicts prevailing understandings of recent historical events. A specific case of unreported academic research is the peer reviewed journal article from Open Chemical Physics Journal (Volume 2, 2009), entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust for the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” In the abstract the authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings.4

National Medal of Science recipient (1999) Professor Lynn Margulis from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst is one of many academics who supports further open investigative research in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Margulis recently wrote in Rock Creek Free Press, “all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition.”5 Richard Gage, AIA, architect and founder of the non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth), announced a decisive milestone February 19, 2010 at a press conference in San Francisco, CA. More than 1,000 architects and engineers worldwide now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001.6

Credible scientific evidence brings into question the possibility that some aspects of the events of 9/11 involved State Crimes Against Democracy. Psychologically this is a very hard concept for Americans to even consider. However, ignoring the issue in the context of multiple proven SCADs since World War II seems far more dangerous for democracy than the consequences of future scientific inquiry and transparent, fact-based investigative reporting. Anything short of complete, open discourse based on all the evidence about these critical issues in our society relating to the possible continuation of SCADs is simply a matter of censorship.7

1.Lance deHaven-Smith, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010): pp. 795-825. For more studies on SCADs and related issues see all articles for American Behavioral Scientist, Sage publications, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010).

For more background reading on this subject with specifics on the controversial cases mentioned in this paragraph, see the following scholarly works: Robert Abele, The Anatomy of a Deception: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq (New York: University Press of America, 2010); Bob Coen and Eric Nadler, Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2009); Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (New York: Viking Adult, 2002); Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006); Robert Griffith, The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987); David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (New York: Olive Branch press, 2008); Mark Crispin Miller, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008 (New York: Ig Publishing, 2008); Kenneth O’Reilly, Hoover and the Un-Americans: The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983); Robert Parry, Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1993); William Pepper, An Act of State: The Execution of Marin Luther King (Updated) (New York: Verso, 2008); Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq (New York: Tarcher and Penguin, 2003); selected works of Peter Dale Scott, including Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003), The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008); Norman Solomon, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning us to Death (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005); Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997); Gary Webb, Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2nd Edition, 2003). [↩] [↩]

2.American Behavioral Scientist, Sage publications, February, 2010, Vol. 53, No. 6. Specifically, see Laurie A. Manwell, “In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010): p. 848-884. [↩]
3.“How We Support Our False Beliefs,” Science Daily (Aug. 23, 2009). For the full study see Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., et al., “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification,” Sociological Inquiry, Volume 79 Issue 2, (2009): p. 142-162. [↩]
4.Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31. [↩]
5.Lynn Margulis, “Two Hit, Three Down, the Biggest Lie,” Rock Creek Press, February 2010, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 6. [↩]
6.Richard Gage, AIA, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Press Conference, February 19th, 2010, SF, CA, online at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160. See the Conference announcement video online. [↩]
7.For more on issues of media censorship see Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, eds., Censored 2010 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009). [↩]

---
Peter Phillips is a professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and President of Media Freedom Foundation: peter.phillips@sonoma.edu. Mickey Huff is a associate professor of History at Diablo Valley College, and serves on the executive committee of Media Freedom Foundation: mickeyhuff@mac.com. Read other articles by Peter Phillips.

[end excerpt]

there are scads and scads of information.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/state-crimes-against-democracy/

[excerpt]

State Crimes Against Democracy
by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff / March 3rd, 2010

Live To Blame, Blame To Live...Or Die Trying
Submitted by Crank Bait on Sat, 03/06/2010 - 11:11pm.
Submitted by gloryoski on Sat, 03/06/2010 - 12:57am.
I think you should spell out the logical leap you made, as though correlation and causation here were utterly inseparable. (I am not saying there's no possible connection, in this case...That would be stupid.)
-----
Should I comment on the inanity above? Of course I should.

gloryoski implied that whatever I said (I said nothing beyond 'no comment') would be illogical, then she immediately followed the implication with the contradiction that it could easily be logical.

I agree with gloryoski. It could be Yes or it could be No. In fact, everything in the universe could be Yea or Nay. This circular deductive journey through passive-aggressive, wishy-washy, comme ci comme ça, uninformative assumption has been thoughtlessly brought to you by gloryoski.
---------------------------------------------
Submitted by gloryoski on Sat, 03/06/2010 - 12:57am.
But maybe you were just taking a cheap shot like...

Sure had some gynormous ears, this Bedell.

(Utterly dorky and lacking-in-edge, true. About equally unfunny as yours. But less presumptuous, and less monotonous. Zzzzzz.)
----------
I guess I got me a lesson in cheap shots, didn't I?

Keep in mind that I wrote four words (a fact that gloryoski neglected to mention). They are "Should I comment? Naaaw."

gloryoski created her own comment. The device I used is intended to nudge the reader toward formulating his/her own determination which is exactly what gloryoski did. Unfortunately, she applied the ideas created within her own mind to me.

For her next trick, she pronounced my 'no comment' to be a cheap shot, then she followed it up with four shots directed at my non-comment (i.e. unfunny, presumptuous, monotonous, and sleep inducing) and a fifth directed at anyone who has protruding ears.

gloryoski---I can make dozens of logical links between establishment-paranoid shooters and establishment-paranoid non-shooters. They are polemics, for one. They are obsessively contrarian, for another. They reflexively blame somebody (actual human beings having names, exactly as Conservatives do, exactly as racists do, exactly as Nationalists do) for whatever unfairly imposed plight they claim for themselves.

The term "tin foil hat" is universally accepted as perched atop paranoid musings. "The black helicopter crowd" does not refer to aviation buffs. I did not create these ubiquitous expressions of craziness; they entered the lexicon to describe a mindset that exists and is easily recognized.

Relentless Contrarians are generally believed to be nuts because they are. Knee-jerk polemicism has, at best, no better odds of being correct on any particular issue than a flip of a coin does of coming up heads. Valid reasoning does not begin with a preordained conclusion and flow backwards to the same "truth" every time. That's how we define racism. That's how we define a fanatic. That's how McCarthyism thrived.

It is possible for bad things to happen as the result of chaos or happenstance or a long series of events beyond the control of one or more persons. Not every occurrence in a complex world can be blamed on evil intent...unless you are a nutbag, in which case every occurrence will most certainly be blamed on the wicked.

Some people need enemies to hate every day. Their participation in a "cause" is a means to that end. Their world view is Old Testament Authoritarianism: They have a bloodlust to expose and punish people. It has no relationship with problem solving. It is hatred and resentment. It can be recognized in the language they use and from which they rarely stray.

Not every enthusiastic soldier is a patriot. Some of them are enthusiastic because they are batshit crazy. Either you figure this out on your own or you go to your grave with the misconception that anyone wearing your team colors is as sane as you are.
================================

{Disclaimer: I really don't know what the history is behind this exchange or how far back the topic goes beyond what I read here; I readily admit it -- so that will save you time, Crank; you won't need to point it out. But the form is not beyond a pattern.)

Crank, do you really think that you can hide behind "no comment" and expect no one to surmise what you might mean in usual Crank language? It seems to me a "no comment" snipe is still a snipe. I don't think you can play "Gotcha" on this one after you set a trap with the word/bait "no comment".

Take this for what it's worth....which, from your perspective, may be nuthin'.

for me...at least on a trial basis.

I think Crank is right that the logic of the first part is a bit off and either needs unpacking and repacking or else...

perhaps it should just be flushed altogether, one way or another.

But the rest...just what I would have said, if I had had the time at the time, or the inclination (neither of which I have now either). And I would have used more words and not said any more...and thus taken more time, with no ganas.

So thanks.

:)

Ab-Fucking-Surd
Submitted by Crank Bait on Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:54pm.
Submitted by nora on Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:02pm.
We are watching a subculture/CriminalClass (of about five percent of the population that is sociopathic and psychopathic) proceed to pursue a mini-imperialism WITHIN THE USA using Corporatist Profiteering, Corporatist Consolidation and Corporatist Privatization.
---------------
You are claiming, emphatically no less, that the entire population of sociopaths in the United States of America have united in a single purpose from within positions of power.

You are a fruit bat or an ignoramus or both. I would bet big money on both.

Apparently you are unaware that sociopaths do not cooperate with social groups in a common cause. That's why they are called sociopaths.

The idea of a subculture of cooperating sociopaths is as absurd as a wolf pack comprised of alpha individuals.

Furthermore, your statement implies that ordinary man-in-the-street sociopaths do not exist. According to you, the entire population of sociopaths in the United States is working in career positions from which they can devote themselves to a cause which you call mini-imperialism.

Your certainty will astound confidence men and three-card monte dealers.

When people use words inappropriately, it's obvious that they are trying to appear knowledgeable while they talk through their hats. You, nora, are chock-a-block full of shit.
========================================

Hi, Crank.

I proofed my thing and edited at 11:31 with the words "from the pool of", so I won't defend against criticism of what I'm not proposing -- that ALL of any group have any one vocation.

And you assume I am saying that all sociopaths/psychopaths wear suits. How absurd, indeed, when anyone who sees our media's frenzied coverage of mass murder stories can see that many of these psychopaths are employed down low on the foodchain.

However, YOU, Crank, seem to be proposing that ALL sociopaths/psychopaths avoid their own kind, which certainly seems to be an ABSOLUTE. (And I don't think you can support that position you are taking.)

I'm reading "Snakes in Suits" right now and there is nothing there that indicates psychopaths (about which the book expounds) avoid trying to manipulate someone just because he senses they are a sociopath or another psychopath. For them it is all about manipulation, who they can manipulate, and what they can gain by it. Also, some psychopaths use their charisma to build an entourage around themselves, and use/manipulate the group to perpetrate the skulduggery they dream up. (Shiver. This is bringing back a memory of watching a frightening TV movie dramatization of a real-life incident where some creepy psychopath and his group were caught after they entrapped and then killed a family in a remote area. A sick group.)

As for sociopaths in particular, I would imagine they come in all skill levels and 'skill sets', and 'dumber' sociopaths might not mind working with/for 'smarter' sociopaths. Thus, we might get two-thirds of Film Noire plots where Mr. Big has his flunky, "Mugs", dump Mr. Big's nemesis in the harbor in a 'concrete overcoat'. (Check out the movie "The Big Combo". That's a good look at a heartless Mr. Big.) Something must be inspiring these writers of 'dime novels' and film noire screenplays, huh?

The common denominator among sociopaths/psychopaths would be lack of compassion and empathy, wouldn't it? I'd surmise that this commonality would make their venal schemes proceed quite smoothly -- like how easy it was for Yoo, Bybee, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, BushJr. et al to proceed in their torture agenda, until, as it happened, someone like Jack Goldsmith (who has a conscience I gather) comes along and tries to alter the course of the sociopathic/psychopathic gang, at least for a nanosecond in history. (If Goldsmith hadn't done a thing but support the torture mindset, we'd now know less about the Yoo et al concerted efforts to sculpt the policy outside the law, imo. But Goldsmith DID do something, including resign. It says something about his not fitting into the sick Yoo/Cheney Torture World.)

Here's a torture timeline:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/timeline-collection/torture-tape-timel...

As for all the icky name-calling you heaped on me: Feel better yet, Crank?

So you can see on the timeline how Goldsmith's presence and behavior displayed lack of commonality with the sociopaths/psychopaths who devised and executed the Bush Administration Torture Policy, here's a date to scroll down to: Jack Goldsmith resigned on June 17, 2004.

You Are Not Entitled To A Break
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 2:34pm.
Submitted by cent on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 9:52am.
"Apparently you are unaware that sociopaths do not cooperate with social groups in a common cause.That's why they are called sociopaths."

"The idea of a subculture of cooperating sociopaths is as absurd as a wolf pack comprised of alpha individuals."

HAHAHAHA...bullshit...like he has never heard of the Mob...give me a break...there is no way he does not know this...he has to be after something else.
------------------------
Look it up. Check every dictionary and encyclopedia and medical resource you can find. The definitions vary because different groups apply differing nomenclature to personality disorders and their degrees of severity and proclivities but there is an underlying theme which carries throughout: Sociopathy is marked by a unique set of rules, morals and self-interest. It is the singularity of the sociopath, not the commonality, which sets him apart. In most cases the disorder can be traced from childhood.

The mob is not comprised of sociopaths. Neither army in a war is comprised of sociopaths. Organizations having hierarchies, strict rules and unyielding cooperation are not comprised of sociopaths. People who comfortably comply in societal organizations are as different from sociopaths as they can possibly be.

You are wrong, cent, which is not unusual when you don your Tough Guy persona and disengage your brain. You are so intent on riding your white horse in to save the day, it makes you incapable of recognizing that nora is a blowhard who will state anything that strikes her fancy to support her paranoid positions.

Before your arrival, there was a discussion of sociopathy on this blog which lasted for weeks and included source wars and at least a half-a-dozen participants. I have read more about antisocial personality disorders in the past few years than nora has in a lifetime. The experts don't agree on the finer points, but they all agree that sociopaths place their sense of self sharply apart from other living creatures.

It is cheezy and craptastic and small-minded for anyone to accuse a group of people they don't like of being sociopaths. I guarantee that, when you see it being done, you are reading a weak argument not worth your time. Even the Aryan Brotherhood is comprised of different personality types. No group can be gang-diagnosed.

I can say unequivocally that sociopaths, regardless of the definition to which you ascribe, do not form their own societies in the furtherance of a common goal. Sociopaths do not happily accept assignation within a hierarchy. Sociopaths do not cheerfully follow rules imposed by others. The dumbest thing you can do is trust a sociopath to be a team member.

According to nora, all (and then, after she edited her post, most) of fifteen million sociopaths have joined together to further their cause of mini-imperialism (and corporatism and oligarchism and fascism and whatever other shiny word object attracts her bass-like attention).

That's bullshit. It is pure, unadulterated, likes-to-hear-herself-talk, pulled-it-out-of-her-ass crap.

By the way, cent, the Catholic school I attended was loaded with Mafia kids. You are a fool if you believe that the kids and their parents were sociopaths.

A sociopath is not defined as occupying a position in a societal structure that you find distasteful. Japanese soldiers were not sociopaths simply because they were on the other team. Hells Angels bikers did not repudiate societal membership; they merely designed a society different from the one they were born into. Even the Stockholm syndrome does not create sociopaths; Patty Hearst switched her societal affiliation to the SLA without becoming a sociopath.

How many examples of different kinds of societies do you need before you understand that sociopaths don't function by societal rules and they sure as hell don't gather together in cooperation to create their own societies?

Look it up. Don't take my word for it. The information is easy to find.

If you can find one reputable source which states that a particular group of people (Rotarians, Baptists, Ecuadorians, vegetarians, gangbangers, hockey fans, etc.) is comprised entirely of sociopaths, I will eat your goddammed tin foil hat.

I will eat two of your tin foil hats if you can find a reputable source which identifies a functioning society that is comprised entirely of sociopaths.

I will eat three of your tin foil hats if you can get your wife to go on record with a diagnosis stating that all Mafia members were, are, and will be sociopaths.

While you are at it, look up iconoclast and eccentric and rebel and outlaw and all of the synonyms listed for each. Your concept of "different" needs to be expanded beyond someone needing medical attention.

»

===============================
Laugh All You Like
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 8:25pm.
Submitted by cent on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 4:24pm.
Your words Crank, not mine...wifey, the Clinical Psychologist, and I, are laughing at you...
-----------
You can't intimidate me, cent. You don't have the chops for it.

Obviously there is no point in quoting from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, nor from the multitude of disagreements within the psychiatric community as to nomenclature and diagnostic analysis.

Nor would there be any point in directing you to the many alterations to the diagnostic parameters that occur every few years, clearly indicating that people like your Wifey and other professionals disagree vehemently on both broader and finer points of behavior and mental disorders.

You can continue to pretend that Wifey knows absolutes and that I am ignorant of the intellectual discord within the mental health industry. Such esoterica cannot possibly be learned by mere readers.

The inclusion of dyssocial behavior as a subheading of sociopathy (which, in large part, is where your "mob" citation is coming from) is absurd in my estimation along with the estimation of lots of people who have plenty of credentials to back up their opinions.

First of all, unless you believe that conformity is the only "normal" behavior, then conscious nonconformity is not necessarily a disorder nor abnormal behavior. Most artists would be surprised to learn that they need medical treatment to free them from the bonds of determined eccentricity.

Second, when a person is reared in a subculture, it is not necessarily dyssocial behavior to remain in that subculture throughout adulthood. It's as normal as any other culturized existence. You can't break a taboo that doesn't exist in your frame of reference. It could be argued that, in some cases, to step away from "mob" life would be dyssocial behavior while remaining in mob life would be conformity. This is a classic duality that can be found in lots of literature that has been written in different places and times.

So, no, I don't include dyssocial behavior as another form of sociopath. Some do, some don't. I'm in the don't camp.

If Wifey uses the term "sociopath" as if it has specific meaning beyond the most spare definition of a common sociopath, then she and I are never going to be on the same page. The overlap across sociopathy, psychopathy, dyssocial personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder makes for endless diagnostic possibilities.

If a diagnosis of sociopath were sufficient for two people with entirely different sets of behavior, then a diagnosis of broken leg is sufficient for two people with entirely different broken bones. Both expressions are meaningless except in the most spare interpretations. I would be surprised if any reputable professional would begin and end a diagnosis with "sociopath." The word must be qualified with many additional words because the core meaning is limited.

Back to the original point from which you desperately hope to misdirect in your lust for righteous vengeance: Anyone who declares that all of the sociopaths in the United States are united in a mini-imperialism effort is full of shit.

If Wifey is prepared to back up nora's statement, I would ask Wifey when she interviewed all of the sociopaths in the United States, how she determined that none of them are unconcerned with "mini-imperialism" and why she isn't spearheading an effort to remove Sociopath from the DSM and replace it with Mini-Imperialist.

It would be much easier to identify a sociopath if we used the only behavior and raison d'etre that they all share in common, right? When you see a checkmark in the "Mini-Imperialist" box, you knows you gots yourself a sociopath, by god. Don't let him get away.

Here is a quote from cent: "...and the burden of finding an organization entirely comprised of pure sociopaths is a little rigid even for one with your anal retentive requirements..."

Can you not see that you have rewritten the objection that I have with nora's claim? Her statement is over-the-top absurd. The header over my objection even said Ab-Fucking-Surd. She stated that all American sociopaths can be found united in a single task. You recognize absurdity when I challenge you with sarcasm but you will not acknowledge absurdity when nora emphatically (with the liberal use of all-caps) carves it all over the blog on a daily or, rather, nightly basis.

One more point for you and Wifey to contemplate. When there is a foul-mouthed dust-up on this blog with a distinct undercurrent of physical threat that is unrelated to the disagreement over the facts, who is in it?

cent and Bait
cent and Fernando
cent and dr
cent and 60th

Are you beginning to see a pattern?

»
==============================

Crank you when you write --

Obviously there is no point in quoting from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, nor from the multitude of disagreements within the psychiatric community as to nomenclature and diagnostic analysis.

Nor would there be any point in directing you to the many alterations to the diagnostic parameters that occur every few years, clearly indicating that people like your Wifey and other professionals disagree vehemently on both broader and finer points of behavior and mental disorders.

Nor would there be any point in directing you to the many alterations to the diagnostic parameters that occur every few years, clearly indicating that people like your Wifey and other professionals disagree vehemently on both broader and finer points of behavior and mental disorders.

-- you assume you are the only person who has read anything and seen professional literature. Why?

What else is new? Of course, there is the effort to quantify observed data about human behavior so that psychology can be considered a true Science. I've enjoyed reading these many 'models' and vocabularies psychologists come up with to explain their observations and the attempts of each researcher to clarify/interpret what has been observed. And human nature being what it is, human politics existing even in scientific quarters, strong desires to set up or maintain hierarchy -- it is no surprise that some contests would ensue about which models should prevail -- personally, politically, as well as scientifically. (I noticed this years ago when I researched the models about dissociative behavior; I researched them chronologically; a couple older models actually seemed more basic and wedded to observation while other older models seemed to be developed by researchers completely immersed in cultural gender discrimination.) Isn't this what Science is all about: Testing models and hypotheses, making additional observations, making new interpretations? It is a PROCESS, Crank.

Meanwhile, MUST you be the self-proclaimed psychology police who says no one can use any of what is found and apply it to our daily experiences? Are you the only one allowed to dispense opinions?

Even the ancient Greeks observed that there were some poor souls who lack compassion, lack empathy, lack conscience (or some Greek word of this ilk). It was a red flag then, and these deficiencies are a red flag now. What do you call the behavior of Cheney, Yoo and Bush when they indicate total lack of remorse for their insane, uncivilized Torture Policy? In which box do they fit better: PhilanthropicLoversOfHumankind or Anti-social/Sociopathic/Psychopathic? Can you incorporate some INTUITION in looking at that?

You swim in a sea of your facts, but sometimes it seems that you are drowning in them. Can you sit quietly and watch them churn, or must you grasp at some of them as if they are flotation devices and claim they are the only facts that are valid? Your desire to flash your flotation-facts and be an authority, your desire to be the Arbiter really gets in the way of not only DISCUSSION, not only of scientific testing, but also a view of possibilities yet untested, unobserved, uninterpreted. (If you were in charge of funding research projects, would you just fund the same experiment over and over because you could understand how it would turn out? Would you be uncomfortable granting funds to test hypotheses or might that be too confusing to you?)

Crank, you write: Back to the original point from which you desperately hope to misdirect in your lust for righteous vengeance: Anyone who declares that all of the sociopaths in the United States are united in a mini-imperialism effort is full of shit.

Crank, it looks like you impulsively lunge out. Part of your impulsiveness is jumping to conclusions (especially about me), and trying to convince others into joining in to do the same. Are you shifting into a new stage where you feel you can continue to avoid discussion WITH me and just continue to badmouth me?

he doesn't have the guts to come here
away from his mama toni

and, anyway, would you want to
he's not interested to engage you in reasoned debate
and as for his scholarly repute *pffft*
he's nothing but a vile sophist...
when the white picket fence around his brain is rattled

nora Hammond: That is *not* funny, Gordon.
Gordon bait: [sighs] Yeah, I know. I'm useless without a studio audience.

[a quick wardrobe change]
crank Hammond: Are you like a... crazy person?
nora V: I'm quite sure they will say so.

and back again, when creedy bludgeon's Gordon bait
creedy says "Not so funny now is it, funny man?"
lol

Still Laughing...or..."A Little Google is a Dangerous Thing...."
new
Submitted by cent on Sat, 03/13/2010 - 10:38am.
Crank, we were not the ones spewing absolutes...you were...just re-read your remarks....once again...

"Apparently you are unaware that sociopaths do not cooperate with social groups in a common cause.That's why they are called sociopaths."

"The idea of a subculture of cooperating sociopaths is as absurd as a wolf pack comprised of alpha individuals."

you make "absurd" definitive declarative statements like this all the time, and they are often wrong, at least in the definitive sense, but you do not hesitate to use them to declare others insane, or full of shit...it is called buffaloing people crank...trying to intimidate people with bullshit and chutzpa, and even though it might work on some, I will call you on it and make you look stupid every time...nora doesn't insult people the way you do, so stop crying "you never say anything to her"...it is boring...

The mere fact you say that the "diagnosis" are in dispute refutes your statement....you are once again redefining the argument, only NOW you are qualifying your remarks by saying you are not in a certain "camp"...your failure to consider the sub-types and even casually acknowledge that others would consider your point in dispute was disingenuous...and you know it, the rest of this charade you are spinning is just tap dancing and back peddling to save face.

...and you STILL do not know what you are talking about, but you do it with such confidence...unfortunately volume does not make up for accuracy...You claim to have a depth of knowledge on this subject but you insist on incorrectly using the terms diagnosis and Sociopath in the same sentence...show me the DSM4r criteria for that, Crank, what is the diagnostic code?..if you've read as much as you claim to you would know it isn't a diagnosis and hasn't been for a very long time...

The term sociopathy, specifically, is only a descriptive classification to define characteristics of conscience (or lack there of) of an individual with regard to behavior and social norms, and even that informal classification is subject to consideration of local and sub-cultural norms...so your non-conformity argument is bogus...more smoke and non sense...and declaring Mob behavior as not antisocial/ dissocial and subject to invalidation by YOUR personal criteria, is very convenient crank, but it does not allow for all involved that might fit criteria for other sub-types of sociopathy and does not pass the DSM4 sniff test of categorizing behavior and personality traits of individuals in general society...you and your "camp" may give someone a pass for anti-social behavior based on sub-cultural norms, but the DSM or ICD do not provide diagnostic criteria for groups, only individuals, as having anti-social/dissocial personalities...and even if I were to accept your viewpoint on dyssocial (mob type) sociopaths (which I don't) as "not really sociopaths" because of sub-cultural mitigating factors, still you seem to reject the reality that aggressive sub-type sociopaths are capable of maintaining and excelling in socializing to a common goal...they are even more ruthless and better at it than the dyssocials, and are more apt to end up in positions of real power, which was noras point...so you are still wrong...

...forgive me if I am not impressed with your Google Scholarship, but it seems 2 dimensional and lacks authenticity of real experience....which was another of my points.

but, back to MY original argument...anyone who declares, AS YOU DID, that ALL sociopaths BY DEFINITION are incapable of cooperation and socialization to achieve a goal does not know what they are talking about...

...and, once again, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with nora, just disagree with you...but, since you keep bringing it up, NO, I did not take her statement to read that all of anything was anything, crank, and personally I think you are pulling that out of your ass to justify your latest abusive hateful episode...your fractionation of sociopathy was most certainly not in your original argument and I find it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that anything in your current argument was the impetus for, or justifies, your abusive spew at her...nice try though...

instead of addressing the base argument that people with strong anti-social tendencies can and do in fact conspire socially for the purpose of personal gain, you chose to justify your aggressive responses by making a semantic argument based on highly disputed and largely undefined criteria that is so vague and outdated it isn't even used in diagnostics any longer...talk about being "chock-a-block full of shit"...really very sad crank...can't you see your pathology here?

as far as patterns are concerned...lets look at yours...

Crank and nora
Crank and gski
Crank and Ms A
Crank and Alice
Crank and TZ
Crank and GD
Crank and cent

and it almost always seems to be YOU who starts with the vile crap Crank...why is that?

Could nora Be Playing To The Crowd? Naaw.
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:44pm.
Submitted by nora on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 8:47pm.
Crank, why do you insist on doing this on the main thread
-----------
When you stop posting claptrap on the main thread, I'll stop calling it out on the main thread. That's how it works: You write stupid stuff, somebody else disagrees with the stupid stuff. If you want to hold court unmolested, stay on an Open Mic. I don't care what you say in your sequestered hovel. You and your loyal readers can have a raucous discussion about the evils of contrails and fluoride without so much as a throat clearing from me.

The main thread is not a forum for nora to say anything she wants to say without consequence. Either you can defend your sweeping generalities and paranoid fantasies, or you can't.

There is a curious dynamic that exists on this blog: Some of us are held to a very high standard of accuracy. A few of us aren't expected to be anywhere near accurate. The people who have gotten a pass over the years have always been cyber-versions of the bearded guy on the corner carrying a sign, "The end is near!" The rest of us are expected to step off the curb and walk around him while he mumbles his gibberish and shakes his fist at the clouds.

cent will jump all over 60th Street for an inconsequential error. cent will allow you to qwerty incoherently for days on end without interjecting so much as a whimper.

gloryoski will loudly protest a slight (always seen under a male byline) that is invisible to everyone else. She can't muster a dissenting comment when you write about the moonwalk faked in Hollywood.

Leah will argue the minutia of an obscure and detailed subject with me but she's unconcerned with the fiction you natter every day.

It's as if you are the retarded kid that we are not supposed to pick on. I don't see it that way. I don't think you are stupid. I think you are crazy...just like the bearded guy talking to himself on the corner.

Either way, crazy or stupid, you don't own the corner even though you carry the same sign in here every day and spew the same nonsense. I am not a chauvinist who is afraid to challenge a woman (hi there, cent, you condescending protectionist of the weak and frail gender) because my momma made damned sure that I regard women and men with the same intellectual standard.

If you can't take the heat, stay on the Open Mic.

==================================
Crank: You AFRAID of Open Mic contiguous posting?
Submitted by nora on Sat, 03/13/2010 - 1:01am.
Could nora Be Playing To The Crowd? Naaw.
new
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:44pm.
Submitted by nora on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 8:47pm.
Crank, why do you insist on doing this on the main thread

...
------------------

How does a person "play to the crowd" in Open Mic if the crowd is at the main thread enjoying themselves?

COULD IT BE YOU, Crank, who wishes to "play to the crowd" by TAKING OVER the main thread?

Crank, are you so unfeeling, unhearing, insensitive that you don't realize that many here are TIRED/ANNOYED with having this great main thread resource turned into your private Crankbait Blog? Start an Open Mic of your OWN; it might actually make you feel more effective; you can repeat your oft repeated curses of me on YOUR OWN TIME. And I'll take you on as much as suits me. But spare the community at large. For the last few time you've made your initial attacks, I've taken them to Open Mic to respond, and if others want to follow the discussion they can, they have a choice. But when you INSIST like this that the main thread is YOURS for any PROTRACTED floggings YOU desire, I gotta wonder WHAT would satisfy you.

In the meantime, I'll continue to make my responses to your now predictable attacks in Open Mic, like this one:
http://www.samsedershow.com/node/5677#comment-400082

===============================
===============================

I brought over the ABOVE posts for continuity.

===============================
===============================

Crank--

The book that I'm reading right now is really a powerful book, and its thesis is that those with psychopathic personality traits ARE amongst us in every walk of life, including business.

From "Snakes in Suits" by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert D. Hare, Ph.D. (page 118):

THE DARK TRIAD

We might refer to psychopathy as the mean side of the dark triad. [From Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Babiak and Hare, Regan Books, Harper Collins, copyright 2006]

------------------------

I'm still reading this page-turner, but so far, the authors are painting a picture of individuals with traits that can be adapted to, and do fit in the corporate environment.

The authors explain that their research gives them insights into just how these "psychopathic" types do that and for what purposes: Psychopaths use "assessment, manipulation and abandonment" in their predatory activities. They are irresponsible in the social sense, lack loyalty to their employer as well as others, "do not have practicable LONG-TERM career or life goals", are impulsive and have "poor behavioral controls, and low frustration tolerance", but at the same time they can sculpt their own personal persona [public mask] to please/impress others and convince those they wish to manipulate with their charm (even charisma) thereby cultivating "pawns, patrons, and patsies" in order to reach the selfish goals of their own personal striving.

My understanding of the authors' estimation is that the bureaucracies of the past traditional business models might be hard for the psychopathic variety of human to hide in. But it is much different now in the new corporate structures and fast action climate where the authors have been conducting their data gathering the last couple decades. (Both authors are psychologists, one a professor.)

I'm only a third through this absorbing book.

--------------

As an aside, I see that the corporate model is imposed on more and more institutions which previously had more governmental bureaucratic structures: CEOs are now heading universities, utilities are being privatized, schools (take for instance New York's experiment with privatizing its schools), public and non-profit hospitals are flipping over into private/corporate profit centers, and so on. As the corporate model spreads (Privatization), it seems to me that the opportunities for more and more predatory antisocial/sociopathic/psychopathic behavior is being made possible in these new environments.

Remember, the predatory types have that mix of IRRESPONSIBILITY and inability to commit to any long-term goal. This mix is perfect for the MANIPULATE & PLUNDER pattern we see expressed in so much corporate behavior, for example ENRON, the DOD contractors (missing equipment, overcharges, other abuses), Wall Street Banksters, etcetera. Across the board, those who run these institutions show they are INCAPABLE of running business with the OBJECTIVE of establishing LONG-TERM STABILITY and social/societal cohesiveness which go hand-in-hand with it.

CRANK, I'm waiting for your response.

lol, nora
Submitted by air-ono on Sat, 03/13/2010 - 2:36am.
crank doesn't get the irony of...
Could nora Be Playing To The Crowd?

and, nora
the main thrust of his argument is that he's...
//TIRED/ANNOYED with having this great main thread resource turned into your private nora Blog//

now, maybe, and this is only a suggestion
if you were to post some of your more, how can i say it, your more fringier posts to an open mic; you know, um, that killing flies is a sin & landing on the moon was bogus, etc
but notify us of them here, of course...
then, maybe, this may lessen the venom circulating in cranks head!
i'm not saying to kowtow to the bastards demands
although, a good case could be made that i am
and nor do i wish you to self-censure yourself
no, what i'm saying is, um... *gosh*
oh, fuck it

"nothing is true, everything is permissible"
=====================

Thanks for the advice, Air-ono. I'll keep it in mind.

However, how would I choose which topics those would be anymore? Have you noticed what stirred some of the recent criticisms of me by Crank?

Here are a couple: My having an opinion about Mike Malloy's use of the word "non-participation", and also my having an opinion about the America Cup Yacht Race. How would I have predicted these topics would induce the molten eruption of his fire and vitriol? From these recent topics on contention I would say it is not about particular topics, but any opinions whatsoever I might have since they are formulated through my particular perspective/prism.

What thing could I do to bring satisfaction and quietude (brief though that might be) to my critic?

Maybe he can give us the answer. Only he knows.

http://www.truthout.org/what-torture-is-and-why-its-illegal-and-not-poor...

[excerpt]

What Torture Is and Why It's Illegal and Not "Poor Judgment"
Saturday 13 March 2010

Yoo, notoriously, had lifted his description of the physical effects of torture from a Medicare benefits statute and other health care provisions in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan in 1988 and incorporated into US federal law, in which torture is defined as:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person ...

Obsessed with finding ways in which "severe pain" could be defined so that the CIA could torture detainees and get away with it, Yoo drew on some truly revolting examples of physical torture, citing a particularly brutal case, Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, in which, during the Bosnian war, a Serb soldier named Nikola Vuckovic had tortured his Bosnian neighbor, Kemal Mehinovic, with savage and sadistic brutality. Yoo dismissed the possibility that other torture techniques - waterboarding, for example, which is a form of controlled drowning, and prolonged sleep deprivation - might cause "significant psychological harm of significant duration," or physical pain rising to a level that a judge might regard as torture.
In both of his definitions, however, Yoo was clearly mistaken. No detailed studies have yet emerged regarding the prolonged psychological effects of the torture program approved by Yoo and Bybee, largely because lawyers for the "high-value detainees" in Guantánamo have been prevented - first under Bush, and now under Obama - from revealing anything publicly about their clients.
However, lawyers for Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was charged in the Bush administration's military commissions, made a good show of demonstrating that bin al-Shibh is schizophrenic and on serious medication, when they argued throughout 2008 that he was not fit to stand trial, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that bin al-Shibh was in a similar state before his four years in secret CIA prisons.

...

Moreover, when it came to defining physical torture, the OPR report's authors noted that, as so often in the memos, Yoo had ignored relevant case history. The key passage in the report deals with the US courts' decisions regarding the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). Yoo had drawn on Mehinovic for his description of physical torture "of an especially cruel and even sadistic nature," and, as the authors noted, he also argued that only 'acts of an extreme nature' that were 'well over the line of what constitutes torture' have been alleged in TVPA cases."

[end excerpt]

===================

Yoo's inference is that institutions cannot perpetrate psychopathic acts. Perhaps this is Yoo's attempt to try to convince everybody that psychopathy is in a box by itself separate from institutions and groups, only the act of the lone perpetrator, and when people torture in groups (for a self-proclaimed 'higher' purpose), it is justified? Utilizing the "voice of authority" and legalese, does Yoo reveal himself to be nothing more than a psychopathological manipulator par excellance?

Whatever it was Yoo was selling, David Margolis of the DOJ bought it, and let Yoo off the hook.

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." -- Albert Einstein

The Texass Textbook Theocratic Taliban embrace their Myths and attempt to enforce everyone else to do likewise.

At the same time the epitome of the 'godless' priests of Scientific Materialism (seen in their anti-humanity/anti-nature Corporate Science model of industry, mining/drilling, synthetic chemistry and bioengineering) embrace their Machines and seek to turn everything into Machinery of every sort (even GMO seeds).

These two outdated Paradigms are like two mountain goats butting heads and tangling horns.

The Theocrats and the Scientific Materialist Priesthood struggle together. They each seek to dominate humankind and Earth. They each seek to do this via the ultimate ENSLAVEMENT of humans and Nature. The Theocrat Taliban seek to enslave by means of their authoritarian religious dogma and myth; the Scientific Materialist priesthood with their scientific Materialism, Reductionism, Determinism expressed in scientifically manipulating everything/anything for corporate product profit (rather than for true usefulness), consumerism, and continuing this all the way to genetic engineering and eugenics and global domination of Nature itself.

Do these two know how similar they are to each other? I suspect the Power Elite and Oligarchs who use either or both paradigm 'belief' systems know, and use both of them to successfully preserve and build oligarchical power and dominion with ease. (The Catholic Church was imperialistic, the first and still a strong transnational 'corporation'. Corporate Science's modern technology now dominates all aspects of world economics and social control. (Regarding world economics -- could the current and rapid Banking/Insurance Bubbles and Bail-Outs be possible on this scale without computers and telecommunications? Regarding social control/engineering -- could the current imperialist thrust into Central Asia and all its profiteering be possible without the media (specifically the mass consumption of the 9/11 event) 'guiding' (or read that as 'confusing') public opinion?)

And now we have the Texass Textbook Theocracy Taliban taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the social and historic textbook literature. Is the Jefferson omission merely symbolic of taking the Enlightment out of American education? The Enlightenment thrust did not seek to either hold itself separate from and in domination over nature (as today's greatest western religions do). Nor did it seek to defeat nature via science. Instead the Enlightenment was a repository for the view that "human reason is in itself a source of knowledge, independent of the senses". Thus, Jefferson could write that we are born to the Earth with pre-existing expectations for the experience of our "inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There is a joining of that which is mystical, if you will, with that which is a measurable or scientific (whether the 'science' of writing a Constitution and creating a nation or the 'science' of the scientific process as applied to medicine, agriculture or industry). In this, the Enlightenment was a new Paradigm, but one neither the religionists nor the scientific materialists desired to join, since that would mean giving up their individually-claimed authority and power.

And these two entities are still resisting this Enlightenment worldview, as can be seen in their continued (though usually separate) attempts to squash the Enlightenment's best known creation -- governmental Democracy by We The People along with its attendant Bill Of Rights. The Theocratic Taliban and the Scientific Materialists, respectively, still cannot bear that the Enlightment neither chose to embrace the Mysterious element of existence to the exclusion of science, nor chose to embrace science to the exclusion of that which is quite mysterious. The Enlightenment embraced both. It lloks to me like The Age of Reason did not sacrifice this mysterious right to live with dignity in the natural world to any juggernaut of power -- whether a monarch or a church. [In this sense, I see the Separation of Church and State as an Enlightenment idea; I am not well read enough to know if I am repeating anyone else's observation. Or if others would consider my observation weak.]

-----------------------

This brings me back to the ideas mentioned in some earlier posts about how misguided we are when we defend Darwinian theory (a Scientific Materialist theory) in opposition to the likes of the Texass Textbook Theocratic Taliban who are locking their horns with the Scientific Materialists. We are better off letting Darwinian evolution die a natural death along with Scientific Materialism. We are better off letting the two outdated Paradigms of the Theocratic Taliban and the Scientific Materialists lock their mountain goat horns and collapse in exhaustion. We are better off if they exhaust themselves while we preserve what is left of more balanced and worthwhile Enlightenment perspectives.

Perhaps the more sensible evolutionary position to defend would be that of the Enlightment evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck's perspective indicates that organisms survive in changing environments because they adapt (draw upon an inner capability or choice that may be seem mysterious) to their environments (rather than Darwin's view that they survive because they are the strongest, fittest, most successfully competitive within any environment, a view that actually mimics the social status/hierarchy of the British society Darwin grew up in and sought to preserve).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck#Lamarckian_Evolution

According to author Bruce Lipton, recent findings in EPIGENETICS now indicate Enlightenment evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's views are more on target than Darwin's. Here's some info on epigenetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Muscular publishers sucking up to Texashole schoolboard - Another Big Flaw of free market economics.

Was there a Little Golden Book about a locomotive wandering off the rails? May we be lucky enough to wind up in that flowerfield!
OK - Back to dreamland for me - to face the truth

i didn't pay much attention to it
but what i did garner was that you were protesting from an ethical stand point
while the boys were arguing for pushing the technological limits to the hilt
and ethics doesn't enter into it

(it's war, baby, war)

if you had an army & i had an army
and we both met up on the battle field
only your army were on foot and mine were on chariots
because i had made technological advances
before you could say, "hey, that's not fair"
i'd cut your head off

in other words, when the stakes are high & it's winner takes all
ethics doesn't enter into it

and as much as i'd rather live in your world, nora
it's a dog-eat-dog world

i've made a video & hired professional actors...
you are played by tim brooke taylor
graeme garden is crank
and bill oddie is fernando

if the video doesn't play, it's here
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-2086807574056155266&ei=5AGiS...

re: the big yacht kerfuffle
Submitted by air-ono on Thu, 03/18/2010 - 6:32am.

Perhaps what sparked off this tug of war, for lack of a better description, was the boat race. As someone who appreciates sports through direct and indirect participation, the sports arena is perhaps the best place for competition because all involved are willing participants who submit to the rules prescribed and acknowledge they may have to yield to subjugation, even when it is determined the victory was not "fair and square," And, when you've had enough you can just walk away.

Personally, I think while bullying billionaires are involved in a race that matters to so few, they are distracted from affecting the many.

I agree with everything you said here:
http://www.samsedershow.com/node/5654#comment-395194

I just think we have to be concerned about fairness where it matters the most and benefits the most. We have to be careful about choosing our battles because otherwise it can overwhelm, frustrate, paralyze, alienate, and prevent those trying or willing to achieve fairness.

Survival of the fittest is what capitalism is all about and those who subscribe to it and hold power are diverting attention away from this by dispelling the very premise that motivates them in order to dumb down as many people as they can use, abuse, and discard. They call them collateral damage.

Of course, those who prefer to adapt, recognize this and come up with alternatives to game capitalism, usually peacefully and fairly, so as to live an alternate lifestyle. Of course, there are times to stand their ground and face down those jeopardizing their preference.

One of those stands has to be at education.

I know you're a listener of Mike Malloy Show and he was talking about the plausibility of maybe having a confederacy of states. But I'd only concede to one--Texas. They are already talking about secession and building walls, I nominate Texas. There won't be a massive migration since most of the like-minded people are living there already. Of course, we are going to have to convince Fernando and his daughter to move. :)

Submitted by Fernando on Fri, 04/02/2010 - 12:27am.
cynical nora... As in swatting a fly means you are evil. As in you can't imagine a project succeeding in going to the moon. Cynical like everyone is working against you.
====================

Too late at night to try to figure out all this (especially when there are so many interesting and serious happenings in the world) -- accept to note that the way you list these things as if they are concrete reality indicates you may have made up your mind once and for all that, somehow, the adjective 'cynical' belongs attached permanently to my blogname.

Only you know whether or not you can change your mind once you have chosen to be cynical about something/someone as it appears you are cynical about me. Only you know, not me.

But, spring has sprung and I feel a joy in this season of resurgence of life in every leaf and flower, and I'm NOT in anything close to state or mood willing to even contemplate rigid cynicism at length.

But since you mentioned me by name, I feel it only correct to acknowledge your words.

Happy Spring to you, Fernando!

[Note: Since you brought up the "moonwalk" charge again, I will refer you to my thorough response to that. I consider it ancient history; however, you obviously don't. So here is my response if you care at all what my perspective was --

http://www.samsedershow.com/node/5052#comments

Have a great weekend.]

and I usually agree with. You are not "The Bad" here... BTW.
I know where The Skeletons are regarding a major player here.
You nor I are The Bad HERE! I just have to "KEEP REMEMBERING"...what had happened - HERE.

...just a curmudgeon. ;)