A Frightening Analysis Indeed

I got this email from a good friend the other day. I wanted to post my response here, because I feel so strongly about the message. My comments within the post are in brackets. I love my friend for taking the time to consider; whether she ends up agreeing or not is beside the point.

================
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:53:21 -0400
From: XXXXX@cs.com
To: XXXXX@yahoo.com
Subject: [FWD: Fw: America's Future]

Whaddaya think? I, frankly, have to cogitate on it a while. Perhaps even ruminate.

================
To: "A Friend"
From: "wild rider"
Date:Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FWD:Fw"America's Future]

Mexifornia - A Frightening Analysis

> We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context > his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an > immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to > capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant > college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, > "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was > destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across > the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. [Sounds like he's trying to sell his book to me.]

> > Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave > a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound > as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He > said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too > rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in > history has survived the ravages of time. [So why does he think America will be any different...? or ever should be?] Arnold Toynbee observed that all > great civilizations rise and fall and that "An autopsy of history would > show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

> > "Here is how they do it," Lamm said: First, to destroy America, "Turn > America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History > shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of > two or more competing languages and cultures. [I beg to differ; how about Rome? It thrived on multiculturalism that made it the greatest empire ever.] It is a blessing for an > individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be > bilingual. "The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: "The > histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are > histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, > Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press > for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. > Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with > Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans." [Unlike the melting pot of America, these are all countries with large segregated populations. Our strength lies in the fact that we have integrated as completely as we have. I also take exception to Mr. Lipset's use of 'bicultural'; it is just this side of us vs. them mentality (i.e., racist)]>

> Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent multiculturalism and > encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article > of belief that all cultures are equal. [Aren't they?] That there are no cultural > differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and > Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the > majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds. [His vitriol is showing.]>

> Third, "We could make the United States an ' Hispanic Quebec' without much > effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin > Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: The apparent success of our > own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not > by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated > ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with > only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" [Tolerance and pluralism are bad. Hmmmm.]>

> Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language > and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl > metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural > subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as > Americans, emphasizing their similarities." [This is such a specious argument. After several generations, immigrants become indistinguishable. An example might be Irish and Italians in New York. Jeesh, what a fear/hate mentality.]>

> "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least > educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, > and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass > have a 50% dropout rate from high school." [Only Republicans cut education budgets. And tax cuts for the rich just increase the divide between the rich and middle/poor classes.]>

> "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and > business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic > identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. [This is the pot calling the kettle, black. These rich white men want to keep the power. Minorities threaten the status quo. I remember when Kennedy was suspect because he was Catholic. Puleeeez.] I would get all > minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. [I grant there are some who do believe this. But this argument can be turned back to the writer of this article -- "We are victims of the immigrants. If it wasn't for them, everything would be fine." Ugh.] I > would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the > majority population."

> > "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and > promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would > stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are > mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing > each other. [Is that how the writer sees this country? Maybe we should just exterminate all of them so we won't have to figure out hard answers to hard problems.] A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most > historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a > nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they > belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and > literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the > Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all > these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local > patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. [This little tirade has nothing whatever to do with the topic...the writer is using scare tactics and boogeymen.] > "E. Pluribus Unum" -- >From many, one. In that historical > reality, if we put the emphasis on the "Pluribus" instead of the "Unum," > we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

> > "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to > talk about anything against the cult of diversity.' I would find a word > similar to heretic in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and > paralyzed thinking. Words like racist or xenophobe halt discussion and > debate." [Not halt, but those words sure as shootin' should make us sit up and take notice. This smacks of the Weirmar Republic. We really do still have free speech in America. This writer is a case in point.] "Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having > established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the > doctrine of Victimology, I would next make it impossible to enforce our > immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has > been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every > individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of > millions of them." [I'd like to know where his ancestors came from. That's the big problem...if we were lucky enough to be born here because our people came over on some boat, we now have the power to deny the same dream to all those other "tired and poor masses." It's a horrible trade. I guess I'm willing to give up some of our -my- exceedingly high lifestyle so that someone else can have a little more. I'm sure here is where people would say I 'should leave the country then,' but I counter by saying that those who have that 'not enough' mentality, could go somewhere else and set up their own little country based on 'I have' and 'you don't'. I sure wouldn't want to live there.]>

> In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound > silence followed. [Remember that Lamm is playing to his own crowd here. These people all agree with him.] Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson > Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to > destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read > that book." [So who's censoring this book? Where is this threat he seems to be intimating is lurking somewhere off stage. 'They' could get us at any moment!]> > There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud > above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew > that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, > darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. [ Oh, pullleeeeeez.] Every discussion > is being suppressed. [Gag reflex.] Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our > educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that > practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate diversity. > American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a > Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to > date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of > George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in > the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and > "Ignorance is strength." Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned > on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great > democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this > immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a > California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The > American Dream. [Wow. I'm surprised we've made it this long letting 'them damned immigrants' in.]

=============
People who see the world this way have a 'not enough' view. We have worked hard in our own lives to become people who see that abundance can replace lack if we call it that way and work to make it so. The world would be such a better place if we accepted difference as okay...because there will always be something different to beat on. These people are selfish first, and hate-mongers, second. An old song comes to mind, 'Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.'

Please send this rebuttal to the person who sent this article to you. I mourn that this could be the mood of our country and wonder where it will take us.

Your loving friend in vehement opposition to this writer's view,
A.

This Wild Ride -- A blog for the conscious

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." ~~Edward R. Morrow

Great site for the thoughtfully religious...

About This Site: I am deeply concerned that, to many, Christianity has come to stand for preemptive war, the death penalty, and social Darwinism [sic - creationism?]. St. Francis once said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” In our current political climate where an anti-poor, anti-gay, xenophobic right-wing agenda is draped with the cloak of Christianity, we need to use words to change the debate to promote our progressive social justice agenda.

www.Turn-Left.com

Do visit, you'll be glad you did.
Wild Rider

...questions of power...

Having kept the secret a secret for thirty-three years, W. Mark Felt at the age of ninety-one emerged on May 31 into the sunlight of network television to say that it was he, Felt, employed in the summer of 1972 as associate director of the FBI but operating undercover as the notorious "Deep Throat", who had set up the hit on the Nixon Administration.

...Felt's return to a world far different from the one in which he had tipped the Washington Post to the criminal modus operandi of President Richard Nixon's Praetorian Guard, furnished Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with lines of inquiry that led from a burglary at the Watergate complex to a congressional investigation, to the arrest of twenty-seven federal bagmen, and eventually, in August 1974, to the president's resignation. The story unfolded over a period of two years, the nonpartisan anger of an aroused, citizenry sustained by the boisterous freedoms of a not yet muzzled press, supported by the actions of the Justice Department and by a ruling from the Supreme Court, grounded in the belief that a democratic republic could defend itself against the arbitrary abuse of power.

But that was long ago and in another country, and who now can imagine, much less pay to see, a politician (any politician, Democrat or Republican) coming into Congress, as did Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina in the winter of 1974, to speak for three hours on the topic of the Constitution; or an attorney general resigning his office, as did Elliot Richardson in the autumn of 1973, rather than carry out an unethical order from the White House...

President Nixon was forced from office in 1974 because democratic government was thought worth the trouble of preserving...Thirty-one years later, the Bush Administration commits crimes of a much larger magnitude - tampering with the last two presidential elections, a war of imperial conquest in Iraq marketed under the labels of holy crusade, America's civil liberties systematically disassembled or destroyed - but it doesn't occur to anybody to suggest that maybe the president should be impeached. The American people might know (on their own reconnaissance if not from court documents) that their government is both incompetent and corrupt, but who among them wishes to be reminded of the fact? The story of a democratic republic confronted with a mortal threat to both the letter and the spirit of its laws doesn't draw a crowd, gets in the way of the regularly scheduled programming, doesn't sell the high-end soap.

The television anchorpeople knew that the Watergate story once had been important, but they were hard-pressed to remember why. The cable news channels rounded up opinions from Nixon's prominent and still surviving associates, among them Henry Kissinger ("I don't think it's heroic to act as a spy on your president when you're in high office") and Charles W Colson, who wanted "kids to look up to heroes" and thought it shameful that Nixon (that wise prophet and noble statesman) had been airlifted out of Washington in a cloud of undeserved disgrace...Nobody cared to make the point that Kissinger in his capacity as Nixon's national security adviser routinely tapped Nixon's phone, or that Colson, as a White House special counsel, once proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and served seven months in prison for his work as a moonlighting thug.

The newsweeklies approached the story from the perspective of film critics. Time [Magazine]observed that Deep Throat as played by Hal Holbrook in the movie All the President's Men was more impressive than the theatrically impaired Felt...Newsweek questioned the movie's integrity, describing it as a far too simple tale told with a too sentimental emphasis on right triumphant over wrong. What the story really had been about was Washington office politics, ambiguous and sly, a run-of-the-mill bureaucratic intrigue blown out of proportion by a "Great Scandal Machine", giving rise to "antiauthoritarian excesses" that undermined everybody's faith in the wisdom of the White House, the fair-mindedness of the intelligence agencies, the good judgment of the Pentagon. President Bush, thank God, was doing his best to restore the people's trust in government. If sometimes he didn't succeed in his efforts (occasionally careless with the facts, often "too cocky", almost arrogant in his attitude toward nettlesome subordinates), at least he knew the right direction in which to steer the ship of state.

...from an appropriately anonymous source identified as "a senior advisor" to president George W. Bush and quoted last October in the New York Times Magazine..."That's not the way the world really works anymore ... we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The second observation, borrowed from Theodor Adorno's Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, I came across (as one of the texts cited in a book proposal submitted by two scholars at the University of Illinois):"Things have come to pass where lying sounds like truth, truth like lying ... The confounding of truth and lies, making it almost impossible to maintain a distinction, and a labour of Sisyphus to hold on to the simplest piece of knowledge ... [marks] the conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power".

Joseph Goebbels [of] Nazi Germany taught the same lesson in what we've since come to know and love under the headings of aggressive marketing and corporate knowledge management. The propaganda minister understood that arguments must be crude and emotional, instinctual rather than intellectual, endlessly repeated...The language facilitates the transformation of a democratic republic into a military empire, moving on from a world in which words once were held accountable for their meanings, to a land of make-believe, securely defended, as is customary with empires, by "the conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power".

Excepted from the article, Moving on
by Lewis H Lapham
Harper's Magazine (August 2005)

I love historical trivia!

On this day in history in 1554, the earliest letter known to have been closed with sealing wax was sent from London to the Rheingrave Philip Francis von Daun in Germany by his agent in England, Gerrard Herman.

There, now you know!

Be careful what you allow others to do in your name...

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Sound familiar?

Which of the following made the above quote: President George W. Bush, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge, or Secretary of State Colin Powell?

The correct answer is none of the above. It was Adolph Hitler in 1922, writing about the creation of the German Gestapo.

This piece of trivia [hardly!] was sent to me by my wonderful niece-in-law, Amanda. She's a psych student at USC with a talented sideline as the photographer for USC's Daily Trojan [and also a damn fine photographic artist in her own right]. Love you, Amanda, and thanks!

Unleashing the Patriotic Church

Wow! These few excerpts were taken from a Progressive Blog Alliance article, HITLER’S POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY. The writer, Douglas William Krieger, is quite verbose and could use a good editor, but he makes a mean case for a meaner America. Check these excerpts out.

...Ultimately, a lie told long enough, and amplified to the uttermost, resounds with familiarity—YE SHALL BE AS GODS, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL! This original deceit confounded our original forebears. This is no ordinary lie—it is THE LIE...

...In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi terminology) adopted a twenty-five-point program with the clear intent to persuade the German people that "positive Christianity" was in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Party—i.e., the Party fully embraced the morality of Christianity and that Christianity was viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants were considered as the foundation of German Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraced both as one)....

[READ: In the 2000s, Bush's Republican Party (pre dictatorship terminology) has adopted a program with the clear intent to persuade the American people that "positive Christianity" is in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Republican Party—i.e., the Republican Party fully embraces the morality of Christianity and that Christianity is viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants are considered as the foundation of American Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraces both as one). -- my input]

...Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of blending "faith with politics." ...

...Note that Hitler claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Jews who harass his people, like Jesus did. The German people, according to Hitler, were being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Hitler's identification as a Christian was one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he under girded the German people in their predisposition to anti-Semitism, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Solution."...

[READ: Note that Bush [et al.] claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Unbelievers who harass his people, like Jesus did. The American people, according to Bush, are being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Bush's identification as a Christian is one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he undergirds the American people in their predisposition to anti-everyone else, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Theocracy." --my input]

..."It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity."---Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925...

...The unity of the Church is a recurrent message delivered by Hitler. His object, of course, was "against the power"—i.e., the international Jewish conspiracy against the Church, and, of course, the German people and the world in general. The technique of solidifying the churches into the "Hammer of God" was a strategy that appealed to the vast majority of German Christians. That he would see in them such an instrument of righteous indignation was commending—both to them as the object of his insight, and to himself for his discernment of such...

...It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle “against evil” within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!...

...[W]e see the ultimate FOE of today’s Christianity lurks behind the fanaticism of an "evil religion"—notwithstanding the ecumenical protestations to the contrary—the CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG: This is a CRUSADE! Let freedom ring within the 10/40 corridor! At last, a leader that understands what real freedom is all about—for true freedom is RELIGIOUS in nature and outlook. Religious freedom is at the heart and soul of whatever freedom can possibly mean—without it, there is no freedom! A united Church is the most critical tool in forging a nation's will in the spread of this freedom—and in subduing every militant foe that would come against us.

[I only got about a 1/4 of the way through the article...Yikes!]

Happy 21st Anniversary, Babe!

It's Thursday July 21, 2005

On this day... The Creation of the World, according to the ancient Egyptians

And you created mine on this day in 1984.

Thanks for hangin' in there. Here's to another 21. Love you.

The Reality of Rove

Take this first paragraph one sentence at a time. Let what it describes sink in...

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden...

Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States...

Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests...

Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

Excerpt from KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
By Ted Rall Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. "Patriotism" is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by "patriotism" I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one's own nation, which is the concern with the nation's spiritual as much as with its material welfare --never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.

— Erich Fromm

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.

— Samuel P. Huntington

Today the real test of power is not the capacity to make war but the capacity to prevent it.

— Anne O'Hare McCormick

Another victory like that and we are done for. — Pyrrhus

Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.

— Bertrand Russell

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

The most tyrannical of governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts. -Baruch Spinoza, philosopher (1632-1677)

A date in history...

July 7th was when, in 1348, the Black Death arrived in England at Weymouth.

Of mountains and souls...

One day's exposure to mountains is better than cartloads of books. See how willingly Nature poses herself upon photographers' plates. No earthly chemicals are so sensitive as those of the human soul.

-John Muir, naturalist, explorer, and writer (1838-1914)

Jeffrey R Hapeman took this picture of an aurora over Lac du Flambeau, WI on May 29, 2005. He accounts his experience, �Very bright but diffuse aurora from the CME last night. Highest intensity was between 12:30 and 1:30am Central Daylight time. There were rays and beams, and the show was quite impressive. I used a Canon 1Ds Mark II at ISO 1600 to capture this 30s exposure at f/2. The pinks reds and blues were not visible to the naked eye.�
 

July 4th Reality Check

America doesn't really believe in democracy any more. It's just a slogan used to sell unpopular wars, or justify the greasy manuevers of a corrupt political machine. America doesn't want social justice, either -- just a few extra crumbs from the tables of the wealthy. It worships power and material success and expects those who don't to hold their tongues. It hears what it wants to hear and sees what it wants to see, and it has a corporate media establishment increasingly dedicated to ensuring that it always does...

Without that ideal, patriotism is just tribalism: the mindless glorification of "us" and the demonization of "them." And in the case of America, "us" includes a long list of right-wing idiots who I feel absolutely no affinity with or loyalty to -- beginning with Rush Limbaugh and continuing through the loudmouth Bush supporter who sits just outside my office. I don't want to be in their tribe. And I sure the hell don't want them in mine.

As for the rest of my fellow Americans? Their lives are no more -- and no less -- precious than any other group of human beings with a flag and a national anthem. I don't wish them ill, but the moments when I feel any emotionally solidarity with them (like on the morning of 9/11, or, briefly, in Jimmy John's the other day) are becoming quite rare. I don't really feel like I even know them any more.

Which means that if I still support the war on terrorism, or hope that America finds a way out of the Iraq quagmire, or wish for a more successful U.S. foreign policy, it's not out of patriotism. I live in the United States, my family lives here, and we're not moving, at least not any time soon. That being the case, I'd rather not see it nuked, or hit with a dirty bomb, or anthrax or smallpox. I'd also rather not live in a complete police state, which is what we may get if any of those things happen. That's not patriotism -- just the instinct for self preservation.

But not loving America -- or rather, what America is fast becoming -- isn't the same as believing there are no worse things than America. Bin Ladin and the fanatics who follow him aren't evil because they're the enemies of America, they're evil because they're evil -- because they slaughter innocent people, promote religious hatred and would rather see the Islamic world impoverished and ignorant than freed from their medieval fantasies.

Opposing that also isn't patriotism -- just common human decency, and a (probably vain) hope for a better world than this shit pile we live in...

If that be treason, I suppose I'll just have to learn how to make the most of it.

My thanks to Whiskey Bar, experted from Goodbye Columbus posted by Billmon.

Relativism from the Right

Tomgram: The immoral relativists of the Bush administration
And other distractions of the Age of Bush

Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch.com
06.29.05

...In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ("The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.") And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs...

You sweep opponents up on a battlefield, but you don't want to call them prisoners of war or deal with them by the established rules of warfare. No problem, just grab that dictionary and label them "unlawful combatants," then you can do anything you want. So you get those prisoners into your jail complex (carefully located on an American base in Cuba, which you have redefined as being legally under "Cuban sovereignty," so that no American court can touch them); and then you declare that, not being prisoners of war, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions...

Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration.

Hat tip to WorkingforChange.com for my excerpts...

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin...

...The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled." They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental. [italics mine]

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote...

..."For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

~~~

Hat tip to Blogging for Truth for this interesting article from UC Berkeley News.

Trivia for 50-somethings...

Today in 1951, the first commercial computer, UNIVAC I, was unveiled.

A little background from Infoplease: The first fully automatic calculator was the Mark I, or Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator, begun in 1939 at Harvard by Howard Aiken, while the first all-purpose electronic digital computer, ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Calculator), which used thousands of vacuum tubes, was completed in 1946 at the Univ. of Pennsylvania. UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer) became (1951) the first computer to handle both numeric and alphabetic data with equal facility; this was the first commercially available computer.

I wasn't around for another few years, but I remember UNIVAC...punch cards. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. It was built with vacuum tubes, not transistors, and took up an incredible amount of space. Data was on magnetic tape. Guys in short sleeved white shirts, narrow black ties, pocket protectors and glasses walked around looking serious. Jeesh, things do change.

This one is called "Run for Daylight". It's a WOW. What an earth we live on... 

These two pics are from a friend's gliding experience along the Eastern Sierras in California. The two uploaded today are especially dedicated to Sandy from my NaturePaint group. Enjoy! 

Which Would You Choose?

Object ive 1: June 8, 1789 - The Bill of Rights was first proposed, by James Madison.

Amendment IV from the Bill of Rights
[written in 1791 - 214 years on the books]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Judicial oversight in the issuance of warrants is a check on the potential abuse of power by the government against individuals -- our founding premise was, and has been till now, individual liberty.]

Objective 2: Senate Committee OKs New FBI Powers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 9:16 PM EDT (0116 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI would get expanded powers to subpoena records without
the approval of a judge or grand jury in terrorism investigations under Patriot Act revisions approved Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Some senators who voted 11-4 to move the bill forward said they would push for limits on the new powers the measure would grant to law enforcement agencies...

[What would the newly-created US citizens of 1791 do if these governmental 'expanded powers' had been proposed then?]